Template talk:WikiProject banner shell

Oh, So Close

Within the last seven hours the WP Biog template was fixed so that it would nest withing this shell without the nested parameter. Seriously, it did not nest on my last attempt at work and it did work on my last attempt here at home, about seven hours later. However, if the living parameter is set to yes in the template, the blp banner is within the shell and duplicates the blp banner that is above the shell when the blp parameter is added to the WPBS template.

The fix is easy, delete the living=yes from the WP Biog banner, but I believe that there are categories that draw on the living parameter from the WP Biog banner. Could the WP Biog banner template be further modified so that it will not display the blp banner when it is nested? The blp parameter is too easy to insert into the shell for anyone to have grounds for complaint.

JimCubb (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It doesn't nest for me, and I can't see any reason in the code (no changes since October) why it should. Happy‑melon 08:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I cannot reproduce what I thought I saw, no, I am not sure. Chalk it up to an old guy's overly long day and wishful thinking.

Now that I have your attention, is there a target date for updating that banner? It is on more than 20% of the articles and not that there are a few of us working on Category:Biography articles without listas parameter it would make our efforts so much easier.

JimCubb (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem to fix. The Banner Shell is not malfunctioning. If you view the source code for {{Blp}}, it states clearly "don't display in banner shells". Therefore, you have to manually place the {{Blp}} just below the {{talkheader}}. The instructions for use the {{Blp}} code may need to change, or coding for the {{Blp}} may require adjustment, but not the Banner Shell code. edit to add signature, hit the save page a bit too quickly74.178.201.85 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Namespace switch

I put a #switch in in order to differentiate between namespaces. Not all pages this is used for are articles, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, so it would be useful to provide for those exceptions. (Feel free to revert if this causes any problems.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Please sync with the sandbox, so this also works on file talk pages and when the banner shell has not been collapsed. Thanks for suggesting this change on the talk page before making the edit, User:King of Hearts. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done as you request. However I must say I found your comment snarky. In view of WP:BOLD there is no need to discuss simple changes such as these in advance. In any case, a simple request would come across better than sarcasm. Just a suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Importance

Currently, the bannershell only displays the quality assessment, but not the importance. This ought to be implemented IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this template has no control over what the individual project banners display when collapsed. Each banner, or if used, the {{WPBannerMeta}} meta-template, determines its reaction to the activation of |nested=yes or being inside this template. If you want this changed, you'd best get WPBannerMeta modified, though given that some projects use criteria other than "importance" and consistency may become an issue, you may have a challenge. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'll head there. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There Seems To Be a Problem

What is happening to the shell on Talk:Ya'akov Katz (politician born 1951) and Talk:Y. A. Tittle? It is not happening on Talk:Yaakov ben Moshe Levi Moelin and Talk:Yaakov ben Yakar. JimCubb (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any difference (FF 3.0.10). What difference do you see? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, what is happening on those two pages? I assume that you see a rendering inconsistency, but I see nothing out of the ordinary on FF3/Vista. In general, when reporting a bug in any software, the more detail you can provide, the better. If the problem was blindingly obvious to all users, it would probably have already been fixed. That you have noticed an error means you're doing something different to the 'developers', not necessarily anything 'wrong', just something that hasn't been done by them before. As such, you absolutely have to include two pieces of information: what the problem is, and how you found it. In this case, what is the problem? It could be anything from a missing table border to your browser crashing whenever trying to load the page; your comment doesn't give any suggestions. Equally important is the details of how you found the bug: by that I mean what browser, OS and skin you're using, whether you're viewing or editing the page, etc. Any other details you can add are certainly never going to hurt, but these two things are absolutely essential; there is essentially no bug report without them.

Bug writing is certainly an art, I'm not trying to have a go at you for getting it 'wrong'. Have a read of mozilla's bug writing guide for a more 'professional' perspective if you want. But essentially there's nothing I or anyone else can do to fix or even find the problem with the information you've provided. Happy‑melon 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On Katz and Tittle pages the banners do not collapse within the shell. Tittle was applied yesterday and Katz was applied today.

The other two have their banners behaving as advertised and they were applied today. I just applied a shell to Talk:Yacine El Azouzi and it is behaving. The one that I applied before Tittle was Talk:Xuefei Yang and it is fine. The one I did after Tittle was Talk:Y. C. James Yen, it is badly behaved. The one after that was Talk:Yhonastan Fabian and it is fine.

I have cleared my cache. I have emptied Temporary Internet files. I have not checked these pages at home on Firefox. I don't think that there is a systeminc problem. I think it is topical. I was hoping other eyes could see a glaring difference between the two that I indicated as bad an the two that I indicated as good.

I apologize for the lack of substantive information but I really thought that it was obvious. With the possible of Tittle the subjects of the articles are not household names and I only applied the shells because I was adding the listas parameter. There is no reason to assume that anyone would have seen the pages in the last 24 hours.

JimCubb (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't said what browser you're using. :P Happy‑melon 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the page crashed, possibly too many windows open at once.

• IE 6 on VistaXP5.

I normally use FF 3.0.10 at home but have used IE 6 on Windows 2000. I just checked the first pages on each browser. IE 6 at home is the same as IE 6 at work. (The banners in Katz and Tittle are not collapsed within the shell. The other two originally cited are. I just did Talk:Yaakov Meir Shechter and it worked just fine.)

