Module talk:WikiProject banner
![]() | If you wish to discuss the behaviour of the project banner inside the banner shell, then you may wish to post at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell instead. |
![]() | This module does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
|
![]() |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Syntax highlighting in automatic documentation
[edit]Could syntax highlighting be added to the automatic documentation (i.e. when |DOC=auto
)?
Current display (e.g. Template:WikiProject AfroCreatives#Full usage):
{{WikiProject AfroCreatives |category= |listas= |class= |importance= |auto= |attention= |needs-image= |type= |details= |location= |topic= }}
Proposed:
{{WikiProject AfroCreatives |category= |listas= |class= |importance= |auto= |attention= |needs-image= |type= |details= |location= |topic= }}
Only applicable in the #Basic usage & #Full usage sections (I think). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds good (and uncontroversial) to me, but after some searching, I have been unable to figure out where the relevant code is. Sdkb talk 18:31, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It seems like it might be at Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage from lines 833-863. Someone who knows Lua would need to implement. Sdkb talk 18:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Excellent idea. I will do it shortly unless someone else has already done it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Please check Template:WikiProject Cycling/sandbox and feed back? I notice you used the "inline" option but I don't know what difference that makes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Compare this:
{{WikiProject AfroCreatives |category= |listas= |class= |importance= |auto= |attention= |needs-image= |type= |details= |location= |topic= }}
which uses inline, with this:which doesn't. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC){{WikiProject AfroCreatives |category= |listas= |class= |importance= |auto= |attention= |needs-image= |type= |details= |location= |topic= }}
- Got it. So I think in this case we do not want "inline", so this should be good to go — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Any luck with this? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Think it was deployed ages ago - are you not seeing it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems Pppery reverted the edits here. Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, didn't realise that. My understanding is that all these category issues were resolved so I have redeployed the code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
{{Looks |great=!}}
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)- Reverted again by Timrollpickering. Please can you explain what problems you are seeing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WikiProject templates category redirect mess for the various category redirects this has impacted. Several are being fixed through renames. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. I think I will redeploy the code but populate a tracking category instead of non-existent category so we can check for issues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WikiProject templates category redirect mess for the various category redirects this has impacted. Several are being fixed through renames. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reverted again by Timrollpickering. Please can you explain what problems you are seeing? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:04, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, didn't realise that. My understanding is that all these category issues were resolved so I have redeployed the code. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems Pppery reverted the edits here. Gonnym (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Think it was deployed ages ago - are you not seeing it? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any luck with this? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Got it. So I think in this case we do not want "inline", so this should be good to go — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Compare this:
- Does the olive text-to-background contrast really pass accessibility here, let alone on the gray background? — HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you think this is an issue, then I would suggest you discuss at mw:Extension talk:SyntaxHighlight — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Warnings
[edit]I would like to add some prominent warnings when people try to use the |class=
parameter in a project banner instead of in the banner shell template
- If {{WikiProject banner shell}} is already on the page (but without a
|class=
parameter), then the message will say something like Please add the quality rating to the WikiProject banner shell instead of this project banner - If {{WikiProject banner shell}} is not on the page yet, then the message will say something like Please add the WikiProject banner shell template to this page and then add the quality rating to that template
I'm sure the wording could be improved. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:08, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to it.
