This template relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil
It's the same thing. The bot should remove the class from all instances in that category. The fact that doesn't is just an error. Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This category seems to be getting cleaned up, and I'm not sure which pages have what problem. Would it be possible to pinpoint which pages have problems and leave them unfixed? Kanashimi (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit skeptical about the use of tidying these up. A redundant class parameter does not cause any problems, it just gets ignored. So what is the actual benefit of removing these? We have had some issues caused by this task. Quite often an article which is redirected gets reverted shortly after. If the class parameter is removed in the meantime, then that article becomes unassessed, which adds to the backlog. So please tell me why we are doing this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, but if we think removing the unnecessary parameters causes more issues than it's worth, then there's no need to track it with a maintenance category that will just get bigger and bigger, forever. Thirty-one more items have populated the category since yesterday, and I believe the previously mentioned 1000+ only took about a week to accumulate.— TAnthonyTalk15:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot isn't instantaneous. At best it runs once a day, usually longer. If the page gets reverted then reverting the talk page is exactly one click. Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained the benefit to removing these parameters. I sort of get it for the ratings in individual banner because it encourages people to use the template correctly. But can we stop tracking the redundant parameters in the banner shell? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redundant class tracking for this template in the sandbox. It will still be checked in project banners — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Project-independent assessments in the PageAssessments extension
Now that we have project-independent quality assessments, should the banner shell call mw:Extension:PageAssessments in the same manner as all the individual banners? Module:WikiProject banner calls the following function:
Should the shell also have something similar, albeit with project hardcoded to 'Project-independent assessment' and importance as ''? Currently, parsing the database requires API users to specify a project to get a class assessment, which is troublesome. See for instance this API call requesting the class of the article Apple. Programmatic access to article class first requires deciding which of the projects to use and then using that project's class, even though the article's class is specified at Talk:Apple in the banner shell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No harm in doing this, if it would be useful. "Project-independent assessment" seems a bit long. What happens if we just leave the project blank? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just tested this and if the project is left blank the assessment is just ignored. Would it be worth asking for this to be changed? Or shall we just use "PIQA" in place of the project? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We get 128 characters so I'm opposed to use of an acronym. I think it’s ambiguous for future users of the API over spelling it out, and including "quality" might be a misnomer if we start using the importance parameter or if we roll vital articles into the system. Leaving it blank might be an even better option if the folks working on phab:T395124 implement special handling for this use case. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)15:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to work just fine in the API. Looks like you do a fair bit of maintenance on this module, so I'll leave it up to you on whether you want to go ahead with this implementation or wait to see what they do with phab:T395124. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs)15:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be anything wrong with conflicting ratings - if an article is covering one topic well but another less well, then this is a perfectly reasonable reason for difference.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. We have switched to a common quality assessment scale which is independent of the project. Except for a very small number of projects which have opted out, which are not identified as conflicting, all projects should be using the same quality assessment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Looks good, my only concern being the inconsistency in the capitalisation of "class" for the new category. All other cats use uppercase C. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})00:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can use Petscan to filter the list by WikiProject to focus on topics that interest you. See this list for an example. Just change the "WikiProject Australia articles" cat to your project of choice. Unfortunately, I don't think Petscan can do a talk page cat & article cat comparison, but you can do that in the AWB list comparer tool. The-Pope (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New categories are still populating, but this is the table so far:
Not totally sure. The first one I clicked on, Alruna, should indeed be a stub. A bot should either (a) check for stub tags or (b) just remove all ratings and invite humans to rate again. Another interesting thing is that Talk:Agogô shows that the Musical Instruments project uses |quality= instead of |class=, which seems to not work well with bots and Rater. —Kusma (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are overlooking the fact that humans have already looked at these and come up with conflicting ratings; Alruna is clearly a border case. Clearing the ratings would create more work than humans can take on. I would suggest that nobody cares about starts or stubs anyway, and that, as in the MilHist Project, the humans only be tasked with looking at articles machine-rated as B class. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liftwing rates Alruna as a stub. What if we use it to determine which of the start/stubs should be starts or stubs? I can easily create a bot that can do that. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Liftwing is, but I would be happy with a bot that uses ORES or some AI or whatever to make stub/start/C decisions. —Kusma (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be going down by about 2000 per day. It's getting through them, but I think you could increase the rate a bit more — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This template should not ever be used on the main talk page for a wikiproject
It makes absolutely no sense to wrap the banner on the main page of a wikiproject in this "banner shell". These pages only ever have one Wikiproject banner, and reducing its content and wrapping it in generic irrelevant text serves no purpose. –jacobolus(t)23:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, the banner shell should have an option to display the full project banner, which should be used on pages that have exactly one project banner. I still stand by this edit that was reverted soon after. —Kusma (talk) 12:17, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I frankly don't want to see any more of these banners than necessary on most talk pages; they are basically a waste-of-space distraction from the main content of the page, often piled among a heap of other distracting and only marginally useful banners. But on the Wikiproject's main page it's pretty pointless to show the content "It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:" and hide the material about the specific wikiproject whose page we are on. –jacobolus(t)12:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
