Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Padding

User:PC78 reports that Template:WikiProject Korea/sandbox looks like this on his/her browser (Internet Explorer):

I thought this padding issue had been resolved? Martin 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Me too, but then again I use a proper browser :D.  Fixed Happy‑melon 11:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks better. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 12:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Merseyside

I've attemted a conversion of this project's banner at Template:WikiProject Merseyside/sandbox. It all looks good to me, but can someone more familiar with the meta cast an eye over it? I'd like to be sure before I switch the code over, and avoid any potential screw-ups. Thanks in advance! Small-town hero (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good! But the colour of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside/Collaboration link suggests to me that you are not using this collaboration of the month thing, so maybe these should be fixed or removed? Ditto for Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside/Merging. As you are using so many of the extended quality classes, I might suggest that it would be simpler to use them all and do away with the custom class that you have created. Regards, Martin 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I'd prefer to keep things as they are in the current template - they can always be dealt with later. This is still a relatively new WikiProject after all. :) Since everything seems to be in order I'm going to go ahead with the switch. Cheers! Small-town hero (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another Padding Comment

There's a little bit of a difference with the border on the left when comparing the WPBannerMeta and Tmbox template. Should a bigger left border be added to WPBannerMeta? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the border should be bigger necessarily. But perhaps it ought to be the same as the border on the right, which it currently isn't (on my browser anyway). Martin 16:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The main difference is that the quality/importance rows have backgrounds that fill the entire cell; IMO it looks a bit wierd having a huge border between them and the banner border. I agree that the right image should have the same padding as the left image, I'll have a look at that. Happy‑melon 16:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I synchronised the padding left and right. What do people think about it overall? Happy‑melon 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks better now that left & right match. Not too bothered about matching with tmbox. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox parameter

So far as I can tell, the infobox parameter will always display the following text:

This page has been marked as needing an infobox.

Is it possible to have it use "article" instead of "page" where appropriate (to make it consistant with other uses of article/page/whatever in the banner)? Also, would it be possible to define custom text and even images for this parameter? This could be useful for a WikiProject to link to a specific template or page, for example. PC78 (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like there are two occurences of {{ns:0}} in WPBannerMeta/core that need changing to {{ns:1}} to fix the article/page issue. If you want to use more options for the infobox then there is always the option to use the note 1 parameters instead.

|note 1 = {{{needs-infobox|}}}
 |NOTE_1_TEXT     = This {{#switch:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}=article|page}} has been marked as needing an [[Template:Tulip Infobox|infobox]].
 |NOTE_1_IMAGE    = Nuvola apps arts.png
 |NOTE_1_CAT      = Tulip articles needing infoboxes. 

-- WOSlinker (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

What if notes 1-5 are already used? Is it possible to specify more? PC78 (talk) 13:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a |HOOK_NOTE= parameter which can be used to add further notes. See example below: -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

{{#invoke:WikiProject banner|main
|PROJECT          = Tulips
 |small  = {{{small|}}}
 |category={{{category|¬}}}
 |listas = {{{listas|}}}
|note 1 = {{{audio-file|}}}
 |NOTE_1_TEXT     = An audio file has been created of this article.
 |NOTE_1_IMAGE    = Nuvola apps arts.png
 |NOTE_1_CAT      = Tulip articles with audio files
|note 5 = {{{infobox|}}}
 |NOTE_5_TEXT     = An infobox needs to be added to this article.
 |NOTE_5_IMAGE    = Diamond-caution.svg
 |NOTE_5_CAT      = Tulip articles without infoboxes
|HOOK_NOTE={{WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes
 |category={{{category|μ}}}
 |note 1={{{navbox|}}}
  |NOTE_1_TEXT          = An navbox needs to be added to this article.
  |NOTE_1_IMAGE         = Diamond-caution.svg
  |NOTE_1_CAT           = Tulip articles without navboxes
 |note 5={{{otherbox|}}}
  |NOTE_5_TEXT          = An otherbox needs to be added to this article.
  |NOTE_5_IMAGE         = Diamond-caution.svg
  |NOTE_5_CAT           = Tulip articles without otherboxes
 }}
}}

Gotcha. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Another article/page issue

Could the WPBannerMeta/importancescale be altered so that "This article has been" is changed to "This {{#if:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}|page|article}} has been", so that it matches WPBannerMeta/qualityscale. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things...

1. Could the text for NA quality be changed to "This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.", as per other non-article classes and NA importance? This would be useful where NA-Class is used in the article space in lieu of Disambig-Class or Redirect-Class.
2. When NA quality is used in the article space, the forced comment message is suppressed. Would it be possible/desirable to suppress the forced message for other non-standard quality grades as well?

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Point 1 has now been fixed I believe. I don't quite understand point 2: what do you mean by "forced comment message"? Martin 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The "please leave comments here..." message that appears if no comments exist and |COMMENT_FORCE= is set. Now disabled for Redirects and Disambigs. Any others? Happy‑melon 18:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. PC78 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed section

In the Collapsed section, |c note 1= & |c note 2= don't work as there are two spaces missing from WPBannerMeta/core.

Could the following be changed from

{{#if:{{{COLLAPSED_TEXT|}}}{{#switch:{{{c note1|}}}{{{c note2|}}}{{{c note 3|}}}{{{c note 4|}}}{{{c 
note 5|}}}||¬|¬¬|¬¬¬|¬¬¬¬|¬¬¬¬¬=|yes}}

to

{{#if:{{{COLLAPSED_TEXT|}}}{{#switch:{{{c note 1|}}}{{{c note 2|}}}{{{c note 3|}}}{{{c note 4|}}}{{{c 
note 5|}}}||¬|¬¬|¬¬¬|¬¬¬¬|¬¬¬¬¬=|yes}}

Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that was this edit. Well spotted WOSlinker (what is a WOS linker?) Martin 09:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted.  Fixed Happy‑melon 10:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, WOS stands for World of Spectrum. When I first started, I was just adding links to a number of computer games articles. But since then I done a few other things. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You certainly have :) Martin 12:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

B-class checklist niggle

If none of the B-class checklist parameters are used, then the following is displayed:

| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
| b2 <!-- Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no>
| b3 <!-- Structure             --> = <yes/no>
| b4 <!-- Grammar and style     --> = <yes/no>
| b5 <!-- Supporting materials  --> = <yes/no>
| b6 <!-- Accessible            --> = <yes/no>

