Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

"Investigate balance of C_NOTEs vs TFs"

As promised... From the tracking category, we see that 27 banners use one or more of the collapsed notes. From WhatLinksHere, we see that 21 banners use the /taskforces hook, indicating that they have an inadequate number of taskforces built into the banner. These results surprised me a little, I admit, but they seem correct. I remember that several of the projects using the hook have a huge number of taskforces, such that it would be a hopeless task trying to add enough taskforces for them. Consequently, and a little surprisingly, I don't think there's anything to be done here. Comments? Happy‑melon 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Another question that could be asked is: Should WPBannerMeta still support the collapsed notes directly or should those banners use the HOOK_COLLAPSED parameter and the hooks/notes template instead? -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to have some support for 'basic' functionality in the core code; we could split a whole host of things out into hooks, but we'd soon find ourselves with nothing left in the main banner. Whether collapsed notes count as "basic" functionality is not entirely unequivocal, however. Happy‑melon 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

27 is not so many, and it would actually simplify the syntax somewhat to just use hook_collapsed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Importance

Now that the banner is using the {{Class}} template, just thinking about having something similar for Importance. The Importance template is already being used, so would need to think of another name to use though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In general, yes, I'd love to do that. I think it's worth making at least an attempt to get hold of that template name; that template itself is essentially a fork of {{notability}} and so should be merged/redirected there. Do we have icons for the importance scale? Happy‑melon 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What about using an abbreviation such as {{Impor}}? We don't have icons for importance, and (not surprising given my comments above) I don't see why we would need any. PC78 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, {{priority}} is unused. I also went ahead and created {{importancecol}} in anticipation of future use. PC78 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No way are we mixing up importance and priority any more than we already have :D It's a real shame we can't get hold of {{importance}}; we may have to go for something silly like {{importance-rating}}, and create a similar redirect for {{class-rating}} for consistency. Anyone fancy setting this up? Happy‑melon 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've gone ahead and created {{Impor}} and {{Imporicon}}. There are icons for NA-Importance and Unknown-Importance. The only thing left is to bring {{Impor}} into the template.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello? I never got a response from anyone about this. This seems extremely important. :|  Dylanlip  (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it? IMO the total borkage on Safari would seem to be more important, although a much trickier problem to resolve. Having said that, I am grateful to you for putting the code together. Happy‑melon 13:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Will also need some support for the priority categories as well, either by adding support in {{impor}} or by having a separate template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Would that not be done via the |category= parameter as with the existing templates? PC78 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

He means that the "-importance" part of the category link is hardcoded into {{impor}}, which will break when "-priority" should be used. Happy‑melon 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Why hardcode it then? That seems counterproductive here. PC78 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor bug

The ASSESSMENT_CAT value is being ignored in favor of PROJECT (I think), in the case of the category name used when AUTO_ASSESS is on. That is, for Template:WikiProject Belgium for example, all of categories used by this template for assessment and cleanup sorting are in the form "Category:Top-importance Belgium-related articles", "Category:Belgium-related articles needing attention", etc., with the sole exception of "Category:Automatically assessed Belgium articles". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are right, it will set to Automatically assessed {{{PROJECT}}} articles by default. I'm hesitant to just change it though because it may affect quite a lot of banners which already have the category in the current location ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It would require help at WP:CFD, a mass speedy rename. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget |AUTO_ASSESS_CAT=; there is already the facility to customise this category. I agree that it should include the value of |ASSESSMENT_CAT= in the fallback chain, but we can probably make the change silently if we're careful. Happy‑melon 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Need help at template:WikiProject Middle Ages

Resolved

Happy‑melon 16:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see requests at Template talk:WikiProject Middle Ages#adding to wrong assessment categories. Thank you. --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Still has assessment problems, see: Template talk:WikiProject Middle Ages#Still has assessment problems. Thanks --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see: Template talk:WikiProject Middle Ages#Addendum. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you add parameters to Template WikiProject Architecture

Just a request to add the full parameters to the WP Architecture template. Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Created cats and updated doc. Just noticed that a File-Class cat is now there, which name are we supposed to use, Image or File, because the WPBM is still prompting for Image? Just curious --Funandtrvl (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We might have crossed tracks while I was checking your banner: can you be a bit more specific (it looks OK to me). For the Image/File question, I don't think we have a standard yet! Physchim62 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are now two categories for images under WP Architecture, one that I created using the prompts (Image-Class) and one that MSGJ created later on (File-Class). Since these cats duplicate each other, just wondering which one should be changed to redirect to the other. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I thin this needs a more specific header! Physchim62 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (discussion continued below)

