Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Fallback conflict

@MSGJ: The new temporary …pages→…articles fallback, introduced in the latest edit to this module, is conflicting with the existing Category-Class…→NA-Class… fallback. This causes category talk pages to be placed in Category:NA-Class Comics articles instead of Category:Category-Class Comics articles. (And similarly for other classes and WikiProjects.) jlwoodwa (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've got a fix working in the sandbox; could an admin please sync this change over to the live module? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

How does your code interact with the exists check in lines 409-413 and 620-624? By the way, the bot should now be actively moving these categories, so it should all be sorted in a few days, so we could just wait? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The moving of the categories seems to have stalled at CfD, so we should probably fix this. Can you see if your code can be simplified so we don't check categories exist multiple times? By the way, it's great to have another Lua editor to help out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the duplicated expensive function calls are bugging me too. I've reworked the function so it stores "which suffix worked" in a variable, and I've added a case before both exists-checks you mentioned so they'll use that variable instead if it's non-nil. That leaves at most three exists-checks per category (except maybe an edge case for FM); does this look good? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, well I will do some testing and then deploy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Updating assessment_category

I think I've figured out why e.g. Category:Template-Class redirect pages articles is being populated – it's because assessment_category normally removes " articles" from the ends of category names, but hasn't been updated to also remove " pages". I fixed this in the sandbox and added a new testcase to demonstrate it. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Easiest way to fix that is by editing the banner template [1] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Better redirect template handling

At Module:WikiProject_banner#L-283, the banner name should not be the value of local banner_name = mw.title.new(args.BANNER_NAME or 'Template:WikiProject ' .. (args.PROJECT or 'PROJECT')), but it should instead be the value of mw.getCurrentFrame():getParent():getTitle(), as this will allow any redirect usages to be validated as well, and not only those templates titled "WikiProject something". Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Template:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge conversion

Adding this here incase anyone has the time. Template:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge (and the templates that use it such as Template:WikiAfrica/Artgate) should be converted to use the WP banner system. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Update Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage to move the class and listas parameters

In the autodoc section of Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage, the |class= and |listas= values should be removed and shown in the examples in use inside the WikiProject banner shell.

Convert:

Basic usage
Place this on the talk page of relevant articles:
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers |class= |importance= }}

to:

Basic usage
Place this on the talk page of relevant articles:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=}}
}}

and

Full usage
It is usual to remove any unused parameters from the template call.
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers |category= |listas= |class= |importance= |attention= |needs-infobox= |unref= |Imageneeded= }}

to:

Full usage
It is usual to remove any unused parameters from the template call.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|listas=|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance= |attention= |needs-infobox= |unref= |Imageneeded= |category= }}
}}

here also move |category= to the end as it's the least important parameter. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Are you happy to make those changes to the code? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not touching the code anymore. Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

How's that looking now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. In the "deprecated" section, maybe also add the "this parameter should be used with the banner shell template" to the class parameter. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Override importance to NA on non-articles

There is a suggestion (link) that importance ratings e.g. |importance=mid should be ignored on non-articles, like redirects. At the moment the module will automatically apply NA-importance to these pages if no importance is specified, but it will not override a specified importance. What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion makes sense, and overridden pages can be filtered into Category:Pages with conflicting importance ratings. As long as any WikiProjects that wish to use their own importance scheme can use a custom importance mask, I don't see a problem. I would just be careful about not emptying that category too quickly, to give WikiProjects that do importance-rate #Rs, cats, templates, etc., time to make their own masks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If the rating is ignored, then it doesn't create a conflict. For example if you type |class=C on a redirect, then that will be ignored and it will still be classified as a redirect, and it does not trigger the conflicting ratings category. Should that be the same for ignored importance ratings? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If any and all WikiProjects that currently use importance on non-articles (idk what that # is) have their importance masks in place, then sure, importance ratings can be ignored.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there any projects that currently categorize their redirects by importance? Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