I seem to recall that I am using "collapsed" for banners incorrectly. What I mean is what the banners look like in the intermediate stage, whatever that is called, between no shell and the shell collapsed. The look that is lacking in WPS.

JimCubb (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. They display fine to me on IE6/XP (admittedly on a hardware emulator, but the effect should be identical). Can anyone else confirm with the exact browser/OS combo?

Do the show/hide buttons appear on the banners?? What about on the shell itself? If you add another collapsible table further down the page (another WPBS, for instance) does it collapse normally? Happy‑melon 08:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is how it looks here. (Note the correction to my OS.)

JimCubb (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm indeed. What about my other question (adding other collapsible tables)? Happy‑melon 22:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what it looks like at home

• IE6 on Windows 2000 5

Just for giggles I changed the shell to WPB and got this. There is certainly "something to make you say, 'Hmm'". When you delete your screen shot would you delete mine as well? If something more formal is needed for you to delete them, let me know.

JimCubb (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it's definitely a JavaScript error that's causing your scripts to choke and die before it gets round to adding the collapse buttons. I know IE6 has sod all error reporting, but could you try, firstly, whether that particular combination of banners is the cause (ie if you copy the shell and banners to another page/sandbox, do you get the same issue? And if so, try removing the banners one at a time and find out which one(s) is responsible? Happy‑melon 08:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)I'm also having this problem, and it's happening on every talk page I've looked at that has WPBS installed, so it's not one particular banner that's the problem. This is with IE 7 under Vista. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Ed; this certainly seems to be a strange error. Is this shell affected? Happy‑melon 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that shell is properly collapsed. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem still apparent? Happy‑melon 11:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. The four talk pages I checked are still not collapsing. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Were they chosen at random, or are they the same ones as you checked before (in which case, which are they?)? Did you purge and/or null-edit the pages to make sure you got the latest render? Happy‑melon 11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the problem still happen if you view the pages logged out? If not, does it still appear if you turn off any gadgets you have activated and/or temporarily blank your monobook.js (don't forget to clear your cache)? Alternatively, could you duplicate one of the non-working pages in a sandbox and try to reduce it to a minimal example that shows the problem (i.e. remove all the comments, and then remove the banners one by one until you figure out which are necessary for the problem to occur)? I remember a while back you found a similar IE issue that only showed up for people who had certain gadgets/scripts installed, and discovering that was an important step in finding the underlying cause. Anomie⚔ 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good questions. At least one of the articles was a repeat from before, I'm not certain about all of them. So I started from scratch. I found 2 articles from the very beginning of my contrib history that I verified had WPBS installed, and on a two others I installed it myself. None of them were collapsing. Using Opera, I confirmed that they were collapsing with another browser, then I looked at each again with IE, purging the cache for each one - they still did not collapse. Finally I looked at them with IE, but logged out, and all of them collapsed properly, which indicates that something in my Wikipedia configuration is probably causing the problem under IE.

(For good measure, I also checked one article that used WPB, not WPBS, and the results were the same. The articles I used were Talk:Philip K. Dick, Talk:Colorado Plateau, Talk:Blackface and Talk:Panama Canal. The WPB article was Talk:Empire State Building.)

My next step is to find out which of my settings is causing the problem, so I'll start on that later today. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to make a null edit this morning before I was able to see them collapsing on IE. A purge wasn't enough. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

break: culprits

(out) What I've found is that if either of these two options in "Gadgets" is checked, the banner shell won't collapse:

• Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time.

• The JavaScript Standard Library, a compatibility library for browsers that lack full support for JavaScript 1.6. This includes Internet Explorer, Opera, and Safari.

There may be other Java-related options that cause problems as well, but these two are the only options of all that I have chosen in Preferences which cause the banner not to collapse. I hope that's sufficient to find a fix. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly helps, thanks for taking the time to track that down. Happy‑melon 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, unsurprisingly trying those two gadgets with Firefox doesn't give anything to play with, not even non-fatal errors. Which means we're reliant on IE's own script error evaluation... Oh shit... :S Happy‑melon 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Without reading anything much of the previous discussion, doesn't IE8 have a Firebug-esque debug system built in? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)have there been any developments at solving the problem with IE? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten about this discussion (I can only get debugging time on a computer with IE7 on weekends). I found the problem in the "Change UTC-based times and dates" gadget and posted at User talk:Gary King/comments in local time.js about it; if Gary doesn't respond soon enough feel free to throw an {{editprotected}} on there (or on WT:Gadget) to attract an admin to make the change. When I tried Talk:Ya'akov Katz (politician born 1951) with only the JavaScript Standard Library enabled, the collapsing seemed to work fine. Anomie⚔ 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who did what to which, but I didn't change anything in my preferences, and everything's collapsing very nice now. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait with my script; I had to go out and get a copy of Windows XP and then get Parallels since I don't have a Windows computer. Anyway, it's fixed now. Gary King (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WPBS not showing the full list of banners

Is WPBS limited to only 10 WikiProject banners? Because in Talk:Barack Obama there's actually 15 banners but only ten are shown, up to Wikiproject Indonesia, the following are not visible:

11=AfricaProject|class=FA|importance=low|nested=yes|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=low

12=Project afro|class=FA|importance=mid|nested=yes

13=WikiProject Politics|importance=Top|class=FA|nested=yes

14=Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg|nested=yes

15=WPCD-People|class=FA|nested=yes

Is it because these extra wikiprojects are not fully compliant? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's because the template was only designed to hold up to 10 banners. I've upped the limit to 20 now, and all the banners display correctly (although the last two are not really compliant with the standard nested layout). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 07:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

