Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Automatic |tf_n=yes based on |TF_n_XYZ?

If someone fills in |TF_n_XYZ= (e.g. |TF_n_QUALITY=), would it be sensible to automatically trigger |tf_n=? I feel as though if you're assigning a taskforce quality rating, that it's safe to presume that taskforce should be activated. This would be particularly helpful for the WP:RATER tool. Since any text in |tf_n= will activate the section, the template could just include the nested parameters:

|tf_n={{yesno|{{{tf 4|{{{TF_n_LINK|{{{TF_n_NAME|{{{TF_n_NESTED|{{{TF_n_IMAGE|{{{TF_n_TEXT|{{{TF_n_QUALITY|{{{TF_n_MAIN_CAT|¬}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}|yes|¬=¬}}

Thoughts? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

|TF_n_QUALITY= is set at the project template, but the |tf_n= is set at each article. The quality is just inherited from the main quality rating of that article; it is not specified for each task force. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: just wondering if my answer made any sense? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:10, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ:. Woops, I meant to use |TF_n_IMP= rather than |TF_n_QUALITY= as the example. Because currently, if |TF_n= isn't filled in, the template will ignore |TF_n_IMP=. The template I'm working on is {{WikiProject_Molecular_Biology}}.

Example: {{WikiProject Molecular Biology |class=Stub |importance=Low |RNA-imp=high |MCB-importance=low}} returns:

but should really return:

So the query is more about whether we can automatically assume |TF_n= is yes if any of the |TF_n_XYZ= parameters are filled. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I understand your point now. Typically the only taskforce parameter that is set at the article level is the importance. So you are saying that if |biophysics-imp= is set to any value, then we should assume that |biophysics=yes? That would be fairly simple to implement. Are there any possible side effects of doing this? What if |biophysics-imp=cheesecake, i.e. an unrecognised value - should that trigger the taskforce as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

On this matter, I occasionally see a parameter pair compressed into a single one. Take for instance Talk:László Szőcs - here, the {{WikiProject Football}} has |variants=mid which is not-quite invalid - it is treated as if it were |variants=yes but I suspect that the intention was |variants=yes|variants-importance=mid. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've not need that before, but it is efficient. Currently this is not recognised by the template, but it might be logical to make the taskforce importance default to the value of the taskforce activiation parameter? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 May 2020

Please change Template:WPBannerMeta/core to Template:WPBannerMeta/core/sandbox (+protection template) diff. This change makes it so that the JS for collapsible is initialized slightly sooner and bypasses the collapsible to mw-collapsible proxy wrapper of en.wp. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 08:31, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I put a test on Template:WPBannerMeta/testcases. The alignment is slightly different in the new version, but it is not an issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done no other comments so I have made the change. If the alignment change is worrying anyone we can revert/discuss — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Detecting conflicts in class values

Is there a way to identify conflicts between a page's assigned class value and what would otherwise be automatically detected? E.g., a redirect or a page in the Category namespace tagged as stub-class. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not currently, but it would be simple enough to code on a particular project's banner — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It's not needed so much that I'd ask for an actual implementation; just something that I thought would be nice to have. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:54, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

We've only used automatic detection of a page's class value if no class is defined. (If the class is defined then this will always be used.) I think this is the right approach in general, but any project can change this default behaviour by using a custom class mask. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: There probably are a few other cases where it might be useful to do automatic detection. For example, if an article is in mainspace but is tagged as "Draft class", it certainly means that whoever moved it to mainspace forgot to remove that it was a draft, and it should be treated as if the class were left undefined. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Portal

I was just looking at the history of /core. This change looks invalid to me (incorrect syntax) so I'm not sure if it's achieving what it was meant to. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there's a misplaced pipe in one line. Instead of this:

  {{#ifexist: Portal:{{{PORTAL|}}}|

it should have been this:

  |{{#ifexist: Portal:{{{PORTAL|}}}

The purpose, IIRC, was to suppress the display of a redlinked portal at a time when a large number of portals were being deleted without all incoming links being removed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind I see it was undone a few days later — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Inactive project layout

The following is extremely jarring when encountered

The inactive project should be center-aligned just like the active ones. And the (Inactive) links should be at the same place as the (Raged X-class). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, looks good to me. Can you code it in the sandbox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

It's something to do with Template:Inactive WikiProject banner I think. I figured someone here would know where the code was hosted and have a quick fix, but I suppose I can dig deeper. It will likely take me some time, as I don't know how this template is structured, or how it interacts with {{WPBS}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

So far, this is looking beyond my skills. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

How's that looking on your browser? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: looks tip top on every browser I have tried (Chrome, Firefox). Nothing displays on mobile though, but I believe that's normal behaviour. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay I think I'll wait for someone (is WOSlinker still around??) to check my changes to these templates:

• Template:WPBannerMeta/sandbox
• Template:WPBannerMeta/core/sandbox
• Template:Inactive WikiProject banner/sandbox

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(If I was clever I would add the diff links, but I'm not) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ:, the code you moved from the core to the main template needs to stay in core as the class and importance param values are normalised before being passed to the core template. See example below. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, good catch. I was trying to simplify the logic in /core so I wouldn't need to work out the same thing three times! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Reverted to my previous version. Hopefully looking better now. Good to see you by the way. This is like the old days ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking good now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I added further testcases. Feel free to check {{WikiProject Resource Exchange}} / {{WikiProject Resource Exchange/sandbox}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That's the normal expected behaviour because that template doesn't do any assessments — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Unless you're suggesting that every project should be right-aligned at the middle? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

That is actually much easier to implement that way. How are we looking now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Wikiproject names should always be centered in the usual style. Looks great here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Deployed, now just sit back and wait for the error reports to come in! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Woohoo, party time. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Couple more

