Template talk:WikiProject Film

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Update[edit]

User:WOSlinker has been working on a new version of this template using the meta template {{WPBannerMeta}}. It's currently on the /sandbox. Would anyone would like to take a look and make sure it looks okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As no one commented on this I have now implemented it. Please let us know of any problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
The checklist code is now on the right-hand side of the criteria for B-Class status as opposed to below like it was before. I was used to the old version but I am guessing the change is intentional. Other than that it seems OK. - Hydroxonium (talk | contribs) 17:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
See how you get on with the new version. If you prefer the old version I could replace it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
It looks great. I think the new version is perfect. Thanks very much for the update. I appreciate your help. -      Hydroxonium (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem with peer review notification[edit]

I think there is a problem with this template's peer review notification. For examples, see how Talk:Fight Club (film) and Talk:The High and the Mighty (film) are "currently undergoing" peer reviews where the templates both have "old-peer-review=yes" parameters. Can this be fixed? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed hopefully. Thanks for reporting that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Erik (talk | contribs) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

The template isn't adding the Core film articles by task force or any of the B-Class checklist categories. Could someone fix this? - Kollision (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed this. May take a little while for the categories to fully populate though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Category:Core film articles needing expansion by task force is still buggered. It is adding non-Core film article to its subcategories. - Kollision (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I've updated the banner to fix that but it's taking a while for the categories to change. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Category suggestion[edit]

I track current discussions on film articles' talk pages by look up recent changes in categories such as Category:American cinema task force articles (recent changes). I also look up such recent changes by the class of the film article, such as Stub-class or B-class or FA-class, which are indicated on the talk page. However, the recent changes for these categories are listed disparately. (See the "Recent changes" section at User:Erik for what I mean.) I would like to suggest a generic talk page category for WikiProject Films so all current discussions related to articles under WikiProject Films can be shown on one page. This can help editors, especially the WikiProject's coordinators, discover discussions that may not be in a popular category such as the American cinema task force (which I often check). This would allow us to assist editors who are seeking discussion and to possibly invite them to be part of the WikiProject in an outreach effort. I recommend a category titled something similar to Category:WikiProject Films talk pages (just found this was already taken) to be added to this template. Before I make an edit request, I would like to hear other editors' thoughts. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 19:06, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds helpful and will hopefully allow more members and coordinators to join in on discussions that would otherwise be overlooked. I would use it if developed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 01:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I think what you're asking for is for all articles with this template to be added to Category:WikiProject Films articles. That will allow you to view all recent changes made to articles under WikiProject Films. Some other WikiProjects do that too (eg. WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject California). If that's what you're looking for then I support it (been meaning to ask for this as well). - Kollision (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
What about template and category pages? That was why I was not thinking about just "articles" but more like mainspace pages and their related talk pages. Or should we just apply the "article" terminology to these mainspace pages? Erik (talk | contribs) 11:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking everything tagged with {{Film}} would be added to Category:WikiProject Films articles (ie. the talk pages of articles, categories, templates, etc.). So yes, in this case, "articles" wouldn't just mean articles. - Kollision (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support – would be very beneficial. Mike Allen 06:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is being suggested merely for the purpose of a recent changes listing, why not just do this? PC78 (talk) 02:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes it easier. I'll use that instead. Didn't think of checking templates themselves for recent changes! Erik (talk | contribs) 16:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I did check templates, but I didn't think to check the "Show changes to pages linked to the given page instead" check box that made the difference between what I set up and what you set up. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem with using what PC78 suggested is that it only shows recent changes to pages that link to/transclude {{Film}} directly and doesn't show changes for pages that link to the template's redirects (eg. {{WPFILM}}, {{FILM}}, {{WikiProject Films}}, etc.). Using a category like I suggested would allow all pages to appear. I also think having a category which contains all our articles would be handy for other things (eg. intersecting categories, bot work, etc.). - Kollision (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Renaming to Template:WikiProject Films[edit]

