Jump to content

Template talk:WikiProject banner shell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Module talk:Banner shell)

Combine messages

[edit]

Would it be a good idea to combine {{active politician}} and {{BLP}} into one message? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're worth distinguishing, since activepol implies a higher likelihood of misrepresentation, above the already-heightened blp baseline.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:45, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but do we need two separate messages on active policitians, or could we adapt the message on {{BLP}} accordingly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:21, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think displaying 2 separate messages is necessary nor as useful as just displaying 1, mostly b/c of banner blindness. Have 1 msg for regular blp, and another for activepol, and adjust the wording of each if/as needed.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Current

[edit]

Currently we display the following for active politicians:

Proposed

[edit]

We could combine in the following way:

Comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - a verbatim merge, with the "If you are a subject of this article" bit at the bottom of both is sensible.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After implementation:
  1. should |blp=yes|activepol=yes be changed to |activepol=yes, or left alone?
  2. Template:WikiProject Biography/doc needs updating with this and the other changes made
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I would still prefer |blp=yes, |blp=other, |blp=activepol or |blp=no. Reducing to one parameter makes it more likely to be updated correctly
  2. {{WikiProject Biography}} no longer does anything with these parameters (it actually identifies them as unknown parameters). Might be better to add to Template:WikiProject banner shell/doc?
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oh good, yes, looking forward to using |blp= for everything.
  2. Yes, remove from {{WP Bio}} doc & add to {{WPBS}} doc.
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let's do this ... Also Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with conflicting living parameter is filling up and I can't keep up, so any help would be appreciated — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an easy bot task. No reason to have human beings waste time on something a bot can do. Pages that are in Category:Living people and Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with conflicting living parameter should have blp=yes, anything else, should have no. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea, assuming the category is up to date. Do you want to make a bot request? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a higher chance that the category on the main page will be more up to date than the banner on the talk page. I'll ping User:Kanashimi to see if their bot User:Cewbot can handle this as part of their task 12, if not I'll post a request. Gonnym (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sounds good. My only hesitation is that WP:BLP can also apply to a person who is recently deceased, but this is rather vague in the policy. If a bot starts removing {{BLP}} from talk pages on the day of the death, it might cause consternation or at least raise eyebrows — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean synchronizing |blp= with for pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with conflicting living parameter, the bot may do this operate. Kanashimi (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Cleared all 142 from Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with conflicting living parameter (0). It's good to also confirm that a Category:Deaths by year exists before removing |blp=yes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added support for |blp=activepol and |blp=other on the sandbox. Regarding the possible merge of the templates, I think the best route forward might be a TfM for {{Active politician}} with {{BLP}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I will now ask @Kanashimi to start using blp in all cases going forward — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 WP Bio/doc updated   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update

[edit]

Per the TfD the active politician banner is now combined with the BLP banner — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Talk pages using standalone BLP templates is empty which means that all these templates are now being called from WPBS. If there is no need to use them standalone then we may as well merge them all into this template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 November 4#Template:BLP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blp and/or living for disambiguation, redirect, etc.

[edit]

There are quite a few disambiguation pages, redirects, etc. that apparently fall under WikiProject Biography. Specifically, I'm looking at Category:Biography articles without living parameter (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Category:Biography_articles_without_living_parameter&from=W).

  1. Do they really fall under that project?
  2. Should they have a living/blp parameter?
  3. What's the best way to go about resolving this?

