Jump to content

Module talk:WikiProject banner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Category:Pages using WikiProject [insert project] with unknown parameters

[edit]

In Special:WantedPages, a lot of the most wanted pages are empty categories for pages that use a WikiProject with unknown parameters. In fact, the most wanted page, with nearly 120,000 pages (most appear to be talk pages) linking to it, is the empty category "Category:Pages using WikiProject Lepidoptera with unknown parameters". Why is that? BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 00:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I know why this is happening. This module uses Module:Check for unknown parameters and we have to tell it a category to use if it finds any unknown parameters. The default category is Category:Pages using WikiProject PROJECT with unknown parameters where PROJECT is the name of the project. But not all these categories exist, so the module checks if it exists first, and if not it will use the generic Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters instead. The link to these categories occurs when it checks for existence. I can't change this behaviour at this module, but I will make a suggestion at Module talk:Check for unknown parameters to see if there is something that can be done there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 01:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A fix for this is now in the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 13:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is now deployed, so they should start clearing out of the wanted categories page soon — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ How long should it take for them to clear out on that page? Rjjiii (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DOC=auto and inactive banners

[edit]

|DOC=auto does not work with inactive banners (see Template:WikiProject University of Florida). Gonnym (talk) 10:23, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is true. Would you care you write some documentation for inactive banners that we can use? It would not be very long because most features are disabled. Perhaps some information about inactive projects and how to revive? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:39, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'll muse over this weekend. But at the very least, the categorization should still happen for the template. An inactive banner is not placed in the project's category. Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See also {{WikiProject Reenactment}}. Same problem, I think. It needs documentation and a category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know this needs sorting. Just need some time to look at it ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The categorisation is now fixed (I hope!). If someone can write some documentation for inactive banners, this can be added to /templatepage — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bumping this to avoid it being archived. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for someone to write the documentation — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Override importance to NA on non-articles

[edit]

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

The suggestion makes sense, and overridden pages can be filtered into Category:Pages with conflicting importance ratings. As long as any WikiProjects that wish to use their own importance scheme can use a custom importance mask, I don't see a problem. I would just be careful about not emptying that category too quickly, to give WikiProjects that do importance-rate #Rs, cats, templates, etc., time to make their own masks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the rating is ignored, then it doesn't create a conflict. For example if you type |class=C on a redirect, then that will be ignored and it will still be classified as a redirect, and it does not trigger the conflicting ratings category. Should that be the same for ignored importance ratings? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If any and all WikiProjects that currently use importance on non-articles (idk what that # is) have their importance masks in place, then sure, importance ratings can be ignored.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any projects that currently categorize their redirects by importance? Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None intentionally, as far as I am aware. The only ones I have encountered have been left over from a move or merge of a page. If we did this, it would affect all non-articles, i.e. disambiguation pages, templates, portals, etc. would all get NA-importance automatically. So we should consider projects like Template:WikiProject Templates, Template:WikiProject Portals, etc. which may be tracking the importance of these pages. If they are, then a custom importance mask can be used — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is a custom importance mask? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, WikiProject Underwater diving classifies redirects with the potential to become full articles with the importance the full article would have, thereby giving anyone who might be considering converting to a full article some idea of whether it would be worth the effort. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Proposed code in sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm. The new version will force NA importance on any non-article, but it will still permit NA to be used on an article. Is this correct? Would it be better to prohibit NA in article space, in which case NA would resolve to Unknown? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NA on an article sounds strange. I'd like to see an actual usage where one would set this. It would seem that if an article is NA then it's pretty much not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (or that the project shouldn't have tagged it). Regarding the other namespaces, any project that wants to give importance to non-articles should have a custom mask? Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. NA on an article would not make much sense, and if any project wanted to do that, they should set up a custom mask. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NA importance (break)

[edit]