{{movereq|Template:WikiProject Film}}

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


Template:FilmTemplate:WikiProject Film — Per WT:FILM#Project name and present consensus below. Erik (talk | contribs) 03:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:FilmTemplate:WikiProject Films — I think we should rename the template to {{WikiProject Films}}, following the standards of the 99.99% of wikiproject templates. There was a discussion back in Template talk:Film/Archive 2009#Template name but I think things now it's more clear since almost all wikiprojects use the standard names. Standardisation has many benefits: Bots handle me easier, editors identify projects banners better. Let's please do it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, per WP:STANDARDIZE. Do note that {{film}} will continue to be available as a redirect. –xenotalk 15:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Disclosure: Discussed in brief here.
  • After reviewing this and this and seeing the majority of templates indeed standardized, I support the rename. It should not be an issue since the old name will redirect to the new one. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Yes, matches the project name, is an existing redirect, doesn't look odd/hidden in a stack of banners, is clearer and more readable. I have been using the redirect anyway, and had a couple of queries about that - those are the reasons. Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC).
  • Support Agreed that consistency with other Projects is optimal, but the true reason for support is that a certain bot is changing to this location already, creating more links to the longer title than that of the shorter. BOVINEBOY2008 15:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I've opposed this chnage in the past, but it makes good sense really. PC78 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Do we want to wait on the re-naming until the current discussion regarding the possible project name change is completed? We don't want to have to go through changing redirects if the project's name is going to switch afterwards. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Definitely. –xenotalk 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    I agree with Nehrams2020. Magioladitis, could we hold off on the requested move until the discussion for a new project name is finalized? Maybe a week or two? Seems like there is support to standardize, we just want to be clear about what exactly to change to. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes of course. No problem. It's obvious that the consensus is formed in the "Rename to the project's name". -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I think it is inevitable that the names of all WikiProject banners follow this standard so let's get this over and done with now. - Kollision (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comic book films task force[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please implement this diff, currently contained within the sandbox. Adds support for this new task force; no major structural changes to the template otherwise. Please let me know if there are any technical issues. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 15:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. Please check my simplification of the code.
  2. There is no image called File:Comic Clapperboard.svg. Please check this.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
The simplification works for me! I was just going off another editor's creation of another task force (the Christian films one). Also, the clapperboard image should be File:Comic Clapperboard.png. I didn't catch the difference in the extension. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:16, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Please fix the case of the task force name as displayed by the template: It's currently all lowercase.--Oneiros (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

please add [Romanian-task-force] in this Template[edit]

Romaniafilm.png

|tf 7=
 |TF_7_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Romanian cinema task force
 |TF_7_NAME          = the Romanian cinema task force
 |TF_7_IMAGE         = Romaniafilm.png
 |TF_7_QUALITY       = yes
 |TF_7_ASSESSMENT_CAT= Romanian cinema articles
 |TF_7_MAIN_CAT      = Romanian cinema task force articles
 |TF_7_HOOK          = 

Terraflorin (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You can't just add a task force unilaterally. You need to propose the task force at WT:FILM. If you're the only one who will work on Romanian films, there's no actual task force at hand. The majority of the national and regional task forces are inactive, and we don't need to add to the pile. You can go ahead and work on Romanian film articles without the need for a task force page. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to update the request. I am the second on the task force list and working to get more WP:ROMANIA members interested/aware of this possible task force. Please let me know if we still need a WT:FILM formal request. Thanks. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Film awards task force banner image[edit]

The icon image for the Film awards task force was deleted from Commons. It will need to be replaced. I can't see any good alternatives on Commons. - Kollision (talk) 02:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Please replace File:Oscar icon.png with File:Filmaward (color background).png, as an "emergency change" due the visibility the first had. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

needs-image cat[edit]

Category:Film articles needing an image contains a large number of requests that are duplicated in task force sub-categories. The number of article requests makes it difficult to run tools over this category to find images or identify article that now how images. Template:WikiProject Film/sandbox has been updated to only add articles to the category if it is not in another film image request category. --Traveler100 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

needs-video[edit]

Please add a "needs-video" parameter with the exact functionality of "needs-image". Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no tracking category for film articles needing video, and it stands to reason that unlike images it is unlikely that there will be any appropriate freely-available videos which could be included on articles on films (clips, the most likely videos to be included, would be non-free in most cases). Disabling: if a consensus has been established that this is required then please point to it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Note there is {{Video requested}} to request video the could be used rather than starting to add parameters to project templates. --Traveler100 (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Chris--with all due--you are wrong. Film trailers from movies before 1964 are in the public domain. They would make excellent additions to our film articles. There are hundreds of pd feature films, of which clips could be added. I have seen entire documentaties at the Internet Archive that are under 100mb and could be uploaded in their entirety. All we need is to add the parameter and create a category. – Lionel (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
See Ronald Reagan filmography for an example of extensive usage of PD trailers and clips.– Lionel (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
I see you've re-enabled the request despite there already being a mechanism for adding such a request (per Traveler100) and there also being opposition on the grounds of likely misuse. I'm not sure why you think that'll get actioned. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
There is no reason why this request shouldn't be actioned if there is consensus for it; the {{video requested}} template only adds pages to a very general Category:Wikipedia requested videos, and it's entirely possible that WPFilm might decide that a more specific category would be useful. There is not, however, current consensus for that being the case. Happymelon 14:49, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 November 2012[edit]