However, not all projects use the same parameters (for example, some use B-Class-1, B-Class-2, etc.) so this may be incorrect. I was just thinking that Talk:East Prussia might really confuse someone who is trying to rate it as B-class. Martin 11:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! I can see the issue, but I think trying to play with the default message is asking for a world of pain with optional parameters flying everywhere. Isn't the simplest method to make sure each banner supports this set of parameters, whatever their 'primary' parameters may be? Happy‑melon 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, maybe, but that will involve updating all banners which use the checklist which could also be very painful! Martin 13:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There aren't actually that many of them. Happy‑melon 16:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, this should be possible then. Shall we just change any non-standard ones to

|b1={{{B-Class-1|{{{b1|}}}}}}

etc. I've noticed some using B1, B2, etc. I suppose parameters are case=sensitive? Martin 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that looks good. Parameter names are case-sensitive, although the parameter values are not. Happy‑melon 17:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Huh? That doesn't sound right. Parameter values are case-sensitive, otherwise we wouldn't need to use constructs such as {{lc:{{{class}}} }}. Martin 10:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that parameter values are case-insensitive because we use the lc: construct everywhere :D. There's no equivalent construct to make parameter names case insentitive, unfortunately. Happy‑melon 10:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. All banners using the checklist have been fixed, and the documentation has been updated to prevent this problem in the future. Martin 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

class=Image

Would it be possible for class=Image to also recognize class=File after our namespace change? Just a thought. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes :D  Done Happy‑melon 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

listas={{{listas|}}}

It says in the template doc that listas={{{listas|}}} is required for the template to work. I was wondering if this changes means that {{OH-Project}} needs updated to include this? Is this a recent thing? I don't remember it always being required or even existent. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

This functionality should really be included in all banners, notwithstanding the fact that it is currently broken :D. I am waiting on a MediaWiki configuration change (T18552) to make it possible to use this system efficiently. But there's no reason not to include it. The banner isn't going to explode if you don't use this feature, but equally it's not going to do any harm if you do. You don't even have to document it if you don't want to encourage its use. Happy‑melon 13:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If you could include it that'd be great and I'd be more than happy to doc it. I just can't touch the template in its current state... Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 21:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I have found a number of instances where the WP Greece banner does explode if it does not have a value for the listas parameter but a banner above it, especially WP Biography, does have a value for the listas parameter. It is not a pretty sight.

I firmly believe that all banners should use the listas parameter, rather than the hodge-podge that now exists. I further believe that all banners should have nested=yes.

Although I am working to clean it out Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts may have examples of the above. Within the last 12 hours a bot has completed the listas parameter in only the WP Biography template. See what a mess can be made.

JimCubb (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The |nested= parameter is completely superfluous on WPBannerMeta banners; you can include or not include it at your pleasure, but if you experiment you'll see that it has no effect whatsoever: moving a WPBannerMeta banner inside a banner shell collapses it automagically. As for listas, note that this functionality is currently somewhat broken (see #listas functionality below; we're waiting on a MediaWiki configuration change that will make it much easier to fix listas conflicts both here and with other banners. Your comments in that thread would be very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

listas functionality

On the to-do list, there is check listas functionality.

It looks to me as it's not quite doing which it should be. Although there is some code in WPBannerMeta/core which does {{#if:{{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}}}} }}, anywhere that a category is set, it is overriding the default sort with the {{PAGENAME}} value. For example [[Category:{{{MAIN_CAT}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]

I think if {{#if:{{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}}}} }} was moved from WPBannerMeta/core to WPBannerMeta and then in WPBannerMeta listas was passed to core as |listas = {{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}} and also the listas parameter passed through to the other subpages as well, then category setting code could be changed to override to the listas value, For example [[Category:{{{MAIN_CAT}}}|{{{listas}}}]]

Would that be better?

-- WOSlinker (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The todo should probably be "fix listas functionality", it is currently as you say completely broken. I'm actually waiting for T18552, which will make the whole issue a hell of a lot easier (we'd just need to remove the sortkeys altogether). The solution you propose would fix the problem, but it would require passing parameters around that will become superfluous in the (hopefully) near future. I can 'fix' it if there's a pressing need for it, but I'm not aware of many projects that actively use this feature at the moment... Happy‑melon 20:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No pressing need, although if you moved the {{#if:{{{listas|}}}|{{DEFAULTSORT:{{{listas}}}}} }} bit from core into the main template, there wouldn't be any need to pass listas over to core. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, you'd have to pass 'listas', defaulting to {{PAGENAME}}, everywhere you wanted a category, so it could be specified as a sortkey. It would be messy :D Happy‑melon 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm meaning after T18552 is fixed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Then yes, as you say, after the bug is fixed it will be very easy; move the listas code as you say, and remove all the sorkeys from all the subtemplates. Happy‑melon 20:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

COLLAPSED_TEXT issue

If both the |COLLAPSED_TEXT= and |c note 1= parameters are used then the template doesn't quite look right. There's a small change that you need to make to /core to fix it. In the code below, I think you need to change the "2" to a "3".

{{#if:{{{COLLAPSED_TEXT|}}}|
<tr><td colspan=2>
{{{COLLAPSED_TEXT}}}
</td></tr>
}}

See Template:WP UK Politics for an example of the problem. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmn... This probably masks a deeper problem (like why collapsible notes and the collapsible text are in the same collapse box to start with...). I'm wondering (entirely unrelated to this) whether to spin off the C_NOTES as a hook and add some more normal notes and taskforces instead, since they seem to be far more popular... something to investigate. Thanks for the fix though. Happy‑melon 22:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On a slightly separate note, I've created a new hook at Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/todolist which can be used to replace a lot of the uses of collapsible text. I've got a list of about 20 or so banners which are using collapsible text which I could convert over to this hook. It also allows for more than one collapsible text section by just adding the hook twice. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've now converted all those templates I could find that were using COLLAPSED_TEXT over to this new hook. Perhaps you could add a tracking cat to see if anything is left using COLLAPSED_TEXT and also add some protection to the hook template. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, enjoy Category:WPBannerMeta banners using collapsed text. They're sorted by namespace. Happy‑melon 11:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Just remove wpb from the CLASS' values of the first TABLE and the collapsible text will function properly. <table class="tmbox tmbox-notice collapsible innercollapse wpb"> –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

But then it won't collapse inside banner shells. Kind of throwing the baby out with the bathwater :D Happy‑melon 10:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WPMIX

In order for this project's assessments to be properly tallied and logged per the WP:1.0 team, it needs to be revamped so that it uses the {{WPBannerMeta}}template for its tag. So I need this template converted over to WPBannerMeta, can anyone help? --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 07:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I see you've already made a start in Template:WPMIX/Sandbox. Well, I've made some changes to that but there's still more more than needs doing to it. Looks like you've need a custom class hook setting up for the Needed, Merge & Afd classes (if you still want to use them). -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, Template, Redirect, Cat & Dab classes are listed on the Template:WPMIX/doc|template docuemtation but not on the assesment page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I had just copy and pasted the basic template to the page before I went to work, I am looking to use the full extended WP:1.0 assessments in the template. I was going to work on it in my spare time in the next couple of days. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What's a lista?