Funandtrvl simply replied in the wrong place. I'll copy this to Template talk:WikiProject Architecture. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Redundant parameters

I propose to deprecate the FULL_QUALITY_SCALE parameter in favour of QUALITY_SCALE=full. This could be done silently, while still supporting the current syntax by using something like

QUALITY_SCALE = {{#switch:{{{QUALITY_SCALE|}}}
                      |         = <!-- Null -->
                      |full     = full
                      |#default = {{#if:{{{FULL_QUALITY_SCALE|}}}|full|yes}}
                }}

We could do something similar with COMMENTS=force instead of COMMENTS_FORCE=yes.

This would shorten the code and simplify the syntax I think. Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to change the syntax, it ought to be a complete schema; that is, we should specify what value we want to activate the 'short' scale. Something like:

|QUALITY_SCALE = {{#switch:{{{QUALITY_SCALE|}}}
                      |         = <!-- Null -->
                      |short    = short
                      |full     = full
                      |#default = {{#if:{{{FULL_QUALITY_SCALE|}}}|full|short}}
                }}

Other than that, I can't see anything against it. Happy‑melon 09:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion. And that leaves the way open for QUALITY_SCALE=medium (or something) later on :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Short ... or "standard"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a question on this, instead of just checking for the existence of Template:BANNER/class, and using it automatically if it does exist, how about QUALITY_SCALE = custom ? One advantage of this is that currently, if a banner is editprotected, anyone can still come along & create a /class page and mess things up for that banner. Only using it if QUALITY_SCALE = custom would close that issue. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmn.... I agree that that's an attack vector for protected banners. But I don't want to think about the mess that would be created by transcluding a nonexistent custom mask. Perhaps what this parameter should be doing is acting as an override to any 'intelligence' in the banner; in that case we're looking at values of "no", "short"/"standard" (still not sure which is better there), "full" and "custom". And anything else is "auto" - the banner does its best to work out what is intended. We could do ¬ checking on |class= and actually do away with the requirement to set this parameter altogether: if class is passed through, we assume quality scale is active. Maybe. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't even thought of someone trying to use the class file as an attack vector during the last discussion. I guess this one will end up revisited after all :/ --Tothwolf (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)I agree that it would be good not to check for a custom class unless class=custom. This would save a lot of ifexist calls and prevent possible disruption as WOS describes. In reply to H-M, no this will not work I think. In that case, if class wasn't defined by an instance of the banner, then the banner would not know whether quality scale was being used. (I thought about doing that exact thing in the past.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We have the ability to differentiate between a banner that is passing the class parameter through and one that isn't:

{{WikiProject Tulips|class=<foo>}}
  --> {{WPBannerMeta|...|class={{{class|}}}|...}}
    --> {{WPBannerMeta/core|...|class={{{class|¬}}}|...}}
      --> class != ¬ for all foo, including undefined

{{WikiProject Tulips|class=<foo>}}
  --> {{WPBannerMeta|...|no class=|...}}
    --> {{WPBannerMeta/core|...|class={{{class|¬}}}|...}}
      --> class == ¬ for all foo

That's the whole principle of the ¬ chains - if they're broken at any point they pick up a unique value at the endpoint. We'd just need to set a default of ¬ in WPBM main and /core. Even ignoring WP:PERFORMANCE, the performance benefits of only using the custom mask with |QUALITY_SCALE=custom would be minimal because we would have to do the #ifexist: check on the custom mask anyway if told to use it; the results of not doing it would be too ugly to think about. And we have no need to ignore WP:PERFORMANCE; we can instead legitimately ignore performance :D. The proportion of banners using custom masks is about 10% now, and will only go upwards IMO. Usability has the higher priority.

I think we're agreed that |QUALITY_SCALE=custom should be expecting a custom mask, but what do we do when that mask does not exist?

