![]() |
Template:WikiProject banner shell is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | Council | |||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 8 January 2021. The result of the discussion was "consensus against autocollapsing". |
![]() | On 15 February 2023, it was proposed that this page be moved. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Reason: This way, others can figure out if an article needs a reassement (or if it's just a diffrence of opinion) without going through talk page history and article history, and only need to compare the revisions. OrdinaryGiraffe ( talk) 23:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
A major issue in the current assessment system is that many articles' assessment is years out of date. Even worse, there is no way to tell whether ten year old assessments are still current or not, as there is no way to explicitly agree with the current rating. Should we add a "last assessed" parameter to the banner shell that could be updated to the current time every time somebody used Rater or a similar semi-manual tool? — Kusma ( talk) 11:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|assess-date=
parameter in the Banner shell{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
when initially adding the Banner shell.Most of the invalid values of |class=
that are being tracked in
Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters are there because |class=NA
. At the moment this is not recognised and these are just left unassessed. That's because non-articles (e.g. redirects and disambiguation pages) are supposed to be identified automatically and the class is only for classifying articles. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
09:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
|class=
parameter, it was always set automatically under certain circumstances - such as that the |class=
parameter is blank or absent, and the banner was used on a talk page for something other than an article (file, template, category etc.), and that the banner did not use the extended quality scale. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
13:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)|class=NA
or |class=Project
.
Gonnym (
talk)
08:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
|class=NA
, a value that many people and bots automatically remove outside of mainspace, I think a different and more descriptive value should be used. Since this will be used for non-existent pages, what about |class=DNE
for "Does Not Exist"? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
10:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Support for non-existent/vacant pages added to sandbox. I think the best approach is just to remove these banners (because a non-existent page does not need to be tagged as within scope of a project). However in case someone adds them to the talk page of a deleted page, it might be useful to change the message to explain why no rating is accepted — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||
|
Any other comments on this, or can we move ahead? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm hoping somewhere here is more familiar with the correct policy on this. According to the section on the
AWB general fixes pages, AWB "removes |blp=no
, |activepol=no
, |collapsed=no
" from banner shells. It also says:
|living=no
then removes |blp=yes
if exists|living=yes
then adds |blp=yes
|activepol=yes
then adds |actipol=yes
|blpo=yes
then adds |blpo=yes
This means that talk pages with blp=no
in their banner shell will lose the living parameter when AWB is run on the page. The living parameter is required on all biographies per
Template:WikiProject banner shell#Parameters. See
this edit for example. The
biography articles without a living parameter category has a sudden 650+ page backlog because of this. I'm assuming this is supposed to happen but I don't understand the point. Are articles supposed to have the blp parameter in the banner shell or in the WikiProject Biography template? Is the |living=
alias preferred over blp=
? Does this change if the subject is living or dead? Because right now AWB just seems to be removing living parameters and not replacing them. What's going on here?
Tagging GoingBatty because they've helped with similar issues.
Thanks in advance, Clear friend a 💬 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
|blp=
from any biography. The AWB team
were formally asked to stop doing this in February 2024, so it is concerning if this is still happening. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
04:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)I do not know if this is a one-off issue simply because of the particular banner settings I used but when I edited the banner shell and added two WikiProject banners on the Talk:Herman Helcher page, all the individual WikiProject banners displayed "Unassessed" and I had to add class= settings to each individual banner. Each banner now displays a separate "C class" assessment. This is unlike previous behaviour where the banner shell assessment was propagated to each WikiProject banner inside the shell. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 21:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This category is (almost?) entirely populated by non-mainspace pages, which there was contention about running our bots on. Is there any point in populating the category with non-mainspace pages that are probably going to stay there forever? Thoughts @ Martin?
Some oddity in case someone stumbles on this later on and wonders why. I noticed that both Cewbot here and Qwerfjkl here didn't place Template:WikiProject Cooperation inside the shell, I'm assuming it's because at the time it wasn't using Module:WikiProject banner and used {{ tmbox}} instead. Gonnym ( talk) 22:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
WPBannerMeta}}
or its inactive veriant is what is really being searched for, rather than the module. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
It happens reasonably often that editors put an extra pipe in the syntax which means the content of the shell becomes the second positional parameter instead of the first, which is not recognised. An example is here. I think the code could be adapted to ignore an empty first positional parameter and use the second one instead. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Can you add a new entry point so that I can create a template {{vital level|Article name}}
that will return the vital level for a given article, and empty string if none? So that we would have:
{{vital level|Mathematics}}
⟶ 1{{vital level|Logic}}
⟶ 2{{vital level|France}}
⟶ 3{{vital level|Qin dynasty}}
⟶ 4{{vital level|Sam Rayburn}}
⟶ 5{{vital level|Manor of Haccombe}}
⟶(Unfortunately, Template:Vital is already a redirect to a WikiProject, or I would've used that name.) There is already code in the Module to find vital level, so hopefully adding an entry point would not be too onerous. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 20:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
vital article link|Mathematics}}
which produces
Mathematics
|level_only=yes
which would hide the name of the article — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC){{#invoke:Vital article|isVital|page=Mathematics}}
produces 1 — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
isvital
function somehow, and that totally solves the problem!