About Talk:Barack Obama. I've never seen so many talkpage banners and templates on a page! Funny thing is, after it I expanded all the collapsibles, the banners alone took up half the length of the entire page! -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 09:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can always put everything under 1=. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have now done this on Talk:Barack Obama. This change should probably be reverted as unnecessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we allow the multi-parameter variant at all, then I don't see any real reason to cap the number at 10 when some pages have more banners than that; but I don't really care either way. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I was about to do that. Thanks, MSGJ. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we deprecate the 2–10 parameters too, and force everyone to use parameter 1 only? It breaks the Zero One Infinity software design rule to keep 2–10 and not 11–20, since there exist pages that could legitimately use parameters greater than 10. A bot could easily enough convert any existing uses of those parameters, especially if we add a tracking category instead of requiring the bot to check all 96000+ transclusions. Anomie⚔ 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support that, except in as much as we at least know that shell templates using more than five parameters contain more than five banners; useful for the change I suggested above. However, if we're going to send a bot round, it might as well change to {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}} while it's at it. On that note, is there support for migrating banner shells with less than, say, five banners, to the 'open' shell format, and leaving WPB shells with five or more in the collapsed style? Happy‑melon 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: You're wanting to replace WPB with {{WPBS|collapsed=yes}} when 5 or more banners are contained (which causes absolutely no change in behavior) and with just {{WPBS}} when 4 or less (which does change behavior), and no change to existing WPBS? I support that change. We could also have the bot remove "nested=yes" from all banners if it is editing the talk page anyway, and check that blp=yes and activepol=yes match any {{WPBiography}} too.

IMO this would need wider advertising to get a true consensus before a bot could be approved, we don't want collapsed=yes-always partisans to (legitimately) complain that the decision was made without soliciting their input. WP:VPR and an explicit note on Template talk:WikiProjectBanners would probably suffice for that. Anomie⚔ 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I propose. I'll poke in relevant places. Happy‑melon 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just followed the link from VPR, and wanted to let you know that you might want to clarify for the non-technical editor what you're proposing (preferably with examples) if you want non-technical / uninvolved editors to contribute to the debate. Which you might not want, of course, especially if it's just the editors with strong views on this topic that you're trying to contact. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Part 1

This template and {{WikiProjectBanners}} currently support numbered parameters 1–10 for specifing the banners to be inside the shell; the output using these is identical to specifying all the banners in parameter 1. Recently, it was discovered that Talk:Barack Obama has 15 banners. Support for parameters 11–20 was briefly added, but it was met with opposition and reverted. This brought up the point that parameters 2–10 are exactl as unnecessary as 11–20, and by the Zero One Infinity software design rule we should use only parameter 1 if we are not going to add more numbered parameters as needed.

Thus, we propose:

1. Edit {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} to place pages using the numbered parameters 2–10 into a tracking category.
2. Have a bot go through the tracking category to merge the values of 2–10 into parameter 1.
3. Edit {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} to remove support for numbered parameters 2–10.

Part 2

Due to work done on the tempates recently, {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} are now almost identical. The only difference remaining is that the former defaults "collapsed=no" while the latter defaults "collapsed=yes". If existing uses of {{WikiProjectBanners}} are changed to specify "collapsed=yes" explicitly, we can merge the two templates.

Thus, we propose:

1. Replace {{WikiProjectBanners}} as follows:
   • If the shell contains 4 or fewer templates, replace it with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} (or do nothing).
   • If the shell contains 5 or more templates, explicitly specify "collapsed=yes"
2. Redirect {{WikiProjectBanners}} and its redirects to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}.

In the actual case, both parts would be done in parallel to save edits. The exact threshold (5 banners) in Part 2 is open for discussion.

Discussion

Remember, this is not a vote.

I'd rather default to collapse in all cases where it's worth employing this kind of template. Rd232 ^talk 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems a fair proportion of people disagree with you, WPBS has about 4.475 times the usage of WPB. Anomie⚔ 20:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor who is currently working on WPBS is also quite active on WP Biog and the Project Council and has lobbied for the exclusive use of WPBS for a long time even though WPB is much easier to use

JimCubb (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about me? I am not at all active on WPBiography; my interest is mainly to do with WikiProject banners. Could you support that statement "WPB is much easier to use", please? I do not think it is correct: the syntax for both shells is now essentially identical; that's why we're having this discussion. Happy‑melon 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am certain that I have read in many places that only the "1=" was necessary and there was no need to use any number larger than "1=". I am equally certain that I have not used a number greater than "1=" this year. When I collapsed the 13 banners that were on Talk:C. S. Lewis at the time all were valid and there was no number greater than "1=".

Rather than bother with individual instance of numbers greater than "1=" would it not be simpler to edit {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} to ignore all numbers greater than "1=" much the same as the project banners except WP Biog were edited in regards to the listas parameter?

Is there a need to eliminate {{WikiProjectBanners}}? It still works and works well. It is not subject to the problems noted in the discussion immediately above this one. Its verbiage is still valid, unlike the verbiage for the collapsed version of this banner which refers to something that does not exist.