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

Set index pages should probably be treated like disambiguation pages, unless some projects are actually setting different importance to them. Gonnym (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more. I have long argued that set index articles should be classified as disambiguation pages, because that is what 99% of them are. There may be a few real SIAs with actual content, but most are just a collection of links. The easiest way to do this, is make an edit like this, which would convert all the list articles on surnames into disambiguation pages in one swoop. But as you can see I was reverted back in 2023, and many kB of discussion ensued which did not reach a satisfactory conclusion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to have a list like Module:Disambiguation/templates for Category:Set index article templates so the module can detect them. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have that list and can detect them. But the problem is that set index articles are supposed to be articles and shouldn't be getting NA importance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, an article shouldn't get NA importance and should get categorized as unknown (though again, I personally think they should be detected as set index and set to NA). Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we make this change I anticipate some queries/complaints along the lines of "why can't I set NA importance for this set index article?" I think we are taking the reasonable and appropriate action, but the mis-classification of SIAs continues to cause problems ... To reduce confusion, let's keep the possibility of assessing articles with NA-importance for now. If the SIA/disambig issue is ever sorted properly, we can revisit this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Yes, all redirects are classified as non-articles. We can set up a custom importance mask for your project, and you can continue to assess importance in any way you wish — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems an entirely reasonable option, thanks for your response. My template coding skills are rudimentary, so I may have to come bck with some questions about how it works if I don't manage to get it to do what is needed. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's already done. So you won't need to edit it, unless you want to make any other changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks, I understand, and don't expect any problems or need for changes, but you never know... · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done at Template:WikiProject Underwater diving/importance. This should now be handling importance the same way it was before — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Articles should not be given NA. If it's NA for your project, then your project shouldn't tag that page. Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what they are saying. They are saying that Rater will only allow them to rate NA. I can confirm that I am seeing this too, but need to look into why this might be — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The change to this module does seem to have mucked up rater. I have no idea why, because the module is working just fine. But perhaps we should consider a partial revert to allow time for @Evad37 to look into this and apply a fix — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a prudent response, Rater is quite heavily used and there in no great urgency for this change, Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 12:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the change to the importance mask (although I still can't think of any way this could have an impact). Please let me know if you notice an improvement to rater? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It allows an importance to be allocated to a redirect for Wikiproject underwater diving, so OK on that count. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going to toss in a general comment that supports allowing projects to tag the importance of Drafts and Redirects. In the former situation, I will find drafts from the New Article reports and tag them appropriately with all of the desired details. Then when someone reviews it, that editor only has to assign a quality rating. I find that well-meaning people don't always know what importance to assign when they aren't active members of a project, and I'll have to go tweak the rating later. Also, the importance rating can serve as an indicator of which drafts should get attention to push them across the finish line as articles.
As for redirects, it's similar. Some redirects have possibilities for expansion into future articles, and if we can rate them by importance now, it gives some indication on which should be prioritized over others. Not every project may see the utility in this, but some will. Removing this possibility across the board disallows projects to use this potential tool. Imzadi 1979 → 18:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on both counts, but this tends to be different for different projects. Some do not allocate an importance at all, others find it a useful tool. I would suggest that only non-articles that have the potential to become articles can usefully be allocated an importance, and all others should probably be rated as NA, while all actual articles should have a non-NA rating if the project allocates importance. If the project does not allocate importance, then no importance should be the only and automatic rating, and no options are needed. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Importance for drafts and redirects (and userspace drafts?) sounds reasonable for the reasons stated. I guess it depends on how many projects are actually doing this. If it's common, then we should support this as standard. It it's niche, then those projects can easily use a custom mask — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We now have the green light to reimplement this change. So we need to decide whether to allow importance ratings for certain non-articles, e.g. redirects and drafts, or treat all non-articles as NA. Does anyone else have any opinions on this, or should we try WT:COUNCIL? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NA importance (break 2)

[edit]

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

looks ok to me. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 13:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is now coded on the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Diving should now be able to go back to the standard importance mask (unless there is anything else non-standard that you want to do) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does that require any action from us? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page type Valid input, e.g. "mid" Invalid/blank input Input "na"
Articles Mid Unknown NA[a]
Redirects & drafts Mid[b] NA NA
All other pages NA NA NA

Notes

  1. ^ For the purpose SIAs, it will still be possible to rate articles as NA importance, for now.
  2. ^ Redirects and drafts are potential articles, so projects may wish to rate them by importance.