There is one that still stands out, Template:MILHIST

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Milhist doesn't use this template, so can't do anything about that! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, it could be converted, or its html adjusted, or whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Some changes in the sandbox should anyone wish to review. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Milhist is just one of three remaining WikiProject banners that do not use {{WPBannerMeta}}, the others being, so far as I know, {{Maths rating}} and {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}} - see Template:WPBannerMeta/Conversion. These held out against the general conversion that occurred 10+ years ago, and even though some considerable time has elapsed, these individual WikiProjects should each be asked to show their consensus before the banner is converted to WPBannerMeta (particularly so in the case of milhist which is both one of the oldest WikiProjects and one of those with the greatest activity). In all that time, the only conversions that I am aware of are {{WikiProject Tropical cyclones}} in July 2011, {{WikiProject Ships}} in August 2012, {{WikiProject Systems}} in September 2012, and {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} in August 2020 - almost eight years since the last one. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WOSlinker's changes are a tweak to the spacing in the template, that's all — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:39, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, looks as though WikiProject U.S. Roads and Maths rating would need tweaking as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: You may want to poke in on MATHS; they're discussing that topic right now. WT:WPMATH#Proposed change to Template:Maths rating from 2018. --Izno (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Code looks good WOSlinker. Question: because we have homogenised the display of these banners when nested, is it still necessary to use 3 columns with one empty cell? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I've just removed the 3rd column in core/sandbox and it still looks ok, although the center line has moved a little. Does the hidden metadata need to be in the header or would that be better in the main description area? -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Can't quite remember. I think it was something to fix a bug in Internet Explorer. Some related discussion at the bottom of Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 6#Template:WikiProjectBoxing. I notice at the moment the second museum banner above is the best because it doesn't move sideways when uncollapsed. So you've done something right! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It still moves, just not a whole lot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The current sandbox version with only the 2 table cells in the header seems to work ok in IE11. Also means that there's no need to update those 3 non-WPBannerMeta project banner templates. I'll wait until tommorrow incase there are any other comments and then copy into live. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks good from my perpective — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems only US Roads and Maths need a bit of tweaking now. {{Maths rating}}/{{maths banner}} can be merged and converted to a proper {{WikiProject Mathematics}} with the current metabanner though (discussion). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I have coded a version in Template:Maths rating/sandbox sandbox and commented over there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Portals

WikiProject Portals seems to be using a forked copy of the meta template. Does anyone know why? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably a good idea to ping the forker, @Evad37: Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:12, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, it was forked mainly so that portals can be assessed for quality and importance according to the portal project's assessment scales, rather than automatically assuming Portal-class/NA-importance, and to map FA/FP ratings to FPo. There might have been some discussion in the archives of the portal project's talk pages - Evad37 [talk] 22:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It might have also been to suppress the "does not require assessment" wording for pages (portals) which do actually require assessment. - Evad37 [talk] 22:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll see if I can work up a version which requires less "forking" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The main problem (as Evad mentioned above) is this code from /qualityscale:

{{#ifeq:{{pagetype|{{{class|}}}}}|article
 |has {{#if:{{{class|}}}
  |been rated as '''{{{class}}}-Class'''
  |not yet received a rating
 }}
 |does not require a rating
}}

which will always assume that a non-article does not require a rating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:13, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up: I have converted the portals project banner back to use this meta-template, but I hooked customised versions of /qualityscale and /importancescale instead. It looks to be working correctly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Alignment

When the image is narrower than the class rating, and notes are used, the columns do not align nicely.

On my browser the indentation for the final row is much less than for the other rows in the table. Is there a good way to fix this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

It's because the /Note template, or one of its immediate parent templates, creates its own sub-table in a cell which is 3 cells wide. That means it does not inherit the same widths as the cells in the rest of the table. --Izno (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The pertinent code is

<tr><td colspan="3" style="padding:0;">{{#ifexpr:{{#switch:{{{auto}}}|yes|stub={{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|Stub|1|0}}|inherit|length={{#if:{{{class|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{attention}}}|yes|1|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{infobox}}}|yes|1|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 1}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_1_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 2}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_2_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 3}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_3_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 4}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_4_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 5}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_5_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 6}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_6_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 7}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_7_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 8}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_8_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 9}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_9_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{#ifeq:{{{note 10}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{N_10_TEXT|}}}|1|0}}|0}}+
{{{HOOK_COLLAPSED|0}}}>{{#iferror:{{#expr:0+{{{COLLAPSED|¬}}}*1}}|{{#ifeq:{{{small}}}|yes|0|2}}}}
|<table class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%; background:transparent;">
<tr><th colspan="3" style="text-align:left; padding:0.2em 2px 0.2em 0"> {{{COLLAPSED_HEAD}}}</th></tr>
|<table style="width:100%; background:transparent;">
}}

In /core. A fix for that is not obvious to me (because this template still needs to come into the 21st century with its table layout and wikitext backend -> div or even flow/grid and Lua), though it may be possible in CSS rather than changing the structure. --Izno (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

In many banners these notes are in a collapsed table, so a sub-table is clearly needed. But when they are not collapsed (like the example above) is there any reason why the sub-table is needed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't see a reason why. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I may have a play in the sandbox then — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:47, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Testing sandbox code below. Uncollapsed version does not start a new table, so columns line up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Izno: would you double-check my code please (diff)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Yes, looks fine. (Rough, but such is the nature of wikitext.) --Izno (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

One day it will get converted to Lua! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm on a kick right now, so it might be me that starts it. (No promises.) --Izno (talk) 14:15, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Sounds good! I'll do what I can to simplify the template in the meantime (like #Small) which should make it a bit easier for you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

This is now  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Small

It's a long time since I found any project using the small format for WikiProject banners. Would it be safe to turn this feature off? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I have found a few in the last year or so. It's not really a per-project thing, but used as an alternative to WPBS when a talk page has several notices and a long TOC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

We used to have a tracking category for this, but I couldn't find it ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Found it: Category:Small talk page templates. There are 0 which is about 0% of all pages using project banners. I will do some further analysis shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

In a random sample of 20 pages in that category, I found that on half, the project banners were inside {{WPBS}} so the format wasn't small anyway. Of the rest, I judge that all would look as good or better with the small parameter removed. Two pages (Talk:Split infinitive and Talk:Business plan) look distinctly odd with mixtures of different styles. The projects using the small parameter were WP:1.0 (on 9 pages), biography (on 3 pages), guild of copy editors (2 pages) plus a few others. Based on this limited analysis I think the small format should be removed forthwith — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally agree, but I think it would be prudent to remove the parameter from the pages that have it first so that there is minimal disruption with possibly odd locations such as you found on those example talk pages (and/or wrap the project tags in WPBS). --Izno (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Not totally convinced that would be a good use of my time :) On none of the pages I looked at, was removing the small format going to be "disruptive" in any way. Yes, there were a few which would benefit from wrapping in WPBS but removing the small would not make them look worse than they are now. What I could do, is to remove the functionality from a few banner templates (e.g. 1.0 and biography) and if that doesn't cause any upset then we could assume that no one will miss the feature. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:55, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Kill small. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Definitely not convinced myself, I just like to forestall the complaints that will appear. But go for it if you want to field those. :P --Izno (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