What does the listas parameter do for WPBannerMeta?--Ipatrol (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It kind of works as a defaultsort for banner categories. For a working verson check out {{WPBIO}} §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

extra | in importance

High, mid and low importance ratings have gained an extra | in the rating box, eg Talk:Australian dollar. Template:WikiProject Business & Economics is particularly badly affected, with some text missing eg Talk:Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. TRS-80 (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed nothing to do with WPBM: [1]. Happy‑melon 18:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality Hooks

Currently, there are two hooks for adding extra quality scales into a banner: {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualitycats}} and {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/additquals}}. Just wondering if there is really a need for both versions. We just really need one. Which one is best? -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

/aditquals is less cleanly-coded (missing case-insensitivity, etc), but /qualitycats can only handle one set of categories at a time. Which one is more widely used? Happy‑melon 10:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

All there appears to be is one use of each: qualitycats, additquals. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a pretty marathon effort (I had about ten catgory warning boxes under the template at one point!) but I converted WPBeatles to use /qualitycats, so /additquals is unused. Msjg, do you mind if we delete in the interests of cleanliness, rather than redirecting? Happy‑melon 12:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You've gone and used {{WPBannerMeta/qualityscale}} in WPBeatles. So do we actually need either hook? -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Argh! On a pure technical level, no we don't, in the same way we don't need /hooks/notes or /hooks/taskforces. They're just wrappers for the internal templates. But they're wrappers that we need, because otherwise if we change the way things feed into the internal subtemplates, we have to update every banner that calls the subtemplates directly. If there's a complete and consistent 'shell' around the 'core' functions, we only need to ensure that the two interface with each other properly, and don't have to go hunting all over wikipedia to find the wierd and wonderful ways people have used the core templates directly. So while they might just be wrappers at the moment, it's still important to have them, and use them. So I've updated WPBeatles, and fixed the /hooks/qualitycats documentation that prompted me to use the internal template in the first place :D Happy‑melon 13:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't mind. It's good to be clean. A problem with the Beatles template, as I noted here last year is that FQS is selectively used. I don't think you have sorted this problem yet. Martin 13:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed not, that's a problem, and one that's become more difficult to fix with the new class masks... Hmn.... Happy‑melon 13:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, if you call the taskforce hook, you can specify FQS separately. Martin 13:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny spacing

On my browser the two NA's are not aligned in this banner: {{WP Crime}}

That was quick! Martin 13:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm bored :D Happy‑melon 13:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta/hooks/priorityscale

In the hook, Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/priorityscale, could the importance parameter be changed from

 |importance={{{importance|}}}

to

 |importance={{WPBannerMeta/importance|{{{importance|}}}|{{{class|}}}}}

as currently, it's use on {{WikiProject Business}} doesn't quite work properly on some pages. Thanks. (PS: Once it's fixed, {{WikiProject Mathematics}} could also use it) -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, PROJECT_LINK can be removed as it doesn't do anything. And is there any reason why SHOW shouldn't always be YES and not a parameter as well? -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The 'invisible' version is used on eg {{WPBeatles}}. Rest is  Done Happy‑melon 22:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering if the following would be better, which would then show the scale on the template page (as the importance scale usually is).

<includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{BANNER_NAME}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|{{#ifeq:{{{category|¬}}}|¬|<!--
Template Version -->{{WPBannerMeta/importancescale
 |importance={{WPBannerMeta/importance|High|{{{class|}}} }}
 |class={{{class|}}}
 |SHOW={{{SHOW|}}}
 |BANNER_NAME={{{BANNER_NAME}}}
 |ASSESSMENT_CAT={{{ASSESSMENT_CAT|}}}
 |ASSESSMENT_LINK={{{ASSESSMENT_LINK|}}}
 |category=no
 |{{#if:{{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME|}}}|IMPN|xxx}}={{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME|}}} 
}}|<!--Core Version -->{{WPBannerMeta/importancescale
 |importance={{WPBannerMeta/importance|{{{importance|}}}|{{{class|}}} }}
 |class={{{class|}}}
 |SHOW={{{SHOW|}}}
 |BANNER_NAME={{{BANNER_NAME}}}
 |ASSESSMENT_CAT={{{ASSESSMENT_CAT|}}}
 |ASSESSMENT_LINK={{{ASSESSMENT_LINK|}}}
 |category={{{category|¬}}}
 |{{#if:{{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME|}}}|IMPN|xxx}}={{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME|}}} 
}}}}|<!--Core Version -->{{WPBannerMeta/importancescale
 |importance={{WPBannerMeta/importance|{{{importance|}}}|{{{class|}}} }}
 |class={{{class|}}}
 |SHOW={{{SHOW|}}}
 |BANNER_NAME={{{BANNER_NAME}}}
 |ASSESSMENT_CAT={{{ASSESSMENT_CAT|}}}
 |ASSESSMENT_LINK={{{ASSESSMENT_LINK|}}}
 |category={{{category|¬}}}
 |{{#if:{{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME|}}}|IMPN|xxx}}={{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME|}}} 
}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>

-- WOSlinker (talk) 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, kinda. I tweaked the code a bit to remove duplication, but it's essentially yours. Good idea: we should try and do that for the other hooks as well. Happy‑melon 22:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Documentation and To-Do Lists

Someone might want to change the Documentation from showing to-do lists as to be done with Collapsed section to do it with the HOOK_BOTTOM settings. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 00:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've changed the docs for that section a bit & added a note about the hook for todo lists. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed notes

In the COLLAPSED_TEXT_issue section above, it was mentioned that it might be worth spinning off the C_NOTES as a hook. If that's worth doing, then could another hidden category be added, so that they could be converted over to using WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes against |COLLAPSED_HOOK=.

{{#if:{{{c note 1|}}}{{{c note 2|}}}{{{c note 3|}}}{{{c note 4|}}}{{{c note 5|}}}|[[Category:WPBannerMeta banners using collapsed notes|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}}

thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I know, why don't we add tracking categories to monitor every parameter... :D Happy‑melon 12:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the rationale behind all this converting of collapsed things into hooks? Martin 13:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

If they're not widely used, the code bytes would be better off given over to extra taskforces, which I know are in heavy demand (and are more complicated to hook, since they need two separate hooks). I should say, WOSlinker, don't change anything yet until we see how many templates actually use the cnotes. Happy‑melon 14:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't change anything yet. If we go ahead with the change though, the docs could be simplified to the following:

• Example using |c note 1=
• Explain that more than 5 can be added by using |HOOK_NOTE= and {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes}}
• Explain that collapsible notes can be added by using |HOOK_COLLAPSED= and {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Pages" versus "articles"

The WP:Tennis project seems to use "pages" for Category:Category-Class_tennis_pages, Project-Class tennis pages, Portal-Class tennis pages instead of "articles" like: FA-Class tennis articles, GA-Class tennis articles, etc. This seems "somewhat" coherent to seperate true "articles" from Wikipedia "Pages" that support the functions of Wikipedia. Is there a way to either work this into WPBannerMeta or allow the deviation through a parameter? (or tell me how "|ASSESSMENT_CAT" is supposed to allow this type of naming? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not at the moment. You can have either "articles" or "pages", but all classes need to be the same. Martin 20:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thought...

I think the "edit · history · watch · purge" text looks a little bit clunky where it currently is. Might I suggest the following:

<td style="text-align:left; padding:0px; background-color:white; border:1px solid #c0c090; padding:5px; margin-top:5px;"><sup class=plainlinks><center>[{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=edit}} edit]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=history}} history]{{·}}  [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments|action=watch}} watch]{{·}} [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=purge}} purge]</center></sup><br />{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments}}</td>

which would move this into a centralised position within the actual comments box? In either case, note the unnecessary extra space preceeding the {{·}} templates. PC78 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

IMO, it was better before (apart from the spaces before {{·}}). —Ms2ger (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. What does everyone else think? Happy‑melon 22:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we see the two options side by side? Martin 09:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This should give you a rough idea...