Snowman304|talk 23:50, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this discussion on WT:Biography.
What do you mean by "etc."? For categories & templates, |blp= isn't required & should be removed. For drafts, I think it's important to include.
For redirects, I think |blp= is important to maintain. One of the duties of |blp=yes is to populate Category:Noindexed pages per WP:NOINDEX, and should apply to someone's aliases, nicknames, stage names, etc. where reasonable, lest a backdoor index is created.
For DAB pages, I think this should apply to the main/top target of the dab; for example Joey Lawrence (disambiguation) & Sai Kumar, though there are some notable exceptions. I'd like to get WP:Biography's opinion about this too.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:40, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By "etc.," I meant "there are a bunch of random cases besides that should probably be talked about, but I don't want to list them all." Maybe there's a page somewhere within the WikiProject that explains when and when not to include it. But the hundreds of articles in the category make it seem like it's not super clear.
Snowman304|talk 16:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make sense to not require |blp= on redirects or disambiguation pages — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as long as |blp=yes is recognized.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so it will be optional on those pages. |blp=yes will operate as normal, but it will not populate Category:Biography articles without living parameter if missing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Importance options for redirects

[edit]

It appears that importance options for redirects do not work any more. Only no importance and NA seem to be available. This is not good as many redirects with possibilities (R from subtopic for example) have real importance to projects. Low is the usual case, but higher importance ratings are possible, and where relevant should be displayed. Has someone decided to arbitrarily override the choice of projects? Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 03:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've found the discussion on Module talk:WikiProject banner so I will reply there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transition code

[edit]

Now that Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating is almost always empty, I think we can safely remove the transition code that we have been using in this module for the past year or so. Any article without |class= defined will be regarded as unassessed. This will replace the WikiProject Council logo with the unassessed logo along with a corresponding change in wording — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Major work ongoing in sandbox. Proposed changes:
Are there any other changes which people want to see? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FM-class

[edit]

We need to make the banenr shell support FM-class. Currently on pages such as File talk:Sfearthquake3b.jpg there is no visual indication that the file is rated FM-class (although the categories do work) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a start on this in the sandbox, but it's turning out to be quite complicated and not working properly yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This code is now ready for review/testing. Changes include:
  1. [1] Pass class parameter through the class mask in all cases, not just for articles
  2. [2] Use pagetype instead of the word "article", so we can say "This file has been rated ..."
  3. [3] |class=FM will fall back to File-class if FM category does not exist, and fall back to NA-class if File category does not exist
  4. [4] Hardcoded an exception for FM-class which will not trigger a conflict in ratings (e.g. if PIQA is FM-class but project is File-class)
  5. Support for |blp=other and |blp=activepol (discussed in a separate thread)
One unresolved matter: how should we track files marked as FM-class in a project banner, but not yet identified as FM-class in the banner shell? Perhaps a temporary tracking category for these — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed so that these will now trigger Category:FM-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings for a bot to move the FM rating into the banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slight issue which I will look into later - Old revision of File talk:Koh Samui Lipa Noi2.jpg. On {{WikiProject Thailand}}, the rating should not be identified as a conflict. On {{WikiProject Islands}}, the rating should fall back to File-class, and should also not produce a conflict warning — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{WikiProject Home Living}} also emits a conflict when a shell class is present @ File talk:Xbox-360-Pro-wController.jpg   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - Issue with the collapsed parameter for WikiProjects in this banner shell

[edit]

I tried to use "collapsed=yes" to collapse some WikiProject notices on a talk page but I couldn't get that to work, the WikiProject banners did not collapse. What did work was "collapsed=y" which is contrary to the instructions on this Template page. - Shearonink (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

|collapsed=yes works for me. Please give an example of where it's not working? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Example of it working — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So weird...I *swear*, I tried to use the =yes on Talk:Tom Simpson and I couldn't get it to work... All I can think of is maybe a stray space or letter snuck in and I missed it. Yes I see that =yes works. Thanks for the reply. Just another glitch in the matrix... - Shearonink (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing rating icon at the new MOS talk namespace

[edit]