 Removed today. I have left a temporary message on /templatepage to advise editors that this parameter is now obsolete (if anyone reads those things) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Param omission for hooks/taskforces

Moved from Template talk:WPBannerMeta/hooks

The following parameters are recognised by Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces, but are not listed at Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces/doc in the (collapsed) syntax for copypaste:

 |BANNER_NAME           =
 |TASKFORCE_TEMPLATE    =
 |IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME =
 |b1=
 |b2=
 |b3=
 |b4=
 |b5=
 |b6=
 |inherit importance=
 |TF_SIZE               =
  |TF_1_HOOK            =
  |TF_2_HOOK            =
  |TF_3_HOOK            =
  |TF_4_HOOK            =
  |TF_5_HOOK            =
  |TF_6_HOOK            =
  |TF_7_HOOK            =
  |TF_8_HOOK            =
  |TF_9_HOOK            =
  |TF_10_HOOK           =

Is this a deliberate omission? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: that looks like a non-deliberate omission to me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of those parameters are so rarely used, that they shouldn't be in the copy/paste example, but should be documented. An example is the IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME parameter which was there for WikiProject Biography when they used priority rather than importance. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I've added these to the documentation page. @WOSlinker: could you add a description for TASKFORCE_TEMPLATE? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:16, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I've done TASKFORCE_TEMPLATE now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Priority or priority

WikiProject mathematics seems to be the only project still using priority but all their categories are with an uppercase "p", i.e. Category:Top-Priority mathematics articles. WPBannerMeta supports using priority, but currently uses a lowercase "p", i.e. Category:Top-priority mathematics articles. If the maths banner gets converted, then I suggest we can simply change this over as no other projects should be affected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The other options are hooking /importancescale to HOOK_IMPORTANCE and defining |IMPN= or simply adjusting {{WPBM}} so it accepts the |IMPN= parameter — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There are also various assessment categories that end in "pages" rather than "articles". See Category:Mathematics articles by quality. -- WOSlinker (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I have renamed those maths categories with a lowercase "p" and reverted this change in the meta template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Note formats

Next simplification proposal. Only 14 projects are using the parameters |NOTE_n_FORMAT=. Removing this would simplify the code and syntax of the main template. If any project really wants to use this feature, then there is always Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This code change is now in the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:00, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I fixed up those 14 templates and have now removed this from the main template. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Revisiting portals for initial task forces

In this discussion back in August 2015, it wasn't possible to add portal links to anything other than the hook task forces. Is this still the case for the initial task forces, 1-5? Thanks, Funandtrvl (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Not much has changed since 2015 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

5 is sufficient for the majority of projects and it's easy enough to hook extras on. I also wonder whether we need to support 10 notes, because not many projects will use that many ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Now tracking at Category:Project banners using more than 5 notes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I have modified 10 banners that were using notes 6-10 and the change to remove these from the core template is now in the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes 6-10 have now been removed. Once Izno rewrites this in Lua you should be able to use |note 99= or |tf 99=. But in the meantime we have a slightly lighter and simpler template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for WikiProject Current Events Banner

So currently, the Current Event WikiProject's banner moves left to be in line with other WikiProject banners. The Current Event WikiProject doesn't rate articles (Like every other WikiProject) as we only work with articles for a short time. Due to that short time we work with articles, the WikiProject's banner is placed above other WikiProject banners (Makes sense, since we deal with new/current articles that change all the time).

Is there a way to get the WikiProject's banner to be centered instead of a "left center"? See Talk:Hurricane Iota as an example of the "left center".

Thanks, (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no way to centre that text currently. Editors on this page felt that it looks neater for all the project names to be right-aligned. See the discussion if you're interested! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject peer reviews request

Hi all, I am gradually working away at trying to clean up, simplify and improve peer review. I was wondering if I could ask you MSGJ how many wikiproject templates actually use the Wikiproject-specific peer review parameter? (not sure how to find this information...) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Low estimate, 87. That's the count of WikiProject banners whose doc pages have a line like this

{{WPBannerDoc/peerreview |peer review=peer-review |old peer review=old-peer-review |LINK=Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review |CAT=Requests for Birds peer review |OLD_CAT=Old requests for Birds peer review }}

Of course, there are a number that don't use that line, because I've not verified the doc pages for every banner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Do you have a list I can access? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I just realised, my count includes sandboxes, many of which display the doc for the main template. These all transclude Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/peerreview:

• Template:WikiProject Africa
• Template:WikiProject Animation
• Template:WikiProject Arab world
• Template:WikiProject Aviation
• Template:WikiProject Biography
• Template:WikiProject Birds
• Template:WikiProject Brazil
• Template:WikiProject Cats
• Template:WikiProject China
• Template:WikiProject Cities
• Template:WikiProject College football
• Template:WikiProject Comics
• Template:WikiProject Cricket
• Template:WikiProject Cue sports
• Template:WikiProject Engineering
• Template:WikiProject Ethnic groups
• Template:WikiProject Firearms
• Template:WikiProject Fishes
• Template:WikiProject Florida
• Template:WikiProject France
• Template:WikiProject Greece
• Template:WikiProject Horror
• Template:WikiProject Ice Hockey
• Template:WikiProject India
• Template:WikiProject Indonesia
• Template:WikiProject Integrity
• Template:WikiProject Kosovo
• Template:WikiProject Law Enforcement
• Template:WikiProject LGBT studies
• Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology
• Template:WikiProject Montenegro
• Template:WikiProject Normandy
• Template:WikiProject Novels
• Template:WikiProject Ohio
• Template:WikiProject Paranormal
• Template:WikiProject Peru
• Template:WikiProject Philosophy
• Template:WikiProject Politics
• Template:WikiProject Primates
• Template:WikiProject Radio
• Template:WikiProject Rugby league
• Template:WikiProject Rugby union
• Template:WikiProject Saudi Arabia
• Template:WikiProject Skyscrapers
• Template:WikiProject Soil
• Template:WikiProject Television
• Template:WikiProject Terrorism
• Template:WikiProject Trains
• Template:WikiProject Trains in Japan
• Template:WikiProject Tree of Life
• Template:WikiProject Video games
• Template:WikiProject Virginia
• Template:WikiProject Water
• Template:WikiProject Western Asia

I have excluded /sandbox etc. subpages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the above, there are some WikiProject banners which do not use Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/peerreview but instead use one or more sets of NOTE parameters for peer review. These include, but are not limited to: Template:WikiProject Baseball; Template:WikiProject Chicago; and Template:WikiProject Olympics. Then there is Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology which despite its documentation has no provision for peer review - this is because it shares its doc page with Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Redrose64, thanks for your help fixing up my peer review documentation and things. I went through the templates and have removed the capability from projects that don't use it; there will be another batch in the next week or two. Please let me know if there's anything I've consistently overlooked so I can do it myself next time :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

View to eventual deprecation?

