Template talk:WikiProject Korea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Korea (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 

Removal of drop down section[edit]

Concerns raised by RandomCritic are valid; the transclusion of the to-do list is resulting in thousands of links to any articles that are on that list. I've gone one step further and removed the whole of the template's hidden section. Ultimately the template only needs to link to the Project, not every page within the Project. PC78 (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Update[edit]

I've updated the template to incorportate the FL and List classes which are now part of the Wikipedia assessment scheme. Also, I have combined the Tool, Category & Project classes into NA class, as they all relate to non article pages that are not part of the assessment. Other changes include switching the assessment colours to the Wikipedia standard used elsewhere, removing some dead code and fixing some categorization issues. Please report any bugs if it looks like I've screwed up anywhere! PC78 (talk) 11:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job! I wondered why FA mark of Korean project did not have the star and you fix it. --Appletrees (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

MetaBanner[edit]

Any thoughts on converting this to use the Template:WPBannerMeta? Martin 15:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To what end? PC78 (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, to standardise with other projects a bit more, to make it easier to add (or remove) extra functionality, and by using centralised code, make it easier to keep up to date. There are probably lots of other reasons as well ;) Martin 01:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Unless there are further questions, I shall probably do this in the next few days. Martin 12:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And I would ask you not to, except to perhaps make such a proposal in the template sandbox first. There is no requirement to use the meta, and I'm not so sure it can deal with the issues this banner has. Regardless, such a major recoding of this template shoud not be done without first consulting the relevant WikiProject. PC78 (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I will certainly do it in the sandbox first, and seek input from others. It goes without saying that it would not be converted unless it could handle all the parameters and behave in the same way as the current one. Apart from this, are there any other concerns? You are right; there is no requirement to use the meta, but I have suggested some advantages. This is me consulting the WikiProject :) If you want to draw people's attention to it anywhere else, feel free! Martin 15:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, that all sounds good - I look forward to seeing what you come up with. :) Being familiar with this template and its code I've known for some time that there are certain issues with it that need looking at, and that the code itself is a bit of an animal. An overhaul of some kind is certainly needed (though I've been shying away from it myself), and if this can be done with the meta then so much the better. PC78 (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Before I start to look at it, could you tell me: is the documentation accurate in the way it describes the paramters? And are all the parameters used? Thanks, Martin 16:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The documentation is outdated, but more or less accurate. Category-Class, Tool-Class and Project-Class are all deprecated (merged into NA-Class). I believe all paramaters are used, though be aware that they each have more than one acceptable value. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The way it's set up currently, it is not possible for an article to be within the scope of more than one working group. Is this true? (The more usual way of handling these things is to use a different parameter for each, e.g. architect=yes). Martin 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
That is correct, and the limitations of this are obvious; it would be preferable to switch to the more comment method you describe above. Is it possible to implement this and still have the template accept the current syntax, so that the work groups don't lose all of their articles? PC78 (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Yes, the sandbox version will accept both forms now. I've temporarily changed the examples in the documentation to show people what the new template would look like. I must say, although I still recommend you convert, I like the look of your current banner with its small assessment display and large picture. I might make a suggestion at {{WPBM}} to see if we might be able to emulate it for other banners. Martin 21:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of notes:
  1. The nested parameter is now depreciated. The banner automatically collapses if placed in a banner shell. That's why the example with nested=yes is not collapsed.
  2. It would be necessary to use Category:NA-Class Korea-related articles rather than Category:NA-Class Korea-related pages if you decided to convert.
Martin 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
There's no padding between the edge of the box and the image - is this normal (I wouldn't have thought so)? From what I can tell this is a generic problem with the meta. I can post a screenshot if you're not sure what I mean. Otherwise I'm impressed. :) I'll have a play with it and see if I can make it a bit less chunky in comparison to our current version. Regarding your comment about NA-Class, does the meta not support alternate category names? PC78 (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, the sandbox version doesn't support the following syntax: {{WikiProject Korea/sandbox|stub|low}}. Can you fix this? PC78 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  1. Padding. Looks fine on my browser. Yes, a screenshot would be helpful, along with info on which browser and version you are using.
  2. {{WikiProject Korea/sandbox|stub|low}} Hmmm, a bit complicated this one. You are very demanding ;) I have fixed it so that if both paramters are unnamed then it will work. However
    1. {{WikiProject Korea/sandbox|class=stub|low}} will not work because low is now the first unnamed parameter
    2. {{WikiProject Korea/sandbox|low|stub}} will not work
    3. {{WikiProject Korea/sandbox|stub|importance=low}} will work.
  3. Alternate category names. You can have anything you like, as long as it's in the form XX-Class YYY. But the YYY would need to be the same for all classes. So you could have all pages or all articles but not a mixture.
Martin 22:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is how it looks on my browser:
WPKorea banner test.jpg
I'm using IE, but I'm not sure which version. Also - should have mentioned this above - the banner needs to support a third unnamed parameter for the working groups. Sorry, but there are quite a few articles using this syntax! PC78 (talk) 23:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Padding issue reported as a bug. Third unnamed parameter implemented. Martin 00:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Any ideas why User talk:PC78/Sandbox1 isn't being added to Category:Korean military history task force articles? I've checked the code, but it all looks good. All of the other working groups seem to work fine. PC78 (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it being added to the category. But you can't see it because Category:Korean military history task force articles is a hidden category. Martin 15:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, well spotted! :) I'll pitch this proposal at WT:KOREA. If there are any comments or objections, best they are made now rather than later. PC78 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Off-topic but you can set your preferences to show hidden categories. Check "Show hidden categories" in the misc. tab. --Kusunose 16:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh sure, I just thought that hidden categories were more to stop maintenance categories and such from being displayed in the main space. I'm not sure why such project categories would need to be hidden from a talk page. PC78 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it... regarding this edit [1]: looks good in theory, but can it be amended to have it display "page" on dab pages and redirects? PC78 (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters[edit]