Current:

Proposed:

FWIW I think the bottom one looks neater. PC78 (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I prefer the top one, if only because it takes up less room. You've got that orange bar doing not very much - might as well put the links in there. Martin 13:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing my mind. Space is not an issue because it won't be displayed unless "show" is clicked. And it is clearer. Hmm, I'm torn. Martin 13:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

For one thing I think it's more appropraite to have these links with the actual message. At a glance, with the comments section collapsed, it's not obvious what they're for. PC78 (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I support this change. Could I also suggest that the template checks not only that the /comments subpage exists but also that it contains something? It's annoying when, occasionally, you go to check a comment and the comments have been blanked. Martin 10:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better if "purge" was "refresh" like it is on the Todo template? -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably. Might be an idea to add a link for "view" as well. PC78 (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit is to stop the archiving bot, as this thread is not concluded. Martin 15:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Bottom-importance

Some WikiProjects, like WP:WikiProject Comics and WP:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons, have a "Bottom" importance in addition to the other importance ratings, but that means that they can't use WPBannerMeta for their templates and still have that importance rating. Could functionality for Bottom-importance be added here for use on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis, so that groups who want it can use it and people who don't want it can ignore it? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just added Bottom-importance to the D&D template as promised. I'm not sure if it's widely used enough to justify implementation across the board. I know of only you, comics and cricket that use it although I guess there might be others. I know that Happy-melon said he was against custom importance masks, after all the difficulty in adding custom class masks, but let's see what he says ... Martin 14:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, it seems that {{D&D}} has been altered to allow Bottom-importance anyway, so unless other projects want this it's a moot point. -Drilnoth (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Martin! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with using custom importance masks per se, just that coding it into the banner itself is computationally very expensive and fiddly, since a correct importance definition requires the class value to have already been normalised; either we create two layers of normalisation before hitting the actual code (messy), or we re-normalise the class value every time we need it for importance calculation (expensive because we have to use #ifexist:). In the situations where a banner is custom-coded to use an importance mask, that's not a problem, because you know that the custom mask will be there, you don't have to check for it. I've tweaked our own /importancescale subtemplate so you can call that instead of a D&D custom one; I'll have a think and see if it's possible to be more elegant than what you've done, but it's a perfectly satisfactory solution. Good thinking, too. Happy‑melon 14:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm entirely willing to believe that it's difficult! But I don't quite understand. Importance depends on class but class does not depend on importance. So check the class first, then check the importance. Why would you need to do it twice? Martin 15:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hang on, I've got it. It would need an "intermediate" layer before the core. Yes, fiddly. Martin 15:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Small errors in importance mask

A couple of small errors in the importance mask have come to light while coding the {{D&D}} template.

1. There is a line that says "RM WHEN THESE ARE UNSUPPORTED" next to some classes which are now unsupported.
2. The switch at the end doesn't work because the namespace begins with a capital letter. (You could save a few bytes by using SUBJECTSPACE here.)

Martin 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed good spot. Happy‑melon 15:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated error: AUTO_ASSESS_CAT is passed to core, but is not used. Martin 15:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Needed a general overhaul :D Happy‑melon 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. You're on form today. Umm, request two headers up? Martin 16:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and is there any advantage in being able to specify NO auto-assess category? For example COMMENTS_CAT=none allows that. Martin 16:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That's on the todo list somewhere... during the next blue-moon season... :D it would be a good idea though. Happy‑melon 16:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Chemical Element

I'm working on getting {{Chemical Element}} to use WPBannerMeta at User:Peachey88/Sandbox/016 but i don't think it's possible because it sticks the articles in multiple categories based on its rating, for example a FA class article would be in the following categories FA-Class Chemistry articles and FA-Class chemical elements articles as well as Wikipedia Version 0.5, Wikipedia CD Selection and Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles. So I'm guessing it's not do-able or do you guys have some magic pixie dust wikicode that do can do? Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 03:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This should help:

{{WPBannerMeta/qualityscale
  |class={{{class|}}}
  |BANNER_NAME={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}
  |category={{{category|¬}}}
 |FULL_QUALITY_SCALE = 
 |ASSESSMENT_CAT     = chemical elements articles
}}
{{#ifeq:{{{category|¬}}}|¬|
[[Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Wikipedia CD Selection|{{PAGENAME}}]]
[[Category:Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{WP1.0/assessments|class={{{class}}}|category=Version 0.5}}
}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Use {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualitycats}} instead of this direct call. The principle is the same, however. Happy‑melon 23:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Some notes and a question

{{editprotected}} I discovered with {{CVU}} that if you don't have to thread {{small}}, {{listas}}, or {{category}}; contrary to what the documentation says. Also, I would like a parameter added to allow the "Portal" prefix to be changed for special WikiProjects. A parameter could be added that has the default of portal, can have its prefix set to any prefix, or if set to "Main" will have no prefix.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You do need to pass the small and category parameters. Listas as well, although it doesn't do anything at the moment, it will in the future. Regarding your other requests, can you be more specific? It sounds like a request specific to your project and so does not need the meta to be modified. I'm disabling the editprotected for now . Martin 08:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your template, although you do not use any categories, the category=no still has a use (I think) because it will let you put the template on a non-talk page as an example without displaying the warning. You could disable small if you wanted to prevent the small option from ever being used. Anyway these things are specific to your project and do not need changes here. Martin 09:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Weird display error with collapsed section

An error I haven't seen before. With IE7, the banner (e.g. Talk:Banksia brunnea but seems to be all those using the collapsed section) has excess spsace at top and bottom when collapsed. When expanded, the spacing is correct but the "hide" moves to the left. I might have to put a screenshot if other people can't see this! Martin 09:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I reported possibly-related issues a somewhat-long time ago, in an archive not very far, far away. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got Mozilla and IE both running now and I can confirm it's only a problem on IE. But it looks terrible. Martin 10:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've posted the screenshots of when the collapsed section is both collapsed and expanded. Note that the box is exactly the same size in each case. Martin 10:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(Gallery removed.) I've made a small change in the core/sandbox which seems to work (but makes the left border slightly bigger).

Current

Sandbox

-- WOSlinker (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks promising. The bottom version does look okay. Martin 15:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally! The sandbox version works great! This has been bugging me almost since this template hit the market it seems. §hep • ^Talk 20:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems our spiritual leader is not around today. WOS, if you are confident that this will work then you could put an editprotected up. Apart from it looking fine on both browsers I have access to, I don't know enough about it to comment further. Martin 20:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made the request but it's sometimes a few days before it gets done anyway.

{{editprotected}} Could a small change be made to Template:WPBannerMeta/core to fix the problem with IE (as described above).