maybe something like this? Regardless, link the banner shell template. I'm in favor of the warning. Gonnym (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)- Yep, probably a link a WP:PIQA somewhere in there too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
- This should be expended to any parameter we migrate to the shell, like
|listas=
do deal with redundant, duplicate or conflicting data. Gonnym (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)- This is now coded on the sandbox. Example of the first message can be seen at Module talk:WikiProject banner/testcases#Globally unassessed. the second message below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
- This should be expended to any parameter we migrate to the shell, like
- Yep, probably a link a WP:PIQA somewhere in there too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Cycling B‑class | ||||||
|
Okay this is ready to go, but I will wait for Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating (0) and Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell (10) to be emptied first to avoid ugly warnings on so many pages — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: this is now deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is it too late for me to object to this? As I said at the template talk page, something like this is just dumb; if we are going to force people to use the banner shell, then we should integrate it into every WikiProject banner automatically. I don't mind giving a warning if there's already a WPBS on the page, since it's a "hey, this is here, please put your banner in the right place", but for a page with no shell it shouldn't have a warning. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- What Primefac said. On talk pages other than the main Talk: space, people should not be forced to use a WPBS, particularly when there is only one WP banner, because the autodetection of class is pretty much universal. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- The error can probably be removed from the user space. Other than in user space (which the updated code isn't placing in Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells (pages there need to be purged to reflect the update), so will not be relevant here), almost all pages have already been placed inside the banner shell, so any change at this point is purely disruptive, in addition of course, to the fact that no ones owns project pages so no one is forced into anything. Having the shell, even for one template, provides a consistent look across the entire project and allows any future update (which might be relevant to pages with a single template), to have an immediate effect. Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
no ones owns project pages so no one is forced into anything
- by that logic, we should not be forced to use WPBS for a single banner by having big warning sign about it. And just to reiterate (and expand) on what I said above - I don't mind the warning if WPBS is already there (because that makes sense) and I don't care if a bot goes around adding WPBS (even for pages that have a single banner), my only concern is the massive warning given if WPBS isn't on the page already. Primefac (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)- (No it's not too late to object!) We certainly can (and should) remove the message from non-article pages. For a start the message is incorrect, because these pages are detected automatically so don't even have a
|class=
parameter that needs transferring. What about mainspace though? We have no efficient method (that I know of) to detect the number of banners on a page, so we have to treat one banner the same as 8 banners. In mainspace we absolutely do want WPBS on every talk page. We are now 18 months into the new system, and it seems that a little editor education is needed, which is what the warning is trying to do. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)- We also have a bot that, once the backlog is cleared, will fix/update any new pages that aren't following PIQA. Just a thought. It probably makes editors complacent (look how many dated maintenance tags get tagged by AnomieBOT every day instead of folks just putting the date, which is piss-easy) but that's why we have bots like this in the first place. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the bot is good when it works. For some reason it is not clearing Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell very quickly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the warning (numbered 2 above) in the sandbox. Hopefully the bot will catch up with these soon — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Deployed to live — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Deployed to live — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- We also have a bot that, once the backlog is cleared, will fix/update any new pages that aren't following PIQA. Just a thought. It probably makes editors complacent (look how many dated maintenance tags get tagged by AnomieBOT every day instead of folks just putting the date, which is piss-easy) but that's why we have bots like this in the first place. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- (No it's not too late to object!) We certainly can (and should) remove the message from non-article pages. For a start the message is incorrect, because these pages are detected automatically so don't even have a
- The error can probably be removed from the user space. Other than in user space (which the updated code isn't placing in Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells (pages there need to be purged to reflect the update), so will not be relevant here), almost all pages have already been placed inside the banner shell, so any change at this point is purely disruptive, in addition of course, to the fact that no ones owns project pages so no one is forced into anything. Having the shell, even for one template, provides a consistent look across the entire project and allows any future update (which might be relevant to pages with a single template), to have an immediate effect. Gonnym (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Tracking category proposed
[edit]There is a proposal to track uses of WikiProject banners which are placed outside the banner shell. The coding might be complex but I think this would be really useful — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
- Originating discussion @ User talk:Kanashimi/Archive 1#Cewbot is moving WikiProject banners outside of WPBS. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- If there is such a tracking category, my bots will automatically repair them by default. Kanashimi (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
- No progress on this, because I haven't figured out the code needed to achieve it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could there be a check after Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell is assigned, to
getContent()
on the current page and look for {{WikiProject banner shell}} and its redirects? If both those conditions are met, then the banner should be outside WPBS. If possible, Module:Template redirect regex can be used to centrally store/maintain that regex. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)- How would you check if the template was inside or outside of the banner shell? That tracking category just checks for the existence of the banner shell on the page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I see. As luck would have it, I was testing Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell on a probably-misbehaving {{WikiProject Occupations}} (no reason other than that's what was in the nearest browser window), which displayed the cat when outside of the WPBS. {{WikiProject Occupations}} in fact displays the cat (one way or another) regardless of its position relative to WPBS.