Equally, banners with |QUALITY_SCALE=full/short should not use the custom mask even if it exists. We can do some pretty crazy things on /templatepage with the resources we have available; we could add a warning message only on protected templates suggesting that they switch to one of these values to close the attack vector. But I'm not convinced that removing the 'automagic' from the scale-selection process is a positive step. Happy‑melon 15:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Hmm, I think that if class was defined empty then it wouldn't pick up a ¬ currently.
2. If custom is defined but there doesn't exist a custom mask then just use the standard scale I guess.
3. If we can make the code more efficient for 90% of banners, then why not?
4. Advising about an "attack vector" is WP:BEANS, isn't it? :P — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the point. It'd take a few tweaks which we could probably do live (passing a default of ¬ to /class, and returning ¬=¬ in the #switch statement); the point is that the only way WPBM/core can ever receive |class=¬ is if the parameter is not passed through from the WikiProject banner at the end of the line, and so the default value of something-other-than-¬ is injected there.

I guess we'd have to, but that just reinforces this new |QUALITY_SCALE=custom as just another switch to flick in order to use a custom mask. We're not launching nuclear missiles here :D.

If it makes the code more efficient for 90% of banners, but makes life more difficult for 10% of users, then we shouldn't do it.

It would if I thought that any serious vandals actually watched this page :D. It's more important that we properly decide how best to close it than worry about its existence leaking. For the record, filling a custom mask with rubbish makes banners look like this. Irritating, but hardly devastating; and the vandalism will be at the top of the "related changes" link and can be quickly reverted. It's not actually as bad as I thought it would be; I expect transcluding a nonexistent mask would be worse.

In summary, I'm mainly concerned that adding "you must set |QUALITY_SCALE=custom" to the (currently very short) list of things you need to do to use a custom mask, is sacrificing ease of use for performance and for security against a threat that's not particularly severe. I fully agree that there should be a way to disable the use of a custom mask even if it exists; I think |QUALITY_SCALE=short/full should do that. I guess |QUALITY_SCALE=custom should "force" the use of a custom mask, although that's a fairly toothless assertion since we have to do existence checking and fall back to standard if it's not there. I just don't think we should lose the 'magic' from |QUALITY_SCALE=yes without good cause; if anything, we should be trying to make it more 'magical'. Happy‑melon 10:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the long reply. It's useful to hear what others are thinking. So if I'm reading this right, there is at least one point on which we all agree: if class has been set to standard/short or full then it shouldn't use a custom mask even if it exists. There are still a several other points to be ironed out. I anticpate being busy for the next couple of days, but after that I will try to set out the advantages and disadvantages of each approach that we have identified so far. About the ¬ thing, I guess you are right; I have to admit to never understanding fully what the ¬ thing was all about :) But I feel that whatever we decide with regards to QUALITY_SCALE is likely to make that consideration moot, so I suggest we forget about that for the time being. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Image-Class or File-Class?

Many projects have followed the guidelines and set up a Category:Image-Class XXX articles. Now the code appears to be prompting for a Category:File-Class XXX articles as well. Obviously both categories refer to the same type of page, so which naming convention should we use? My preference is for "File", as this matches the new(ish) name of the namespace. Physchim62 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Currently, File-Class can only be achieved with a custom class mask, and it would be a lot of work to change the default behaviour because 550 categories would have to be created and another 550 deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

However, I think that such a transition would probably be a constructive way to proceed. I agree that it would be a huge undertaking, and would have to be bot-assisted. I have approval for a bot script that could duplicate all the "Image-Class" categories as "File-Class", and then we could do one massive switch (and lots of little ones on the templates with custom masks) to change the categories over. I could write another script to go through all the then-empty Image-Class categories changing all WhatLinksHere to point to the File-Class ones, and then delete the old categories. However, while technically feasible it's still quite a noticeable change. Ignore the technical aspects: it can be done. Is it a "good idea"?? Happy‑melon 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure it is. :) Having already initiated a switch to File-Class it makes no sense to stop at this point. If you feel you need the thumbs up from a wider section of the community then that's fine, but there's no logic in continuing to have File-Class feed Image-Class categories. PC78 (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it is important to keep it consistent. If the category is now called "File-Class", then the automatic prompts from WPBM should be pointing to "File-Class", not "Image-Class", otherwise, it is too confusing. (For example, see discussion above concerning WP Archy). --Funandtrvl (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree that we should move forward with this. But calling it low priority would be an overstatement in my opinion :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment. Since this banner started to use {{class}}, the classification does match the categorisation, which is probably appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Lotsa notes