Change the second occurence of {{td}} with <td></td>

Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the problem still occur now I've made this tweak? Happy‑melon 14:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that's broken it. Martin 18:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How interesting. How about the other part?? Happy‑melon 19:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's looking okay. Why don't you install IE to test it :P Martin 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

True... well  Fixed in {{td}}, so hopefully the live template is sorted. Happy‑melon 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)::::

All looking good from this end. Martin 11:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good here too. §hep • ^Talk 22:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments' colspan

{{WikiProject banner/Archive 3/comments}} uses colspan="2". This doesn't turn out right when |IMAGE_RIGHT= is used. I would prefer if it changed based on that, but most cells seem to just use 3 in every case. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In {{WikiProject banner/Archive 3/core}}, there's also a colspan="2" that I think needs changing as well. (The hide button moves on Talk:Banksia brunnea in IE) -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed both. Took me a while to work out why the one in /core needed to be 3, but it's cos /note uses three columns. Happy‑melon 17:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: I've been thinking about creating a subpage for bug reports. Non-controversial things which otherwise clog up this discussion page. Thoughts? Martin 17:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There isn't really much that goes on on this page that aren't bug reports :D We have bug reports, feature suggestions, and "how do I do X" threads, that's about it. I don't think it's got too out of hand, although perhaps we should bump up the autoarchiving... Happy‑melon 20:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more in favour of slowing the bot down actually! There is a discussion near the top of the page which hasn't reached a conclusion yet (I added an edit the other day to stop it being archived). There are some little things I find (e.g. small non-urgent errors) which don't need the attention of this page. But let's leave for now then. Martin 21:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

More on priority vs importance and hooks

While the hooks/priorityscale now works better, it's still not that simple to use and also end up in needing to duplicate parameters in the banner code.

I know it's been mentioned before, but it would be really nice if there were options for a priority scale in the main banner as it would be easier to use (especially for anyone who hasn't used WPBannerMeta much).

|PRIORITY_SCALE      = 
 |priority={{{priority|}}}

and then in /core the code could be placed between IMPORTANCE_SCALE & HOOK_IMPORTANCE.

{{#if:{{{PRIORITY_SCALE|}}}|
{{WPBannerMeta/importancescale|IMPN=priority|importance={{WPBannerMeta/importance|{{{priority|}}}|{{{class|}}} }}|SHOW=yes|BANNER_NAME={{{BANNER_NAME}}}|ASSESSMENT_CAT={{{ASSESSMENT_CAT|}}}|ASSESSMENT_LINK={{{ASSESSMENT_LINK|}}}|PROJECT_LINK={{{PROJECT_LINK|}}}|category={{{category|¬}}} }}
}}

The HOOK_IMPORTANCE option would still stay as it could still be useful sometimes, but there wouldn't be as much need to use it most of the time.

Thoughts? - WOSlinker (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Or, since everything else is the same, the presence of those two parameters just prompts a 'swap' in what's passed to the first /importancescale. I can see that working. Please tell me no one uses a scale other than "importance" or "priority"?? Happy‑melon 10:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a few (only a about 3 or 4) templates with a |type= parameter which is to be set as Template, Category, Portal, Image, etc. when the banner was used on a non-article talk page, but I don't think that's worth supporting as they should really be using the FQS instead. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to need much doing to support priority:

In WPBannerMeta/core, could

{{WPBannerMeta/importancescale|

be changed to

{{WPBannerMeta/importancescale|IMPN={{{IMPN|}}}|

and in WPBannerMeta, could

|IMPORTANCE_SCALE    = {{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE|}}}
 |importance={{{importance|}}}

be changed to

|IMPORTANCE_SCALE    = {{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE|}}}
 |importance={{{importance|{{{priority|}}}}}}
|IMPN                = {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{IMPORTANCE_SCALE|}}}}}|priority|priority}}

then, to use it, all that would be required is |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = priority instead of |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = yes

-- WOSlinker (talk) 20:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Would be good to support Priority with a capital P because I've come across that before. Martin 21:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Priority with a capital P can be supported in the Project Banner with |priority = {{{priority|{{{Priority|}}}}}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I saw a project (can't remember which now) which used, e.g. Low-Priority xxx articles, rather than Low-priority xxx articles. Martin 22:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw one project something similar for Importance recently, so I've just put in a request for a speedy rename after I'd converted the banner. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The only project that uses "Priority" is WikiProject Mathematics. We're not adding something for one project out of 1,400. There are 26 projects by my count that use "priority". You have an interesting idea here, WOSlinker. Happy‑melon 22:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooks and class masks

Question: should the class parameter be sent to hooks premasked, or should the hook pass it through the mask? It seems to me that the former is less user-friendly but is more efficient and also allows for custom masks to be used. Martin 21:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hooks should be responsible for ensuring that all parameters are handled as they would be in the template itself. So hooks should assume that all parameters are being sent in un-normalised, in shorthand notation, and using inverted camelcase :D. Efficiency is secondary to user-friendliness here. Note also that calling {{WPBannerMeta/class}} from a hook actually facilitates using custom masks in the approved manner. Happy‑melon 23:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you look at my category intersection hook, it would be necessary to call that mask three times! That's terrible efficiency ... Martin 23:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You might have to do qualimpintersect & qualimpintersect/core if you want to process it only once. -- WOSlinker (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That's certainly one solution; it's worked for the main banner :D. I might do that for /hooks/taskforces. Happy‑melon 00:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You could also get them to show on the template page as well then which would be good. - WOSlinker (talk) 07:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you two are good. Why didn't I think of that? I'll put my hook into a core straightaway. WOS, is there a way to do the templatepage stuff without affecting performance? I worry about having all the extra code on the hook. Martin 13:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't panic :D. As long as the code isn't actually being parsed (and unfollowed parserfunction branches are discarded and not evaluated) you're only adding a few hundred bytes of dead code. The performance impact is minimal. It's only when you're A) adding those dead bytes innumerable times, or B) adding code that is parsed and then discarded, that you need to worry. It's a point that we all forget at various times. Happy‑melon 14:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Happy-melon's favourite essay :P Martin 14:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually my favourite essay is WP:SENSE, although it doesn't actually say what most people think it does. I actually care more about performance than WP:PERFORMANCE really condones. Happy‑melon 14:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Right I am now sick of Template:D&D. I lost count of how many times I had to use the custom class and importance masks so I did something which is probably a Bad Idea: put the whole thing into a core. It seems to be working except that the core doesn't think it's the templatepage and I can't work out why not. Any help to make this code more efficient is definitely welcome! Martin 14:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And another thing which is completely annoying me. Sometimes it accepts D&D, other times you have to type D&D and there doesn't seem to be any logic to it. Martin 14:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox templates

How about putting the templates that are in /sandbox pages into a separate category, Category:WikiProject banners under development say, instead of putting them into either of the two main categories. Could also do the same for any versions in the User space as well. What do you think? -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, but I'm not sure how you detect whether a page is in a /sandbox. Maybe the titleparts parser function? Martin 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

{{lc:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}} can be used to detect if you are on a sandbox page. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've created that cat & it is now populated. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, great! Martin 23:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some in Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors though at the moment (due to the issue with the BANNER_NAME as you mention below) -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, I would like to request the following. When BANNER_NAME = Template:XXX, the template will behave the same if it is in the sandbox, i.e. if the page name is Template:XXX/sandbox. This will help when moving a template from the sandbox into the main template. Martin 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Note that my implementation breaks instances where |BANNER_NAME= is set as eg Template:WPAstronomy/sandbox, these need to be fixed. Happy‑melon 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