- Yeah, I can't think of an easy & low-overhead way of doing this either, unless there's an easy way to transform all templates on a page to their canonical titles. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:06, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have asked for some help at User talk:Aidan9382 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- How would you check if the template was inside or outside of the banner shell? That tracking category just checks for the existence of the banner shell on the page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could there be a check after Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell is assigned, to
I have written some code on my sandbox which might work.
If you type {{#invoke:Sandbox/MSGJ|main|WikiProject Finland}}
it will look at the content of the current page and return ...
true
if it finds {{WikiProject Finland}} anywhere outside of the banner shell,true
there is no banner shell (so the template cannot be in a shell)false
if it is inside the banner shell,false
if {{WikiProject Finland}} is not found on the page (perhaps a template redirect has been used, but we have no way to check for these)
Some testing would be appreciated — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
%b{}
very cool!- escaping
%|
in Lua is unnecessary - for
mw.ustring.find(content_without_shell, '{{%s*' .. banner_name .. '%s*[%|}]')
to work for all WikiProjects, escaping special characters inbanner_name
will be necessary to find {{WP New York (state)}}, {{WP C/C++}}, and the like. Periods shouldn't need escaping though, since they'll just match themselves.
- ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Escaping these magic characters is beyond me, I'm afraid. I have tried and failed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- Got it working! Check your sandbox for details. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- That's great. I just wish I understood what you've done there. Last time I did this on the authority control module, I had to use three % characters before the magic character (example) so I don't know how you have done it with just two — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, there are additional layers of evaluation to contend with in AC, which require more
%
(%%%%
evaluates to%%
evaluates to%
). - Also, literal "%" need to be first in
special_chars
, or else you end up escaping them recursively an unexpected/unwanted # of times. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)- Ah, good point. We should make the first character case insensitve, i.e. "wikiProject Biography" works the same as "WikiProject Biography" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, there are additional layers of evaluation to contend with in AC, which require more
- That's great. I just wish I understood what you've done there. Last time I did this on the authority control module, I had to use three % characters before the magic character (example) so I don't know how you have done it with just two — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Got it working! Check your sandbox for details. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- Escaping these magic characters is beyond me, I'm afraid. I have tried and failed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Done and Category:WikiProject banners placed outside the banner shell (164) created — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should restrict this to main talk namespace only, because there are lots of false positives in project space — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:16, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- You could maybe do something like @Galobtter did with Module:Is infobox in lead and check if the banner is at the start of the page. Maybe Galobtter could help with tweaking his previous code. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure how that would help in this case. Some of the banners were are trying to find are tucked further down the page (example) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, then it won't help there indeed. Gonnym (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- That appears to have been a Cewbot bug, followed by an incomplete fix by Widefox (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:07, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, then it won't help there indeed. Gonnym (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure how that would help in this case. Some of the banners were are trying to find are tucked further down the page (example) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could we ignore just the namespace(s) with the most FPs instead? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let's ignore any namespace where there might feasibly be banners used as examples or for testing — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:34, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- You could maybe do something like @Galobtter did with Module:Is infobox in lead and check if the banner is at the start of the page. Maybe Galobtter could help with tweaking his previous code. Gonnym (talk) 11:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Unmatched close-bracket error
[edit]Probably related to the recent update. This helped, sort of - it moved to error to a different location, but it's still present. The problem comes from [[]]
in |comments=[[]]
. The number in the error refers to the horizontal position of the error, and not a Unicode character #. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Redirects not being added to PIQA category
[edit]I notice that on Talk:Mount Gorton (Mount Gorton redirects to Wilson Hills), all 3 WikiProjects are classified via 3 |class=Stub
, {{WPBS}} is not, and Talk:Mount Gorton is not added to Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating (0). Could redirects be made to be included in the category, and eventually corrected? And any/all other page types also being omitted? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is not in that category because it is a redirect and doesn't need a quality rating. The
|class=stub
is just ignored on such pages. What needs to be corrected? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)- Since Talk:Mount Gorton refers to a redirect,
|class=Stub
should be removed from the 3 WikiProjects. - I see now that Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating is not an appropriate category name for such cases (as it implies they need a rating), but I still think it would be worth tracking these pages that use unnecessary quality ratings. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- In that case it should probably be in Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter as the class stub is redundant (and incorrect, as redirects don't have ratings). Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could rename to Category:WikiProject banners with ignored class parameter? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- "Redundant" seems most appropriate for proper articles which have a rating both inside a WikiProject and the shell.