Follow up

[edit]

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

Importance assessment

[edit]

Would it be possible to make a way to suppress the importance assessment of List-class articles to Low-importance irregardless of the parameter. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For info, this would implement the standard stated at WP:CRICIS, as also discussed at CFD Oct 20. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in principle you can do this via Template:WikiProject Cricket/importance but you would need to write your own code, because no other project does anything like this. Do you mean whenever |class=list you will automatically assign low importance, and it would be impossible to override that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the desired outcome. I think the intended question was whether the meta template includes any features to facilitate this, and you have given us the answer to that: No. At least that's clear now, thanks. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What we can arrange is for the normalised class value to be passed to the importance mask, then it will be simple enough to write the code to produce the desired result — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should be working on Template:WikiProject Cricket/sandbox, if you'd like to test it. A small change to the meta module will be needed, then we can deploy to your live template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: if you still want to do this, then you can deploy that sandbox code and it should work fine now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: thank you! Please clarify, do I just need to insert |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = subpage, rather than the latest sandbox version by Vestrian24Bio? Also, to implement WP:CRICIS, I think the second line in Template:WikiProject Cricket/importance should be |Low rather than |NA. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right, I've changed the 2nd line to Low. And it's |IMPORTANCE_SCALE=subpage that you need. No idea what @Vestrian24Bio is doing in the sandbox. They seem to be adding a million task forces — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox version is to add the newly created taskforces and some new notes as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Module work before next sync

[edit]

The following pages are pages I've done work on or are not synced with live version. I'd appreciate if anyone can check my work to see if I missed something.

  1. Module:WikiProject banner/sandbox (changes)
    • Modified the class usage check to catch non-article usages of the |class= parameter and add them to the redundant_class category.
    • Converted two hardcoded categories to use the config file.
  2. Module:WikiProject banner/config/sandbox (changes)
    • Added the two hardcoded category names to the config file.
  3. Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage/sandbox (changes)
    • Added automatic category to templates of Wikipedia:GLAM, which were using a different naming convention.
  4. Module:Banner shell/sandbox (changes)
    • Standardized blp usage.
    • Added a check for blp usage to make sure it is in sync with the main page category.
    • Moved related blp strings to config file.
  5. Module:Banner shell/config/sandbox (changes)
    • Added blp strings to config file.
  6. Module:WikiProject banner/sandbox/styles.css (changes; not mine)

Additionally, the following pages have inline CSS (search for "TODO") that should be moved to the .css file before next sync.

This file also has a TODO that should be solved:

Gonnym (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is quite a lot to look at here, so may take me a while ... I don't agree with these "TODO" tasks that you are adding in the code. You can make the fixes yourself but it's not fair to try to make others do it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't and shouldn't have two sources which we take information from. Since the .css file and the config file were created (not by me), the css and any config related data should be there. The tags are in the /sandbox and not in the live version. No one is forced to do the work, but the tag should still stay there, as it's completely correct. Gonnym (talk) 17:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE 1, is it really worthwhile tracking redundant class values which are ignored anyway? I can't really see the benefit and I can see some drawbacks. For example, an article is rated Stub-class and is moved to Draft namespace. If this class is removed then when/if the article is moved back to mainspace the rating would be lost. Why don't we continue to ignore these class parameters? They are not doing any harm — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good argument for excluding draft space, but this would be useful for most !mainspace areas, like categories, templates, files, etc. Could a small list of excluded namespaces be used instead of a blanket-!mainspace conditional?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I suppose I could get behind this if User and Draft namespaces were excluded. These are the ones which are potential articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE 2, okay fine. The reason I did not do this before, is this is intended to be a temporary tracking category. As soon as we have caught all the listas values then we can remove this completely and they will be tracked by unknown parameter categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE 3,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE 4, some problems here. For example the blp status would never get past the living check so activepol would never be looked at. I have removed the "dead" status for now to fix this, but have not had a chance to look at the category checking code yet. The category Category:Deaths is not used, so I don't think that will work. I think all this code should be removed until there is a better plan of what we want to achieve and how to do it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RE 5, see 4. RE 6, there are no changes to review here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured page status

[edit]