At MOS talk:THEY, WPBS implements a non-existent File:Na. (Not sure what needs changing, my inactivity has rendered me too far removed from this template's backend.) Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting. That is pretty bad ... Are MOS and MOS talk actually namespaces? I've never heard of them before. I assumed these redirects were in article space — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/File:Na please. Looks like many implementations with class=NA are showing this same non-existent file. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. 88 in total. I will have time to look at this on Sunday — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was, until being added as namespace this September to prevent conflict with Mooré Wikipedia (language code mos): m:Tech/News/2024/37. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 215#Tech News: 2024-37, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 215#Cleaning up MOS: links, Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 215#Tech News: 2024-41. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links. Amazing that all this happened on a page that I watch without me being aware! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved issue and also added new icon for TimedText files — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised to find that using |class=NA had any effect when using it in mainspace. This is not intentional, and does not happen in project banners. So I need to explore why this is happening. Thanks to CX Zoom for clearing those out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking dead/alive people

[edit]

Gonnym proposed tracking talk pages identified as living of people who are actually dead, or talk pages identified as non-living when they are actually alive. I think the idea is:

  1. Look for Category:Living people and if |blp=no or |blp=other then track. (What about if |blp= is missing or blank?)
  2. Look for a category like Category:1947 deaths and if |blp=yes or |blp=activepol then track.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. If |blp= is missing or blank, then Category:Biography articles without living parameter should be populated as normal.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's sort out all the redundant and conflicting living parameter first, then the coding will become much simpler — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any article categories that can detect active politicians? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"activepol" parameter error, not populating category

[edit]

My watchlist has recently shown AWB runs by Tom.Reding, in some cases to the tune of a thousand edits per hour, incorporating deprecated instances of "activepol" into the WPBS. I assume this is in response to this discussion. While attempting to clean up the many instances of talk pages tagged as an active politician when the subject really isn't active, I dug deeper and discovered that Category:Active politicians isn't being populated, even though its description says it should be. Currently, the only contents in that category are articles in which the category was manually added. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Example   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. There are currently only 30 pages in Category:Active politicians (21,019) (!), which means that the module isn't populating the category via |activepol=yes nor |blp=activepol. Looking at the categories before and after my example confirms this. Fortunately, Category:Noindexed pages is being applied correctly.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Active politicians (21,019) is repopulating now with no edits to the modules, so this probably had something to do with the TfD tagging of the various blp templates and how that code interacted with the modules.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Gonnym who fixed this yesterday on Template:BLP — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checks for redundant or conflicting living parameter

[edit]

Extensive checks added to Module:Banner shell/sandbox:

  • If |living=yes and |blp=no then tracks as CONFLICT
  • If |living=yes and |blp=other then tracks as CONFLICT
  • If |living=yes and |blp=yes then tracks as REDUNDANT
  • If |living=yes and |blp=activepol then tracks as REDUNDANT
  • If |living=no and |blp=no then tracks as REDUNDANT
  • If |living=no and |blp=other then tracks as REDUNDANT
  • If |living=no and |blp=yes then tracks as CONFLICT
  • If |living=no and |blp=activepol then tracks as CONFLICT

Does that look right? Also removed |blpo= and |activepol= from the list of recognised parameters, so these will end up in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters. Also propose moving:

because these are not dependent on WikiProject Biography. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Looks good   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:16, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{WikiProject Biography|activepol=yes}} isn't populating Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with unknown parameters. I don't know if it did before, though.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  08:54, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it's an alias for tf 6. Not sure if that can safely be removed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting. Since {{{activepol-importance|}}} doesn't exist, then it's likely that its usage rate is low & removing might not be a big deal. I'll take a look.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  09:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I scanned the entirety of Category:Politics and government work group articles (288,354), and found that ~2.2% contain {{WikiProject Biography|activepol=y (~0.1% contain only |activepol=n), and of that 2.2%, 95% contain {{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=y, and that there are only ~295 pages which use |activepol=y on its own as a true alias to |politician-work-group= (example), which is only 0.1% of the category total, so I think |activepol= can safely be removed without too much work. I'll go through the full 2.2% and transfer |activepol= to WPBS as needed, and make sure a corresponding |politician-work-group=y exists. Then we can get rid of |activepol= from WPBio, since it would only serve as a source of confusion with WPBS otherwise.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  01:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice analysis. Sounds like a good approach — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Partly done - all 295 pages using {{WikiProject Biography|activepol=yes}} have been updated (example).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So can we remove that alias from tf6? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so they are starting to trickle into Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with unknown parameters — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blp=others