- "Ignored" seems most appropriate for these redirects (and other similar pages) which have irrelevant class parameters. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- They are the same in that the class parameter may safely be removed without having any effect. Do we need two separate categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- With the speed at which these categories are being cleared, I'd say we don't. Less categories to watch. Gonnym (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- The way that the pages in these 2 would-be categories are fixed is different. In 1, WPBS's
|class=
is kept. In the other, WPBS's|class=
, if found, is removed. Someone working on these categories in the future might not know to check the redirect-status of the page before proceeding, and perform the wrong operation. - But, if there is to be only 1 category to contain both of these cases, then I think "unnecessary" is better, as it can describe both "redundant" & "ignored" ~ Category:WikiProject banners with unnecessary class parameter. 2nd choice would be "ignored". With category text describing this distinction, regardless of the chosen descriptor. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:42, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- They are the same in that the class parameter may safely be removed without having any effect. Do we need two separate categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps we could rename to Category:WikiProject banners with ignored class parameter? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- In that case it should probably be in Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter as the class stub is redundant (and incorrect, as redirects don't have ratings). Gonnym (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since Talk:Mount Gorton refers to a redirect,
Military history articles with no associated task force
[edit]Category:Military history articles with no associated task force is full of articles from the Draft talk namespace. Could the module be adjusted to only add talk namespace articles to the category? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- That isn't a module fix. You'll have to edit the note_2 of the banner itself. Gonnym (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Urgent: Please fix this template for printed content Module:WikiProject banner/sandbox/styles.css.
[edit]Firstly, apologies for writing in English if this is not your first language (this is an automated message).
This template has been detected as one of 436 pages using styles that break the page when printed when the user is using dark mode. The fix is very straightforward - all your styles relating to dark mode must be scoped to. Since there is a high risk of this templates being copied to other wikis it is important this notice is acted on ASAP.
To fix this:
- Update `@media (prefers-color-scheme: dark` to `@media screen and (prefers-color-scheme: dark`
- Wrap any styles relating to `html.skin-theme-clientpref-night` in `@media screen`
If this message has not been acted on in 7 days, this will be fixed by an automated script. Thank you for your help fixing this important issue.
For any questions feel free to ask them at phab:T369874.
Jon (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC) on behalf of the web team.