Is there a limit on the number of notes which can be defined in the banner? I've got a somewhat specialized set of notes I'm trying to do over here, but they don't seem to be working. I'd like the section to be collapsed so it doesn't get too long, but I think I need some assistance with it. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You can use up to five uncollapsed (note 1, note 2, etc.) and five collapsed (c note 1, c note 2, etc.) with the usual syntax. For more than that, you will need to use the hook: Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes which can either be attached using HOOK_NOTE (for uncollapsed) or HOOK_COLLAPSED (for collapsed). I'll come and look at what you're doing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Aha. I figured there would be something like that. I appreciate any help. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

49 notes!!!?? This is ridiculous, frankly. Let me try to find a better way to do this. And I suggest working in the sandbox for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, "Lotsa notes". I've been trying to figure out a way which would be shorter, but I'm not big into programming. I can implement something someone makes, but can't always figure out how to do it myself. :)

One thing which is a special case here are these two categories: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Hokkaidō and Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Tokyo. Unlike the other related categories, they don't have "Prefecture" tacked onto the end. So, these two would require special code to accommodate that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 09:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to reply on Template talk:WikiProject Japan. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Banner substitution

Could we perhaps brainstorm some ideas of detecting and preventing editors from substituting project banners? There must surely be a way to do this. I have been spending some time finding substituted {{WPAFC}} banners and there seem to over 200 of them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done two templates: User:WOSlinker/Banner & User:WOSlinker/Banner/core to simulate Template:WPBannerMeta & Template:WPBannerMeta/core.

You then need to try normal transculsion & substituting the test banner on a test page:

{{User:WOSlinker/Banner|text=Test1}}
{{subst:User:WOSlinker/Banner|text=Test2}}

And you'll see a warning & an extra category used for the substituted version. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That's all very well, but it's not {{WPBannerMeta}} that's being substituted (leaving direct calls to {{WPBannerMeta/core}} out in the wilderness). It's {{WikiProject Tulips}} being substituted to leave direct transclusions of {{WPBannerMeta}}; your idea would require each individual banner to implement the bulk of the anti-subst checks, with the extra difficulty of how to react to banners not correctly implementing the check. Could be tricky. But I admit, probably not as tricky as building a subst check system that is coded entirely in WPBM itself... :D Happy‑melon 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the check would need to be an extra parameter added to each banner (just like small, category & listas) but the checking part would be in WPBannerMeta. The extra parameter should be written so that if it's blank then the banner isn't using the checking option and no warnings would ever be shown. Each banner that wanted subst checking would need to add something similar to:

|substcheck = <includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>yesno|SUBST|SUBST}}</includeonly>

and then WPBannerMeta would need to check if the substcheck parameter was equal to SUBST and then display a warning message or add another category. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a nice neat and easy way to do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Shall we implement this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All it would take is adding

{{#ifeq:{{{substcheck|}}}|SUBST|[[Category:WikiProject banners with substitution issues|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}

in that bit at the end of WPBannerMeta (with possibly a better name for the category). Then project banners can opt-in if they want to. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we add an angry warning box as well? And what about simply Category:Substituted WikiProject banners? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Got a draft version of an angry box at Template:WPBannerMeta/substwarning. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That looks ok. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

{{#ifeq:{{{substcheck|}}}|SUBST|{{WPBannerMeta/substwarning}}}}

So is it better to display the warning as well as the banner or instead of? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm answering my own question and I decided that it's probably better to have it as well as. Therefore I suggest combining the two warnings pages into Template:WPBannerMeta/warnings and moving putting it on the main template instead of the core. I think we can use the existing category Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors for both types of error (with different sort key). I have proposed code at Template:WPBannerMeta/sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and instead of using the {{yesno}} template, which creates a lot of mess when substituted, I suggest using a new one {{substcheck}} which just contains the word "SUBST". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Last thing: there are demonstrations of all combinations of the warnings at User:MSGJ/Sandbox3 and User talk:MSGJ/Sandbox3. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmn, I wrote a response to the "as well as or instead of" question, also asking about why we were using {{yesno}}; seems to have got lost, but looks like you read my mind anyway! The warning look very good; I especially like the "Please replace it with this"... I just wonder if it's worth passing the |class= and |importance= parameters through so we can say "please replace it with this" and not have them lose any assessments in the process...? Would be impossible to do it for any of the trigger parameters that get renamed, but we could do it for those two... Otherwise, I love it! Happy‑melon 09:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Implemented. Hopefully there will be no problems ... Shall we add these to all the banners or just stick a information box on templatepage to advise of the new feature? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should be building a 'queue' of changes that need to be rolled out to the banners; then we can run occasional bot runs to implement whatever changes are waiting all at once, minimise disruption to people's watchlists. Happy‑melon 09:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. There might be a few things to do soon ... Umm, the substcheck syntax has wrecked the documentation layout because it's so long. I'm not sure how to fix it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, but god knows what it'll look like on small screens (or wide screens for that matter) :D Happy‑melon 10:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it looks horrible on IE :( — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

