Template talk:WikiProject banner shell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconCouncil
WikiProject iconThis 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.CouncilWikipedia:WikiProject CouncilTemplate:WikiProject CouncilCouncil articles

Add tracking categories[edit]

@MSGJ Can you help add some tracking categories of {{WPBS}}?

  1. Disambiguation pages or redirect pages are assigned classes.
  2. Contains incorrect attribute values, e.g. living=no}.

If we already have such tracking categories, please let me know, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kanashimi
  1. It should be impossible to assign classes to non-articles. Or rather, the template will just ignore those classes. Do you mean you want to find these incorrect parameters to remove? Wouldn't that be classes as a cosmetic edit, if the parameter is being ignored anyway?
  2. Do you want me to track any values which are not valid as "yes" or "no"? That would be everything except yes, y, true, t, on, 1, no, n, false, f, off, 0. Yes that should be possible.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. GoingBatty mentioned that for these type of articles, the robot needn't inherit the class. I think if there is a tracking category like this, the robot can just delete the class.
  2. Yes, Ipigott mentioned that wrong parameter values could cause template errors. If there is such a tracking category, I think the robot can help to correct them.
Kanashimi (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MSGJ Thinking of tracking categories, is there one like Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells but just for articles (well article talk pages), i.e. not userspace or draftspace, etc. Would it be useful...? I'm thinking partly to see how much the PIQA bots have left to do in that area. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, but would be simple enough to set up. Alternatively, shall we propose adding the banner shell to other namespaces too? That is kind of out of scope of PIQA, but it seems that it has been universally accepted in article space, so editors might expect to see them in other namespaces too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kj cheetham I created Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Talk:48th Brigade (United Kingdom) is tracked as not having a banner shell, but it does have a banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid parameters[edit]

Code on Module:Banner shell/sandbox for tracking any invalid values of |blp=, |living=, |blpo=, |activepol=, |collapsed= or |category= and will place them in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else want to lend a hand at Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters and we can get these cleaned up — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed about 70 of the 100-odd talk pages in the category, mostly those with either simple typos in the living/blp parameter values, or those where an {{Image requested}} tag was mistakenly in the banner shell. There's about 27 remaining, most of which are where the blp status is unknown or conflicting. Harryboyles 09:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let people know that Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters is now tracking invalid uses of the |class= parameter. Basically anything other than stub/start/c/b/ga/a/fa/fl will end up in this category (sorted under "Z") — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

living/blp on categories[edit]

Should |living=no/|blp=no be removed on category talks only, since there are no categorization changes whether or not they're used? I've seen them on a small-ish # of very old {{WP Years}}+{{WP Biography}} categories.

Presumably, |living=yes & |blp=yes should be kept even on categories, since the category is then added to Category:Noindexed pages?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom.Reding: If you remove those parameters from a talk page with {{WP Biography}}, then the talk page will appear on Category:Biography articles without living parameter until the parameter is readded. GoingBatty (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: that's true on article talks, but not for category talks. |living/blp=no seem to be useless on cats, so I've started removing them while doing more significant changes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom.Reding: Thank you for setting me straight. GoingBatty (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bug?[edit]

What's gone wrong with Talk:Abu Bakr Rabee Ibn Ahmad Al-Akhawyni Bokhari still having WikiProjects saying they are Unassessed when |class=stub is in the banner shell? Is the length of the article title an issue at all? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kj cheetham, fixed, there was a stray } which presumably messed up the pattern matching. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted! Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add assessment date and/or assessed revision for article quality ratings[edit]