I was looking at File talk:For the First Time in Forever A Frozen Sing-Along Celebration Logo.jpg which is marked as a FM, but it isn't, and was wondering if we can have the bot handle these like it handles Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention. It could go over the pairs of (or if there is a better way):

It should sync the talk page with the non-talk page version, with the non-files it could either lower one level down or completely remove the class value leaving it for editors to fill in. Gonnym (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it better to populate a tracking category, rather than attempting to automatically change the rating? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Auto classifying SIAs as List-class

[edit]

Currently a proposal under discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Assess set index and WikiProject Lists based on category as lists to automatically classify set index articles as List-class. See also Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 14#More page types for a previous proposal along similar lines — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:35, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First attempt at code is on the sandbox. Demonstration below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles: FYI — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, just found what might be an issue -- it looks like the Military History project uses "set index article" as a class. I'm not entirely sure if this template applies to {{Wikiproject banner shell}}, {{Wikiproject <insert wikiproject here>}}, or both. But I think this should ideally affect the banner shell but not the individual wikiproject banners to avoid impacting that. E.g. see Talk:USS_Yorktown. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't affect anything. Milhist have their own scale and do their own thing. This change will impact the banner shell and any project using the standard scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that should work then, just making sure Mrfoogles (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the necessary changes to Module:Banner shell. Most of the changes are to this module though, and I still need to test things properly. In the meantime you may see some strange results on SIAs — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should now be done. Let me know if anything looks wrong — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin Talk:Diamide seems to be broken, saying that it doesn't need a rating on the content assessment scale Mrfoogles (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it works now (Diamide now shows up as list class). Maybe some sort of caching thing. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, pages might need a purge — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VRT

[edit]

Since it's not a typical WikiProject, {{WikiProject VRT}} displays displayed a red link if placed inside the shell, but a blue link if placed on its own. I created Wikipedia:WikiProject VRT to match the expected WikiProject link, but is it possible to make the template link to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team directly when inside the shell?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the PROJECT_LINK param. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also changed the name to "Volunteer Response Team". VRT means nothing to most people — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bristol VRT, a British model of double-deck bus chassis. The letters indicate the engine orientation and position (Vertical, Rear, Transverse). I've known about this since about 1980. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you a bus spotter by any chance? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

[edit]

Propose renaming Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating to something like Category:WikiProject banners with class parameter that needs moving to banner shell to be more consistent with other tracking categories (and more accurate) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"project-independent quality rating" -> "class parameter" is an improvement.
The proposed name implies a value needs to moved. What about pages with no class value to move, and no class value in banner shell, on a page requiring a class value?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about Category:WikiProject banners without a class parameter?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That category is specifically for cases where a class parameter is used by a project banner but there is no class parameter in the banner shell. Usually this means the parameter needs to be moved from the project banner to the banner shell. The current name is quite misleading — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, makes sense then. So pages without a class value will just filter unto various WikiProjects' unassessed cats?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, this is not ideal (deferring to WikiProjects' unassessed cats). Since not all WikiProjects use |class= (109), there needs to be a central repository for unclassified articles, such as Category:WikiProject banners without a class parameter. For example, if an article is tagged with only WikiProjects that don't use |class=, then there is no way to find it if it is unassessed. Even if a class-using WikiProject is present, we should make it easy for editors wanting to classify articles to find them, as opposed to searching through 1000 projects' unassessed cats.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment {{WPBS}} will use Category:Unassessed articles if there are no project banners. But you are right: if there are banners present then it cannot know if they are banners that use assessments or inactive projects (when assessments are deactivated). So there will be some slipping through the net. We could populate something like Category:All unassessed articles, if that would be useful. What about articles which are assessed but don't contain any projects using assessments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) - I just noticed Category:Unassessed articles, but the example is still valid:
Live example:
So either the logic that populates Category:Unassessed articles needs to be more robust (resilient against non-class WikiProjects), or a new category created that accomplishes the same thing.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's perfectly fine having assessed pages without a project that uses an assessment scale (after all, I think that is the point of WP:PIQA). An FA about {{WP Caves}} (no {{{class}}}) is still an FA.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of a non-diffusing cat like Category:All unassessed articles directly containing all unassessed articles, and each of those articles in their respective WikiProject-diffused cats (if they exist) within.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I renamed the category. The catch-all category for unassessed articles will need to be done at the banner shell template, so will sandbox something over there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coded in Module:Banner shell/sandbox. I assume we no longer need to populate Category:Unassessed articles if we are using Category:All unassessed articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Either cat is fine, as long as they're not both used. Reusing Category:Unassessed articles would probably be less work, but I'll leave that up to you.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive parameters