istemplate niggles

1. Regarding this edit, it was deliberate not a slip: I was thinking that it might be simpler if we could enfore that sandboxes must use the subpagename rather than their fullpagename. It is my most common error when copying a sandbox over :)
2. We seem to have a possible problem with /testcases pages. Unless category=no it is interpreted as templatepage which is not usually desirable. Would it be a good idea to put an exception for that in istemplate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

/testcases should always be |category=no. If we included an exception in /istemplate for testcases not to be templatepages, then the locwarning message would start cropping up, telling them to set |category=no anyway. I'm not sure if it's worth it, although it could probably be done fairly elegantly. But what about /Testcases, /test, /testing, etc etc?? We can't make exceptions for all of them. Happy‑melon 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

subst testcases

I don't suppose anyone could offer a method for testing subst detection functionality that doesn't actually involve substing the tested template? The only methods I am aware of which could even come close are typing {{subst:templatename}} while editing a page and clicking "preview", or substing the template into another template (e.g. {{templatename/substtest}}) which is then transcluded onto a testpage, but neither of these are completely optimal (since they both require extra steps, and the one that actually saves something still substs and must thus be re-substed with new versions of the template). If anyone is curious, I'm wondering about this for Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/testcases (and yeah, I ripped the subst detection code from here ^_^ ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry there's too many long words in that question so I can't answer :P But I have another question. Are you going to keep reinventing the wheel or are you going to convert that template to WPBM :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Would transcluding a different page consisting only of {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>templatename}} work? Dendodge _T\^C 19:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe... I'd have to test, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ASSESSMENT_CAT

On a similar note, it's been bugging me for some time that the syntax of |PROJECT= as it applies to categories, and |ASSESSMENT_CAT=, are not the same: in the latter case you have to append "articles". Every instance of ASSESSMENT_CAT has to include the word "articles", as all Category:FA-Class Foo articles cats have that word at the end. It's pointless, therefore, to have it as a separate parameter. We should change the syntax of |ASSESSMENT_CAT= to be just the "Foo" from "FA-Class Foo articles", just like |PROJECT= is. I'm reasonably confident that this can be done silently. If it can, is it a good idea? Happy‑melon 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Could we add a tracking parameter to find out how many projects do not have ASSESSMENT_CAT either undefined, or defined as PROJECT articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

None of them, unless you can find me a category in Category:FA-Class articles that doesn't end with "articles". Setting |ASSESMENT_CAT= to something other than "Foo articles" would change this value too, so no one is going to be doing it. I'll knock up a tracking cat for templates actually using the parameter at all. Happy‑melon 13:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a tracking cat Category:WPBannerMeta banners using ASSESSMENT_CAT that should catch all uses of an explicit |ASSESSMENT_CAT= parameter (unless it's set to PROJECT articles, of course), and hopefully will sort them by the index of the substring "articles" in the parameter value, which is pretty neat. Any that pop up sorted under "-1" need to be investigated more thoroughly. Happy‑melon 13:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I used "pages" in {{WPAFC-admin}} because there are no articles :) When I said PROJECT above I was referring to the actual parameter name. Lots of different variations are used apart from PROJECT articles: PROJECT-related articles, WikiProject PROJECT articles, etc. etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Trus you to be responsible for the one anomaly :P I see what you mean, and while I don't like them, they are unavoidable, and the reason for the parameter in the first place. My point is that they all have the common feature of ending in "articles", so we can (assuming we can do it silently) move that part into WPBM proper and thus improve the consistency of the syntax. Happy‑melon 15:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it's only AFC that's the anomaly then I suppose I won't stand in the way :) But this seems like one of those situations where it would have been better to do something differently in hindsight but perhaps not worth the bother in changing it. I hope you don't mind me saying, but the COMMENT -> COMMENTS change has got to be the biggest waste of expert template coders time ever! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it's only AfC and the mysterious WikiProject Editing trends that use anything other than "articles". I largely agree with you, this would have been much easier a long time ago. But it's the little things that make the big things happen :D Happy‑melon 10:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, WPAFC won't stand in the way of progress ;) By the way, I thought I'd offended you there for a while. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What, by calling me an expert template coder? Yes, mortally :D. Now watch how much time I waste on the Image → File conversion! Happy‑melon 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help with peer review hook