How difficult would it be to add shortcuts to the template for all of the various task forces? A similar thing was done on the {{WikiProject Comics}} template, where someone can simply add "Batman=yes" or "Marvel=yes" to mak the template as part of a specific work group, instead of the full ""Batman-work-group=yes" or "Marvel-work-group=yes". Adding shortcuts such as "American=yes" for the American task force, "Awards=yes" for the Awards task force, "Comics=yes" for the Comic book task force, etc. would save a lot of time in adding film articles to those groups. The shortcuts should also be added with and without capitalization (e.g. american=yes, awards=yes, comics=yes), using the same criteria. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Have a look at the latest diff to check the new task force parameter names. Don't forget to update the documentation as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, everything looks great! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Feature brainstorm for Module:WikiProjectBanner[edit]

I'm in the early stages of developing a Lua-based replacement for {{WPBannerMeta}}, and I would appreciate peoples ideas for features. If there is anything that you have wanted to do with your WikiProject template, but haven't been able to due to limitations in the meta-template, I would be very interested to hear it. The discussion is over at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 January 2014[edit]

Please replace "SEAsia.jpg" with "LandForms.jpg", which is another image of Southeast Asia. The image "SEAsia.jpg" was deleted from Wikimedia Commons on 4 January 2014. Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 March 2014[edit]

Could we please have parameters added to this template, which link to the Animated films work group? The project already exists as a workgroup of {{WikiProject Animation}}, and should also link this project, similar to how the Comic book films task force does. Therefore, I propose adding code similar to the following, using the parameters |Animated-film-work-group=, |Animated= or |animated=:

|tf 11=
 |TF_11_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Animated films work group
 |TF_11_NAME          = the Animated films work group
 |TF_11_IMAGE         = Animation disc.svg
 |TF_11_QUALITY       = yes
 |TF_11_ASSESSMENT_CAT= animated films articles
 |TF_11_MAIN_CAT      = animated films work group articles
 |TF_11_HOOK          = 

I will be happy to help create any necessary categories, and tag any related articles, once the parameters have been created. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, tf 11 is not supported by the meta-template. Could you check the usage instructions and do some testing in the sandbox? When you are ready, please reactivate this request. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Correct, MSGJ, it's not. See Template talk:WikiProject Japan#Edit request: Add the newly established task force "Ryukyu" for a recent similar case. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I apologize for not formatting the request correctly. I was not aware that the template would only accept parameters in groups of 10, I only used the number 11 to avoid conflicting with any of the other code already being used...
Looking at the current documentation, the number for the Animated films work group would have to be "TF_2", in order to be placed alphabetically in the first group of parameters (between the American cinema task force and the Argentine cinema task force). Of course, this would require several other task forces that follow to be re-numbered: (Argentine=TF_3, Australian=TF_4, Awards=TF_5, Baltic=TF_6, British=TF_7, Canadian=TF_8, Chinese=TF_9, Christian=TF_10). The section of code pertaining to the Comic book films task force would then need to be moved to the next section of 10, which would also require its templates to be re-numbered: (Comics=TF_1, Festival=TF_2, Filmmaking=TF_3, French=TF_4, German=TF_5, Indian=TF_6, Italian=TF_7, Japanese=TF_8, Korean=TF_9, NZ=TF_10). Since that section currently only has 9, it doesn't appear that any of the other parameters would need to be re-numbered.
Alternately, if having the parameters in alphabetical order is not an issue, then the code for the Animated films work group could simply be added to the last group of parameters as "TF_7", right after the War films task force. I hope that this clarifies what needs to be done, so that the Animated films work group can be added to the proper section. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
As Fortdj33 has observed, it is not necessary to renumber any of them, if alphabetic ordering is not strictly necessary. There are presently four {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} groups, each of which has 10 slots; but it's not necessary to use all 10, nor to use numbers in sequence from 1 up; and there is (in theory) no upper limit to the number of groups. In fact, only one of the four groups (the second) has all ten slots filled. Most of these taskforces relate to filmmaking countries, and few articles will belong to more than about one or two of these. Add in one for the genre, and perhaps one other, makes four - would it be a big problem if one of those four was out of alphabetic sequence? If that is not a concern, you can simply pop the Animated films work group into any unused slot, such as slot 7 of the fourth group.
But if alphabetic ordering is desirable, a renumbering is again not necessary. If you want the Animated films work group to appear between the American cinema task force and the Argentine cinema task force, which are in slots 1 & 2 of the second group, what you can do is to split that group into two, like this. This creates ten empty slots (9 in the first group, 1 in the second) into which you can drop the Animated films work group at any position - such as slot 2 in the second group.
That's not the whole story though. There are other parts of this WikiProject banner where the taskforce parameters are tested - one near the beginning in the |NOTE_1_CAT= parameter, the other right at the end inside that <includeonly>...</includeonly> section. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Redrose64. I should mention, your links to the Animated films work group are appearing as redlinks, because the existing workgroup is currently a subgroup of {{WikiProject Animation}}. If a parameter is added to the film template, it should really be worded "the Animated films task force, in order to be in line with the other parameters of the template like this, but any links to that task force would still point to the existing work group. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I realised that they were redlinks; but I copied them verbatim from the |TF_11_LINK= given in the original request here and assumed that the relevant page simply hadn't been created yet. BTW I notice that you've added the relevant code to |NOTE_1_CAT= but not to the <includeonly>...</includeonly> section at the end. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:05, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry I missed that. The film task force doesn't really need to be created, as long as the links point to the existing animation work group. I added the code that you mentioned to the <includeonly>...</includeonly> section in the sandbox. Anything else that needs to be done, for this parameter to be added to the template? Fortdj33 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I've checked it through, and found that it also needs to be added to Template:WikiProject Film/Checks, like this - that edit includes two other params unrelated to Animated films but which seem to be missing. In addition, this isn't strictly necessary but it will help to tidy up a bit. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I changed the sandbox back to the link for the Film task force [1]. which redirects to the Animated films work group, so that the naming of the task forces will still be uniform. I also updated the icon for the task force. Let me know if you need anything else! Fortdj33 (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Done the templates have been updated - now we need to create the cats, like Category:Core film articles supported by the animated films work group. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, I'll start making sure that everything is updated! Fortdj33 (talk) 22:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 April 2014[edit]

