Template talk:WikiProject banner shell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:WikiProjectBanners)
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.

Bug in WikiProjectBannerShell: does not pass living= to WikiProject Biography template when given blp=yes[edit]

This edit removed the page from Category:Biography articles without living parameter. The WikiProjectBannerShell was already given |blp=yes, but was not passing the |living=yes parameter to WikiProject Biography.

I don't know if this is fixable in the template or if some bot needs to mass-update talk pages using these templates. I suspect that many entries in that category's backlog could be easily removed. (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no technical means (as far as I know) for the WPBS template to pass parameters to the other template, so yes, it is necessary to use both |blp=yes and |living=yes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


Why does this template no longer collapse? DrKiernan (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan: See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Collapsing not working. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


I wonder whether there is any need for this option. Using it without the collapsed=yes option (which I just found on a talk page) actually makes the banners longer as nothing is collapsed. How much is it actually used? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've tweaked the /sandbox to remove this option. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
And removed from the live template. I've updated the documentation. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


For many years, Template:WikiProjectBanners has called this template but defaulted to |collapsed=yes. This is rather intuitive because other than that the two templates are identical. I wonder if it would be simpler to redirect that template to this one, or perhaps we should add |collapsed=yes to those usages first? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have nominated Template:WikiProjectBanners for deletion/merging with this template. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 7 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Primefac has now closed the TfD and redirected Template:WikiProjectBanners to this template. This isn't quite what I had in mind, as we now have talk pages with large numbers of banners which are not collapsed. See Talk:Barack Obama for example: the banner shell takes up a lot of space. I think we need a bot to go round and replace {{WikiProjectBanners}} with {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes}} before we can do this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Also pinging Izno and PC-XT who commented in the TfD — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I knew there would be some outliers, but per Izno's comment on the TFD I figured people could simply add the collapsed option. It's certainly better than having to remove all the extra garbage from the substituted code. For the moment, I've undone creating the redirect, but the consensus is definitely (at some point) to have WPB be a redir. Primefac (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no substantive opinion besides that the end state should be a redirect. --Izno (talk) 15:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
4700 transclusions... A bot could replace them, or people can add the collapsed option as desired. I don't mind either way. —PC-XT+ 22:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have just posted a request at Wikipedia:Bot requests#WikiProjectBanners for a bot to do this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to JJMC89 for taking this on. A BRFA has now been opened. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The bot has now finished its work and Template:WikiProjectBanners has been redirected to this templates. Thanks all. This is now much clearer and easier to use. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Name of template[edit]

Would anyone mind if we moved this template to Template:WikiProject banner shell? Splitting up the words and avoiding CamelCase? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Aren't there a number of scripts and bots that expect the present name? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Possibly - are you aware of which ones? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
For the record, there are 17 redirects to this template, and they seem to cover pretty much all the bases. Primefac (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm also sure that retaining the redirects will be sufficient to keep the bots working. Is there any opposition to this proposed rename? Shall I start a RM or just move it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The odd capitalization for this template always gets me (from the days when we were camel-casing our templates, no doubt, rather than providing for readability). I'd support that move. I'd also support a {{WikiProject shell}}. --Izno (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I think {{WikiProject banner shell}} would be an appropriate move target, and {{WikiProject shell}} seems like a good name for a redirect. —PC-XT+ 21:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I've made the move. Please no more redirects! We already have 16. I'm planning to nominate some of the lesser used redirects for deletion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
So based on the whim of exactly three editors, all million plus uses of this template, which existed under its former name since its creation nine years ago, are now Wikipedia:Redirects. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Essentially yes, that is true ;) Is there a problem with that? If so, I suggest we open WP:RM discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


The following templates redirect to this template. I wonder if they are all needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)


Redirect Transclusions Note
Template:WPBS 12587 Former main redirect for this template
Template:Wikiprojectbannershell 0
Template:WikiProject Banner Shell 1124 Well used redirect
Template:WPBannerShell 306
Template:Wpbs 1007 Well used redirect, retain
Template:WP Banner Shell 270
Template:WP banner shell 11 Suggest delete
Template:WBPS 2 Suggest delete, unintuitive
Template:Bannershell 917 Well used redirect, retain
Template:Wikiproject Shell Banner 21 Suggest delete
Template:Wikiproject banner shell 0 Suggest delete
Template:WikiProject Banners Shell 0 Suggest delete
Template:WikiProjectBanner Shell 1 Suggest delete
Template:WikiProjectBannerShell 1088543 Former name of template, retain

I've added some proposals to the table above, basically to delete any redirect with less than 100 transclusions. Not sure about a couple of them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Shell, WBPS, and Wikiproject Shell Banner were deleted. After deletion, I migrated all transclusion to WikiProject banner shell. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


Redirect Transclusions Note
Template:WikiProject banner shell 163,090 The template itself. (approx.)
Template:WPBS 14,428 Former main redirect
Template:Wikiprojectbannershell 0
Template:WikiProject Banner Shell 1339
Template:WPBannerShell 334
Template:Wpbs 1,007
Template:WP Banner Shell 259
Template:WP banner shell 10
Template:Bannershell 983
Template:Wikiproject banner shell 0
Template:WikiProject Banners Shell 0
Template:WikiProjectBanner Shell 8
Template:WikiProjectBannerShell 1,097,546 Former name of template
Total 1,279,004

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC).