We have a small problem here on my own WikiProject's template. We have {{WPAFC/project}} which is a separate banner to {{WPAFC}}. (Finally sorted out for good that problem of separating the two types of article!) But now your tweak to implement the above is affecting this template ... Martin 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely you can just set |BANNER_NAME=Template:WPAFC and it will function normally, albeit by a somewhat counterintuitive method? Happy‑melon 22:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, because it's looking for the custom mask in the wrong place! Martin 22:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OH. :X Can't really think of how to resolve that without restricting the sandbox functionality purely to BANNER_NAME/sandbox pages, which is not desirable. You might have to move the template to {{WPAFC-project}} or somesuch. Happy‑melon 23:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You should move it to {{WPAFC administration}} (or something similar) and the redirect link would still be there. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I could ... but would it not be possible to interpret either the actual page name or the base page as the templatepage? Martin 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed, although I see you've already moved the template. Happy‑melon 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

B-class checklist

A couple of people have made a comment (and I agree) that the B-class checklist can be a bit confusing, mainly because the "B" is very prominent and it can give the impression of having two classes, or of having class B when it isn't. With this in mind I asked User:RobHar (who is good with images) to design something where the B is less prominent. He came up with

which combines the B with the magnifying glass and which I quite like. I suggest that when collapsed, the B-class checklist line takes just one line compared with two currently and that this image be used. Perhaps when it is expanded, the separate B and magnifying glass is used again (if this is possible). Thoughts? Martin 22:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I love that, but please can we have it without the green background built into the image. We're moving towards having the colours coming entirely from CSS, which means they can be fully skinned. But if someone changes the B-Class colour (or if the default colour is changed) the image will look horrible. But if we can have it with a fully-transparent background, then we're on to a winner.

It's not possible to change the image when the collapsible section is opened. Happy‑melon 23:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Might have to purge your cache, but the background is gone. This might be my lucky day after all. I've been without InkScape for..geez, verging on two monthsish? Anyways, it's working now. §hep • ^Talk 00:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Great! Well done. Can we implement please? Martin 21:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done Looks great! Happy‑melon 22:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just saw the updated version on Talk:German Empire and the greens don't quite match.

• MediaWiki:Common.css - #B2FF66;
• Template:WPBannerMeta/bchecklist - #B2FF66
• Template:Cat class - #b2ff66
• Template:B-Class - #c2ff66

It's not actually an issue with the banner code, but actually to be a problem with Template:B-Class template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of why we need these colours centralised.  Fixed in {{B-Class}}. Happy‑melon 23:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in why it's rated B-class and not all the criteria are checked ... Secondly, my idea was that this could take up just one line when it was collapsed. Did you try this? Martin 23:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that would be my fault as I converted this banner! Martin 23:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On my screen it does take up just one line, although the row is slightly taller than the others thanks to the image. What screen resolution are you using? Or have I misunderstood you entirely? Happy‑melon 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

On mt screen, the cell is twice the height as the C-class box above it. Resolution currently 1280x800. Martin 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be double the class template size for me to; I also noticed on this particular banner the first [Show] is cut off. (Screenshot) Vista/IE7 1440x900 §hep • ^Talk 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not this particular banner. It seems to be on all those that use the B-class checklist. I can see it happening on, e.g. {{WikiProject Iran}} and {{WikiProject Nevada}} as well. Martin 08:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=|cleanup=yes|~IMG_SIZE=30px|category=no}}
{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=|cleanup=yes|~IMG_SIZE=25px|category=no}}
{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=|cleanup=yes|~IMG_SIZE=20px|category=no}}
{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=C|b1=yes|b2=no|b3=|cleanup=yes|~IMG_SIZE=15px|category=no}}

Here are a few different sizes of image. Which one is preferred? I would also quite like to find a way of centering the "B" within the box, but we can play with that once we have a good size. Preferences? Happy‑melon 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Third one down? Martin 14:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Could we have one where the [Show] for the checklist isn't cutoff? §hep • ^Talk 22:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We could, yes, but it's so much cooler to only show the "sh", don't you think? :D Of course we can try and fix it; I'll see what can be done (or you can have an experiment yourself). As to this question, though, which image size do you prefer? Happy‑melon 08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, 3rd one down. §hep • ^Talk 22:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've now fixed the cutting-off issue. Does it look ok in all your browsers? Happy‑melon 21:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

/istemplate

Is a new subtemplate that takes |BANNER_NAME= and |category= and returns "yes" if it thinks the banner being rendered should display as an 'all options showing' example a la its appearance on template pages (null otherwise). This is to make it easier to be consistent in separating templatepage demonstrations from 'real' templates, and to make it easier to improve thsi functionality at a later date if desired, without having to chase things all over the code.

A couple of consequences: first, there's now no excuse for us not to add 'all options showing' examples to all hooks. I've done a few already, let me know if I miss any. Secondly, it means that we now need to pass |BANNER_NAME= pretty much everywhere, so we need to update docs etc, and existing banners, to make sure that examples are shown when they've been coded.

Thanks for all your help as always. Happy‑melon 22:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The change you did to hook/peerreview didn't make it show in the templates but I've got a sandbox version that works. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If you wanted to make the /istemplate, work with Martins {{WPAFC/project}} banner, the following code should work.

{{#ifexpr:({{#ifeq:{{{BANNER_NAME}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}|1|0}}+{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{BANNER_NAME}}}/sandbox}}|{{lc:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}|1|0}})*{{#ifeq:{{{category|¬}}}|¬|1|0}}|yes|<!--no-->}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done, kinda. It works, anyway. Happy‑melon 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer Review

I've been through the list of banners using the peerreview hook, to add the |BANNER_NAME={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}} parameter to them so that they show on the template page.

However, it looks like a large number of them don't actually use the peer review system as they just have a red link to a peer review page:

• Template:WPReligion
• Template:WikiProject Ukraine
• Template:WikiProject Indiana
• Template:JWProject
• Template:WPAM
• Template:WikiProject Nepal
• Template:WP Bhutan
• Template:WikiProject Austria
• Template:WikiProject Colombia
• Template:WikiProject Iceland
• Template:Finland
• Template:WikiProject Estonia
• Template:WPGC
• Template:WPES
• Template:WikiProject Greenland
• Template:WBLA
• Template:WPMASH
• Template:WPMP
• Template:WikiProject Artix Entertainment
• Template:Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

So, should they be removed from those templates?

Also, there were 4 that were edit protected, so I couldn't do them immediatly:

• Template:Philosophy
• Template:WikiProject Television
• Template:OH-Project
• Template:Fishproject

If Happy-melon could do them, that would be great. If not then I'll do some editprotected requests later on.