[edit]

@Gonnym, regarding this edit to the sandbox module, there is a problem. Now you are passing all sorts of categories like |MAIN_CAT= through so these categories will not be suppressed. If you recall, we allowed categories on inactive banners so that tracking categories such as Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell would work. But now the only way of stopping the other categories is by filtering them out in the p.inactive function. So I think this needs reverting. What was the aim of that change, and maybe there is another way to achieve it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are many inactive banners with old and unsupported parameters. The code can't check them as we are overriding them. Other than MAIN_CAT, what other category parameter is sent? We can just override it with a blank parameter. Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the quality cats (unless you filter out class), all the importance cats (unless you filter out importance and all tf importances), any TF_MAIN_CAT, ATTENTION_CAT, etc. ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Task force importance

[edit]

I have been improving the auto documentation for task forces, including adding the importance parameters to TemplateData. I am also proposing to move the configuration settings for the template page and auto doc features into the /templatepage module. The reason is I do not want to alter such a heavily transcluded page (and add to the job queue) whenever we tweak the documentation. See Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage/sandbox for more — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Boilerplate text for A-class reviews

[edit]

Following a request from WikiProject Military history, I've added some code to Module:WikiProject banner/auxiliary/sandbox for a new parameter |ACR_BOILERPLATE= which will create a new A-class review page with a preload template (in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Review/A-Class review preload boilerplate) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{High-use}} in automatic documentation

[edit]

Could {{High-use}} be added to the automatic documentation if the template appears on the appropriate subpage of Module:Transclusion count/data?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working on Template:WikiProject Christianity/sandbox now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice!   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP China & Tibet

[edit]

Do any other WPs show up as their own banner when set as a parameter of another like {{WikiProject China|tibet=yes}}?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any others — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Full admin protection?

[edit]

@MSGJ and Gonnym: IIUC, this module was restricted to admin editing because Gonnym did not adequately test their changes before going live? Admin-level protection has downstream (unintended) consequences. Module:WikiProject banner depends on Module:Portal, which I have been maintaining for the past 2+ years. But now Module:Portal must be admin-level protected also, which means I have lost edit rights (because I am only a templateeditor). I know I can still ask admins to check in changes for me, it would still be better (IMO) to be able to edit Module:Portal directly.

Would it be possible to resolve the issue in a different way than restricting editing of Module:WikiProject banner only to admins? For example, could Gonnym agree to always test their changes before committing the code to the live Module?

Thoughts? — hike395 (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments.
  • I don't necessarily see any link between the protection of this module and Module:Portal.
  • There is no policy that templates with a certain number of transclusions should be fully protected. I once tried to start a discussion on this, but got no response. So currently it is entirely up to admin discretion. I know Pppery has definite views on this.
  • I have tried to discuss my concerns with Gonnym and their talk page, but have not made much progress. Your suggestions sounds sensible to me.
— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My belief has long been that the highest-risk templates on the project with millions to tens of millions of transclusions should be fully-protected (and also listed on WP:CASC). This view is only weakly held. The much-more-strongly-held position is the a template's dependencies must be protected at least as well as the base template, and Template:Portal (and hence Module:Portal) has 6mil of its 10mil transclusions on the talk namespace (and hence presumably via Module:WikiProject banner), which establishes a dependency chain sufficient to bind the protection to the full protection here.
For me, the reason for that position is about trust - the level of trust required to edit the highest-risk templates on the project is much greater than the level required to edit templates with a mere 5,000 transclusions. And while you of course could have pblocked Gonnym instead of full protection I think the recent incident proves my trust claim right by saying that Gonnym does not have that trust. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes for FM-class

[edit]

A few days ago Category:FM-Class articles and all its subcategories were renamed to Category:FM-Class pages and the module needs to be updated to reflect this.