I've gone through all 109 peer review pages of Wikiprojects and none actually use WP-associated peer reviews to review articles anymore. Around 10 - 15 have old reviews associated with them, and of those it seems like most wikiprojects haven't actually tagged the majority of articles that underwent peer review in this manner.

There are a couple of problems with using this template in this way. Firstly, reviews are often hidden in three-deep template collapses (multiple WP banner --> WP banner --> other). Secondly, the process is unused and there is a huge discrepancy between what have had a review, what are on the talk page, and whether the review was attended to. Thirdly, links can be broken as articles move. Lastly there is no capacity for a second review page.

I am contemplating moving all these links to {{Old peer review}}. Probably it will be using a wrapper called {{Old Wikiproject-associated peer review}}, to make tracking of those reviews easier. From my point of view this has a number of benefits. It standardises the way peer reviews are displayed (13,000 reviews including some WP reviews, are already displayed using Template:Old peer review vs. < 1000 using this banner). It increases exposure to the reviews, which might end up improving articles. We can use technical means to track and fix when links are broken and to update the usefulness of information attached to them (now a reader can include the ID and date of the reviewed page, which are very useful to see, and eventually a bot will do a full sweep).

I have started by updating the peer pages of all the wikiprojects, and have notified all projects as I've gone. This included updating the banners of the projects that hadn't actually used this functionality at all. That leaves me with about 10 Wikiprojects that have < 10 reviews, and a handful with a significant amount of reviews.

My concrete plan is to move links from old reviews from this template to {{Old Wikiproject-associated peer review}}, starting with Wikiprojects that have only a handful of reviews created this way, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru and Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece. If it seems to work smoothly then I'll work from there. Eventually I think this parameter could be deprecated. What are others thoughts about this? Ping to Redrose64 as you commented above. I guess my main goal here is to standardise how things are done, make peer review related maintenance easier, and also improve the overall peer review related process.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

HOOK_NESTED_ASSESS

WikiProject Japan (well actually just Nihonjoe at the moment) are exploring putting some additional information in the collapsed banner, e.g. when a photo has been requested:

I think it would be neater to have that icon after the quality/importance ratings. Would it cause any problems to just move the hook to be after the bracketed portion, because I don't think there is any banner using both of these simultaneously yet? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

See also User:Headbomb/Sandbox/Banner#If_there_are_issues (3rd mockup, If there are issues), from a 2017 mockup. As well as 'Projects expanded' from mockup 2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I've seen those examples before Headbomb and I like them very much. It's high time for an overhaul of the quality assessment scales, and we should centralise them (one rating for all projects) and take them out of the individual project banners. (It's very rare that two WikiProjects assess an article differently, and if it ever happens, it is usually "fixed" very soon by a well-intentioned editor.) Would be a massive project though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Am working on wikiproject-associated peer reviews as above, but I definitely think this is a worthwhile idea. I think it would have massive time saving impacts. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done Hook moved after ratings — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Fix the oversized image at Template:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan

When I was creating Template:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan, I found that the flag image is oversized, and I can't be able to resize it à la Template:WikiProject India. Please fix it. --Soumya-8974 (he) ^talk _contribs ^subpages 07:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. You can use the |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE= parameter to set the size of the image. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Category parameter

Since 2009 we have normlised the category parameter like this:

|category = {{yesno|{{{category|¬}}}|¬=¬|blank=¬|yes=¬}}

This means that a blank category parameter does not suppress categories, so the syntax on banner templates can be simply |category = {{{category|}}} which is more user friendly. However I have recently found out that not all the hooks behave the same way, and it is necessary to use |category = {{{category|¬}}}. I don't like the inconsistency, and I really don't see why ¬ is needed in this case. (We often use it in the meta-template to detect whether a parameter has been passed or not, which is very useful, but that does not apply here.) Any thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The way this parameter works is not obvious to me since starting Lua work. Also the use of yesno seems like overkill TBH. Also also ¬ is annoying to see. ;) --Izno (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Yesno probably is overkill, but it would be a bit weird if |category=yes were to suppress categories. So the Lua work has begun? :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Module:WikiProject and Template:WPBannerMeta/Lua and Template:WPBannerMeta/Lua/testcases. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Do we really have to go the Lua route? That will seriously screw up my ongoing project of ensuring that all WikiProject banners have documentation, and that every parameter is documented accurately. I am still finding unusual codings in banners, and switching over to Lua will bring a complete stop to my work. In the last month, I've already lost another major workflow, which has put me on something of a downer. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly this is a learning experience for me too as I work on this. I don't think conversion is going to go quick by any means as I have other stuff I'm working on simultaneously. So far I've honestly found the conversion process from wikitext to Lua simple. There's even a guide from 5 years ago about similar constructs that I've been using. You shouldn't have to trace, as below. Knowing whether a category is supposed to be output should be something that's easy to know, and right now it's horrific to know because of how decentralized category handling is (and there's really no other option in wikitext without painful duplication). I don't antipate your documenting of child modules needs to stop just because of the conversion, so you're safe on that front for the time being even should you decide that Lua is impossible for you. --Izno (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this is my favourite edit summary so far ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

I live to please. --Izno (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

As for the purpose of |category= -

• category – set |category=no if, and only if, a banner is being used for demonstration or testing purposes, to prevent unnecessary or undesirable categorization. Otherwise, omit this parameter.