The original guideline was to apply a shell where there are more than two banners and collapse the shell, if necessary (only applies to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}) where there are more than five banners. As that only leaves uncollapsed shells on pages with three, four or five banners and the number of banners per page seems to be growing, perhaps the uncollapsed state should be eliminated. That would also eliminate the need for this shell. All pages with more than more than two project banners could have them placed within {{WikiProjectBanners}} and it could be done by a bot much more easily than what is given in part two. Great care would have to be taken regarding the blp parameter.

As I understand this (from the first page)

Please do not implement this template on talk pages already using the {{WikiProjectBanners}} template, without first discussing the change on that talk page. {{WikiProjectBanners}} is a similar nesting template with an alternate appearance, the use of which is dependent on editor preference. When one type of template shell has already been established on a talk page, it should not be changed to the other, without discussion.

one was only to be replaced by the other after a thorough discussion on each Talk Page. It also seems to me to be more than a little autocratic and over-bearing for one of the templates to take steps or even suggest taking steps to eliminate the other template.

JimCubb (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Using parameters greater than one is indeed not necessary, and has been deprecated for some time. However, they are still in use, and continue to be used, leading to issues like the one above. I don't understand many of your other comments. We cannot simply "edit WPBS and WPB to ignore [other unnamed parameters]" without editing all the banner templates that use them first, or it will cause banners out 'in the wild' to simply disappear without reason or justification. I don't understand what you're talking about vis the listas parameter.

WPB is the older of the two templates, the less well-developed and sophisticated, and the less popular of the two. Again I do not understand your point: the "verbiage" of the two templates, by which I assume you mean the "this page is within the scope..." wording, is identical between the two templates. I think you are basing your perspective on badly out-of-date information.

Do you have any evidence that "the number of banners per page seems to be growing"?? I do not believe this to be the case. Rather, as the number of articles continues to grow at a rapid rate, I suspect the average number of banners is declining. Yet again I do not belive that your assmption "could be done by a bot much more easily..." is correct: the complexity of the task is identical, but as WPBS is used on five times as many pages as WPB, tens of thousands of extra pages would be affected. Again, do you have evidence to justify the extra effort?

That quote from the documentation is ancient, and from a time when conversion between WPB and WPBS was a fiddly and complicated operation (needed adding |nested=yes to each banner, for instance). That is no longer the case. And quite apart from WP:CCC, that statement was more indicative of a lack of consensus than a consensus in favour of two separate styles; it was just too awkward to switch between the two. That is no longer the case; we no longer have two separate styles, only one style awkwardly duplicated between two templates. Happy‑melon 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support this. Whether to use one or the other is a style issue, I don't even use WPB unless I'm really trying to save space and reduce clutter. If WPB can be duplicated with WPBS then why not deprecate it, merge the two, duplicate the "collapsed=yes/no" options making everyone happy and let the bots do all the work? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly support this, since having two wrappers that essentially do the same thing (or can be made to do the same thing) is redundant. As far as WPB is concerned, adding the collapsed parameter to this template renders the same result. A bot should easily be able to completely phase out WPB while retaining the style preferences that many of the WPB users sought. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232. Collapse all by default. Whenever I display a talk page, I'm either interested in looking at the TOC, or am immediately CTRL-END'ing to the bottom of the page. Having too many banners just makes it more inconvenient to access the TOC. In the rare cases that I do look at the banners, the only think I am likely interested in is the associated projects. I consider the rest is fluff and I would prefer it minimized as much as possible by default. (An alternative idea: Why not display the TOC above the banners?) -- Tcncv (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible to have a user setting whereby all banners can be collapsed by default?

Maybe. It could probably be done if there's call for it. Happy‑melon 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as has been pointed out many times, all banners can easily be collapsed. Use {{WikiProjectBanners}}, aka {{WPB}}. As with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, aka {{WPBS}}, the |blp= should follow the name of the template and "1=" is still needed but |collapsed= is not needed. Collapsed banners with less effort. It is a pity that its use fell into disfavor.

JimCubb (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jim, did you know that all {{WPB}} does is to call {{WPBS}} with the parameters collapsed=yes and banner collapsed=no? In other words it doesn't do anything which this template can't do. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from what appears in the histories of the two templates, as {{WPB}} seems to have been created on 4 February 2007 and {{WPBS}} was created on 20 February 2007, I never considered the possibility that {{WPB}} would call a template that would not exist for two weeks. Shows what I know. Appearances can be deceiving. JimCubb (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I credit you with enough intelligence to understand that Martin was talking about the status of the template now, not two and a half years ago. I recognise that your personal preferences on these two templates differ from mine, but I have seen no explanation of why that should be the case that is not based on clear misunderstanding or confusion. Happy‑melon 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though there was a guideline, policy or merely strongly stated person preference for placing project banners in a shell when there are more than two of them on a page and collapsing the shell when there are more than six banners on a page and I follow that, I do not agree with it. I really do not think that the average editor really cares about which projects have "adopted" (my term since I cannot remember the correct one) which articles. I also do not think that having the banners visible on a page recruits many new members for projects. I have always thought the project banners were instrusive. I think it would be much better for the standard to be that if there are two or more project banners on a page, the banners are to be nested within a shell and the shell is collapsed.

When I first became involved with the shells there were quirks in the Project banners and each banner needed the |nested= parameter to be set at yes for {{WPBS}} to work. {{WPB}} ignored the quirks for the most part and did not require that the banners have the |nested= parameter.