Update 19 April 2017[edit]

Redirect Transclusions Note
Template:WikiProject banner shell 403,940 The template itself. (approx)
Template:WPBS 20,093 Former main redirect
Template:Wikiprojectbannershell 0
Template:WikiProject Banner Shell 2,041
Template:WPBannerShell 541
Template:Wpbs 1,202
Template:WP Banner Shell 234
Template:WP banner shell 8
Template:Bannershell 1,022
Template:Wikiproject banner shell 40
Template:WikiProject Banners Shell 0
Template:WikiProjectBanner Shell 0
Template:WikiProjectBannerShell 1,136,005 Former name of template
Total 1,565,126

Interestingly we see almost all usages growing except for the small ones. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC).

Custom text[edit]

A text parameter is available to specify custom text instead of the default "This template is of interest to the following WikiProjects". I don't know if this is used anywhere, or perhaps this functionality could just be removed from the template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed. If this is in fact being used anywhere, feel free to revert — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the uses of the parameter are in instances of WPBS misusing WPBS to hide things which aren't WikiProjects, or in one case, to make two groups of WikiProjects arbitrarily. --Izno (talk) 12:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I see. Can you give me an example or two? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You can probably work through my recent talkspace changes from today--"misuse of wpbs". There were also some cases where the attribute or the template were empty, and a handful of others where it was used correctly but said essentially the same as the template currently does. --Izno (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
So this was used quite extensively. Should I revert my change, or are you happy to continue the cleanup operation? How are you finding these usages? Would a tracking category help? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

For 50 removals out of ~1 million instances in Talk space, you probably should not revert your change. I was performing a search of the sort: -intitle:"/archive" hastemplate:"WikiProject banner shell" insource:/\|\s*text/" in the Talk: namespace. Only ~900 occurrences of this pattern in that namespace, the majority of which are false positives with e.g. {{tmbox}}. I got all of the ones that I noticed out of that pile. A tracking category would probably find the rest of them in the Talk namespace plus any other instances outside there, since I'm sure I missed one or two given the large number of false positives. --Izno (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That same pattern in all talk spaces + Wikipedia space [1] yields about 980 results. Searching everything gave the same result. --Izno (talk) 11:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Tracking cat: Category:WPBS using custom text — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Will that edit capture an invoked but empty |text= as well as an invoked and non-empty |text=somevalue? --Izno (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
No, it will not detect an empty parameter, but neither did the template beforehand, so I don't think you need to worry about those — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
*shrug*. I just don't want someone copy-pasting an errant such use and expecting it to work. I'll leave the category to populate over the next week or two--most talk pages don't get too much traffic so all of the changes will be in the job queue. --Izno (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Code is in /sandbox if you really think it worthwhile — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Expression error at Talk:Kosovo[edit]

Could someone please investigate why there is an ugly Expression error: Unexpected > operator at Talk:Kosovo? It apparently stems from this template (as it only appears when it is included with anything embedded in it), but I could neither pinpoint the cause nor work around it. No such user (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Checking... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I think it's the PAGESIZE parser function in Template:Ifexist not redirect. Seems to have changed its behavior if the target is blank. Will continue to investigate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. The last revision in the history of Talk:Kosovo/Comments was a move and seemed to be missing the page size for some reason. I made a dummy edit and then reverted. All seems okay now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. No such user (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Empty template - no banners enclosed[edit]

I just made this fix. I think that we may need a tracking category for cases where |1= is missing or empty. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Primefac (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Class once[edit]

Wouldn't there be some way to just set the class once? It's kind of silly how a shell with three or ten banners cannot inherit the class rating from the parent template (and thus three/ten places need to be changed instead of one). All the individual banners are really doing in that case is giving a relative importance rating anyway. czar 21:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Czar: You should review and possibly comment at WT:COUNCIL#Overhaul of article assessments. --Izno (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to see whether this was even feasible from a technical end. If it is easy to implement, it's something that WikiProjects could choose to opt into or out of without much fuss. (That proposal seems like much more serious business.) czar 23:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that a child banner can't know the class if it is set in the shell, or in another child banner. As I commented on in the other discussion, that means a WikiProject would need to be comfortable with category intersection to understand the quality of articles in their domain, rather than actual categories. It would probably adversely impact the summary template of the numbers of articles by quality level crossed by importance; I presume a bot could be programmed to deal with that case, but right now its a trivial {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} call, I think. --Izno (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
See also Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Adding PageAssessments parser function. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Include a auto-displaying protection template for protected files?[edit]