Just one example of what I have done, through careful examination of the template code, tracing it through the various subtemplates. I simply cannot do that with Lua modules. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It might not be possible to simplify all the way - this edit may not work, because |category=no will be treated the same as |category=¬. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

The parameter is normalised in Template:WPBannerMeta before passing to any of the subtemplates. I propose to change this to use Template:Yesno-yes so that any non-negative input (including "yes" but also blank or "¬") results in a "yes" which will trigger the categories. Don't worry I will fully test everything first ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Initial tests working well. I need to check all the hooks next ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Testing is now complete and everything is working as expected. I may deploy shortly. It will require dozens of edits simultaneously, so there may be some unexpected categorisation for half an hour or so after I start. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done. I really hope I copied everything over correctly, but there were so many subtemplates affected that it is always possible something slipped through. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Image size parameters

After the small format of this template was removed a couple of months ago, the parameters |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE= and |IMAGE_RIGHT_LARGE= may be somewhat confusing. Perhaps we could add support for |IMAGE_LEFT_SIZE= and |IMAGE_RIGHT_SIZE= (while of course continuing to recognise the previous names of these parameters) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This is now done, and documentation is updated — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Demo version

It annoys me slightly that the demo version of the template (on the actual template page) says "This template does not require a rating" rather than the usual wording on articles "This article has been rated as x-Class". I may try and fix that some day if it's not too difficult. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

One option is to pass a PAGETYPE parameter from the main template to /core and then this can be overridden by the /templatepage version. Code is on the sandbox for this. But going slightly further, would it be better if all example instances (where |category=no) displayed as if the template was used on an article talk page? I.e. should "template" say "article" in the example below? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

On reflection I think using "article" whenever categories are suppressed would work perfectly here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Code for this is now on the sandboxes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

This page does not require a rating

See also: Template talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 13 § WikiProject Portals

As discussed in the link above, any page which is not in the article talk space will display "This <pagetype> does not require a rating on the quality scale." This is not correct in some cases, e.g FM-class which specifically places a rating on a page in the File namespace. Is this something we should be concerned about? Are there any other common examples? (I am not worried about the bespoke template WikiProject Portals, as this has already been customised accordingly.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I think if the class is anything except the namespace, then we should display "This <pagetype> has been rated <class>-Class...". If the class equals the namespace, then it sounds a bit silly to say "This template has been rated Template-Class..." so we should keep the current wording. If people agree with the gist of this, then I will try and work up some proper logic. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Auto documentation

I'm working on a system for auto-documenting project banners using Template:WPBannerDoc. Preliminary efforts are in Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/sandbox, and documentation can be activated with new parameter |DOC=auto. Results can be seen on Template:WPBannerMeta/test and Template:WikiProject Doctor Who/sandbox. Feedback would be appreciated! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I think my auto-documentation is ready for prime time. There are a few special cases left to consider (e.g. custom quality scales, or b-class checklists) but I would like to start deploying it on some basic banner templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The does still have some features that show up for the small paramter which could be removed now. Here's a search link of banners without any docs at the moment, where it would be easy to add them. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's helpful thanks. It would make sense to start with those. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Concerning the |category= parameter (which all WikiProject banner templates have - or should have, anyway), also the |auto= parameter (found in rather less than half of the WikiProject banner templates) - when writing doc pages, I purposely omit these from the copypaste boilerplates because |category= is rarely used, and |auto= should not be used except by bots. For the same reasons, I always place them bottom of the "Optional parameters" list (which is otherwise ordered alphabetically), and omit them from any examples. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Good idea - I've removed those from the boilerplate text. Rather than grouping alphabetically, I've grouped the optional parameters into notes/alerts and task forces. Headings appear when a few are in use. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Please check Template:WikiProject Portals for template limit problems

Hi, would you check Template:WikiProject Portals, as I believe it is causing template limit problems on Portal talk:South Africa. In this version, there are 3 hidden category errors. When the WikiProject Portals template is removed, then the hidden categories don't show up, at this newer version. Thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem is somewhere within Module:Portal maintenance status. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. @Evad37: please could you look into this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The limits problem occurs only when the {{Portal maintenance status}} isn't at the top of the portal page, but is instead within a table or another template. I've fixed the immediate issue by moving that template to the top of Portal:South Africa, but a more general solution should still be looked into – either Lua coding improvements, or a bot to ensure the template is positioned correctly, or reconsidering whether the status needs to be transcluded to the talk page. - Evad37 [talk] 23:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it! Funandtrvl (talk) 21:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Argh

One of my long term projects has been to turn {{WikiProject Politics}} into this while preserving all the pre-existing categories. @MSGJ: Can you please help me and fix my spaghetti code? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

If I knew what you were trying to achieve then I might be able to help! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: what is your intention in creating Template:WPBannerMeta/notes/category? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I am trying to convert defunt task forces from using the task force hooks to the note hooks. This would make them collapsed by default. The template you mentioned is supposed to ensure the underlying WikiProject task force categories the same and prevent any changes there. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I think you would be much better off using the taskforce hook but collapsing them. I will show you on the sandbox ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: please see Template:WikiProject Politics/sandbox. Alternatively we can put those in the same collapsed section as the notes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Woah. Just blew my mind right there. That's practically perfect!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome. Do I have you permission to delete Template:WPBannerMeta/notes/category? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@MJL: ^^ — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Yup! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know when you're ready to deploy that sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I think it's good to deploy whenever you are ready. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 February 2021

1. On {{WPBannerMeta/core}}, at <table class="tmbox tmbox-notice mw-collapsible innercollapse wpb" style="height:0;">, add the following after wpb:

   {{#switch:{{lc:{{{PROJECT_STATUS|}}}}}|inactive=inactive-wikiproject|semi-active|semiactive=semi-active-wikiproject|defunct=defunct-wikiproject|active|#default=}}

2. In {{WPBannerMeta}}, after |BOTTOM_TEXT = {{{BOTTOM_TEXT|}}}, add the following on a new line:

   |PROJECT_STATUS = {{{PROJECT_STATUS|}}}

3. At the bottom of {{Inactive WikiProject banner}}, add:

   |PROJECT_STATUS = {{{PROJECT_STATUS|{{#if:{{{status|}}}|{{{status}}}|inactive}}}}}

This has been tested at Template:Inactive WikiProject banner/testcases. The change adds a new class to the banner which would allow users to hide inactive WikiProject at their own discretion. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, but I've added a class also for the actives also. --Izno (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 31 March 2021

Remove the line <td class="mbox-empty-cell"></td> from Template:WPBannerMeta/core to resolve an issue with the border when the template is inside {{WikiProject banner shell}}. It was orginally added by User:Happy-melon in revision 301387726 (diff) so the header and the body would have the same number of table cells since the header also had a mbox-empty-cell table cell that was used to contain the metadata. But now that the metadata was moved and the mbox-empty-cell in the header was removed by User:WOSlinker in revision 982121201 (diff), there is one extra table cell in the text row, causing the border issue. To fix this, the mbox-empty-cell should in the text row should also be removed. Here's the effect of the change (notice the border in the top right):