Then came the joyous announcement that {{WPBS}} had another parameter |collapsed= so that the banner could be collapsed. (I believe that this was just after {{WPBS}} no longer required the |nested=.) I pointed out that there was still a problem, a defect compared to {{WPB}}. The same wording was used in the collapsed version that was in the uncollapsed version, "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects" but, because the shell was collapsed, there was no list of projects. After I stated the problem a few different ways someone finally understood that it might be less confusing to change the wording "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects."

It could only have been after that change that simply typing
{{WPB, the |blp==yes (if applicable) and 1=, plus two closing braces at the bottom of the banner list,
"called"
{{WPBS, the {{para|collapsed}, the |blp==yes (if applicable) and 1= plus two closing braces at the end of the banner list.
I did not notice such a change in the history of Template:TlWPB but I was not looking for it.

I have read many claims of points of the superiority of {{WPBS}} over {{WPB}} but have yet to see any examples of greater power or sophistication. As for the claim of greater flexibility, yes, {{WPBS}} will allow for both a collapsed and an uncollapsed state whereas {{WPB}} only allows for a collapsed state. The flexibility has only been achieved satisfactorily within the last four or five months. The flexibility has come at great cost and can only be enjoyed at a cost.

There was the effort that was required to make all the programming changes. There is the added effort that is required to make the collapsed version of {{WPBS}} look like {{WPB}} has looked from the beginning. Look at the lines above that show what calls what. Which is easier to type? Notice how much easier it has always been to convert an uncollapsed {{WPBS}} to a collapsed {{WPB}} than to convert an uncollapsed {{WPBS}} to a {{WPBS}}. (Which is easier: Erase an S or type "|collapsed=yes"?) Further work has been done to reprogram {{WPB}} so that it "calls" {{WPBS}} with the parameters collapsed=yes and banner collapsed=no to do what it always did on its own. This last is analogous to my choosing not to make a legal right turn on 1st Street but cross 1st Street, turn left on 2nd Street, left on Broadway and left on 1st Street.

Is my position clearer now?

JimCubb (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Further on the above.

I found that WPB had been recoded to call WPBS on 29 May. Not too long before that, in the same discussion, it had been noted that WPB and WPBS were not the same and should not be treated as if they were. Had I not been trying, will little success, to avoid WP politics and clean out Category:Biography articles without listas parameter I would have reverted the change as soon as it was made. The various problems that WPBS has had over the past six months seem to me to be a very good reason to have another shell that did what it was supposed to do very well for more than two years. There was no need to eliminate the need for nested parameters in the project banners as there was for WPBS, because WPB somehow forced nesting. There was no need for a collapsed parameter as there was for WPBS, because collapsing was the default.

I do not pretend to understand programming but it seems to me that WPB and WPBS (with all the latest tweaks) were different approaches to the same solution, a condition that is not unknown in the history of science. It seems to me that WPB acted as a control for the changes to WPBS and that seems to me to be a shame.

JimCubb (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please get an understanding of the terminology we're using here (and have been using for some time, several of which discussions you have participated in). Banners ({{WPBiography}}, etc) are nested inside shells ({{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}}). Banners can be collapsed; they collapse by default inside WPBS. Shells can also be collapsed; WPB is collapsed by default while WPBS isn't. The two are not the same, please do not treat them as such. A user preference to cause all banners to be collapsed, whether or not the shell is collapsed, would be difficult to implement. Happy‑melon 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support sensible proposal. 5 sounds like a reasonable number. Of course, any shells where the collapsed parameter is already specified should be left alone. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Review The code for point 1 of part 1 is in the /sandbox (diff). It will put pages which use parameters 2-10 into Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters. Does that look okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks about right to me. Be sure to create the category page (with {{hiddencat}}) before actually making that edit, of course. Also, we should find someone uninvolved to determine the consensus on Part 2 (most of the real opposition above is one long-winded "I hate WPBS" editor, and the other two are similarly wanting to force collapsed=yes on all 81482 or so articles using WPBS, but IMO consensus may be "set collapsed=yes on all existing WPB" rather than just WPB with >4 banners) before moving on Part 1, since it would be much more efficient to do both edits at once. AnomieBOT is ready to go either way. Anomie⚔ 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your analysis, although it seems one or two editors were of the impression that the current default behaviour of WPB was just WPBS with "collapsed=yes" which is not true (it also has the "collapsed banners=no"), so there may be some misconceptions there. Regarding your proposal to just set WPB=WPBS|collapsed=yes, this would probably be the method which has the least visual effect on the articles. However on pages with just 2 or 3 banners, some might see it as excessive to collapse the shell and the banners. I'll make the tracking category now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It would need {{WPBS|collapsed=yes|banner collapsed=no}}? That seems a bit much for people who want WPB behavior. Unless we change the default for {{{banner collapsed|}}} to be {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{collapsed|}}}}}|yes|no|yes}}, I'm now leaning towards keeping {{WPB}} as-is (i.e. no Part 2). Anomie⚔ 12:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's a lot to type and maybe it could be simplified. Your proposal would not work because it would affect the many WPBS instances with collapsed=yes (and banner collapsed unspecified). However it might make a lot of sense to do it the other way round:

 collapsed={{{collapsed|{{#ifeq:{{{banner collapsed}}}|no|yes|no}}}}}

because one wouldn't normally want neither to be collapsed (or else why use a shell?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how common that is, and how often it's actually intended as opposed to just "WPBS is too big for my taste, I'm going to add collapsed=yes and not care what the expanded version looks like". {{WPBS|banner collapsed=no}} is counterintuitive (say "banner collapsed=no" to get it collapsed?), and still somewhat long to type.