-- WOSlinker (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done the |BANNER_NAME= for the protected banners. I'd fully support removing any unused functionality from banners; after all, that's what this whole project is about. Happy‑melon 21:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll leave them a few days and then if nobody has fixed any of them, then I'll remove. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removing the peer review section from the banners listed above, I've just changed the link to Wikipedia:Peer review. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

If the peer review departments are redlinked, then the project clearly doesn't use peer review, so there's no point having it in the banner. When an article goes for a wiki-wide peer review it gets a separate banner on the talk page anyway. Happy‑melon 14:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

B-Class assessment system

Would it be possible to add a hook for a B-Class check-list, like on the WP:MILHIST banners? That looks useful, and could come in handy. I can't code hooks, so I can't do it myself. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 12:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

How about |B_CHECKLIST=yes :D

Happy‑melon 14:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

/me feels stupid. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just ammended the above example to highlight a potential concern. Is there not a better way to display the B-Class checklist instructions when the banner is set to small? PC78 (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've made an improvement, although it still makes the banner wider when it's uncollapsed. Happy‑melon 16:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Portal link

Would it be possible to add a parameter that supresses the portal link when a banner is set to small? PC78 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that's possible, but if you're complaining about how text gets squashed up, try adding {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|{{-}}|}} to the top of the main banner text. That fixes it (I know because I did it to {{WPBeatles}}). Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, an #ifeq: parser function did the trick. PC78 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Nooooo!  Done in /core, no need for scary hacks like that :D Happy‑melon 23:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance parameter in Template:WikiProject Korea

I'm keen on getting this banner converted to the meta, and have been putting some finishing touches to the sandboxed version. However, another check of the current template code shows that it accepts multiple values for the |importance= parameter, i.e.

|1|1ST|1ST-RANK|TOP = Top
|2|2ND|2ND-RANK|HI|HIGH = High
|3|3RD|3RD-RANK|MID|MEDIUM = Mid
|4|4TH|4TH-RANK|LO|LOW|5|5TH|5TH-RANK|VLO|VERY LOW = Low

Is it possible for the meta to handle these, or will existing transclusions need to be fixed? PC78 (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You should be able to use:

|importance={{#switch:{{uc:{{{importance|}}}}}
 |1|1ST|1ST-RANK|TOP = Top
 |2|2ND|2ND-RANK|HI|HIGH = High
 |3|3RD|3RD-RANK|MID|MEDIUM = Mid
 |4|4TH|4TH-RANK|LO|LOW|5|5TH|5TH-RANK|VLO|VERY LOW = Low
 |#default={{{importance|}}}
 }}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorisation issues

While I'm pretty much a convert to the benefits of the meta, one of the few reservations I have left is the categorisation for the non-standard classes. As I understand it, the meta will only accept categories such as:

Category:Category-Class fooian articles
Category:Template-Class fooian articles

etc. While this may be the de facto naming convention for such categories, it's also wildly inaccurate; these are not articles, after all. Is there any way for the meta to resolve this? PC78 (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The way to resolve it would be to rename all 10,000-odd categories that use that naming convention. I agree that it is counterintuitive, but it is the most common syntax in use today. Which is more important, being semantically correct or being semantically consistent?? What harm does it do to have the categories follow an admittedly anachronistic naming convention? More importantly, what convention would you propose to replace it? Happy‑melon 15:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There is still a significant minority of projects that use a mix of categories such as:

Category:Start-Class fooian articles
Category:Template-Class fooian pages

where appropriate, but as I said, I believe the meta is unable to handle such a combination. The proliferation of these semantically incorrect categories is in part due to the meta where converted banners have had to drop one categoriation scheme in favour of another. Admittingly it is a rather harmless problem, though it's possible that some might consider such clumsy naming a dealbreaker when it comes to conversion. Personally I would place a higher value on being sematically correct. :) What I'm really asking is this: how feasible would it be to have the meta use article and page interchangeably depending on the class being used? PC78 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a small comment, In Category:Template-Class articles, there are currently 645 categories ending in "articles" and only 36 ending in "pages". -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, If you relly want to look at inconsistencies, why does -Class use a capital letter and -importance use a lowercase letter? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Belarus

This template seems to be broken, in that it no longer categorizes articles by class and importance. I don't understand template syntax well enough to fix it. Could someone please take a look? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added in the importance & quality scales -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That's better. Thanks. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Two unrelated questions

1. How long should it take for categories to be populated by a template? I've heard about this "one-month decaching time" but I admit I have no clue about this. Here's an example though. Template:Carnivorous Plants was converted on 20th December, but there are still 339 articles in Category:Stub-class carnivorous plant articles, compared with 190 in Category:Stub-Class carnivorous plant articles. Why don't they move faster??
2. Would a "collaboration" hook be useful, do you think? I come across lots of banners which have parameters for notes such as "This article was the XXX collaboration of the fortnight. For details on the improvements made to the article, see the history of past collaborations". It would probably be coded quite similarly to the peerreview hook.

Martin 09:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

1, I'm pretty sure, depends on the job que. You can get such things to update quicker by null editing the pages that need updated. While useful for the task, bots should never be used for such a task. :D I don't have an opinion on the second item though. §hep • ^Talk 01:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

2, I created the collaboration hook, mainly by ripping the (excellent) code from the peer review hook :) Martin 15:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed taskforces

Something is not working and I don't understand why. I thought that to put taskforces in the collapsed section I could just put the taskforce hook with HOOK_COLLAPSED. But it's not working on Template:WP Banksia (this version). Also I was a bit surprised that when HOOK_COLLAPSED contains just text, it doesn't actually appear in the collapsed section, e.g. User:Msgj/Sandbox4 Could this be to do with the 2->3 edit? Martin 07:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The |HOOK_COLLAPSED= hook injects to the bottom of the collapsible table, outside any defined cell or even a defined row (otherwise putting some things in it would result in nested tables or other wierdness). I'm not sure why Tidy moves content that's defined inside a table but outside any cell to a position outside the table, but that's not its fault. I've made the 2→3 col switch on /taskforce, hopefully that will improve handling. Happy‑melon 08:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Banksia template is still not working ... Martin 09:24, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unassessed Class

Is there consensus as to which style is preferred: Category:Unassessed Amiga articles or Category:Unassessed-Class Amiga articles? The templates on Talk:History of the Amiga have placed it in both, though Category:Unassessed Amiga articles is a category redirect to Category:Unassessed-Class Amiga articles. Template:Cat class also appears to prefer the -Class style, which is why Category:NA-Class science fiction articles links to Category:Unassessed-Class science fiction articles, but that is a category redirect pointing to Category:Unassessed science fiction articles. --Pascal666 (talk) 08:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The first page of Category:Unassessed-Class articles shows a mixed result (but has itself Unassessed-Class in the title). While there appears to be a precedent for Unassessed XYZ articles, there seems to be a decent amount of Unassessed-Class categories as well. But that's just my observations off the first page, a tasting of 200 out of 1200 total. §hep^Talk 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, I think you'll find that Unassessed XYZ articles is far more widely used than Unassessed-Class XYZ articles, probably mainly due to the fact that this banner will always use the former.
2. Regarding Talk:History of the Amiga, it's the computing banner which is placing it in the latter category. (The computing banner hasn't been converted to {{WPBannerMeta}} yet.) I agree this is not ideal. Maybe it doesn't need the computing one if it has a more specific banner?
3. Template:Cat class will happily deal with both variants (but you're right that if the -Class variant exists it will use that). The solution would be to delete Category:Unassessed-Class science fiction articles.