Template:Documentation and Template:This is a redirect include some code that causes them to display a protection template whenever they are posted on a protected page. I wonder if it may make sense to include such a function on this template as well as it's posted on a lot of talk pages - or is there a better place? I believe under the terms of Wikipedia:Template editor this idea should be offered up for possible contestation first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:57, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for. Offhand, I see two possible things you could mean:
  • The templates you mention transclude things like {{pp-move}} onto a page if the page is protected. I'm not sure how well such a notification would work on the talk page of the article in question. Often the talk pages are not protected, so it could be confusing.
  • Automatically transcluding {{permanently protected}} or {{temporarily protected}} onto the talk page depending on it the article is protected. However, on pages that already have those templates, it would be redundant.
I might have misunderstood your original question, so if I'm wildly off I welcome your corrections. Primefac (talk) 14:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The first one, which is something the Documentation and Redirect templates do to auto-tag protected templates and redirects (respectively). The protection icons don't display on unprotected pages, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I think that's where you lost me. The Doc/Redir templates are used on the article itself, while WPBS is used on the talk page. There's no way to influence what appears on an Article by placing something on the Talk. You can influence what appears on a Talk page based on what is on the Article, though... but again, that would go back to my second bullet of potential duplication. Primefac (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, here I see the issue. The idea is to display a protection icon on the talk page when the talk page is protected, nothing to do with the associated article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
In that case, adding the topicon is really just a matter of taste. Is the little lock going to stop anyone when big "this page is protected" notices are on the page, or when they go to edit it says they can't? These are hypothetical questions, and I honestly have no opinions on the matter. I do agree that some form of consensus should occur before making the change, and I will cross-post to WP:WPT in order to assist with that. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
It's a matter of automation. As things stand, if the prot level of a talk page is increased or decreased (perhaps to unprotected), it is necessary to make a separate edit to add, amend or remove a protection template - whether that template displays a big banner or a little padlock. The proposal is to eliminate that manual edit, by having the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template detect the prot level automatically, and display a padlock if appropriate. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Fair point, I hadn't thought about the automation side of things. I'll wait a day or two to see if there is any opposition (though I see no reason why not) and I'll chuck in the relevant code. Primefac (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see this change as desirable, as it is not within the purpose of this template to deal with such things, and it creates the special case that pages with a banner shell and without a banner shell could be treated differently by the protecting editor--something that editor would be unlikely to realize/intuitive to that editor. --Izno (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this template being added to articles automatically?[edit]

If I recall correctly, there used to be a Wikipedia bot that automatically added this template to articles that were within the scope of multiple WikiProjects, like this one. Does Wikipedia have any tools that can automate the template's transclusion? Jarble (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This is now included in the list of tasks performed by User:BattyBot. Jarble (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Remove or replace WikiProject Council icon[edit]

A decorative icon WikiProject Council.svg was added to this template in 2013 (diff) at Rezonansowy's request (talk archive). Two problems with this. First, the image is GFDL/CC-BY-SA, so must be linked for attribution, with alt text for accessibility. Second, it's visually detailed and becomes blurry at single line height. I left it there in my most recent edit, but I don't think it adds anything other than visual and audible clutter. Is there a visually simpler and PD/CC0 alternative, more appropriate for small decorative icon use? Or better to remove it? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a particular need to have the image there, so if a suitable replacement can't be found then removal might be the best option. Primefac (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Never mind! Problems solved by recent edits by User:CFCF. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested Change to Wiki Syntax[edit]