None intentionally, as far as I am aware. The only ones I have encountered have been left over from a move or merge of a page. If we did this, it would affect all non-articles, i.e. disambiguation pages, templates, portals, etc. would all get NA-importance automatically. So we should consider projects like Template:WikiProject Templates, Template:WikiProject Portals, etc. which may be tracking the importance of these pages. If they are, then a custom importance mask can be used — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What is a custom importance mask? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject Underwater diving classifies redirects with the potential to become full articles with the importance the full article would have, thereby giving anyone who might be considering converting to a full article some idea of whether it would be worth the effort. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to do this, then we need the check all possible projects which are tracking non-articles by importance. If there are any, then they need to be switched to a custom importance mask. I will add candidates to check to the table below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Project	Notes
WikiProject Flag Template	Does not have any categories
WikiProject Templates	Does not have any categories
WikiProject Inline Templates	Category:WikiProject Inline Templates pages does not use sub-categories
WikiProject template sharing	Dead project
WikiProject Disambiguation	Category:WikiProject Disambiguation pages does not use sub-categories
WikiProject Redirect	Category:WikiProject Redirect pages does not use importance sub-categories
WikiProject English Numeral Royalty Redirect	Dead project
WikiProject Portals	Category:Portal pages by importance. Uses custom code, should not be affected.
WikiProject Categories	Category:WikiProject Categories pages does not use its own importance sub-categories
WikiProject Category sorting	Defunct
WikiProject Wikipedia essays	Category:Wikipedia essays articles by importance. Already using custom mask.
WikiProject Policy and Guidelines	Defunct
WikiProject Images and Media	Category:WikiProject Images and Media does not use importance sub-categories
WikiProject User Help	Defunct
WikiProject Abandoned Drafts	Category:WikiProject Abandoned Drafts does not use importance sub-categories
WikiProject Manual of Style	Defunct
Help Project	Category:Help articles by importance has sub categories

Okay so we can do this - will look at coding it next week. It will be an opportunity to move away from using {{importance mask}} and use a Lua version instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed code in sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm. The new version will force NA importance on any non-article, but it will still permit NA to be used on an article. Is this correct? Would it be better to prohibit NA in article space, in which case NA would resolve to Unknown? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

NA on an article sounds strange. I'd like to see an actual usage where one would set this. It would seem that if an article is NA then it's pretty much not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (or that the project shouldn't have tagged it). Regarding the other namespaces, any project that wants to give importance to non-articles should have a custom mask? Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. NA on an article would not make much sense, and if any project wanted to do that, they should set up a custom mask. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

NA importance (break)