AnomieBOT could easily enough add an explicit "banner collapsed=yes" to those WPBS instances, especially if you add {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{collapsed|}}}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{banner collapsed|}}}||x}}}} to the tracking category (and if you keep doing the sortkeys the same way, the bot can skip "sortkey=0 and in my list of former WPBs" to avoid wasting resources rechecking those pages). Anomie⚔ 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Section break

It seems we may have found the perfect compromise. I've been discussing this with Jim Cubb in other places and he seems to support what you say about people not caring what the uncollapsed version looks like - he just wants to reduce the space they take up when there are 6 or more banners on a page. He has proposed that WPB is retained as a shortcut for WPBS|collapsed=yes, and this seems sensible to me, as it is quite a lot to type. However this means that instances of WPB on pages where there are few banners should probably be replaced by WPBS. I'm not really following your last sentence - there is no sortkey=0 because they are the ones without any deprecated parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you add "pages using 'collapsed=yes' without specifying 'banner collapsed'" to the tracking category without changing how the sortkey is calculated, pages doing that without using 2-10 would end up with sortkey=0. Anomie⚔ 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well I think we are moving towards a default behaviour of "banner collapsed=yes" anyway so I don't think adding that parameter is necessary ... we certainly wouldn't want to have to type that to get the normal usage of WPBS. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It would only be useful if we were going to change the default for "banner collapsed" to "the opposite of 'collapsed'" and we wanted to change any existing WPBS specifying collapsed=yes without banner collapsed to explicitly specify "banner collapsed=yes" to preserve the current behavior. If we don't want to change that default, or we don't care about changing the behavior of existing WPBS with collapsed=yes and no banner collapsed set, then of course it's not necessary. (BTW, the current behavior is "banner collapsed=yes", and as far as WPB goes if we're keeping it as calling WPBS instead of just redirecting to WPBS then IMO there's no point in not leaving it as-is.) Anomie⚔ 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"No point in not leaving it as-is." After I had thought about the grammar of that for a few minutes, I think I agree :) So, are we ready to go? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, this is what I think needs doing (as well as removing parameters 2-10):

• Instances of WPBS:
  • If collapsed parameter is defined: no change
  • Up to 5 banners on page: no change
  • 6 or more banners on page and collapsed parameter undefined: add collapsed=yes
• Instances of WPB:
  • Up to 3 banners on page: convert to WPBS without the collapsed parameter
  • 4 or more banners on page: convert to WPBS with collapsed=yes
• If banner collapsed parameter specified for either template: leave it be
• If the bot makes an edit to a page, then it might as well expand the redirects: WPBS -> WikiProjectBannerShell, but probably not worth making an edit just for this.
• Retain {{WPB}} as a shortcut for WPBS|collapsed=yes

Comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it! I don't understand the reason to expand WPBS to WikiProjectBannerShell and WPB to WikiProjectBanners and would prefer that it be the other way around so that mortals can see how easy it is to apply a shell when it is appropriate but that is a minor point. (I do not expect a bot to do continuous runs through all the talk pages of all the articles to find where shells are appropriate. I do expect editors to become aware of the use of shells and want to insert them.)

I very much like the underlying principle that the preferences of the editors who have put shells on pages should be respected and maintained. There are many cases where the editor did not really understand what should be done but I feel that those case are representative of good faith efforts that should be encouraged.

For the record, after the bot run I will probably collapse the shell for two banners if an uncollapsed shell takes more vertical space on the page that does the text of the article. There are pages with multiple banners, generally three, on articles that are too short to be called stubs.

Has the bot been approved yet? When will the run begin?

JimCubb (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has been approved to replace templates, change parameters, and such subject to consensus being demonstrated: see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 26. So I'm just waiting for a little more consensus. Personally, I don't see why to bother changing any WPB to WPBS|collapsed=yes if we're keeping WPB for that anyway. I may also run the bot at a slower edit rate than usual to give other editors (who ignored WP:VP and everywhere else this was advertised) a chance to come back and complain. Anomie⚔ 00:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked and WPB does not equal WPBS|collapsed=yes yet. (See Talk:Garry Moore.) As soon as that changes, please run the bot and let the annoyed be annoyed.

JimCubb (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all fine with me. Happy‑melon 17:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So are we wanting to keep {{WPB}} as a shortcut for {{WPBS}}? If so, I don't see any reason to bother changing all the existing WPBs. I also don't see any particular reason to expand the redirects in any case.