I suggest that unnamed parameters are generally a bad idea and might cause problems in the future. I've put a tracking category (Category:WikiProject Korea articles using unnamed parameters) on the sandbox so that, if implemented, these can be found and converted. Martin 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So what about it?[edit]

Shall we request its implementation? Martin 22:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed this comment. Sandboxed template looks good to me, and no-one commented one way or another about this at WT:KOREA. I think we're ready to make the switch. PC78 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Bah, I knew I'd forget something... {{editprotected}} Please replace this tempate with the code in Template:WikiProject Korea/sandbox (or this revision); this is just to add another maintenance category which will facilitate some cleanup. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 17:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Happymelon 18:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

{{editprotected}} Please update with the code in {{WikiProject Korea/sandbox}}. This is really just a minor edit to add a custom icon for the portal link and to update a few task force icons. PC78 (talk) 00:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean to remove the nested parameters? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes. They didn't seem to work for those in the hook anyway (no such parameters are documented at Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces). PC78 (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes, I know. You have to use the tfnested hook for these. It's a bit of a pain having to use two separate hooks, but necessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That's OK, I think we're better off without them. It just adds unnecessary clutter, IMHO. PC78 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please update with the code in {{WikiProject Korea/sandbox}}. Changes are:

  1. Removal of support for outdated syntax. All transclusions of the banner now use the standard values for class and importance, unnamed parameters are no longer used and the wg parameter has been replaced en masse in a recent bot run. Future use of outdated syntax will now throw up an error message in the banner and add pages to a tracking category.
  2. Working groups have been moved into a collapsible section.

Please also delete the following:

The tracking categories are now empty and no longer required (there's a single project page in one of them, but that's unimportant). The banner will now be able to use the default mask for quality classes, so the custom mask is also no longer needed.

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

All Yes check.svg Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed section[edit]

The code for the collapsed section hook has recently been enhanced. One benefit is that the text can be made to line up with the rest of the banner (which I have now done). Another benefit is the ability to selectively collapse the section depending on how many rows are displayed. It is rarely useful to collapse one row, because the header of the section takes up the same amount of space and so information is hidden without any space saving. On the sandbox is an implementation whereby 2 rows or more are collapsed but 1 row isn't. See the /testcases for some examples. Please let me know what you think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks OK. :) PC78 (talk) 22:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for replacement[edit]

Some of clip images being used for the template are not "Korean", so I tried to replace with others, but the template is locked. Could you replace the clip for the architecture section with either of these images? File:Korean architecture clip-01.png File:Korean architecture clip-02.png These are not ideal, but having the false clip image is worse than the small clips from pictures. I will get back for the cuisine image as well (such as bibimbap image would be better.--Caspian blue 23:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Korean cuisine-Bibimbap clip-01.png I think this would be sufficient for the cuisine parameter for a while until somebody would be willing to draw architecture and food SVG files.--Caspian blue 23:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My request is to replace the parameters on the left with images on the right column.