There was an error with the title parameter of the peer review hook. I tried to fix it but it's not working correctly yet. We've got

{{SUBJECTPAGENAME{{#if:{{{title|}}}|:{{{title}}}}}}}

The problem is that the colon is acting as an indent for some reason. Help please. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One possible way might be to do this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

{{SUBJECTPAGENAME:{{#if:{{{title|}}}|{{{title}}}|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}}

That should be safe. What is the problem, exactly? It can probably be filed as a bug. Happy‑melon 14:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to explain as best I could ... the colon in :{{{title}}} is interpreted as a paragraph indent rather than a colon which the magic word requires. Therefore the output looks like

{{SUBJECTPAGENAME

something}}

and the magic word doesn't get parsed properly. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WTF!?! That's crazy! Happy‑melon 15:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is actually a bug that affects all characters which are used to denote list wikimarkup, and one I've bashed my head against trying to fix more than once (unfortunately, there are often cases where simply enclosing it in <nowiki/> tags won't work, such as the above (I think)). I have the distinct feeling that the only reason other markup doesn't do this as well is because list wikimarkup is really the only type that requires a single character to trip the parser. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

sandbox notice

Just wondering what people think about automatically adding a notice to the sandbox versions of the banner templates. Putting the following at the top of Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage would do it.

{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}|sandbox|{{Template sandbox notice}}}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Go for it! —Ms2ger (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment flag?

Any idea how common they are, or how wanted they would be by the general project population? WP:USRD has one, and I was thinking of adding one to WP:CFB via a note parameter. But it made me wonder; if this is a pretty common feature, perhaps it could be something that goes into the base, much like "attention=" and "needs-infobox". We could have "reassess=", which puts articles into "Category:<project> articles needing reassessment". Any thoughts? DeFaultRyan 14:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

In my experience this is not a very widely used feature, so I would suggest a note. However, I was going to suggest image-needed as a general feature because these are very common. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on both counts. Gonna request the note for WP:CFB. DeFaultRyan 16:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Adding 3 more taskforces to the physics template.

Since this would total more than 5 taskforces, and that the documentation on hooks (whatever that is) is 1024 bit encrypted chinese voodoo to me, could someone implement things how they should be implemented?

The three parameters would be |bio= |pub= and |hist=. The final behaviour should be identical to the other taskforces (full assessment scale). Relevant categories would be physics biographies, physics publications, and physics history (capitalized in the same way as the other taskforces). The name of the taskforces would be Biographies Taskforce, Publications Taskforce and History Taskforce, but they would all link to WikiPedia:WikiProject Physics/Taskforces/BPH. Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hooks are reasonably simple if you know what you're looking at, although I agree they're not nearly as intuitive as the 'basic' code. I've added the two hooks that you need for the third extra taskforce; now you can just fill in the various parameters as usual. Hope this helps, Happy‑melon 19:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks. I think I got it right.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

C- and B-Class assessments

For a while, if all the B-Class criteria weren't filled in and marked as "yes", the articles were listed as C-Class even if they had been assessed as "class=B". Now it just lists them as B-Class even if the B-Class criteria aren't filled in and marked "yes". Is this a change to {{WPBannerMeta}}, or did something weird happen to {{WikiProject Japan}}? I can't see anything in the code for {{WikiProject Japan}} which would do this. Thanks for any help! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the code in your custom class mask Template:WikiProject Japan/class. Probably occured from when Redirect-Class was implemented on your banner. I'll come and fix ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. Apologies from Happy-Melon. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Shit, I need to slow down a bit. Sorry about that, guys. Happy‑melon 18:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, it's "ok", I didn't screw up when I thought I did (when I blitzed about five banners in half an hour). Full steam ahead then :D Happy‑melon 18:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed it that last week or so and was waiting to see if it might fix itself (as some things have done with the banner). :) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)