Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

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:{}|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): – 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.

      <------- 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 ( 4 )? 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 ( 7 ) instead of Category:NA-Class Ross Dependency articles ( 0 )? It seems to go into Category:Redirect-Class Antarctica articles ( 4,002 ) 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:{{{WikiProject Automobiles|¬}}}}}

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)

Remove some styles to improve mobile version

Please remove the following fragment:

@media (min-width: 720px) {
	.wpb {
		width: 80%;
	}
}

These styles are not necessary on desktop (tmbox already has styles to set it to 80% width), and cause this template to display at an unusually narrow width in the new version of mobile talk pages (visit e.g. [1] on your desktop and click "Learn more about this page" to see). Matma Rex talk 09:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks okay on my browser, following the link you gave. I'll check on my mobile later — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per related discussion at template talk:Article history Izno (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Task force name and case sensitivity

Task force names, as processed by {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}}, seem case sensitive. If I have a WikiProject banner template with:

|tf 1 = {{{aviation|}}}

It seems that a talk page with {{WikiProject Military history|aviation=y}} , it'll get recognized, but won't be.

Is there any way around this, other than :

|tf 1 = {{{aviation|Aviation|}}}}}}

?

The context for this is that I'm trying to create a WPBannerMeta version of the MILHIST talk page banner. Some of its task forces have 15+ parameters, so it would be nice to avoid needing to add multiple variations of capitalization for each TF parameter.

Would there be any downsides to changing {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} to make these case-insensitive by default? That would be rather nice, and would help catch a lot of errors we couldn't possibly add to templates, like DFlhb (talk) 12:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know how you would do that, and currently the only way is |tf 1 = {{{aviation|Aviation|}}}}}}. Probaby something that could more easily be done when this template is converted to lua — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Lua is another thing frWiki beat us to; their banners have been Lua for a while. DFlhb (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if it's possible to replicate MILHIST's task force "headings" (like "General topics", "Nations and regions", "Periods and conflicts", see Talk:Acra_(fortress) for an example) with WPBannerMeta. Any ideas? DFlhb (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@DFlhb: This cannot be done in {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces}} or any other template. Whilst it's easy to code for case-insensitive parameter values, the MediaWiki parser always treats parameter names as case-sensitive. It has no means for overriding this other than by coding for each likely variant, which is why the existing template has code like {{{B-Class-1|}}}{{{B-1|}}}{{{B1|}}}{{{b-1|}}}{{{b1|}}}. This means that |B-1= is equivalent to |b-1=, similarly |B1= is equivalent to |b1=, but the lowercase form of |B-Class-1=, i.e. |b-class-1= is invalid because it's not explicitly coded for. Please show which task forces have 15+ parameters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Europe has 26. DFlhb (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, |European= is the only alias for |European-task-force=. However, in addition, certain other taskforce parameters will trigger this one as a side-effect:

• |Balkan-task-force= (and its alias |Balkan=)
• |Romanian-task-force= (and its alias |Romanian=)
• |Baltic-task-force= (and its alias |Baltic=)
• |British-task-force= (and its alias |British=)
• |Three-Kingdoms-task-force= (and its alias |Three-Kingdoms=)
• |Dutch-task-force= (and its alias |Dutch=)
• |French-task-force= (and its alias |French=)
• |German-task-force= (and its alias |German=)
• |Italian-task-force= (and its alias |Italian=)
• |Nordic-task-force= (and its alias |Nordic=)
• |Polish-task-force= (and its alias |Polish=)
• |Spanish-task-force= (and its alias |Spanish=}

Each of these pairs is for a different traskforce, they are not aliases for |European-task-force=. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what the difference is; everything in these task forces is supposed to automatically get tagged with the European TF too, so they're passed in to the Europe task force in addition to being based in for their own task force (in the sandbox version). Isn't that how it's supposed to be done? DFlhb (talk) 09:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