I have no particular problem with having the bot follow a "WPBS if <=3, WPB if >=6, unless collapsed=yes/no is explicitly specified" rule on pages it edits for other reasons (this would include future WikiProject tagging runs), but before doing that I'd like to see the template docs changed to reflect the new guidance and to specifically state what people should do so bots won't mess with it (e.g. "To prevent well-behaved bots from adjusting the template to follow this guideline, explicitly specify collapsed=yes or collapsed=no"). I'd also throw it at WP:VPR one more time and give people a week to object before turning the bot loose on it. Anomie⚔ 01:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate and applaud your caution. Good luck on getting the documentation changed

JimCubb (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping I could be lazy and someone else would handle it, but no such luck. In 1 week, I intend to start the bot run as we all agreed above. Anomie⚔ 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Last-minute discussion

I may as well create a section for last-minute discussion, now that I posted a "final notice" on WP:VPR. Anomie⚔ 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well done for pushing this forward. Just a comment on the use of {{WPB}}. I must say that it is not an intuitive shortcut for WPBS|collapsed=yes. I only suggested it to placate the editor(s) who thought that collapsed=yes was too much to type. I think it would be better to expand these uses, because the syntax will be clearer. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  It's not supposed to be intuitive, it's there for hysterical raisins. And it lets us not have to add "bots=no" or the like to tell bots not to mess with it. Anomie⚔ 12:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  No bot will touch it, if the collapsed parameter has already been specified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly. If we deprecate WPB in favor of WPBS|collapsed=yes as you suggest, all those would have "collapsed" specified and therefore couldn't be changed by a bot again even if the bot merges projects to the point that only one banner is left. Anomie⚔ 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  You're confusing me again. What is the advantage in leaving them as WPB? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  If you convert them to {{WPBS|collapsed=yes}}, then the "bots don't change any shell with collapsed explicitly specified" rule will prevent bots from changing those shells. If you leave them as {{WPB}}, no collapsed is explicitly specified and therefore bots can still change them if necessary.
  Consider, for example, if there are {{WPB}}s on Talk:Foo and Talk:Bar each containing the same 4 banners. Leave Talk:Foo alone, but convert Talk:Bar as you suggest: {{WPBS|collapsed=yes|1=...}}. Then one of those 4 projects is turned into a taskforce of one of the other three, and a bot is used to remove the obsolete banner and add the task force parameter to the parent project's banner. By the guidelines we developed above, the {{WPB}}s on Talk:Foo and Talk:Bar should now be changed to {{WPBS}} (3 or fewer banners left). The bot can do this on Talk:Foo, but since "collapsed" is explicitly specified on Talk:Bar the bot cannot change it. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm starting to understand, but not really sharing your concern.

  • I thought this bot would be run once and then leave the collapsed setting to be set by human editors. I wasn't expecting that it would be run occasionally to update the setting depending on the number of banners.
  • If you want to distinguish between a bot and a human setting the parameter, then a neater way might be to use collapsed=set_by_bot or something.
  • I doubt this is going to happen often enough to worry about.

  Anyway I don't care enough about this issue to hold up the process. As well as going through Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters, are we going to go through instances of {{WPB}} and uncollapse when there are less than 4 banners (unless collapsed=yes has been set)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  My plan, as far as changing shells, is to add it to AnomieBOT's "general banner shell fixes" that is run when the bot decides to edit talk page banners. So every WikiProject tagging, assessing, or merging run done by my bot in the future will automagically change shells when appropriate just as it automagically syncs "blp=yes" and "activepol=yes", removes "nested=yes", etc.
  Also, the plan at the moment is to change WPB/WPBS found in Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters as necessary, but not to go through all transclusions of WPB (or WPBS). Anomie⚔ 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing... The bot has started. If anyone needs to stop it for any reason, edit User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TemplateReplacer15. Anomie⚔ 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done I'll leave the bot running until I see that someone has removed the deprecated parameters from both templates. Anomie⚔ 03:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I've removed them. Nice work, your bot works hard. I think the other task that I mentioned above needs doing as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to fix {{WPB}} too, so people looking at the source don't get confused. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

Anomie, could you address my request above. Specifically I ask if the bot could go through instances of {{WPB}} and where they contain fewer than 4 banners, convert to {{WPBS}}. There are now lots of examples of {{WPB}} being used for only two banners, (example) and collapsing the whole shell just to save a couple of lines is usually excessive in these cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Automatic {{Blp}} works in one shell, but not the other

FYI. I double-checked at the sandbox. As long as the required parameter living=yes is set for {{WPBiography}}, the {{Blp}} displays automatically within the {{WikiProjectBanners}} shell. But when {{WPBiography}} is inside the {{WPBS}} shell, the {{Blp}} DOES NOT appear. Blp does NOT appear in the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} either since WPBS is a shortcut for WikiProjectBannerShell. So for Biography pages, WikiProjectBanners is the easier choice. 74.178.202.19 (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

copied by Magioladtis from Template talk:WPBiography -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See my reply there. The BLP notice should not show within a shell, it should always be displayed externally via the |blp= parameter. PC78 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I see what you mean. However, this is a misconception: the blp warnings should never be displayed inside the shell, they should always be displayed outside. This means you have to set |blp=yes on the shell, as well as in the banner itself, as I've shown in the final example. The blp warning is too important to be hidden inside a collapsed shell. Happy‑melon 11:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that something should display when living=yes so that

1. The page contains the blp warning, in case blp=yes is forgotten on the shell.
2. So that maintainers can see at a glance whether the living parameter has been set correctly.