Pages like List of storms named Ningning which is a set index article, are often assessed with NA-importance. These will become unknown importance if we change this. Is that a problem? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Set index pages should probably be treated like disambiguation pages, unless some projects are actually setting different importance to them. Gonnym (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I have long argued that set index articles should be classified as disambiguation pages, because that is what 99% of them are. There may be a few real SIAs with actual content, but most are just a collection of links. The easiest way to do this, is make an edit like this, which would convert all the list articles on surnames into disambiguation pages in one swoop. But as you can see I was reverted back in 2023, and many kB of discussion ensued which did not reach a satisfactory conclusion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Another option is to have a list like Module:Disambiguation/templates for Category:Set index article templates so the module can detect them. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We already have that list and can detect them. But the problem is that set index articles are supposed to be articles and shouldn't be getting NA importance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well in that case, an article shouldn't get NA importance and should get categorized as unknown (though again, I personally think they should be detected as set index and set to NA). Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If we make this change I anticipate some queries/complaints along the lines of "why can't I set NA importance for this set index article?" I think we are taking the reasonable and appropriate action, but the mis-classification of SIAs continues to cause problems ... To reduce confusion, let's keep the possibility of assessing articles with NA-importance for now. If the SIA/disambig issue is ever sorted properly, we can revisit this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hang on a bit here. WikiProject Underwater diving uses importance on redirects to indicate which could/should reasonably be converted to full articles some day, and how important the topic is to the project. Are you classifying redirects as non-articles? How will we visibly indicate which redirects are potentially articles and which are not? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, all redirects are classified as non-articles. We can set up a custom importance mask for your project, and you can continue to assess importance in any way you wish — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems an entirely reasonable option, thanks for your response. My template coding skills are rudimentary, so I may have to come bck with some questions about how it works if I don't manage to get it to do what is needed. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It's already done. So you won't need to edit it, unless you want to make any other changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I understand, and don't expect any problems or need for changes, but you never know... · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done at Template:WikiProject Underwater diving/importance. This should now be handling importance the same way it was before — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the change has caused some issues with WP:RATER, in that it is now impossible for the script to assign values to importance other than NA to all articles, not just set index and redirects (see talk page discussion there). Reconrabbit 17:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles should not be given NA. If it's NA for your project, then your project shouldn't tag that page. Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not what they are saying. They are saying that Rater will only allow them to rate NA. I can confirm that I am seeing this too, but need to look into why this might be — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The change to this module does seem to have mucked up rater. I have no idea why, because the module is working just fine. But perhaps we should consider a partial revert to allow time for @Evad37 to look into this and apply a fix — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems a prudent response, Rater is quite heavily used and there in no great urgency for this change, Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to the importance mask (although I still can't think of any way this could have an impact). Please let me know if you notice an improvement to rater? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It allows an importance to be allocated to a redirect for Wikiproject underwater diving, so OK on that count. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to toss in a general comment that supports allowing projects to tag the importance of Drafts and Redirects. In the former situation, I will find drafts from the New Article reports and tag them appropriately with all of the desired details. Then when someone reviews it, that editor only has to assign a quality rating. I find that well-meaning people don't always know what importance to assign when they aren't active members of a project, and I'll have to go tweak the rating later. Also, the importance rating can serve as an indicator of which drafts should get attention to push them across the finish line as articles.

As for redirects, it's similar. Some redirects have possibilities for expansion into future articles, and if we can rate them by importance now, it gives some indication on which should be prioritized over others. Not every project may see the utility in this, but some will. Removing this possibility across the board disallows projects to use this potential tool. Imzadi 1979 → 18:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree on both counts, but this tends to be different for different projects. Some do not allocate an importance at all, others find it a useful tool. I would suggest that only non-articles that have the potential to become articles can usefully be allocated an importance, and all others should probably be rated as NA, while all actual articles should have a non-NA rating if the project allocates importance. If the project does not allocate importance, then no importance should be the only and automatic rating, and no options are needed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Importance for drafts and redirects (and userspace drafts?) sounds reasonable for the reasons stated. I guess it depends on how many projects are actually doing this. If it's common, then we should support this as standard. It it's niche, then those projects can easily use a custom mask — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We now have the green light to reimplement this change. So we need to decide whether to allow importance ratings for certain non-articles, e.g. redirects and drafts, or treat all non-articles as NA. Does anyone else have any opinions on this, or should we try WT:COUNCIL? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

NA importance (break 2)

Just to make sure that everyone is board with this change, the table below clarifies the proposed output in different scenarios, as I understand it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

looks ok to me. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is now coded on the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Diving should now be able to go back to the standard importance mask (unless there is anything else non-standard that you want to do) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Does that require any action from us? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Page type	Valid input, e.g. "mid"	Invalid/blank input	Input "na"
Articles	Mid	Unknown	NA
Redirects & drafts	Mid	NA	NA
All other pages	NA	NA	NA

Notes

Follow up

I noticed that on Draft talk:Quantum Coupling Hypothesis the importance is set to low, but this is being ignored and they are getting NA-importance. This suggests that the code approved above is not working correctly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this was never implemented properly for drafts. I only tested it on redirects! Now fixed on the sandbox. This means that the page type will be displayed on the banner. Which is better: draft or draft article?

• Current: This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...
• Option 1: This draft article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...
• Option 2: This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I would go for option 1 first, 2 second, without any strong feelings about the choice. Both are better than current. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I've gone with option 2 for now because that matches what the banner shell template uses, but don't really mind either wy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)