Template talk:WikiProject Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Conversion to use Template:WPBannerMeta[edit]

I have reverted the conversion of this template to use the {{WPBannerMeta}} template: see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Project_banner_and_Template:WPBannerMeta. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now reverted a second change which was made to this template by the same editor Happy-melon (talk · contribs), because it caused a loss of functionality. This loss was known to Happy-melon, and was not disclosed to the project despite an earlier assurance. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#Removal_of_functionality.
This template is heavily-used, and changing it imposes a high load on the server, which is why it is protected so that it can only be edited by admins. Please do not edit this template without a consensus at WikiProject Ireland. Thanks --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Just fix the issue, and use WPBannerMeta. It serves no purpose at all to complain in public about a user trying to do the right thing and failing. Take that up that user's talk page, and help them get it right. WPBannerMeta is incredibly functional, and there is nothing done by this template that cannot be done by that meta template, in manner that is more consistent and understandable to editors. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
On the sandbox is a proposed conversion of this template to {{WPBM}}. I know this has been tried before, so I'm making sure that everyone is happy before proceeding. There should be no loss of functionality. Peer review is not supported, but as Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Peer review is red, I don't think you are using it anyway. Please have a look at the sandbox version and let me know if there are any concerns. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
In reply to SMcCandlish, it would help if you had read the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland/Assessment/Archive_3#Project_banner_and_Template:WPBannerMeta before pronouncing that complaining "serves no purpose". There was no suggestion atht {{WikiProject Ireland}} was in any way broken; there was nothing to be fixed other than maintainability. However, functionality was removed from the template because of an assumption that it was not used, without checking with the project ... and despite complaints about that, other used functionality was removed in a second round, in which references that functionality were also removed from the project's documentation of the template. Happy-melon's actions took a highly-used template, and removed functionality which was in use, without seeking consensus, and without even notifying the project's members that this functionality was being removed. If implemented properly, {{WPBM}} should only be a maintainability issue: by avoiding the duplication of code, it prevents mistakes creeping in to individual templates. In a nutshell, the problem was that Happy-melon's actions actually caused precisely the problem that {{WPBM}} was intended to avoid: it broke this template.
As discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment/Archive 3#Project_banner_and_Template:WPBannerMeta, WP:IE has no problem with the concept of centralising code. The issue is whether it is done with sufficient care to ensure that the functionality of {{WikiProject Ireland}} is preserved. MSGJ has kindly gone about this in the right way, by firstly taking care to try not to remove any functionality, and secondly proposing the change first so that it can be examined before it is rolled out across tens of thousands of articles. I will take a look now and see if I can reach a conclusion on how well it has worked. :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
If there are no more concerns/comments I plan to implement within the next day. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Done but all the importance ratings are now screwed up. ww2censor (talk) 16:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed Happymelon 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A tiny bit fixed: Major problems still exist. Look at the latest stats for the importance ratings at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality statistics and then compare with the actual articles listed under the individual rating links. Top - 56, High - 539, Medium - 2,899, Low - 19,764, None - 36, but the cat pages give the following: Top - 32, High - 257, Medium - 1,161, Low - 8,615, None - 13,032. It is still a mess. Please just revert to before the MSGJ's edit and let him fix it properly unless you know how. ww2censor (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
If anyone is going to know how to fix it, it's probably me. It was an innocent mistake on Martin's part, although I'm not sure where it came from. Perhaps a better phrase than "fixed" would be "fixing itself"; the categories that were slowly depopulating as a result of the small error are now repopulating due to the fix. So Category:High-importance Ireland articles, which had four articles in it an hour ago, has 550-odd now, and will soon be back to whatever number it was before the error was introduced. In several cases, the numbers are actualy higher than the latest stats would expect, indicating that they are once again including the latest articles (those tagged and assessed since the last stats update). Most importantly, the Unknown-importance category is almost empty, which indicates that most of the articles have been properly recategorised. Hope this clarifies. Happymelon 16:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Things certainly look better already. Good job. Hopefully your work has fixed everything and there will be no more surprises like this one. Got to go out now but will check again later this evening. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image change[edit]

How about this image instead of the map of ireland Irish flag english flag map style.PNGMarkreidyhp 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No way.
It's far too gaudy, and far too politicised. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Yuch!! ww2censor (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Category Template[edit]

I noticed a WP Ireland Category template today and was wondering whether it's a bit redundant seeing as this template can be used for categories. Should we go through and replace them? Jgillett (talk) 14:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The assessment team generally use the template Template:WikiProject Ireland for articles which are used by a bot to gather the assessment statistics, but some pages, like categories, don't use that template and can use Template:WikiProject Ireland category instead to get the category listed here where nearly 5,000 pages are currently listed. I would not call that redundant. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fix error[edit]

{{editprotect}} Remove {{PAGENAME}} from {{DEFAULTSORT:{{#if: {{{listas|}}}|{{{listas}}}|{{PAGENAME}} }} }} as it causes an error when the page name is defined in other templates but not in this one see [1] Gnevin (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Ruslik (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

iwiki[edit]

{{editprotect}}

+ ru:Шаблон:Статья проекта Ирландия. Lvova Anastasiya (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, --Elonka 21:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor change[edit]

{{editprotected}} Could the noinclude section at the bottom be changed from:

<noinclude>
{{esoteric}}
== Usage ==
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Project banner}}
[[Category:WikiProject Ireland|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:WikiProject banners|Ireland]]
[[Category:WikiProject Ireland|Template]]

[[ru:Шаблон:Статья проекта Ирландия]]
</noinclude>

to

<noinclude>
{{esoteric}}
{{documentation|1=Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Project banner|content=
== Usage ==
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland/Project banner}}
}}
[[Category:WikiProject Ireland|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:WikiProject banners|Ireland]]
[[Category:WikiProject Ireland|Template]]

[[ru:Шаблон:Статья проекта Ирландия]]
</noinclude>

Thanks, -- 86.159.43.237 (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; however, I did move the documentation to a subpage, so that it can be edited by non-admins. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Images requested[edit]

Could the line |NOTE_1_CAT = Ireland articles needing images please be change to |NOTE_1_CAT = Wikipedia requested photographs in Ireland to keep in line with naming conventions. This will automatically move what is in Category:Ireland articles needing images to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Ireland. Thanks --Traveler100 (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Killiondude (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Fix error message?[edit]

Last year, User:BrownHairedGirl deleted all the categories for automatically assessed articles in the WikiProjects that had them. This change leaves Template:WikiProject Ireland with an error message saying that the category is required. How can the category be fixed to not display an error? -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: Just for the record, it wasn't my idea to delete them. I just closed a a CFD discussion where there was a consensus to delete empty categories of automatically-assessed articles.
AFAICS, there are two options here:
  1. re-create Category:Automatically assessed Ireland articles
  2. edit the template to stop it processing the "auto" parameter. AFAICs, that means simply replacing auto={{{auto|}}} with auto=. Maybe User:Happy-melon, who is an expert in {{WPBannerMeta}}, can advise whether that is the right way of achieving this.
Which option do you prefer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Dunno -- I'm not active in WP IRE, so I'm not sure which they'd prefer. What is the precedent or decision framework for other project pages that were damaged by the deletion? -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)