See Template:WikiProject United States for an example of a WikiProject banner which is (a) built around {{WPBannerMeta}} (b) has lots of task forces (c) makes extensive use of parameter aliases, for example in this code:

|tf 2                = {{{USfilm|{{{UScinema|{{{USCinema|{{{USFilm|}}}}}}}}}}}}
 |TF_2_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/American cinema task force
 |TF_2_NAME          = WikiProject Film - American cinema task force
 |TF_2_PORTAL        = Film
 |TF_2_IMAGE         = United States film.svg
 |TF_2_QUALITY       = yes
 |TF_2_IMPORTANCE    = yes
 |tf 2 importance={{{USfilm-importance|{{{UScinema-importance|{{{USFilm-importance|{{{USCinema-importance|}}}}}}}}}}}}
 |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT = American cinema articles
 |TF_2_MAIN_CAT       = American cinema task force articles
 |TF_2_HOOK           = {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats
 |category={{{category|¬}}}
 |BANNER_NAME = Template:WikiProject United States
 |cat 1={{{WikiProject Automobiles|}}}
  |CAT_1      = Automatically assessed American cinema articles
 |cat 2={{{attention|}}}
  |CAT_2      = American cinema articles needing attention
 |cat 3={{{needs-infobox|{{{infobox-needed|}}}}}}
  |CAT_3      = American cinema articles needing an infobox
 |cat 4={{{needs-image|{{{image-needed|{{{photo-needed|{{{needs-photo|}}}}}}}}}}}}
  |CAT_4      = American cinema articles needing an image
 |cat 5={{{unref|}}}
  |CAT_5      = Unreferenced American cinema articles
|cat 6={{{needs-geocoord|{{{geocoord-needed|}}}}}}
  |CAT_6      = American cinema articles missing geocoordinate data
 |cat 8={{Ifexist not redirect|{{FULLPAGENAME}}/to do|yes}}
  |CAT_8 = American cinema articles with to-do lists
}}

which has nine parameters, five of which have aliases - three have three aliases each. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Single class rating for article

In case anyone has not been following, there is a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Project-independent quality assessments which allow class ratings to be placed into the banner shell, and to be hidden inside the individual project banners. This template will still need to read the class rating in order to populate the categories. You might like to review and comment there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

This is now a formal proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Project-independent quality assessments. Please come along and comment! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to note that the new system is ready for implementation - probably tomorrow or the next day. Discussion of details has been going on at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell. Just to summarise: this template will be modified to sometimes suppress the display of the article rating (if it matches the rating given in the banner shell) but should otherwise be unaffected. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Automated NA importance ratings?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Q. Is there a way to code a WikiProject banner so that a 'class' of, say, 'Redirect' or 'Category', automatically sets the 'importance' to 'na'? This would simplify our maintenance of the project's quality/importance table. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It should already do that. Do you have any example where it does not. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure: 'Talk:Zeta UMi'. Praemonitus (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

That is a redirect; real page is Zeta Ursae Minoris. DFlhb (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm not communicating my point. It's a redirect and does not need an importance rating. I want it to go to 'na', even if somebody set it to 'low'. Praemonitus (talk)

It will auto-assess as NA-importance if the importance is not specified, but you can override the default by using the parameter — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, unless the subject page is (i) an actual article; (ii) a list or (iii) a dab page, the |class= and |importance= parameters should be left blank or omitted entirely, they will then autodetect. For dab pages, you should set |class=dab, leaving |importance= blank or omitted. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. What I'm trying to avoid is having to repeatedly fix ratings where somebody added a redirect and set a non-NA importance rating. In this case it was a large quantity, so the result was a good chunk of unnecessarily wasted time. I was just hoping it was something I could code in the template logic, if somebody else had already addressed this. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

It can be achieved but is it something all WikiProjects would be on board with? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 06:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