Current

Proposed

– BrandonXLF (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 March 2021

The wikitext {{navbar|{{{BANNER_NAME}}}|mini=1|style=float:right; clear:right; margin:-1em 0.1em; display:none;}} should be removed from Template:WPBannerMeta/core. The last attempt to remove it at Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive 10#Edit request to /core to remove navbar call was closed on the grounds that people could enable viewing it using custom CSS, but a search shows that only 7 editors have done this, even years after it was added. It would make much more sense for anyone would like the functionality to use a userscript, like User:BrandonXLF/WPBannerNavbar.js, to show the navbar rather than adding an invisible navbar to millions of pages for use by 7 editors, not the mention the millions of rows the invisible navbar adds to the pagelinks database table.– BrandonXLF (talk) 08:12, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Accordingly, I am notifying those who took part last time, plus those in the above search query: Netoholic, Mr. Stradivarius, MSGJ, Happy-melon, Andy M. Wang, InverseHypercube. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, I continue to support removal of this silly inclusion as I stated 7 years ago. In that time, the initial concern has doubled, with this minor function now adding unnecessary HTML to 9.3 million talk pages. -- Netoholic @ 14:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I would support removal. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Support edit, it makes sense to remove it. Never knew it was there to begin with, so I don't use it! Funandtrvl (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Happy-melon: - any comments on this before we remove it? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I've removed this now as there have been no objections. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about duplication of banners when using a banner wrapper template to redirect

We're trying to merge Template:WPUS50 into Template:WikiProject United States. The problem is with moving the transcluded pages from the WPUS50 template to WPUSA. If we change Template:WPUS50 to a banner wrapper template, using code like in Template:WikiProject Iowa, this will change the banners to the WPUSA, but it oftens leaves two WPUSA banners on the talk pages. Is there any way to prevent this from happening, or to combine the two WP banners on the talk pages? Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, a bot would need to do the work. --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Cosmetic problem in a narrow browser window

Edit: problem now solved, no further action required.

There is a cosmetic problem when a WP banner appears within a narrow browser window. I reproduce an example banner from this template's documentation to help discuss this.

Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.

      <------- minimum width for correct behaviour ------------->

This is intended to display in two columns, a narrow left column with graphics, and a wide right column with lots of text. This works correctly if the banner is wider than the "mininum" I've marked. However if the browser window is too narrow, the first row collapses to a single column (containing both graphics and text) but the other rows continue as two columns, resulting in a wide left column and a narrow right column, the opposite of what was intended. Can this be fixed? -- Dr Greg  talk  21:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I find that I can get it down to

   <----------- this width ----------->

before a problem occurs. Beyond that point, the two columns remain, but the image vanishes. Maybe it's a browser thing - I use firefox. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm on Firefox too, on a Windows 10 laptop, with text at 100%. Can't get the image to disappear.

I've just tried MS Edge, and Internet Explorer, and neither my problem nor yours occurs with either of them. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Problem solved: I'm using a gadget "Improved appearance for mobile, narrow and wide screens" User:TheDJ/responsiveContent, and when I disable that, the problem goes away. So there's no problem with this template that needs solving. But I'll leave this conversation here for the record. -- Dr Greg  talk  22:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

MOS:EGG tweak

I propose that, when linking to project discussion pages, we link over "the discussion" rather than the current "discussion". This would solve the small WP:EGG issue by making it more clear that we're linking to a specific discussion (that of the project) rather than a page about discussions in general. Does this sound good? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:01, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

(As an aside, I'll note that I still ultimately think we should move away from having this sort of language repeated a bunch of times on every talk page for every project.) {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Proceeding from the above, please adopt this edit from the sandbox. Thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done if you have any other suggestions to improve/overhaul these templates I'm all ears — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 29 July 2021

Please adopt Special:Diff/1036079353 Special:Redirect/revision/1036080299 Special:Redirect/revision/1036081222 from the sandbox to stop file talk pages from being reported as linking to the file which confuses LuckyRename. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Shouldn't #if: be #ifeq: in your changes? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

John of Reading, you are absolutely right, sorry. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:51, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the correct fix be in the Module:Pagetype? Seems the above change now makes it check manually the page type and also with the pagetype module. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym, it actually skips the pagetype module in case of file talk pages. I'm not sure if it'll be fixable in Module:Pagetype, but I'd welcome anyone to try. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:03, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I meant this template in general now uses two different page type checks which in general is bad design. You should really post on that module page and ask its maintainer or one of the watchers if they can fix it. Gonnym (talk) 11:19, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Gonnym, there are no active maintainers and fewer than 30 watchers. And I suspect (but I don't know) that the module checks for the existence of a subject page, which may cause MediaWiki to think it's being linked.

If you insist on using one method, for the purposes of this template {{Pagetype2}} is probably functionally identical. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, an existence check adds an entry to the link table. Here are two such tests: Yes; No - go to Special:Permalink/1036091748 and try out the two "WhatLinksHere" links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Redrose64, I figured, so it's unfixable. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 14:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Izno (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help on updating Template:WikiProject Weather

Hi, if you could check the diff in the template's sandbox here, to see if the proper corrections were made for:

a) standardizing the Image left parameter when "small" is no longer used;

b) adding back the main cat for TF1 so that article alerts and the JL-bot will draw from that category;

c) adding "quality=subpage" to the TF hook;

d) removing the 'nested' parameters from TF hook and adding them to 'tfnested'; and

e) capitalizing the 2nd parameter of several of the TFs, because otherwise they are duplicates of each other.

Also, is it necessary to have the "WPBannerMeta/hooks/qualitycats" hook in the template? It does not seem to be doing anything. Where does it apply to? Thanks in advance! --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 August 2021

Please sync with Template:WPBannerMeta/importancescale/sandbox (diff). This is a minor edit that gets these pages off of this Linter report. We're trying to eliminate as many errors from Template space as possible, no matter how trivial. And boy howdy, is this one trivial!

It's gnomey, I know. I would do it myself, but I do not have or want permissions to edit fully protected pages. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Administrator note - up to 10,000,000 pages use this - @Jonesey95: want to be very careful. Any benefit you see to noincluding the page on itself vs including extra table tags on that? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your question. The requested template has <tr>...</tr> tags without opening and closing <table>...</table> tags, which confuses the Linter. When it is properly transcluded, it does not appear to cause any errors, but because the template is a syntactically incomplete fragment, it shows up on the error list. I have used this technique on dozens of fragment templates without issue (see this edit for an example), and I expect that it will work here in the same way. There are a handful of templates in this family that are on the same report, and I expect that we could remove them from the report with similar techniques. A side benefit of adding these noincludes is that it often makes the template fragment display better on its own page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There's the option to <includeonly>...</includeonly> the whole template rather than adding the table tags in noinlcudes. Using the table tags means that the template is still visible to those looking at it directly. -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

If that works, it would be fine with me as well. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done I have made the requested change — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Merging one banner into another

Hello, I was wondering if there was anyone here who might be able to assist with merging Template:WikiProject Philippine History into Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, so that Philippine History appears similarly to the task forces on Template:WikiProject Military History. I am hoping the coding for such a task is standard enough that it's an easy copy paste, and would look to know if there are any other technical aspects that need looking into (eg. categories), and if the existing templates can be adapted through automation or if they would have to be changed manually. Thanks, CMD (talk) 04:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not a copy paste at all. BTW, don't attempt to base anything on the MilHist template, it is extremely non-standard with a number of quirks, and all attempts to harmonise it have, so far, failed.