I am requesting a code review of changes here. There is a test case at Module talk:WikiProject banner/testcases#FM-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: I don't know Lua, but it seems like this change made some talk pages of Wikipedia essays be categorized under Category:Top-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles instead of simply Category:Top-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages (also applies to high, mid and low importance). For instance, Wikipedia talk:Inline citation used to be correctly categorized, but after the module edit, the red linked category was there. The latter category page says that 9 pages are under it, but after purging one of those pages, it appeared under the red linked one. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reporting. I think I know how to fix that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, not sure of the best way to fix this, but we also have Category:NA-Class AfC project pages articles. Basically any project that was not using "articles" at the end of their assessment category will be affected. The next step is to rename other non-article page categories to "pages", and then I think this problem will largely be resolved. But it may take a bit of time to do this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads still broken. See File talk:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. Roads does not use this module for its task forces. I have looked into converting it in the past, but there were barriers. I may have to move those categories back to their original names — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this module should continue supporting the handful of templates that want to do stuff their own way. Gonnym (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WikiProject Redirect and Category:NA-Class redirect pages articles also causing problems. Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: all remaining non-article categories have been nominated for moving. Please comment here. Once these are done, we can fix this mess properly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the required changes for all the remaining categories is now in Module:WikiProject banner/sandbox, but would appreciate any help testing and reviewing code — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: File-Class categories are now listed at WP:CFDW for Speedy processing. Please could you repeat your FM-Class edits to Module:WikiProject banner for File class? – Fayenatic London 10:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be best if we could process all the others in one go, i.e. wait for these to be closed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it would be best to fix this now. This renaming has caused chaos because the bot can't process it and the templates can't be easily amended. Please make the necessary amendments immediately. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are being overly dramatic, using words like "chaos", and it is not helpful. A handful of redlinked categories does not constitute chaos. I believe the necessary changes have now been made to the module, sop hopefully the bot can continue its work — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:WikiProject assessment category check needs to be updated. Gonnym (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: like this? – Fayenatic London 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't check what needs to be done, I just noticed it was causing errors when looking at another page. Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten Template:Category class in Lua, so it will now recognise categories with "pages" instead of "articles" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MSGJ, that looks to have been quite a big piece of work. Please can you help with Gonnym's request above? For future reference, Template:Assessment Class Summary is another template that needs updating if any other classes are renamed from "articles". – Fayenatic London 22:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I cannot figure out why having WikiProject banners link to corresponding portals is helpful. When an editor is on a talk page, I can see them wanting information about how to edit articles that belong to a WikiProject, or asking questions at the corresponding WikiProject Talk page. I don't see why they would want to go to a Portal to get overview information on the topic. We generally want editors to bring off-wiki information into WP, rather than recycling information between pages.

I propose removing Portal links from WikiProject banners. What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 06:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first Portals were created in February 2005 and were originally set up as subpages of Wikipedia:Wikiportal, such as Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Biology, which I think was the first one. The Portal: namespace was created in August 2005, and existing Wikipedia:Wikiportal/... pages were moved there on 27 August, together with some templates that were only used for building Portal: pages.
Some WikiProject banners have had portal boxes since 2006, e.g. {{WikiProject Trains}}, it's possible that some were given portal boxes in 2005. Some portals predate the corresponding WikiProjects, and I think that they served as a central discussion point until WikiProjects became more established. If a topic had both a Portal and a WikiProject, it was natural to provide a link between them. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the early days of Wikipedia, it probably made sense to link to portals from this box. But now, both WikiProjects and Portals are well-established with very different aims. The link from article talk to corresponding Portal seems superfluous. — hike395 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant class params & WP Ireland

[edit]

Draft talk:Daire Scully, Draft talk:Marion King, Draft talk:Raj Vrinceanu, and others have no parameters, yet show up in Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter. The common WP between them all seems to be {{WP Ireland}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely because of this edit — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuated WPs not recognizing duplication

[edit]