[edit]

As the template is called {{BLP others}} it seems logical that we should accept |blp=others as well as |blp=other — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not exist anymore in the wild as a standalone so its name is irrelevant. The plural value also doesn't make sense when talking about an individual page. It also adds more unnecessary code. Gonnym (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Also, while slightly-slippery-slope-y, |blp=others might entice the use of |blp=activepols.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I've also seen |blp=pol when an editor removed "active", and someone even tried |blp=inactivepol! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More blp banner templates

[edit]

The following templates should probably also be migrated into the banner so we don't end up with duplicate blp notices as most of these have (see Talk:Poppy Z. Brite as an example).

Gonnym (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suggest:
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My initial reaction was that I don't want to touch those things with a barge pole. Secondly if we were to incorporate them into the banner shell, then we should use the blp parameter, e.g. |blp=trans as we are putting in much effort to eliminate other parameters. Thirdly, how would you propose to merge these messages with {{blp}}? They are not very similar. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|blp=trans would interfere with |blp=activepol   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. We could do comma-separated, e.g. |blp=trans,activepol — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think |blp=w,activepol, |blp=yes,m, etc. would be intuitive to editors.
Also, |trans=<yes|w|m> & |non-binary=yes are more permanent than |blp=: |blp= will change, but |trans=<yes|w|m> & |non-binary=yes will remain even after they have died. Making separate parameters makes maintenance of |blp= simpler, less prone to errors, and more intuitive.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
would you propose to merge these messages, I didn't say merge, I said migrate to the banner. If these show, then don't show blp. There is absolutely no need to have two giant banners like this. The last section of Template:MOS-TRANS already covers blp=living for example. Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively we work on making each banner smaller, and remove some bloat. How would you deal with the trans and activepol combination? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article wrongly marked as List class

[edit]
I was advised to post this topic here and notify @MSGJ.