My thinking was it could be set with a configuration flag in this template. Alternatively, there could be some sample code or a macro that individual WP templates could substitute. Praemonitus (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the misunderstanding was fully mine; I blame tiredness. Indeed, it would be nice if it could automatically override inaccurate importance ratings. It's tedious to have to clear those parameters manually. DFlhb (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I did a little more investigating and came up with the following, which might serve for individual WP templates:

|importance={{#switch: {{lc:{{{class}}}}}
 | category = na
 | redirect = na
 | file = na
 | portal = na
 | redirect = na
 | template = na
 | #default = {{{importance|}}}
}}

I don't know how to test it though. Praemonitus (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The point about autodetection is that you don't set class except for true articles, lists and dab pages, so for categories, redirs etc., i.e. pages where |class= isn't set, the above resolves to

|importance={{{importance}}}

which is an invalid value. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

That resolution is the same as the current setting, so how is that invalid? Anyway, the scenarios of concern are those where autodetect is overridden. Praemonitus (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It's invalid because when the |importance= parameter is not fed in, the value {{{importance}}} is taken literally. If you want an absent parameter to resolve to a null value, you need to add a pipe before the closing triple brace. It's also not the same as the current setting, which uses code to determine the namespace, see Template:Importance mask and Module:Pagetype. I also don't see why we would need to write new code for this, when we already have code that has existed for years, is thoroughly tested and extensively used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, pipe added. Well I've experienced this issue for a year now, so I'm looking for a solution and I was hoping this might be a good spot to start. I see there's no point in continuing. Praemonitus (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Praemonitus: if you use a custom importance mask, your project can manage its importance ratings however they wish. Let me know if you need help setting this up. Or if you think this is something every project should have, then do continue to discuss here. Template:Class mask has a |forceNA setting - we could look at adding such a thing to Template:Importance mask also — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Simplifying this template

So because quality assessment will move to the banner shell there will need to be a bot run editing basically all pages with this template. Is there anything else we would like to change here that could benefit from being changed in that huge bot run. I'm not at all familiar with the inner workings of WikiProject banners, but this seems to me like a potentially great opportunity. --Trialpears (talk) 05:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Changed? Yes, convert this into Lua so trying to change something in this series of templates doesn't require checking dozens of templates and getting lost in the process. My personal issue with the current code is that if I need to add a new task force and still want the template to be sorted alphabetically, I need to manually edit dozens of lines. That is a horrible design. Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before, I cannot understand Lua. Therefore, I will no longer be able to:

• maintain the template suite
• trace code through to find out why something doesn't happen as expected
• explain to others why their usage isn't working as expected
• create and add documentation

The number of Lua coders is far fewer than the number of people familiar with Wikimarkup, therefore, anybody converting a template to Lua must be willing to take on all of the tasks that I have listed above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I've been looking at if I need to add a new task force and still want the template to be sorted alphabetically, I need to manually edit dozens of lines. The present setup already allows additional task forces to ba added without any renumbering being necessary. Consider Template:WikiProject Biography: the present template (omitting two uses of {{WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats}}) has

 |tf 2={{{filmbio-work-group|}}}
  |TF_2_LINK             = Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
  |TF_2_NAME             = WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
  |TF_2_IMAGE            = Lumierebros.jpg
  |TF_2_QUALITY          = yes
  |tf 2 importance={{{filmbio-priority|{{{priority|{{{importance|}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT   = biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
  |TF_2_MAIN_CAT         = Actors and filmmakers work group articles
 |tf 3={{{musician-work-group|}}}
  |TF_3_LINK             = Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians 
  |TF_3_NAME             = WikiProject Musicians
  |TF_3_IMAGE            = Exquisite-microphone.png
  |TF_3_QUALITY          = yes
  |tf 3 importance={{{musician-priority|{{{priority|{{{importance|}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_3_ASSESSMENT_CAT   = biography (musicians) articles
  |TF_3_MAIN_CAT         = Musicians work group articles