  • |TF_1_IMAGE = Japanese Castle icon.png --> |TF_1_IMAGE = Korean architecture clip-01.png
  • |TF_4_IMAGE = Gimbap icon.png ---> |TF_4_IMAGE = Korean cuisine-Bibimbap clip-01.png
Done. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this is an improvement. The previous icons were recognisable as architecture and food, whereas the new images are not. PC78 (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Those are NOT Korean. That is the key point for the replacement. I said to Nick-D that the images are "temporary" things until better images comes up. And the images size could be adjusted since the size is opted for the previous clips.Caspian blue--12:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how you could reasonably say that the gimbap icon does not represent gimbap. You may have a point abouth the architecture icon, but do you think it does not accurately represent Korean architecture, or are you just looking at the filename? PC78 (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
If you look at any surveys regarding Korean cuisine, gimbap, a Koreanaizied popular snack does not take a higher rank to represent Korean food unlike bibimbap, Bulgogi, or Galbi. You know my editing area is mainly Korean cuisine. Moreover, there is no such building like Japanese Osaka Castle in Korea. If you argue that Hwaseong Fortress is not much different from the castle, well, I would be surprised. The clips are not just a matter of file names. I will search editors willing to create a better clips with a SVG program.--Caspian blue 12:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sure, but the gimbap icon was recognisable at such a small size, whereas the bimimbap photo is not. Regarding architecture, how about File:Japan-company-stub-twin21.svg which should be generic enough to represent modern Korean architecture? PC78 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
You're forgetting that the image sizes are opted for the previous files, so if the sizes of the new clips are adjusted like the Art group clip that uses a just photo, I don't think what would be a big deal until we find nicer clips. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the dull image of modern building that can be found everywhere in the world.--Caspian blue 13:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not forgetting anything: these images are supposed to be small. What I'm saying with the building image is that it would be suitable to use here. These images don't need to be specifically Korean (most of them aren't anyway) so long as they are not un-Korean. PC78 (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Not every image have same width and height, so "setting the size "small" does not mean that every images are in a good shape with a fixed size. I don't see why the unattractive and unrecognizable building image should be preferred to that Korean clip.--Caspian blue 14:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
The image you chose is not recognisable either. All I can make out are the three taeguk symbols, it doesn't obviously represent architecture. Something like this Korea-Building in Gyeongbokgung palace Seoul-2005.jpg would be better. PC78 (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I like the Geunjeongjeon hall of the Gyeongbokgung palace image.--Caspian blue 15:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you suggesting another alternative? PC78 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking. I like your suggested image that is recognizable in the small size and of Korean style, so that could be replaced with the gate image with taegeuk. The two clips that I made an admin replace are just for a temporary period until we find nicer images, and you found the nicer one. -Caspian blue 16:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, I misread your comment. PC78 (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Remove auto parameter[edit]

{{editprotected}} Can someone please remove the following line:

|auto=

The "auto" parameter is unused and there are no plans by the project to use it anytime soon. Thanks in advance. PC78 (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Class mask[edit]

{{edit protected}} Please sync this template with the code at Template:WikiProject Korea/sandbox. This will implement Category-Class and Template-Class in the banner, which are now needed to filter out the majority of pages in Category:NA-Class Korea-related articles. PC78 (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Class subpage[edit]

Please make changes that I've made from the sandbox myself. I've also set the QUALITY_SCALE from inline to subpage to enable class mask, including the new FM-Class which is not used by the project. Thank for your time. Regards, JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 07:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please could you link to the discussion where Wikipedia:WikiProject Korea decided to start using FM-class. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:File-Class Korea-related articles[edit]

The category Category:File-Class Korea-related articles exists and it seems this WikiProject uses it, but all files being tagged with the WikiProject banner are sent to Category:NA-Class Korea-related articles. Any chance we can get this thing activated? Same thing seems to apply to Category:Disambig-Class Korea-related articles. — ξxplicit 19:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Those two categories were created by JJ98, without any discussion with the WikiProject (see thread above), so I don't think they have ever been used. I've tagged them with {{db-c1}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I see. I'll drop a note over at the WikiProject and see if there's any support in using these categories. — ξxplicit 20:51, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Parameter request[edit]

Can somebody add the parameter, image-needed, to the template so it can be easier to find articles that need photos? Also, if anybody can, could that person create a category where articles will be added to. Thank you and appreciate it. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 21:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind with the image needed. We need a sports working group or changed Baseball to Sports. I came upon a Korean handball player. Jae ₩on (Deposit) 02:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

New working group[edit]

I'd like to request that the change I made on the sandbox (diff) be implemented, i.e. adding a new working group to the template. Since the maximum number of working groups allowed by the WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces template (10) has been reached, I added it using the main banner template's own functionality, so it shows up at the top -- hopefully this doesn't make it seem like I'm trying to make the new working group look more important. The edit should be uncontroversial. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

If you use up all ten hooks in a {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}}, just add another {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} immediately afterwards, so that the closing }} of the first is followed directly by the opening {{ of the second. See {{WikiProject Trains}} for one with seven instances of {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} - admittedly, only one of them has all ten used up, but there is no requirement to use all ten before starting the next. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, that makes more sense. I'll do that, then reopen this request. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I've edited it to use two instances of {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}}, but the rationale is as above: it's for a new working group. This diff shows the requested edit. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Done very slightly differently: I've removed one linebreak (because two {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} are normally butted up together), and inserted another (for consistency with the other hooks). --Redrose64 (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to add a new work group: Football[edit]

I'm slowly editing the English pages of the lower tiers of Korean football and would like to include it into the project, but I see there is not work group for it. Would it be possible to add it to the template. (I'm new to editing and and still learning what can be done, so apologies if I go about this in the wrong way.) OttoSilver (talk) 05:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

OttoSilver, I think we need a sports working group instead like I suggested in 2011. That way, other contributors won't have to request a working group for other sports like golf, speed-skating, ice-skating and etc. Jaewon [Talk] 15:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Assessment parameter[edit]

Can we get a parameter that place articles that need assessment in a category? Jaewon [Talk] 16:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)