I noticed that the article Femke is wrongly marked as List class on the talk page, where it should be marked as GA class, but the class in the banner shell is overridden. I suspect that this is somehow caused by / related to the {{given name}} template used in the article, despite the section=y parameter that indicates just one section is a list of given names and not the whole article. Could this be fixed? – Editør (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template should not be used there per its doc page. Remove it from the article. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the entire doc page, it indicates the template can also be used for sections by adding the section parameter. Based on that, it seems the template was appropriately used here for the section, because it is a set index in an article that is not a set index article. So I don't think removing the template is the right solution for set index sections. – Editør (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you read it out of context, it can read as such. Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Editor is wrong here? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 18:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:{{given name}} is only for use on Wikipedia set index articles. I'm not sure how this sentence can be understood in any other way.
Or how the article is now placed in Category:All set index articles, or how there is a disambiguation-styled box in the middle of Femke, something that articles do not use. Gonnym (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A section of the article is indeed an SIA, and there are 47 articles using the section parameter. Perhaps, the template needs to be updated to not include these to the SIA category. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem that a large amount of those pages are set index articles that misuse the template (see Birdsall (name)) and most other usages are just plain dumb. Hughie (name) has a section titled "People with the given name" and another titled "People with the nickname", having a template duplicate that information is completely pointless.
Regardless, both templates are working correctly. If you want to change the scope of the set index template, then have the discussion there. Gonnym (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of the doc page defines the template's intended usage very narrowly, you were right to point that out, but the section parameter shows the template's intended usage is actually broader and not limited to set index articles alone. I want to fix the recently arisen problem of wrongly overriding the class in banner shells for articles with set index sections. If removing the given name template is the only way, which seems to be the solution you have in mind, I will do that, but I would prefer a solution where section=yes prevents overriding the class in the banner shell. – Editør (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had some misgivings about this implementation from the start. I would recommend we do not override an editor-given classification. There may be other articles (e.g. Featured Lists) which are being wrongly classified by this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be a much broader fix, but I think it would also solve this problem. – Editør (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will aim to work on this shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to still override editor-given classifications of set index articles as Disambiguation-class? I don't see the case happening where one section of an article is a disambiguation, and there are not featured disambiguations. This would prevent it being necessary to manually reclassify articles incorrectly classified as disambiguation, and keep most set index articles correctly classified (I haven't seen very many classified as anything other than Disambig/List/Nothing).
@Editør for context I started the discussion for this change a while ago in attempt to fix the fact that most set index articles weren't classified correctly. There are a few thousand not manually classified or incorrectly so, currently. Definitely didn't expect that people used set index article templates for sections, that's new. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some articles about given names are not very developed, they contain an introductory line or two and a list of wikilinks, so for those articles setting or overriding the class seems like a suitable way to assess them. By improving Femke to a good article, I've shown that articles about given names can be more than just a list of people or disambiguation links. So I think that the section=yes parameter marks those articles where the class shouldn't be overridden. I don't think this parameter exists for {{disambiguation}}, so there this problem will likely not occur. – Editør (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Set index articles are currently classified as List-class not disambiguation pages. Did you mean to say that? I looked at the code to allow editors to override (while still defaulting to List-class) but it is not straightforward and will need some major changes to the logic and careful testing. In the meantime, can I create a new template, e.g. {{set index article section}}, which will not trigger the whole page to be recognised as a set index article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I assumed you were going to enable overriding (I don't have a good grasp of how this works in the code, sorry) and was saying that if you did it might be useful to not allowing overriding of set index articles as disambiguation, as a number of them are incorrectly overrided in this way, I think.
Personally, I think a {{set index article section}} would by my choice of a permanent solution -- I went back and read the original discussion and was going to say that it mentioned Wikipedia:Set index articles saying that set index articles are list articles -- I think that to keep set index articles as list articles, articles that need other classifications should not be listed as set indices. So I would support that.
I agree that overriding is probably necessary for FL-class articles, but not knowing of any more edge cases like this (of course, I didn't know about this one) I think that articles that need to be classified other than as lists could probably just be handled by not placing set index article templates in them, and using alternative means like the section-specific template mentioned above. I looked at the other set index article templates and none I saw had "section" parameters.
As an aside, I'm not 100% sure if this is possible or a good idea, but it might be easier to edit {{set index article}} to not classify itself as a set index article in the template code on the condition that the section parameter was set than to institute a new template, although there are only ~50 so cleanup wouldn't be impossible; it would be a little more complicated to figure out as a new user but might work. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a barebones template at Template:Set index article section. Please edit as needed. I will continue to think about the code needed to allow overrides — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Edited Template:Given name/sandbox to enable the "nocat" parameter when the "section" parameter is enabled, so that it won't override the GA class and tested it on the Femke article, so that's a workable solution as far as I can tell. I think the same line could be copy-pasted to the main set index article template if a section parameter was desired there.
Initially thought it would be more difficult to do it that way but I think if it was done that way the Femke problem would be pretty much solved. @Martin do you mind if I put in an edit request for the Given name template to do it that way? I could also create a {{Given name section}} template but I think it'll be easier to keep it in one template, especially given its already in use. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it will work. Module:Pagetype checks for which templates are used on the page. If it finds {{given name}} then it will be classified as a SIA, regardless of any categories. I suspect the reason that your test worked is that you were using {{given name/sandbox}} which is a different template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that would do it. I thought it was based on the categorization. Mrfoogles (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:WikiProject_banner_shell&oldid=1260263836"