Now assume that I want to insert a new task force between these, it might be called Foo work group. I can leave the existing code as it is and insert extra lines as follows:

 |tf 2={{{filmbio-work-group|}}}
  |TF_2_LINK             = Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
  |TF_2_NAME             = WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers
  |TF_2_IMAGE            = Lumierebros.jpg
  |TF_2_QUALITY          = yes
  |tf 2 importance={{{filmbio-priority|{{{priority|{{{importance|}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_2_ASSESSMENT_CAT   = biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
  |TF_2_MAIN_CAT         = Actors and filmmakers work group articles
 |tf 7={{{foo-work-group|}}}
  |TF_7_LINK             = Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo
  |TF_7_NAME             = WikiProject Foo
  |TF_7_IMAGE            = Example.png
  |TF_7_QUALITY          = yes
  |tf 7 importance={{{foo-priority|{{{priority|{{{importance|}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_7_ASSESSMENT_CAT   = foo articles
  |TF_7_MAIN_CAT         = Foo work group articles
}}{{WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces
 |category={{{category|¬}}}
 |PROJECT                = Biography
 |QUALITY_SCALE          = subpage
 |IMPORTANCE_SCALE_NAME  = importance
 |TF_SIZE                = x25px
 |class={{{class|}}}
 |tf 3={{{musician-work-group|}}}
  |TF_3_LINK             = Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians 
  |TF_3_NAME             = WikiProject Musicians
  |TF_3_IMAGE            = Exquisite-microphone.png
  |TF_3_QUALITY          = yes
  |tf 3 importance={{{musician-priority|{{{priority|{{{importance|}}}}}}}}}
  |TF_3_ASSESSMENT_CAT   = biography (musicians) articles
  |TF_3_MAIN_CAT         = Musicians work group articles

The numbers for |TF n= etc. need not be consecutive, they just need to be in the range 1-10, so you may leave gaps in the sequence in case of future eventualities. The same goes for the "nested" code later on. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

How can you understand template syntax? You weren't born with the knowledge. I bet when you first saw a template in wikicode it was quite imtimidating. Well, the same might be true of Lua. I am far from an expert, but I have come a long way in the past year. (Probably Module:Is instance I am most proud of.) It's a steep learning curve, but I can promise that you'll wonder how we ever managed with wikicode and the arcane setup we are using here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:14, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history

There are efforts underway to convert this template to use WPBannerMeta. If anyone has spare time and is familiar with custom class masks, etc. please see discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Military history — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Change colour of unassessed

There is a proposal at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell to change the colour of unassessed class from transparent to #dcdcdc (see diff ) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

bchecklist unintuitive behaviour

Re: Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/bchecklist, and specifically Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/bchecklist/cat:

Two behaviors I don't like:

1. By default, it treats missing and failing B-criteria identically. So |b1= and |b1=no (and |b1 being absent altogether) all lead to categorization into things like Category:XYZ articles needing attention to referencing and citation.
2. By default, if no B-criteria are filled, it puts it in XYZ articles with incomplete B-Class checklists rather than with empty B-Class checklists

The first is offensively dumb; the second is just annoying. The first pollutes the categories with unclassified articles rather than articles that really need attention, and is not the behaviour I'd expect. Unsurprisingly, only a handful of projects still use B-checklists (see cat of these project), and most projects either abandoned the B-checklists or coded their own logic (like WP:FILM, WP:APPLE, MILHIST) that avoids this.

