Template talk:WPBannerMeta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Council
WikiProject icon This template relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.

Proposal to add quality criteria to WikiProject templates[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#Add quality criteria to WikiProject templates. The proposal was to add a show/hide link to the right of the quality rating so editors could more easily see what the rating actually meant. A mock-up:

Redwood National Park, fog in the forest.jpg
This page is supported by WikiProject Ecoregions, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of ecoregions. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on these topics. See WikiProject Ecoregions and Wikipedia:FAQ/Contributing.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


  • The [show] link will apply only to projects that have accepted the standard assessment scheme defined in {{Grading scheme}}, and will be implemented in {{WPBannerMeta}}. Projects with non-standard quality scales or criteria will not be affected
  • The [show] criteria will be in one place only, the {{WPBannerMeta}} template, not replicated in all the project templates.
  • The standard quality scale criteria defined in {{Grading scheme}} are extremely stable (i.e. cast in stone), but to ensure the criteria in the {{WPBannerMeta}} template are in sync with those in {{Grading scheme}}, we will make them both share the same text files.
  • Addition of the [show] criteria will cause an increase in page size for a talk page with just one project banner from about 30,000 characters to 30,500 characters on a desktop, and from about 21,000 to 21,500 characters on a mobile device. Since the main target is editors, and they will usually not use a mobile device to edit, we may suppress this feature on mobiles.

The response at the village pump was 4–2 in favor if the author gets a vote. Reasons against were that the template already provides a link to the quality scale, so this is pointless clutter, and it would increase message size. The reason for supporting is that editors would be more likely to click on the [show] link, so assessment quality would improve. Given the many pages that would be affected and my lack of coding skills, I do not propose to make the change myself, but would hope for a volunteer. Are there serious technical difficulties or concerns? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What about those with the extended scale? In my experience, those outnumber the ones with the standard scale. Also, what about those which have set up a custom scale, but the only actual customisation is to either disable one (often A-class), or to add one or two (such as Book-class or Redirect-class). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I would be fine with supporting the extended scale as long as it does not add much complexity. If there are simple ways to support more customized scales and definitions, that would be good too. Maybe there is a way to pick up any available definitions, so X class [show] is supported if X_detailed_criteria, X_readers_experience and/or X_editing_suggestions have defined values in the project context. But I would prefer to keep it simple to start with. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

More informative optional text for categories of Wikiprojects[edit]

Hello, when I will use the template {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} or {{WikiProject Plants|class=Category}} at some category talkpage, it will show text:

Category   This category does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

It is not much useful. Could it be possible to change the text to more descriptive according to certain Wikiproject needs? For example the mentioned Wikiprojects can have texts:

Category   This Wikiproject follows Categorization of journals.


Category   Recommendations for categorizing plants.

Or something like a wikilink to guidelines or to recommendations. I know that there is optional BOTTOM_TEXT for each Wikiproject template, but optional text would be useful for categories of Wikiprojects. How to do that? Snek01 (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Snek01: I have moved your question here because it is relevant to this template. The text you mention is produced by Template:WPBannerMeta/qualityscale. It is currently not possible to change this (and to my knowledge no one has ever asked for this before). However you could probably copy that code somewhere and make the changes you want and then implement your customised code using HOOK_ASSESS. It may be complicated because you are adjusting such an intrinsic part of the template (i.e. the class ratings part). Alternatively if there was demand for this feature from multiple projects we could look at adding the functionality here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing the "importance" parameter[edit]

Following the discussion at WP:Village pump (technical)/Archive 155#Removing the "importance" parameter from a WikiProject banner, I followed the advice given by Redrose64 and have done the required edit to {{WikiProject Disability}}. In the same discussion Iridescent mentioned that a bot could go around to all the existing banners to remove the Importance parameter. What do I need to do to get such a bot task done? If there's anything else I've missed or done wrong please let me know. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is the bot you want (Anomie I assume it falls under WikiProjectWorker and wouldn't need a separate BRFA?). I'd strongly advise leaving the assessments in situ but invisible for at least a couple of months before a bot run to remove them—if people object to the removal it's a lot easier to just make the existing assessments visible again, than to re-add an assessment to every page. ‑ Iridescent 11:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, leaving |importance=low etc. on every talk page is harmless - nothing is displayed, no categorisation is performed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone know where the discussions on removing priority/importance ratings are for {{WikiProject Disability}} and {{WikiProject Visual arts}}. I would like to summarise typical reasons in Wikipedia:Assessing articles. Is there an easy way to find other projects that skip the ratings? Aymatth2 (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Aymatth2 See WT:WikiProject Disability#Proposal to remove the Importance parameter from the project banner and the article assessment system where I proposed the removal a month ago, nobody responded at all so per "silence = agreement" I've gone ahead. "Importance" is often a subjective personal opinion and subject to dispute. It's also of little to no actual value in the project's article improvement system - the Stub/C/B/GA/FA says everything we need to know about the article's quality, regardless of what it is about or how "important" anyone thinks it is. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Some projects follow one the two "standard" schemes, which give reasonably objective criteria, and some follow tailored schemes, like {{WikiProject Iran}}. Most effort should be given to improving articles on the most central aspects of the project's subject area. But with some areas it may be unavoidably subjective, like the difference between low- and mid-importance visual artists. I hoping for ideas on when importance ratings don't work to use in the Wikipedia:Assessing articles essay. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
You might consider taking a look at WP:VG/A#Importance scale. I don't think anything there is out-of-step with your essay--I think it might be good to point out that breaking down a field into subsections and then providing assessments for those subsections can help with good assessment. --Izno (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: Thanks for pointing that out. I have added a note on it to the essay. An interesting approach that others might want to follow. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
As regards Visual Arts, a conscious decision was made not to include "importance" when the template was originally created a decade ago, so there's never been a "decision to remove it" as such. Occasionally people will suggest adding one, but it never finds any support. "Importance" really doesn't work on arts topics; someone interested in 19th century English history painting, someone interested in traditional Chinese porcelain, and someone interested in pre-Colombian architecture will each have a completely different idea of what "high importance" means.
As I often point out, what editors feel ought to be the important topics rarely correlate with what the readers consider important topics; in terms of what the readers are actually reading, Darth Vader consistently gets more pageviews than United States and World War II combined. To take the disability project as an example, if you look at what the readers are actually looking for there's not actually a very strong correlation between pageviews and "importance"—ultra-core topics like Speech and language impairment get fewer views than trivia like I've fallen, and I can't get up!. ‑ Iridescent 17:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
@Iridescent: Good points. I have added them to the essay. The pageviews difference makes sense: Darth Vader has galactic importance while the other two articles just cover minor details about one species on a small green planet. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)