- I've syncrhonised this sandbox with the live version, which should have fixed these issues. Gonnym: you may want to reapply your changes to the sandbox at some point — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll pass. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added back the css code to the styles sheet. Perhaps you wouldn't mind checking the code and making sure everything looks okay, and I will deploy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The examples at Module talk:WikiProject banner/testcases look the same between the live and sandbox versions, so it seems so. The Class mask tests have some fails but I'm assuming that is from something else. Gonnym (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, the class mask tests were all copied from Template:Class mask and there have been many changes since then. So the tests are outdated and probably need removing. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The examples at Module talk:WikiProject banner/testcases look the same between the live and sandbox versions, so it seems so. The Class mask tests have some fails but I'm assuming that is from something else. Gonnym (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added back the css code to the styles sheet. Perhaps you wouldn't mind checking the code and making sure everything looks okay, and I will deploy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll pass. Gonnym (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
auto doc category
[edit]Can |DOC=auto
also add the template to the project category? Either Category:WikiProject project
or Category:WikiProject project templates
category. Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Don't see any reason not to do this. Will sort in the next couple of days — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you want it to check to see if
Category:WikiProject project templates
exists first. If so use it, otherwise useCategory:WikiProject project
? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)- Yes, I think it's best to place it in the templates category if it exists. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. That is now coded in the sandbox, and will currently appear on sandbox templates for testing. When deployed it will only categorise the live templates. You can check Template:WikiProject Deaf/sandbox (which does not have a templates category) and Template:WikiProject Cycling/sandbox (which does have a templates category) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Great, looks good! Gonnym (talk) 09:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. That is now coded in the sandbox, and will currently appear on sandbox templates for testing. When deployed it will only categorise the live templates. You can check Template:WikiProject Deaf/sandbox (which does not have a templates category) and Template:WikiProject Cycling/sandbox (which does have a templates category) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:52, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it's best to place it in the templates category if it exists. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Gonnym there are about 80 templates (see Category:WikiProject banners with errors) which are not able to populate the project category, because it either doesn't exist or because it is a category redirect. Would you like to review these? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm taking a look at these. So far some sent to CfD, RM, or MfD. Gonnym (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ most of the GLAM sub projects have a category titled: Category:Wikipedia-<project name> collaboration" (such as Category:Wikipedia-Philadelphia Museum of Art collaboration). So a template like Template:WikiProject Philadelphia Museum of Art that has a
|PROJECT_LINK=Wikipedia:GLAM/Philadelphia Museum of Art
can be placed there. That should remove most pages in the category. Gonnym (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)- Or we can just leave them to add the categories manually, as they are currently doing? When you are done reviewing those, I can turn off the tracking — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you finished reviewing these - and can I turn off the tracking, rather than keeping them in the error category indefinitely — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well I've added some code to the sandbox to support these (if we want), but you could turn it off. I've reviewed most, but I'm not a fan of reviewing categories that can never be cleared as it has me checking things I've already looked at before. Gonnym (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes that is my concern too - that we can never resolve some of these issues, so they are not actually "errors" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Well I've added some code to the sandbox to support these (if we want), but you could turn it off. I've reviewed most, but I'm not a fan of reviewing categories that can never be cleared as it has me checking things I've already looked at before. Gonnym (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Responsible editing
[edit]Can we please reduce the churn on a module with 11 million transclusions? I pushed back when @Pppery wanted to fully protect the module because I thought template editors could be trusted to edit responsibly, but now I'm thinking he was right. Can all edits be sandboxed and tested prior to deploying. Anything less than urgent should wait in the sandbox for a more substantive edit. We should be at the point where we can make an update to the live module once every 2-3 months — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
CSS background colors need corresponding colors for dark mode compliance