Does anyone agree that this isn't expected behavior? Any bots or editors' personal workflows that rely on this weirdness? I think at least #1 should be changed, if not #2. I've solved both at WP:APPLE by using this custom logic inspired by WP:FILM's logic. DFlhb (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it is unintuitive that a blank value is treated the same as a "no" value. The documentation is clear: "specifies individual categories to use when the individual checklist parameters are blank or set to no". Of course this behaviour could be changed, but that would affect all articles currently using these categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:46, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that it makes these categories less useful, because they don't only contain articles that really need attention; by default, they contain 85-90%+ of a project's articles, since that's how many articles lack B-checklists. DFlhb (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Change link to quality scale

When project-independent quality ratings are implemented, any project which has not opted out will be assumed to be using the standard quality scale described at Wikipedia:Content assessment. Currently the |ASSESSMENT_LINK= parameter is used for this, and if not defined, will default to Wikipedia:WikiProject {{{PROJECT}}}/Assessment (if that page exists). I propose to change this behaviour so that unless |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom is defined, then Wikipedia:Content assessment will be used for the quality scale. The |ASSESSMENT_LINK= will still be used for the importance scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the changes required are [2] and [3] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:19, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Good change. I like that this addresses feedback I raised at WP:VPR by continuing to link to custom importance scales. DFlhb (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:46, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Add tracking categories

To help with the implementation of global article quality ratings, I am thinking of adding a couple of tracking categories:

• Category:WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale for pages using |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom
• Category:WikiProjects using the standard quality scale and a custom assessment link for pages not using |QUALITY_CRITERIA= but which have something defined in |ASSESSMENT_LINK=

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:WikiProjects using the standard quality scale with customised class masks added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § TfD follow-up: Fate of the vital article talk banner

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles § TfD follow-up: Fate of the vital article talk banner. Information is particularly sought on whether or not it would be possible to add a parenthetical like (Listed at level 3 in People) in place of e.g. (Rated Mid-Importance) without making changes to this template. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 19:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Nested, rated for class, and inactive

See Talk:Popular culture, where we find

(Rated C-class)(Inactive)

the underlying markup being

(Rated C-class)([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects|Inactive]])

notice the two parentheses are butted up together. I think that we need a space here, but since the two parentheses have different origins, I don't know where the best place is. The first parenthesis originates in Template:WPBannerMeta/core with these lines:

<th class="wpb-header-assessment">{{#switch:{{#ifeq:{{str left|{{{class|}}}|1}}|H|<!--hide-->|{{str right|{{{class|¬¬}}}|1}}}}
  ||¬       = {{#switch:{{{importance|}}}
    ||¬|NA|Unknown = <span class="wpb-iefix">&nbsp;<!--TO FIX IE--></span>
    |#default      = (Rated {{{importance|}}}-{{{IMPN}}})
  }}
  |#default = (Rated {{str right|{{{class|}}}|1}}-class{{#switch:{{{importance|}}}
    ||¬|NA|Unknown = )
    |#default      = , {{{importance|}}}-{{{IMPN}}})
  }}
}}{{{HOOK_NESTED_ASSESS|}}}
</th>

and the second parenthesis is passed into that through |HOOK_NESTED_ASSESS= from Template:Inactive WikiProject banner which has the line

 |HOOK_NESTED_ASSESS  = ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects|{{#if:{{{status|}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{status}}}}}|Inactive}}]])

Should we add the space in Template:WPBannerMeta/core as a simple space:

}} {{{HOOK_NESTED_ASSESS|}}}

or in Template:Inactive WikiProject banner as an encoded space:

 |HOOK_NESTED_ASSESS  =  ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Dealing with inactive WikiProjects|{{#if:{{{status|}}}|{{ucfirst:{{{status}}}}}|Inactive}}]])

Opinions? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Either works. I just did the latter and it does look better — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Module: Format

Moved from Module talk:WikiProject banner

 – —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Moved from module code so it can be discussed more easily — Martin (MSGJ · talk)

Deprecate/swap "format" to "style" in live template since that seems to be the only use of this parameter from what I can see, maybe even just `background` [4] - only used by like 6 templates, do they really need it? BIO, Turtles, US Roads, MILHIST, Ships, Amphibians/Reptiles -- this may need/want to be a public template, not local

Probably not needed, but could I suggest that it would be best to match functionality as much as possible before making the transition to Lua. Then we can discuss whether things like this are needed or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we can make the lesser change to the wikitext version today (restricting it down to style or even just background as is the use out there) and sort out whether it's all that valuable later as you suggest. Izno (talk) 23:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think format is a synonym for style in this case. Not sure what you are proposing exactly? Are any projects using it for anything other than background changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

It is not a synonym, which is why it sticks out like a sore thumb to me. Format is currently implemented in the various templates as something along the lines of |FORMAT=style="background: X". No, that's not a typo, somebody thought you should be able to add whatever attribute you want to the HTML element.