The parent project (I guess that is Tambayan Philippines) retains the existing template with its underlying {{WPBannerMeta}} code. The child project (Philippine History) then becomes task force parameters within that. See Template:WPBannerMeta#Task forces. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Redrose. Probably a miscommunication about copying and pasting, but I've tried to implement the parameters you link at Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines/sandbox. A few questions:

• What is the difference between TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT and TF_1_MAIN_CAT? I've put both in following the doc example, but I think that the current Template:WikiProject Philippine History only has an Assessment cat.
• Was my implementation of TF_1_QUALITY correct in a way that would maintain the table listed here? I'm not entirely sure what the field does, is it creating a separate rating if not used?
• What code needs to be written on the Wikipedia Talk page to activate the code. Would it be |history=yes ?

Any other comments are appreciated. There is a profusion of category-related warnings on Template:WikiProject Tambayan Philippines/sandbox that don't appear at Template:WikiProject Philippine History, is that just a display difference? Some categories such as Category:GA-Class Philippine History articles do exist, and I think the syntax I used correctly points to them. CMD (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I have created the various categories for other classifications of "Category: X-Class Philippine History articles". The only alert remaining on the sandbox is Category:Philippine History articles. Is this needed? I note there is no Category:Philippine-related articles, despite there being Category:GA-Class Philippine-related articles etc. CMD (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Oh dear. Chipmunkdavis, you shouldn't have created those categories until after the changes had been put live. I've not had a chance to properly go through your sandboxed edits yet, and might not for a few days because of work commitments. If we need to make changes, those categories may need to be moved, or even deleted then recreated. Anyway:

• |TF_1_MAIN_CAT= - all pages having the taskforce parameter set to "yes" will be put in here
• |TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT= - this is used to construct the category names for e.g. Category:FA-Class Foo articles, and similar.
• |TF_1_QUALITY= this is a binary parameter, any non-blank value counts as "yes". Tables such as User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Philippine History are bot-built, I need to look up how they're configured.

Nearly midnight here, I need to be out by 08:50. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Question - CMD, are you planning to separately assess all the articles tagged with Phillipine history or just rely on the quality assessments from WikiProject Tambayan Philippines ? - jc37 19:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My impression was the categories worked under the current tag anyway. At any rate please G7 them if needed. Regarding assessment, as this is an existing banner they should all theoretically have quality assessments already. The main issue is the current tagging is inconsistent, some have only the history banner, and some have both the history and the main banner. CMD (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I went ahead and removed the task force-specific assessment parameters. You or User:Redrose64 are of course welcome to revert my edits there.

I think this should also fix the needs for the task force-specific categories, which now should be able to be deleted.

Question to you both, does this resolve the template issues so that CMD (and whomever else) can now implement it (outside of the sandbox)? - jc37 02:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure how the categories and bots interact exactly, but to be clear I am trying to maintain the ability to look at just the History articles as is done at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines/Task force Philippine History#Statistics. Essentially trying to make this merger almost cosmetic, leaving existing operations intact. CMD (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, but I still haven't yet got the time for a proper judgement (four times in the last six days I've stayed on at work for as much as four hours to cover the absence of other staff). What I want to ensure is that the use of {{Tambayan Philippines|history=yes}} puts a page into exactly the same categories that {{Tambayan Philippines}}{{Philippine History}} do when used together - this will minimise disruption during the transition phase where some pages have two templates, and some use the combined format. If a template's sandbox shows categories as redlinks with apparent error messages, that's a clear sign that the template code needs adjusting - it doesn't mean that the categories needed to be created. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

If you are keeping all the assessment categories then you'll need to add back the |tf 1 importance= parameter. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I happily defer to your (plural) experience : ) - jc37 21:28, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I took the existence of there being some redlink error messages, but not error messages for the categories that existed (eg. Category:GA-Class Philippine History articles), as an indication that the categories were simply not created for the old template. CMD (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Gentle reminder here if you have time. Best, CMD (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

TF quality cat issue

Why won't File talk:Roald Amundsen2.jpg go into Category:FM-Class Norwegian Antarctica articles ( 0 ) instead of Category:File-Class Norwegian Antarctica articles ( 0 )? It seems to go into Category:FM-Class Antarctica articles ( 0 ) ok.

And why won't Talk:Mount Kirkpatrick Formation go into Category:Redirect-Class Ross Dependency articles ( 0 ) instead of Category:NA-Class Ross Dependency articles ( 0 )? It seems to go into Category:Redirect-Class Antarctica articles ( 0 ) ok.

Is this because the {{Class mask}} in {{WikiProject Antarctica/class}} can only handle six topics? Is there a workaround? --awkwafaba (📥) 17:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Fixed with this edit. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: thanks for the help. I looked at that edit and the one I did earlier and then realised there were two places to change to subpage. Glad it’s working out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkwafaba (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To DEFAULTSORT or not to DEFAULTSORT

A big portion of pages in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts are caused by multiple |listas= applied to WikiProject banners. I have tried fixing some of those, however I noticed that some talk pages can indeed be legitimately sorted differently for purposes of different WikiProjects. E.g. Talk:List of Azerbaijani writers could be sorted as "Writers, List of" for WikiProject Azerbaijan and as "Azerbaijani writers, List of" for other WikiProjects.