{{WP Anti-war}}, {{WP New York (state)}}, {{WP U.S. Roads}}, etc. don't show in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates if duplicated.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current pattern for capturing is '<span class="wpb%-project">([%w%s]*)</span>' and %w does not include punctuation marks. Could be updated in Module:Banner shell/sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be simpler to use something like [^<]* (any characters except <)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it would...though I'd use [^<>]* just to be slightly safer.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't the essays banner recognised as a duplicate on Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a namespace issue? {{WP Wikipedia essays}} registers as a dup if applied in mainspace.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I'm not immediately seeing any code that would exclude other talk namespaces — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I don't see two of that banners there. Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being an idiot. I meant to ask why it is not identifying it as being outside the banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's because it's using the redirect name. You'll need to check the code to see how you are tracking this. Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, redirects aren't recognized, only canonical names.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up NA-class categories

[edit]

Hi, at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Cleaning up NA-class categories there seems to be consensus about the removal of a number of NA-class categories from most pages. Can the editors here take a look if anything important is being missed in that discussion, and if not see how this can be implemented? Fram (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, this is timely, as we are making other changes to the category tree ("articles" -> "pages"). I will look through and respond with any comments — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Fram (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked categories

[edit]

The recent "articles vs. pages" activities here have resulted in the hypergeneration of an absolutely massive number of redlinked class-rating categories at Special:WantedCategories, to the point where the latest run of that report features over 700 redlinks on it where it should normally have less than 200 — and while technically redlinked maintenance categories aren't as big of a deal as redlinked mainspace categories are, redlinked maintenance categories actively interfere with the process of finding redlinked mainspace categories in the list: the amount of eyeglazing scroll-scroll-scroll needed to bypass all the class-rating categories makes it easier to miss mainspace categories hiding in between the class-rating categories, and the entire report has a limit to how many categories it can find or list at any one time, so every time categories get left unresolved across more than one update of that report it gets pushed that much closer to the limit.

I do want to call attention to one specific small batch:

But regardless of whether a category is "pages" or "articles", there's obviously no call for "pages articles", so this is just a straight-up error rather than an oversight on anybody's part.

Otherwise, the remainder are all either "FM-Class [project] pages" or "NA-Class [project] articles" categories that need to be either created if they're actually wanted, or get completely kiboshed if they're unwanted. I won't list them all here, as I'd be here for hours formatting them and this post would approach the size of a novel, but they can all be seen at Special:WantedCategories (where, just a reminder, the total number of entries is over 700, so it'll entail more than one page of results).

So could somebody associated with this project please take steps to either get them created if they're wanted or completely prevent their generation by the template if they're not, and could somebody please take steps to ensure that these changes don't keep spawning more and more redlinked categories in the future? It's just not a thing I can put up with working around, because these redlinks actively interfere with the process of cleaning up the more resolvable ones — it's a thing that needs to be resolved as soon as possible, because we can't just leave hundreds of redlinked categories sitting there unfixed for extended periods. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are aware of the issue. See also above. As soon as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#Category:Category-Class articles closes, we can sort this mess out properly. Please bear with us for a couple more days — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

auto parameter

[edit]

Since bots should no longer add a class parameter to the banner and instead should add to the shell, the |auto= parameter should either be removed completely or moved to the banner shell. Gonnym (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess this makes sense. Are there any bots updating PIQA ratings? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. Gonnym (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fallback conflict

[edit]

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

I've got a fix working in the sandbox; could an admin please sync this change over to the live module? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does your code interact with the exists check in lines 409-413 and 620-624? By the way, the bot should now be actively moving these categories, so it should all be sorted in a few days, so we could just wait? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The moving of the categories seems to have stalled at CfD, so we should probably fix this. Can you see if your code can be simplified so we don't check categories exist multiple times? By the way, it's great to have another Lua editor to help out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the duplicated expensive function calls are bugging me too. I've reworked the function so it stores "which suffix worked" in a variable, and I've added a case before both exists-checks you mentioned so they'll use that variable instead if it's non-nil. That leaves at most three exists-checks per category (except maybe an edge case for FM); does this look good? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great, well I will do some testing and then deploy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Updating assessment_category

[edit]

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

Easiest way to fix that is by editing the banner template [1] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module_talk:WikiProject_banner&oldid=1266007484"