My observation was that it was being used only to change the background of the note image (which is the only cell it can change). Izno (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay I understand completely why you want to get rid of FORMAT! Can't see any use for it except for the style. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Reimplementation in Lua in progess

At Module:WikiProject banner. Figured I should given people a heads up now rather than it coming as a surprise or fait accompli later. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:31, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hope to have this ready in the next couple of weeks. One main advantage will be support for an infinite number of task forces and notes, so hooks will no longer be required on most banners. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:15, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Coding is more or less complete on Module:WikiProject banner and I would be grateful if anyone can help test it. It's in use on the following templates:

• Template:WikiProject Football/sandbox
• Template:WikiProject Norway/sandbox
• Template:WikiProject Biography/sandbox
• Template:WikiProject United States/sandbox
• Template:WikiProject Afghanistan/sandbox
• Template:WikiProject Portals/sandbox

I'm still working on Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage so the display on the actual template may not be quite right yet. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Module is now ready to deploy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Appears QUALITY_CRITERIA isn't fully implemented; the wikitext 2010 editor's preview shows a warning on templates that use it like Template:MILHIST/sandbox, though the category is still populated
2. There are also nine four templates showing up in the errors category, not sure if the switchover is responsible.
3. Template:WikiProject Malta's the Gozo articles are now in categories like Category:Top-importance the Gozo task forcearticles instead of Category:Top-importance the Gozo task force articles, without apparent issues with the template code.
4. Some projects, like WikiProject Mathematics, use "priority" instead of importance, which affects categorisation and isn't currently supported; see e.g. Talk:3-sphere now populates Category:High-importance mathematics articles instead of the correct one "High-priority..."

DFlhb (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2023 (UTC) now only 4 showing up as errors 15:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll check now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

1. Fixed by adding this parameter to the list of recognised parameters. It should be functioning properly.
2. I think the previous template ignored templates in user space, so will look at doing that.
3. Added the space
4. Fixed

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Great, I'll let you know if I find any more bugs. DFlhb (talk) 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

As a demonstration of the new capabilities I have simplified Template:WikiProject South America so the 17 task forces do not need any hooks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Mobile Issue

Since the recent update, no WikiProject banners are viewable on mobile, being replaced with horizontal yellow lines. This affects all WikiProjects. Please fix this quickly! QuicoleJR (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

@PresN: You seem like you know a lot about the banners. Any ideas here? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I just worked out some configuration, no idea about the code itself. Did it work before, though? There's a big template on the doc page for this template saying "This template does not display in the mobile view of Wikipedia; it is desktop only. Read the documentation for an explanation." The documentation doesn't seem to have an explanation, though? --PresN 00:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

That said, that warning was put on by a driveby editor with no further explanation in 2020. Also, I just pulled up Talk:Doom (1993 video game), and while the wikiproject boxes don't work (just the borders with no content or height), the Vital article template does show up, as does the overall Bannershell box (but with a tiny icon, so that's a bug too). I guess, QuicoleJR can you verify that it was working for you on mobile before the update? MSGJ was your understanding that mobile is not supported for this template? --PresN 00:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, yeah, Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_10#Mobile says that it was suppressed on mobile as far back as 2015. So the issue is not that its broken on mobile suddenly, it's that it shows up at all. --PresN 00:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