Mathglot (
talk)
08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)As well as blp and blpo should there be a bdp parameter to accommodate wording for the application of WP:BDP? DeCausa ( talk) 07:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Template:WikiProject banner shell is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
![]() | Council | |||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 8 January 2021. The result of the discussion was "consensus against autocollapsing". |
![]() | On 15 February 2023, it was proposed that this page be moved. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Reason: This way, others can figure out if an article needs a reassement (or if it's just a diffrence of opinion) without going through talk page history and article history, and only need to compare the revisions. OrdinaryGiraffe ( talk) 23:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
A major issue in the current assessment system is that many articles' assessment is years out of date. Even worse, there is no way to tell whether ten year old assessments are still current or not, as there is no way to explicitly agree with the current rating. Should we add a "last assessed" parameter to the banner shell that could be updated to the current time every time somebody used Rater or a similar semi-manual tool? — Kusma ( talk) 11:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
|assess-date=
parameter in the Banner shell{{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}
when initially adding the Banner shell.Most of the invalid values of |class=
that are being tracked in
Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters are there because |class=NA
. At the moment this is not recognised and these are just left unassessed. That's because non-articles (e.g. redirects and disambiguation pages) are supposed to be identified automatically and the class is only for classifying articles. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
09:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
|class=
parameter, it was always set automatically under certain circumstances - such as that the |class=
parameter is blank or absent, and the banner was used on a talk page for something other than an article (file, template, category etc.), and that the banner did not use the extended quality scale. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
13:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)|class=NA
or |class=Project
.
Gonnym (
talk)
08:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
|class=NA
, a value that many people and bots automatically remove outside of mainspace, I think a different and more descriptive value should be used. Since this will be used for non-existent pages, what about |class=DNE
for "Does Not Exist"? ~
Tom.Reding (
talk ⋅
dgaf)
10:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Support for non-existent/vacant pages added to sandbox. I think the best approach is just to remove these banners (because a non-existent page does not need to be tagged as within scope of a project). However in case someone adds them to the talk page of a deleted page, it might be useful to change the message to explain why no rating is accepted — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||
|
Any other comments on this, or can we move ahead? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm hoping somewhere here is more familiar with the correct policy on this. According to the section on the
AWB general fixes pages, AWB "removes |blp=no
, |activepol=no
, |collapsed=no
" from banner shells. It also says:
|living=no
then removes |blp=yes
if exists|living=yes
then adds |blp=yes
|activepol=yes
then adds |actipol=yes
|blpo=yes
then adds |blpo=yes
This means that talk pages with blp=no
in their banner shell will lose the living parameter when AWB is run on the page. The living parameter is required on all biographies per
Template:WikiProject banner shell#Parameters. See
this edit for example. The
biography articles without a living parameter category has a sudden 650+ page backlog because of this. I'm assuming this is supposed to happen but I don't understand the point. Are articles supposed to have the blp parameter in the banner shell or in the WikiProject Biography template? Is the |living=
alias preferred over blp=
? Does this change if the subject is living or dead? Because right now AWB just seems to be removing living parameters and not replacing them. What's going on here?
Tagging GoingBatty because they've helped with similar issues.
Thanks in advance, Clear friend a 💬 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
|blp=
from any biography. The AWB team
were formally asked to stop doing this in February 2024, so it is concerning if this is still happening. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
04:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)I do not know if this is a one-off issue simply because of the particular banner settings I used but when I edited the banner shell and added two WikiProject banners on the Talk:Herman Helcher page, all the individual WikiProject banners displayed "Unassessed" and I had to add class= settings to each individual banner. Each banner now displays a separate "C class" assessment. This is unlike previous behaviour where the banner shell assessment was propagated to each WikiProject banner inside the shell. - Cameron Dewe ( talk) 21:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This category is (almost?) entirely populated by non-mainspace pages, which there was contention about running our bots on. Is there any point in populating the category with non-mainspace pages that are probably going to stay there forever? Thoughts @ Martin?
Some oddity in case someone stumbles on this later on and wonders why. I noticed that both Cewbot here and Qwerfjkl here didn't place Template:WikiProject Cooperation inside the shell, I'm assuming it's because at the time it wasn't using Module:WikiProject banner and used {{ tmbox}} instead. Gonnym ( talk) 22:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
WPBannerMeta}}
or its inactive veriant is what is really being searched for, rather than the module. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
10:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
It happens reasonably often that editors put an extra pipe in the syntax which means the content of the shell becomes the second positional parameter instead of the first, which is not recognised. An example is here. I think the code could be adapted to ignore an empty first positional parameter and use the second one instead. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Can you add a new entry point so that I can create a template {{vital level|Article name}}
that will return the vital level for a given article, and empty string if none? So that we would have:
{{vital level|Mathematics}}
⟶ 1{{vital level|Logic}}
⟶ 2{{vital level|France}}
⟶ 3{{vital level|Qin dynasty}}
⟶ 4{{vital level|Sam Rayburn}}
⟶ 5{{vital level|Manor of Haccombe}}
⟶(Unfortunately, Template:Vital is already a redirect to a WikiProject, or I would've used that name.) There is already code in the Module to find vital level, so hopefully adding an entry point would not be too onerous. Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 20:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
{{
vital article link|Mathematics}}
which produces
Mathematics
|level_only=yes
which would hide the name of the article — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC){{#invoke:Vital article|isVital|page=Mathematics}}
produces 1 — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
isvital
function somehow, and that totally solves the problem!
Mathglot (
talk)
08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)As well as blp and blpo should there be a bdp parameter to accommodate wording for the application of WP:BDP? DeCausa ( talk) 07:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)