I would suggest a message which is integrated with the rest of the banner, like needs-photo operates, if the banner is nested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully; there should be a note in the banner in the usual fashion. Something to add to the (WPBM) sandbox version of {{WPBiography}}. Happy‑melon 13:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Since an improved version is on the way. Can we find a way that the |blp= is not needed? We could obtain information from |living= somehow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not reliably. We could use JavaScript to move the blp banner outside the shell, but that would only work for users with JS enabled. We'd need something like Variables (see Template:Bug, it's not pretty!), or a total redesign to the banner system, to do it automatically. Happy‑melon 12:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that

{{WikiProjectBanners|blp=yes|1={{WPBiography|living=yes}}}}

produces:

Is there a way to remove the duplication here? PC78 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does what? :D  Fixed. Happy‑melon 16:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like how it's still duplicated, but just hidden with CSS, though. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? Happy‑melon 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

TOC

Can you get a TOC on the talk page when using this template? For example Talk:Michael Nyman. Hyacinth (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the classic problem when headings are used in the comments subpage. The TOC was appearing just before the first heading, which in this case, was inside the first banner. I've now specified that it should be displayed after the banners. Unfortunately the three copies of the content on the subpage are unavoiable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just don't use headings (<h#>Heading</h#> or == Heading ==) on the comments subpage. You can use various CSS to simulate headers if it's really necessary. Anomie⚔ 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just not use this template. Hyacinth (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If by "this template" you mean Template:WikiProjectBannerShell, you're dead wrong. If by "this template" you mean "pretty much any WikiProject banner", you're technically correct but I doubt you'll get consensus for that plan. Or if by "this template" you mean the Comments subpage, that's not really a template (even though it's transcluded) but otherwise you're correct. Anomie⚔ 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actual consensus?

JimCubb is convinced that we somehow all agreed to what he intended to say somewhere ("WPBS for 2-5 banners, WPB for 6+") rather than what we actually discussed above ("WPBS for 1-3, WPB for 6+, either for 4-5"). Rather than start a revert war over it, I'll just bring the question here explicitly: What did we actually decide? Anomie⚔ 00:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the discussion in your talk page. There is a confusion which template is which. I support(ed) this one:

• Many banners (6+) then collapse as much as possible. Thus, WikiProjectBanners. (I hope this is the one with the single [show] line).

-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Support for {{BLP others}}

{{editprotected}} Please change the folowing:

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{blp}}}}}|yes|{{blp}}
}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{activepol}}}}}|yes|{{activepolitician}}
}}

to:

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{blp}}}}}|yes|{{BLP}}|{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{blpo}}}}}|yes|{{BLP others}}}}
}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{activepol}}}}}|yes|{{Active politician}}
}}

(Or use the code I've prepared at {{WikiProjectBannerShell/sandbox}}.)

This adds |blpo= which if set to "yes" will display {{BLP others}}, in the same way that we currently use |blp=yes to display {{BLP}} and |activepol=yes to display {{Active politician}}. I've coded it so that |blpo=yes will only apply where |blp=yes is not used, since there is no reason to display both on a talk page.

In addition, this change will transclude {{BLP}} and {{Active politician}} directly rather than via redirects. PC78 (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Would a backwards switch be more efficient? E.g.

{{#switch:yes
 |{{lc:{{{blp}}}}}  = {{BLP}}
 |{{lc:{{{blpo}}}}} = {{BLP others}}
}}{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{activepol}}}}}|yes|{{Active politician}}
}}

I think this would behave in the same way, although you might want to double-check. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That works too. :) PC78 (talk) 13:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As only one can be activated at one time, another option would be to use |blp=other or similar. Deactivating for now, to allow other people to comment on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Tricky one. I think I marginally prefer the two separate parameters, but there's really not much in it. Partly because I think inverted #switches are hugely underrated :D Happy‑melon 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be necessary to have a seperate parameter for this at {{WPBiography}} due to how the |living= parameter works there. For that reason I would prefer the seperate parameter here, to keep things consistant across the two templates. PC78 (talk) 00:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks in the sandbox copy. Are you happy with it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you did, but it works OK so I'm happy. :) PC78 (talk) 11:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the documentation. PC78 (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this a side-effect from some recent change of "BannerShell"?

In page Talk:Meher_Baba, though there has been no recent change within the templates code, there appeared an error. It wasn't so some hours ago. Within the BannerShell, the WP India template appears open with lots and lots of empty lines. I checked whether WP India has been changed recently, but there is no edit I can see there either. Can someone please take a look? Hoverfish Talk 15:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've already raised the issue with Martin. For now I've switched the position of the banners inside the shell on that page, as for some reason this eliminates the problem. But obviously this will require a proper fix. PC78 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks PC78. Hoverfish Talk 15:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This is happening in quite a few places I have seen. This needs to be fixed soon or I will revert. We can't have broken talkpages all over Wikipedia. Woody (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to revert, can you please use the code in the sandbox? I don't want to lose the newly-added support for |blpo= since that isn't part of the problem here. PC78 (talk) 16:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can give me an oldid of a good version, be that sandbox or the actual template, I will go with that. Regards, Woody (talk) 16:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The version in the sandbox works. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that {{{1|}}} is no longer on a line on it's own. Just add a carrage return before {{{1|}}} and that will fix it. It's due to non-WPBannerMeta banners using wiki-style table syntax and wiki-style table syntax doesn't work unless it starts on a blank line. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Has been sorted now, thanks. Woody (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apologies for this. And thanks to WOS for the fix. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Scientology

This banner currently includes a large arbcom message which does not collapse inside banner shells. Is this a problem or should it be accepted as a necessary evil? PC78 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd consider that a feature rather than a bug. Considering how contentious and significant Scientology articles have been and continue to be, the Arbcom decision should be highly visible. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding class=wpb-outside to the message box causes the message not to be displayed inside banners. I've just done this, because otherwise it stops editors from making decisions locally about how much information is appropriate for a particular talk page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)