It was fully visible before the recent update. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, digging through the code, and it seems like the new Lua code adds class=tmbox to the wikiproject banners (so they get suppressed), but not the overall box, while the old WPBannerMeta/core subtemplate used to put it on the box overall. Don't know why it would show up for you before, though? Either way, I think that it's possibly missing on the overall box, but we should wait for MSGJ to say what they intended to happen on mobile. --PresN 00:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There was no intention to change any of the display. I will have a look through the code now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "the box overall". Which line of code are you looking at? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Just wondering if it's anything to do with line 579? -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure where the css('height', '0') came from - looks like it can safely be removed. I can't see any difference in mobile view. @QuicoleJR: any chance of a screenshot to show what you are seeing? Which browser are you using, etc.? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

At Talk:Doom (1993 video game), WP banners inside shell appear as thin lines, just below vital banner.

At this talk page, the only WP banner appear as thin line, between {{central}} and number of formatting errors.

Demonstration of thin line problems.

@MSGJ: Here are some screenshots. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for that, very helpful. Not seeing anything like that on Chrome for mobile. What browser is that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm on Chrome version 113.0.5672.132 on Android 13, Samsung Galaxy M13 5G. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 08:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I use the Google app. Not Chrome, just plain Google. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I'm wrong, I was referring to how Template:WPBannerMeta/core puts the tmbox css class on the table element itself and I didn't see that in the Lua code, but it's there in the actual html so I must have just missed it. --PresN 00:19, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ and PresN: It appears to be working now. Thanks for the help! QuicoleJR (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The only thing I changed was to remove the css('height', '0') so you can thank @WOSlinker for that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Importance as ??? since module switch

@MSGJ: I don't know how wide spread for other project banners, but {{WikiProject Video games}} is showing ???s for importance on all pages that have purged. See Talk:Diablo IV for an immediate example. @Kung Fu Man: noticed and brought to my attention on Discord. -- ferret (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I can see on e.g. Talk:Doom (1993 video game) that it's not affecting all projects; presumably it is because video games has |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom in its template while others do not. --PresN 01:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, can't be that- Talk:Final Fantasy XVI has importance not working for Video games but working for Square Enix, but both templates use |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom. --PresN 01:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not that, it's the importance mask subpage ({{WikiProject Video games/importance}}- removing it (as I just did in the template's subpage) fixes it. For some reason, ours was subst'd (by MSGJ, actually) years back instead of using {{Importance mask}} like every other project that has a custom mask, so I'll play with it to figure out how to replicate it (e.g. figure out what we even have custom to start with, there's no doc page). --PresN 01:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fixed. As far as I can tell, there was something odd in how it got subst'd that meant it returned some parameters as null/nil, and Lua choked on it where the standard template code didn't? Maybe? Anyway normal cases are now looking correct, and we weren't doing anything crazy with importance anyway (turning off Bottom-class and trying to set the default to Unknown, which I think is what it does anyway by default), but I'll keep an eye on it. --PresN 02:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't really remember what that was for, but there is related discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 2#NA priority for drafts. In any case that custom mask does not seem to do anything special so you could probably remove |IMPORTANCE_SCALE=subpage from the template and just use the standard mask. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Astronomy

Project ratings, such as at Talk:Algol for a Top rated article are now displaying as ??? in the banner. Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article ratings which is suddenly weird. Is this an effect of the recent update? StarryGrandma (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Same issue as #Importance as ??? since module switch above, I presume. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:19, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like it. Compare the bot generated Astronomy table from June 22 with that from June 23. StarryGrandma (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why that template ever worked in the past, but I have now fixed Template:WikiProject Astronomy/importance and it seems to be working again — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks!! StarryGrandma (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Chess

WikiProject Chess seems to suffer from the same issue, see for example: Talk:Blindfold_chess --Mika1h (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. As above, I don't know why or how it would have worked before. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Working from the results of an insource search, I also fixed six other .../importance pages that had this same problem. That may be all of them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)