Template talk:WikiProject banner shell

Report on Banner Template Updates

Background

There are 374,407 pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Not that all the non-trivial DEFAULTSORT conflicts have been resolved, I am adding listas parameters. (At the rate I am able to work I will not finish this in my lifetime.) As in my previous project, I am also nesting banners when it is appropriate. Because of this I will be able to report on the project banners that are not fully compliant with WPBS when I find them. I will add new information to this section.

• WikiProject Biography Template requires the nested parameter to be set to yes in order to nest.

JimCubb (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be a fantastic resource; if you are prepared to take the time to construct it we would all be very grateful. And also huge kudos for being prepared to take on the monumental gnome job of clearing that category! Happy‑melon 12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, User:WOSlinker and I have been working on such a list at Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Compliant banner list. It contains most, if not all, banners in Category:WikiProject banners and {{WPBannerMeta}}'s categories. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

About a month ago I was directed to that list and was immediately overwhelmed -- way too much information for what I was doing. I just looked at it again. WP Biography was missing so I added it. (It only has 618,693 pages that use it.) All the US States, Canadian Provinces and countries seem to be there. As I see it the only way it could be improved would be to have the number of pages that carry each template but that may not be possible.

I would suggest that WP Biography and the banners for all the US States be updated as soon as possible just because of the number of pages involved. I realize that it will be a terrific load on the server but it will only be worse later.

JimCubb (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum
Rather than re-invent the wheel I am only going to update Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Compliant banner list as needed. When I find that a template has been updated, such as Western Asia, I will change the N to a Y. If I find a banner that is no listed, I will add it. Okay?

JimCubb (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How close are we to having WP Biography compliant? JimCubb (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

Required parameter?

Is the |1= still required, the instructions say so, but I'm not so sure. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that it has ever been required, but is a placeholder which explicitly calls the first paremater, rather than a named one. I think that it's an optional artifact of the way that programming languages are constructed. This may be incorrect, however. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not required. Happy‑melon 08:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hate to tell you this but right after I read the above I added the listas parameter to Unexpect and, as there are three banners, enclose the banners in the shell. Nothing happened without the |1= .

JimCubb (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Happy‑melon 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A "1=" is required if the parameter value contains an "="; whatever text is before the first "=" is interpreted as the name of the named parameter, so we have to explicitly name the parameter if the value contains an "=". The old parser would look for the "=" in the transcluded text, and thus would have screwed up without the "1=" if any banner contained <span style="..."> or other HTML tags; the new parser does not do this, so the "1=" is now unnecessary for this template. Anomie⚔ 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about that change; of course you're completely correct, it was the preprocessor upgrade that removed the need for this. Happy‑melon 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reported a bug in AWB/KingbotK plugin. The parameter is necessary in order AWB not to crash. I am not sure that this is unnecessary. How do we distinguish the template for the parameter "blp=yes"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Verbiage

Could the template's coding force a change to the verbiage when the collapsed parameter is used? Please?

This is the problem as I see it. The standard notice for this banner is "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:". That is fine when this template is not collapsed because the collapsed versions of the projects' templates follow the notice. When this template is collapsed there is nothing following the notice. In order to avoid using {{WPS}}, which I notice is no longer derided in this template's documentation, it is necessary to insert the text parameter and use the notice from {{WPS}}, "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details."

I am getting tired of adding yet another parameter to this rather cumbersome template when there are six or more project banners on a page. I was rather forceably converted to this template away from {{WPS}} but I am leaning back towards using it because of its simplicity. KISS, remember? JimCubb (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're talking about {{WPB}}, not {{WPS}}. The notices are

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. (WPB)

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. (WPBS)

Is that a big problem? —Ms2ger (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what Jim is asking about, and while I'm not sure its a big deal, I'll see if I can work on some coding a bit later. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad hands! Of course I meant WPB, WikiProject Banners.

When this banner is collapsed none of the project banners are visible. There is nothing following the verbiage. It is worse than a contradiction.

See next paragraph for details on contradictions.

See previous paragraph for details on contradictions.

It is a null statement, an antecedent without a consequent.

I hope that clarifies the issue. Yes, it is a problem. JimCubb (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please report any problems. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The old verbiage is back and the show/hide button doesn't work. Has someone has been playing with the code?

JimCubb (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No one's touched it since. Where do you see the issue? Does is remain after purging etc? Happy‑melon 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just tested it again on a couple of random talk pages, and everything seems in order. I'm a bit confused.... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have been an IE glitch on the computer at work. All seems well at home on Firefox.

JimCubb (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed=yes has stopped working

On Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak. Any thoughts ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Worksforme, what browser/OS? Happy‑melon 23:18, 27 April 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)

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)