Martin 08:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I am curious what was meant in the restore log by "needed for assessment tables to work properly." --Pascal666 (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed-Class Christianity articles & Category:Unassessed Christianity articles are a particularily bad example of inconsistency between different banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried to kill them, but another user pulled them into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 17#Redirects to auto-assessment categories. I guess fixing those template links will have to wait for a bit. --Pascal666 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

To Do List Category

The {{WikiProject Indianapolis}} banner has a nice feature that it might be good to add to the WPBannerMeta template.

If the {{todo}} template is placed on a talk page that also has this project template, and the todo list contains content, then this project template will automatically add the talk page to Category:Indianapolis articles with todo lists.

This could be actived be adding the following code:

{{#if:{{{TODO_CAT|}}}|{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/to do|{{#if:{{{{FULLPAGENAME}}/to do}}|[[Category:{{{TODO_CAT}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}}}}}

which would then work whenever the |TODO_CAT= parameter is set.

-- WOSlinker (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Might be a nice feature. I like the way it checks that the list is non-empty. I requested this for the comments subpage for a while ago ... Martin 19:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

listas parameter not sorting in certain banners?

Hi, could you give us an update to when the listas parameter will work? See: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#How to add listas sorting to a WPBM banner?. Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When the developers see fit to fix T18552, which is really not a particularly difficult thing to implement; someone with shell access just needs to change one line of config and run one maintenance script (although I realise it might be a fairly epic run; it would essentially reset every category sorkey on every Wikimedia wiki). I would encourage people to go vote for that bug if you have a bugzilla account, and to otherwise poke the devs in any way you can. Happy‑melon 22:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I voted for it at Bugzilla. Anything else we can do? Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Portals

If a TF maintains a portal, shouldn't there be some switches for it in the TF section? 76.66.193.90 (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it would be worth implementing this because I don't think there are many circumstances where it would be used. It should be easy to do on a case-by-case basis though. Do you have a particular banner in mind? Martin^Msgj 16:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it in use on the WikiProject Canada template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight with Portal:Spaceflight, which uses {{WPSpace}} - shared between multiple WikiProjects, Task Forces, and Work Groups, but since WP:CANADA also does it, it would seem a generalized form would be good. There's also {{AfricaProject}} to look at, since that's the template for all the countries of Africa WikiProjects, and some of them have portals. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good and Featured

So, there has been some discussion at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and, moreso, via IRC, which has reached some amount of consensus that marking articles as "Good" and "Featured" should be done separately from the rest of the assessment scheme... e.g., an article which is currently FA-Class would become a Featured A-Class article. I was wondering if this template could be modified so that "Good" and "Featured" (preferably not GA and FA) by additional parameters, separate from class, which (if answered as "yes") marks the article as being Good or Featured, respectively, in a box in between "class" and "importance." If possible then, could all currently GA- or FA-Class articles be marked as B-Class automatically, until more A-Class reviews get going (the primary focus of the IRC and discussion).

This is a type of intermediate step towards a goal of separating WikiProject assessments from other, site-wide assessments. Marking an article as "Good" applies to the entirety of Wikipedia, whereas the meaning of "A-Class" varies from project to project. In my opinion, and that of other users including Walkerma and Geometry guy, these two strongly designated assessments should be separated from the remainder of the assessment scheme.

Myself, or other users involved in the A-Class review coordination, can probably complete other things which need to be fixed based on this (rather drastic) change. If needed, a bot can probably fix current article assessments to use any new system.

Current categories would remain unchanged, except for renaming all "FA-Class tulips articles" and "GA-Class tulips articles" to "Featured tulips articles" and "Good tulips articles," respectively. All articles currently in the FA and GA categories should, in theory, be migrated to the B- and A-Class categories, although they will still be present in the Good and Featured cats, too. If additional consensus beyond 5-6 people is needed for this change, a separate proposal can be created for wider community review.

Thank you for your consideration of this topic. -Drilnoth (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we hold off on something like this until some things are decided, based on Kirill's comments here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council/Coordinators' working group -MBK₀₀₄ 05:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. While this is an interesting proposal, the change, as noted above, would be drastic and affect the entire encyclopedia and the work involved would be phenomenal. So we'd need to be sure that this had strong consensus and all ramifications had been considered. I would expect at least an RfC to be conducted before a change like this was implemented. Martin^Msgj 07:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"If additional consensus beyond 5-6 people is needed for this change..." Given that the last time a change to the assessment scale was proposed, the consensus of over two hundred and fifty editors was barely considered sufficient, to suggest that such a phenomenal change should go ahead based on such a tiny consensus is ludicrous. There is a massive amount of work involved with implementing this change, even more than for C-Class. That work can be done silently, but it cannot be done lightly. Let's see mockups, let's see concrete proposals and, most of all, let's see wide community participation rather than closed off-wiki discussion. Policy is not made on IRC. Happy‑melon 11:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay; just thought I'd bring it up now. Once the Coodrinator's working group is up and running and both this and A-Class is being discussed by more projects, I'll probably write up a more full proposal for {{CENT}}. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 14:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Taskforce quality categorization broken for Template:WikiProject Gender Studies

I followed all of the instructions here to add quality categorization for the Feminist Task Force into {{WikiProject Gender Studies}}, but for some reason it isn't working. Instead of adding categories such as Category:FA-class Feminist Task Force articles to the talk pages, it's adding generic categories like Category:FA-class. Any idea what I'm doing wrong? Kaldari (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted {{WikiProject Gender Studies}} for now since it was causing so many problems. Kaldari (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to set the TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT parameter as well. I have done it for you. You now need to create these categories. Regards, Martin^msgj 22:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Someone should probably add mention of that to the instructions here. Kaldari (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT (Required) – the assessment category to be used for the taskforce-specific quality and importance assessments."?? Happy‑melon 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't set up categories properly

I can set up the categories for some thhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:WPBannerMeta&action=edit&section=12e Physics taskforce. See the {{Physics}} banner. I want the articles marked by taskforces to be included what I wrote in the |TF_CAT_X =. Some articles (like 1 or 2 out of a few hundreds) are listed in (for example in Category:Acoustics articles), but doing null edits on the other articles marked by the banner with the acoustic taskforce parameters set to yes doesn't add them to the category (even though that article's talk page is marked by it). Is this a bug or simply cache problems? Help please. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 01:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have set up the banner correctly; I can't see any problems. Can you give an example of an article which is not in the right category? I just made a null edit to John Joseph Montgomery and it now appears in Category:Fluid dynamics articles so I think you just need to be patient and they will populate shortly. Martin^msgj 07:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think know what the problem was, I have a thingymajig (.js userscript) that refreshes my browser chache, but I thought it was a wikipedia cache purger thingymajig. I tried doing a manual null-edit that worked.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 08:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More taskforces?

An chance someone could modify this to support more taskforces? Perhaps up to 20? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces. You can add as many as you like, in multiples of 10. Let me know if you need help setting these up. Martin^msgj 07:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm looking to rework {{WPJ}} to make it more flexible for expansion and such. This might allow that to work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)