Should something like Special:Diff/1032406316/1043881411 (probably better approach exists) be applied to all subtemplates of {{WPBannerMeta}} (importancescale, /qualityscale, etc) and |listas= passed down to subtemplates so that

1. Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts could be less polluted, and thus more useful
2. different WikiProjects could use different values for |listas=

? DEFAULTSORT has been discussed several times in the past and brought up last time in 2011, it seems. Maybe the time has come to fix this? —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This appears to eliminate the DEFAULTSORT: entirely, with the result that every individual WikiProject banner will now need to have its own |listas= set if pages like Talk:George Washington are to sort correctly in all of these cats. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I have just been checking the code more carefully. It seems that the |listas= parameter will set the sortkey for the MAIN_CAT only; but not all WikiProject banners use that. In my Talk:George Washington example, there are nine WikiProject banners, but only five of them set |MAIN_CAT= - these are {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Politics}}, {{WikiProject Virginia}}, {{WikiProject United States}}, and {{WP1.0}}. So all other categories will pick up the unmodified sort order, that is, for Talk:George Washington the page will sort under W for five categories (Category:WikiProject Biography articles, Category:WikiProject Politics articles, Category:WikiProject Virginia articles, Category:WikiProject United States articles, Category:Wikipedia Version 1.0 articles) and under G for all of the others. I do not think that this is a beneficial change. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:45, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think your answer is correct. Currently listas just sets the DEFAULTSORT, so every category is affected not just MAIN_CAT. I can see the benefit of Andrybak's suggestion, but we would probably need a bot to go round setting DEFAULTSORT on each page first, otherwise a lot of existing categories will lose their current sorting. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Where I wrote "I have just been checking the code more carefully.", this was the sandbox code as per this revision. There is no DEFAULTSORT in there at all. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, that makes more sense then! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Need help with Note #4 at Template:WikiProject Cities

Note 4 is currently auto-categorizing all talk pages into Category:Unclassified articles missing geocoordinate data; however, if one of the |in= parameters are used, then it goes into the proper classified category. How could we change the NOTE_4_CAT to only categorize those talk pages where in, in2 or in3 is not used? Example code, as it is now:

|note 4={{{needs-geocoord|{{{geocoord-needed|{{{geocoord-requested|{{{geocoord|}}}}}}}}}}}}
 |NOTE_4_TEXT        = This {{pagetype|{{{class|}}}}} lacks Geocoordinate data. {{#if:{{{small|}}}||Once the Geocoordinates data is added, please remove the {{para|needs-geocoord}} parameter from this template.}} <includeonly>{{#if:{{{in|}}}|[[Category:{{{in}}} articles missing geocoordinate data‎|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}{{#if:{{{in2|}}}|[[Category:{{{in2}}} articles missing geocoordinate data|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}{{#if:{{{in3|}}}|[[Category:{{{in3}}} articles missing geocoordinate data|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>
 |NOTE_4_IMAGE       = Blank_globe.svg
 |NOTE_4_CAT         = Unclassified articles missing geocoordinate data

--Funandtrvl (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It looks like {{coord missing}} uses the Unclassified articles category also. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

This could do it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 |NOTE_4_CAT         = {{#if:{{{in|}}}{{{in2|}}}{{{in3|}}}||Unclassified articles missing geocoordinate data}}

@WOSlinker: thank you! --Funandtrvl (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unreasonably massive class/importance boxes on certain screen sizes

When visiting pages such as Talk:France national football team or Talk:Feldwebel on Firefox using the Timeless WP skin on desktop, with a window of width less than 830px, the colored class/importance boxes (e.g. "Start", "B" and "Mid") in templates that are built on top of this template are absolutely massive, (e.g. 681px x 188 px), while the text column to their right is tiny (e.g. 82px x 182 px). I think these widths should be pretty much reversed. The problem appears to be caused by the CSS class .mw-body-content td.mbox-text of the right (text) column having display: block set and disappears when the attribute is removed.

If there's a better place to report this (e.g. if this should be viewed as a problem with the skin rather than with this template), thanks in advance for pointing me towards a better place to report this. -Ljleppan (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Removing class="mbox-image" in the sandbox version seemed to help. See a test here. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This would also seems to fix the issue on my end. In this changeset, the operative CSS attribute being removed appears to be float: left; in .mw-body-content td.mbox-image.mbox-image. The downside would then naturally be that the text won't wrap around the image any more, which is probably fine in most cases but might look weird for very long texts. Meanwhile, removing class="mbox-text" from the <td> elements following the class/importance <td> elements doesn't seem to result in any adverse changes at least on my computer. Ljleppan (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

This was reported a while ago. Regardless, removing mbox- would be overall a negative for other use cases. If we need to adjust the actual CSS on that element, we can work on that.

At some point this template won't use a table for layout so we'll be able to sort these things out a bit easier. Izno (talk) 19:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Idea: Add affiliates to WikiProject banners

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Idea: Add affiliates to WikiProject banners. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 01:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Subcategorize image requests

Would it be reasonable to allow image requests to be put into subcategories? For example, a lot of pages categorized into Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in New Zealand should be put at Category:Wikipedia requested images of New Zealand biota or Category:Wikipedia requested images of people of New Zealand, but to do that at the moment you would have to use {{image request}} and remove |needs-infobox= from this template. I can think of two ways to solve this: Change |needs-infobox= to allow more than yesno; or add a |type= parameter (or similar). — HTGS (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You could look at the code in Template:WikiProject Wisconsin for an example of adding the in parameter for images. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

User sandbox being categorized

Please see this discussion. It appears that this template, or one of the pages that it calls, is categorizing a User sandbox page into categories like Category:FA-Class Adelaide articles and making the page show up on assessment tables. There is probably a namespace check that could prevent this from happening. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Fixed with |category=no — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Template:WPBannerMeta/Archive 13" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:WPBannerMeta/Archive 13 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 22 § Template:WPBannerMeta/Archive 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Inactive projects

There is currently a wide-ranging discussion about inactive project banners at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 73#Improper handling of assessment for inactive WikiProjects. When projects are marked as inactive, the template will stop displaying the quality assessment of articles, and some editors are concerned that article assessments are being lost. My suggestion was for the quality assessment to be displayed but to suppress the categorisation. This would mean that the assessments would be visible but it would not be necessary to recreate hundreds of categories which have long since been deleted. One way to achieve this, would be to recognise the syntax |ASSESSMENT_CAT=none. But they may be a better method ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 January 2023

Please add

|class_values      = {{{class_values|}}}

just above the line

|auto={{lc:{{{auto|¬}}}}}

This will allow the auto documentation to support an inline quality class. (I already made the corresponding change in {{WPBannerMeta/templatepage}}).

The client, e.g., Template:WikiProject Craft would need to add (in this case) a

|class_values={{WPBannerDoc/class mask|category=yes|template=yes}}<!-- For auto documentation -->

I'll update WikiProject Craft when this request is done

All the above has been tested on my personal wiki, e.g. on http://en.wikimergic.org/wiki/Template:WPBannerMeta

Thanks. Dpleibovitz (talk) 04:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)