Reason: This way, others can figure out if an article needs a reassement (or if it's just a diffrence of opinion) without going through talk page history and article history, and only need to compare the revisions. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have this for FA and GA (possibly A-Class too), but not for B-Class and lower. However, I am certain that this has been suggested and rejected on several occasions - just not on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that might have happend. I'm just not sure where the old discussions are, so if you know, could you link it? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not dead set against the idea, but unless there was a concerted effort (or even a requirement) to use this parameter then it would rapidly become useless — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain why? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was implemented, I honestly can't see it getting regularly updated other than by a bot. I'm also not convinced of the benefits of having it at all. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Never mind. I was thinking it would help, but I guess there's no point if it's just a random date. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice idea, just difficult in practice. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OrdinaryGiraffe: Some WikiProject templates have an assess-date parameter (e.g. {{WikiProject India}}). If there's a particular WikiProject that you think would benefit from an assess-date parameter, you could discuss it on that WikiProject's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any point in having these parameters in WikiProject banners now that the quality rating has been moved to the shell? (I guess it could refer to the importance assessment.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was my original idea., because importance ratings usually aren't supposed to change. Quality is. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting ratings[edit]

See also: Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 10 § Conflicting ratings

A few suggestions to help process articles with conflicting quality ratings:

  • If the conflicting ratings comprise no more than a third of the total number of banners THEN use the majority rating
    • Rationale: the majority rating is more likely to be correct rather than an anomaly
    • Example: [1]
  • If there is only one conflicting rating AND it comprises more than a third of the total number of banners AND it differs by no more than one grade THEN use the higher rating
    • Rationale: the higher rating is more likely to be more recent as articles tend to improve over time
    • Example: [2]

I think these would resolve a lot of the conflicting ratings. Please suggest any more with rationale and example — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal changed from 25% to a third because that still represents a clear majority — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some television season articles are in that category because they are marked incorrectly as a list (Talk:A Certain Scientific Railgun season 1). Not sure how many of those are there, but those are an easy fix. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an easy way to detect if an article is a list? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Television season articles are not lists as they should have sections detailing various aspects of them. If they look like a list that is just because they are at a start level. So any that are marked as a list are just wrong. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A GA, FA or A rating should override the others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This information shouldn't be removed by bot. I know the number of articles involved is very large but the rules of thumb you propose are highly error-prone. In many cases the minority rating will be the correct one because an editor re-rated the article (e.g. because its quality had improved) but only changed one banner (because they were a member of that WikiProject or because they forgot to change the others etc.). This is actually what happened in the example you give, where B-class was what should have been used in the banner: it was the most recent rating given by a human assessing the article's quality (though I've now re-appraised the article and in my opinion it's C-class).
We still need to look at these on a case-by-case basis, but ideally we can group many articles into the same case: for instance, Talk:43rd People's Choice Awards, Talk:44th People's Choice Awards, Talk:46th People's Choice Awards will likely all have the same resolution, as might many other pages in some common awards category.
The starting place may be to identify how contradictory "List"/non-list assessments should be resolved. My suspicion is that the "List" assessment will be correct in most cases, but note that sometimes the intention might be to rate the list's quality like MilHist does and so this information shouldn't be removed without discussion by the WikiProjects. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your points, but without some automation I do not see any realistic way of clearing these conflicts and implementing PIQA which is the strong will of the community. My proposals above were designed to be moderate and low-risk, but if you have better suggestions then I'm keen to hear them. The list/non-list issue is difficult because there are lots of articles which are partly list and partly prose, and it is not clear how to classify these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to break Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings down by WikiProject and to invite people to fix this? It is only 120k articles overall, so if we get a hundred people from the active and semi-active WikiProjects to help out, it should be possible to deal with this backlog by hand (or Rater) in a few weeks. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a decent idea. We could either split up the category by using a sort key (so WikiProject Biography sorted under "B" for example), or we can create separate categories for any WikiProject that is interested in helping out (e.g. Category:WikiProject Biography articles with conflicting quality ratings) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort key only really works for articles that only belong to one WikiProject, so is perhaps not the best way to deal with articles with conflicting ratings (unless you want to sort by the odd one out). Categories should work better. —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll add categories according to the scheme suggested above. Once the category is created, it will start populating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be better to just use category instersection tools (e.g. Petscan). — Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
49621 for WPBio — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to start small: fixed all 18 from Category:Mainz task force articles. Off to the next WikiProject... —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the same as the category I was planning to make though. That is 49621 pages with conflicts which also have the WPBio template on them. My category would be just the WPBio templates which are causing the conflict, which would probably be much smaller ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter which of the project templates "causes the conflict"; from my experience in an hour of fixing rating conflicts today, the odd one out is correct a lot of the time (there were a lot of GAs with non-GA rating in the banner shell template). —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we tell how many of the 123k articles have a conflict only between Stub and Start? Nurg (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not with the current tracking methods. All conflicts are lumped together in one category. Why do you ask? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this might work if it doesn't timeout. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I asked because I wondered if they were (a) quite numerous (b) low-risk for an automated tool to deal with. Low-risk because Start would usually be the right class (my guess, and see WhatamIdoing's comment at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 10#Conflicting ratings), and the harm would not be very great in cases where the tool got it wrong. If it's only 1% of the 123k, it's not worth bothering with, but if it was 10% or 20%, worth investigating further, preliminary to farming out the whole lot for WikiProjects to do manually (if we go that way). Nurg (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a substantial amount. Just adding "WikiProject Biography articles" to Gonnym's petscan makes it not time out and yields 32663 WPBIO articles that have both stub and start ratings. Some of these might also have C-Class ratings but I guess a third of the total conflict is stub/start. —Kusma (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Template:Banner holder[edit]