I'm requesting that the template code be totally replaced by the wiki syntax version in Template:WikiProject banner shell/sandbox as of this edit. (Full disclosure: the edit was made by me. I have not used that account in years, and I did not realize I was logged in).-- (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Your change is not an obvious improvement in any sense. Wiki syntax is categorically inferior for widely-used templates such as this one. Izno (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Izno:, so wiki syntax are certainly more difficult on templates that require parser functions in which the table has to be embedded within the function (hence how we get things like {{!}}, but this template does not fit that description. There's no reason why HTML markup would be used here; perhaps you are assuming that something is breaking and I'm being secretive about it (and if that's what you're thinking, I get it - IPs are strange). If you'd like to inform that assumption, I'd invite/encourage you to try - that's what the testcases page is for. But I'll happily wait to see if anyone objects to the change.-- (talk) 23:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't need to be invited to a test case page--as someone with the template editor permission, I'm expected to use them where I am unsure how a request works. I am simply sure that your change is a) unnecessary and b) has in fact some negative affect due to a need for some additional processing of wiki text as opposed to direct HTML. --Izno (talk) 23:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
@Izno: You say you know what you're doing, but frankly your edit on Template:Old moves hints that this was a little knee jerk. (For example, you apparently didn't notice that the template on the talk page, which was used to illustrate the issue, did collapse before you reverted the change saying "not an improvement" ... and then you left the template with an alignment problem that it didn't have before.) If you believe that the processing argument is legitimate, then I'll leave you to that. Though I do wonder if you might edit all Wikipedia Templates in order to remove wiki syntax, or if you're just arbitrarily invoking the argument now. I look forward to finding out!-- (talk) 23:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Third Opinion

Hello: So the disagreement here is whether wiki syntax would be preferable to HTML code on this template. I admit that templates embedded within parser functions create some confusing lines of code to someone not especially familiar with template coding, but this template does not fit that description. The code in Template:WikiProject banner shell/sandbox (which uses no workarounds like {{!}}) produces the exact same output as the current code. Izno says that such usage adds additional processing load, and to be clear: he is correct. But this load (which is basically nominal) has not caused template editors to rush the template space replacing wiki-syntax-bolding (''') with HTML-syntax-bolding (<b></b>).-- (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Um... not to be cheeky, but how can you have a third opinion from the same IP that wrote the original request? Primefac (talk) 15:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Here's one: the request starts off with an unqualified request to replace the live template with the sandbox one. No reason or explanation. The proposer should either describe the problems with the present template, and explain how their change would solve those problems; or if there are no problems, they should indicate how their proposed change would be beneficial. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: I wasn't pretending to be! Sorry if you got that impression. @Redrose64: Fair enough! Just to be clear though: the reason was the "wiki syntax version" (generally wiki syntax is preferred to HTML).-- (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, so there are no problems with the template as it stands - or if there are any, you're not saying what they are. So presumably you feel that your proposal is a beneficial change. You want us to switch to a "wiki syntax version", claiming "generally wiki syntax is preferred to HTML" - where is this stated in a policy or guideline? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


I the "1=" still needed at the end of the first line? If so, why? It doesn't seem to have any function and the template appears to work just fine without it. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

It was never technically needed. However, passing an unnamed parameter with multiple sub-arguments works best when you explicitly name said parameter. So {{foo|bar}} and {{foo|1=bar}} are functionally identical, but if the <bar> value contains template coding it could exit that first parameter early. Primefac (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What Primefac said. It avoids any potential messiness since this template is for enclosing other templates. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Request regarding [show] and [Expand][edit]

I have noticed that when you set this to collapsed, the text that displays says "Click [show]" even though the actual button is called "[Expand]". See Talk:Tank Man for an instance of this. I'd prefer if this could be rectified by changing "[Expand]" and "[Collapse]" to "[Show]" and "[Hide]", although I'm not sure if that can be done? but I'd accept changing

|multiple [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]]. Click [show] for further details.


|multiple [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]]. Click [expand] for further details.

too. —A L T E R C A R I   12:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not really sure what you're looking at. Both at Talk:Tank Man and a half-dozen other pages I checked, I see:

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

immediately followed by the [show] link. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
How peculiar. I went back to Tank Man to see if I'm going insane, but the top-right button does say [Expand], and when clicked turns into [Collapse]. It's weird because all the contained WikiProject templates show [show] and [hide]. How could this happen?
A L T E R C A R I   12:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
No idea. Might be a CSS thing, might be a browser thing. Besides, there's no actual way to change the show/hide link itself, because it's being displayed due to this line of code:
<table role="presentation" class="tmbox tmbox-notice wpbs mbox-inside mw-collapsible mw-collapsed" style="border-collapse:separate;" cellspacing="4">
So I think it's user-side rather than a server-side thing. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into this. User-side like my Wiki account? Or my computer settings? Could it because I set my Wikipedia to en-gb? I'm not very tecky so I don't usually mess with settings much... I'd be surprised if this irregularity were just me.
A L T E R C A R I   13:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
That is indeed the case. I never changed it to en-gb because seeing "en-English" in the language preferences made me think there only was one en- setting. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Foiled again by American English, the One True English 🙄
A L T E R C A R I   14:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
@Altercari: That preference is one of the most misunderstood that we have. "en-English" is not American English - it is a generic, international form. The fact that two others (en-gb and en-ca) also exist merely adds to the confusion, especially since the system messages are normally updated for the en form, but not for the other two. Few people will experience difficulty if they switched from en-gb or en-ca to plain en. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2017 (UTC)