Per User:Redrose64, could someone please make this edit in order to add the |Animated-film-task-force-importance= parameter, plus the two aliases: |Animated-importance= and |animated-importance=? This should prevent any articles using the |Animated= parameter from showing up on the assessment table as "Other". Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody objected in two weeks, so Yes check.svg Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 April 2014[edit]

I understand that the Film project no longer uses the importance scale, but now that the |animated-importance= parameter has been added for the Animated film task force, I re-created {{WikiProject Film/importance}}. Could someone please change the code for the importance scale to "|IMPORTANCE_SCALE=subpage", so that if "importance is empty, undefined or unrecognized and the namespace is a non-article talk space, then the importance will default to NA"? Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting question.svg Question: I don't think that an importance subpage is necessary. If the scale that is required is the standard one - Top/High/Mid/Low plus NA and Unknown - then all that should be needed is this. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
@Redrose64:, I'm sure that would solve the problem of articles showing up as "Other" on the assessment table, but apparently it would also suggest that this banner in general is using the importance scale again, and that the importance categories need to be re-created. This would eliminate the suggestion of the importance categories needing to be re-created, and update a couple of the task force categories as well. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You removed |importance={{{importance|}}} which has two effects: (i) |IMPORTANCE_SCALE=subpage will be ignored; (ii) no importance level can be set, NA or otherwise. If you need any importance level to be set, even if it's a subset of the default six, you need to reinstate |importance={{{importance|}}}. The presence of that will cause |IMPORTANCE_SCALE=subpage to be acted upon to bring in {{WikiProject Film/importance}}. In that, five importance levels are listed along with five redlinked categories plus Category:Unknown-importance Film articles redlinked separately at the bottom. Your edit would therefore not eliminate the need to create those categories. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, is there any other way that importance will default to NA for non-article pages, without re-creating those categories? Personally, I would be OK with the redlinks on {{WikiProject Film/importance}}, as long as they are not showing up on {{WikiProject Film}} as needing to be re-created. The bottom line is, I don't want the Film project to be required to use the importance scale again, just so that we can have a default for one task force. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If {{WikiProject Film/importance}} is to be used, its redlinked categories will be the same as the redlinked categories in this box:
Which assessment table are these articles showing up as "Other" on? If you don't want them in that column, what importance levels are to be permitted for articles? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Please see User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Animated films. After the task force was added to {{WikiProject Film}}, I had originally wanted the importance value of any film articles using |Animated=, to default to the value of |film-importance= on the {{WikiProject Animation}} banner (since the task force started out as an Animation work group, and none of the other Film task forces use importance).
When that was not possible, I requested that the parameter |animated-importance= be added, just for that task force, and since then it has been easier to determine any Unknown-importance Animated films articles. But otherwise the articles are showing up as "Other", and there is no maintenance category for that value of importance. Personally, I think the problem would be solved completely if that task force simply stopped using the importance scale, but at the very least the non-article pages should default to "NA", without having to include the parameter |animated-importance=NA on each one. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Those tables don't seem up to date. I think the non-article pages are going into NA-importance. Unless you can show me an example?? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, after a closer look, it appears that all the articles showing up as "Other", are ones that had the |Animated= parameter added to their talk pages, before the |animated-importance= parameter was created. So I randomly clicked on a few, and the articles in question appear to be classified as Unknown-importance, yet they are not showing up in Category:Unknown-importance Animated films articles. I tried both purging the talk page and performing a null-edit on a few articles and categories, and the null-edits seem to make those pages show up in the proper categories. Hopefully they will show up correctly the next time the assessment table is updated, and it will only take a little bit of maintenance to clean up the remaining articles. Thanks for all of your help! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Fortdj33: In your recent posts, you seem to be confusing Category:NA-importance film articles with Category:NA-importance Animated films articles. It is the former that would be set if we were to add an |importance= parameter to the template code for {{WikiProject Film}}; it is the latter that determines which column of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Animated films that the page is credited to. Adding an |importance= parameter to the template code for {{WikiProject Film}} will not change that.
@MSGJ: WP 1.0 bot (talk · contribs) apparently still runs on Toolserver, so it's not surprising that the data is out of date. The discussion page is Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I wasn't confusing the film importance with the animated film importance, I was just trying to find a way to update the latter, without having to re-create the former. Thank you both, for helping me realize what was causing the problem. After making a few edits, I re-ran the bot for the assessment table manually, and it seems that the current parameters are working fine, once the pages have been updated. [2] Fortdj33 (talk) 16:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 September 2014[edit]

For the link that states "join the project" - can this be linked to the discussion page instead of the participant list, as these lists are woefully out-of-date. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 14:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Paine Ellsworth - No-one is against the change and the current link is pointless. Here are four random projects that all link to the discussion page:
There's your consensus. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me be more clear, then:
  • Firstly, your link above to the project talk page is to a discussion that was just opened today; so you cannot possibly believe that is an indication that nobody's against the change.
  • Secondly, when I read in a project banner the phrase "join the discussion", then I would expect to be taken to a talk page; however, when I read in a project banner the phrease "join the project", then I would expect to be taken to a page where I can add myself as a member of said project. Also, four project banners, in my humble opinion, do not represent a consensus among all the projects. To me, the change you want does not make sense, and I doubt that I am the only one who sees it that way. So until this is discussed here with more members of the community and a clear consensus is reached, the change really shouldn't be implemented.
  • Thirdly, I am not an admin, I'm just a lowly template editor (a little Napoleon in disguise). I suggest you close that discussion and very clearly point people here, so this discussion does not become forked. Asked and answered. Face-smile.svg – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 21:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was obvious - but yes, change it to "join the discussion" and link to the talkpage. Jesus wept. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: – Asked and answered. Please obtain a consensus, sweetie. Or go on a Wikibreak – or both! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Need someone else to look at this. Ideally not on a powertrip. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To the next template editor who checks all this out... No, I don't mind if you decide to make the edit. I do think that more project members should be asked their opinion, and that enough time be given them to do so. Our friend here appears to be agonizingly impatient – all I can say to that is there's no deadline. Joys! – Paine  10:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:BOLD. Next. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
You consider yourself to be bold? I consider you to be quite obnoxious. But that's just me. Joys to you, Lugnuts. – Paine 
I will make the edit, as it is relatively uncontroversial and easily reversible if anyone does object. However it would not hurt you, Lugnuts, in future to leave the suggestion for a few days to see if anyone has an opinion, before using the {{editprotected}}. This is the established procedure outlined in Wikipedia:Edit requests. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Martin – perhaps both links need to be in the banner? Why remove a link just because one editor says the list is dated? I could be wrong; however, it seems to me that rather than to remove the member's list from the banner, project members could work to update the list? Just sayin'. Joys! – Paine  22:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Martin. Finally an organ-grinder pops by. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:25, 13 September 2014 (UTC)