Module:Banner shell is currently calling Template:Banner holder. I'm not overly keen on a module calling a template, but in this case the module overrides most of the default functions of Banner holder. So I'm wondering if this template could be bypassed and its functionality merged into the module? Ping @Izno who was involved in some 2022 changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banner holder is intended to be 1) a generalization for WPBS, which you reimplemented in this module despite using the general name, and 2) a holder for tmboxes that aren't WikiProject banners. I don't see an issue merging it into the module, but it would be prudent to separate out the WikiProject-specific parts into their own part of the module and then call the holder function, which should be a public API. And given the name of the module, that function should probably be the "main" function, with the WikiProject specific portions in some p.wikiproject_shell. Izno (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let's merge it into the module. I don't think the name of the module and its functions are particularly important, but no opposition to your ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started in sandbox [3]. Lots more work and testing needed yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coding finished and I'm fairly happy with it. Further testing still to do. @Izno: would you mind checking the stylesheets because I'm not very knowledgeable on that aspect? I assume I can merge Template:Banner holder/styles.css and Template:WikiProject banner shell/styles.css into Module:Banner shell/styles.css? Are there any further improvements possible, for example the hard-coded styles on L-37 and L-200? I don't understand your comments at Module:Banner shell/styles.css#L-54 but can any improvements be made here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get any response from Izno, but it passed all my tests so  deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One issue I've just noticed. It no longer makes the small banners large when inside the shell - (see Template:Banner holder/doc#Examples). This is supposed to be done by Module:Banner shell/styles.css#L-25 but not sure why it's not working now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Message box/tmbox.css#L-81 isn't being changed back to 100%, it seems. – Hilst [talk] 11:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be the order of the definitions? Before it was <templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Banner holder/styles.css"/> and now it's the other way round <templatestyles src="Banner holder/styles.css"/><templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/>. Perhaps the overriding definition needs to come later? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably what's causing it. In any case, you could always just throw in a few !importants :V – Hilst [talk] 14:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I switched the order in the sandbox and that seems to have fixed it. This is why I asked Izno to check! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing change?[edit]

Is it just me, or does this template suddenly have a lot less space between the contents and the border? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably related to the above. I have switched the order of the definitions. Please confirm (after a purge) if that is looking normal again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

class=NA[edit]

Most of the invalid values of |class= that are being tracked in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters are there because |class=NA. At the moment this is not recognised and these are just left unassessed. That's because non-articles (e.g. redirects and disambiguation pages) are supposed to be identified automatically and the class is only for classifying articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, presumably they can just be removed then? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl: The value of NA was never intended to be explicitly set in a |class= parameter, it was always set automatically under certain circumstances - such as that the |class= parameter is blank or absent, and the banner was used on a talk page for something other than an article (file, template, category etc.), and that the banner did not use the extended quality scale. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Unless anyone thinks that NA should be able to be set explicitly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:WikiProject_banner_shell&oldid=1221153220"