[edit]CSS background colors need corresponding colors for dark mode. I inserted a fix for at least some of them, but apparently I did not follow process. Sorry about that. I'll leave it to others. If you are sandboxing and troubleshooting, you can see if you have resolved the problems by checking the bottom of the "Page information" page for "Background color inline style rule exists without a corresponding text color" Lint errors. To verify the visual appearance, you can go to the "Appearance" section of the right-hand sidebar in Vector 2022 and choose "Dark" under "Color (beta)". Using Special:ExpandTemplates is helpful for locating stray instances of CSS background-color defined without a color. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know much about this, but I added this to Module:WikiProject banner/sandbox/styles.css and then checked at Template:WikiProject France/testcases but it is still showing as having 2 lint errors, so not sure if that has helped or not. I am using Vector 2022 but I don't see the Appearance section in my browser so can't check that. I notice that there are several other styles which define background-color but not color. Is it safe to use black for all these? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you copy the template call into Special:ExpandTemplates and then search the resulting wikicode for "back", you should see (which renders the box to the left of "This article has not yet received a rating"). That background needs a corresponding color. There are many instances like this in the code, though some of them exist only with specific combinations of parameters and values. I don't think that all of the background colors are in the templatestyles page, but I could be wrong. Here are a couple of places in the code where I matched a "background" assignment with a "color" assignment and was reverted. Assigning "color:black" should be fine until someone wants something more sophisticated in dark mode. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
<td class="assess import import-Unknown" style="background:#DCDCDC">[[:Category:Unknown-importance France articles|???]]</td>
- Yes but I added color:black to the assess class so that should cover that particular part — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that the Linter is confused about
|style=
defining the background-color while the color is defined in the class. Can the background color be moved to the CSS, or the color be moved to the style? I will also ask our WMF staffer who has been communicating with us about this new Linter flag, because it looks to me as if the td element has both a color and background-color and should not register as an error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)- Yes I expect we could define all the background colours in the stylesheet rather than in the config file. We would just need to define each class/importance as a separate class. I could look at this if you think it would help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't had a response yet at WT:Linter, but it has been less than 24 hours, so some patience is still in order. If you think that moving more styles to the CSS stylesheet is a good long-term move anyway, your development time probably won't be wasted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I received a response at WT:Linter. I am not sure if it helps; it's not a quick fix for me, but someone may want to have a go at it and fix dark mode for a few million pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes we can do this. I can work on it next week perhaps. I have followed up on that thread to clarify something — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- I received a response at WT:Linter. I am not sure if it helps; it's not a quick fix for me, but someone may want to have a go at it and fix dark mode for a few million pages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't had a response yet at WT:Linter, but it has been less than 24 hours, so some patience is still in order. If you think that moving more styles to the CSS stylesheet is a good long-term move anyway, your development time probably won't be wasted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I expect we could define all the background colours in the stylesheet rather than in the config file. We would just need to define each class/importance as a separate class. I could look at this if you think it would help — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I expect that the Linter is confused about
- Yes but I added color:black to the assess class so that should cover that particular part — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. If you copy the template call into Special:ExpandTemplates and then search the resulting wikicode for "back", you should see
Renaming categories
[edit]After a request at WP:CFDS, Category:Top-importance Start-Class Palaeontology articles is supposed to be renamed to Category:Start-Class Palaeontology articles of Top-importance. Am I correct that this module automatically handles categorizing the pages? I feel like it did at one point? When I attempted to move the category, Talk:Paleontological site was no longer in Category:Top-importance Start-Class Palaeontology articles (good) but was also not in Category:Start-Class Palaeontology articles of Top-importance (bad). There are also a bunch of similar categories at WP:CFDW in the same situation.
Courtesy link to {{WikiProject Palaeontology}}, if that helps.
Any help would be appreciated :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 20:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- You will need to update
|QII_FORMAT=C T of I
in Template:WikiProject Palaeontology. Note that the module is set up so these categories are only populated when they exist, so once you move the category they should start filling up again — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)- Thank you so much!! Not sure how I missed that… HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Modifying the module so default values aren't needed to be set
[edit]The advantage of invoking the module directly from banner templates is that we don't need to add default values for many of the parameters, so code like |category = {{{category|}}}
isn't needed as the module knows it received a parameter with that name. Removing the need to add default parameters like this will make the long and complex banner code easier (and cleaner) to read.
Currently we have 4 types of parameters (if I'm not mistaken):
- Parameters that all banners have and use the same parameter name.
- Parameters that all banners have but use various names.
- Parameters that some banners have but use the same name.
- Parameters that some banners have but use various names.
The change needed would be like this:
- Group 1 is the ideal and easiest candidate to convert. Parameters in this group probably include
|category=
and|listas=
. - Group 3 is also easy to convert. Instead of doing something like
|class = {{{class|}}}
, we can change to|class = yes
. Parameters in this group probably include|class=
and|importance=
.- In some cases where the parameter is almost always used, the default can be yes anyways so only when it isn't needed, the banner should set
|class = no
, reducing the banner code even more.
- In some cases where the parameter is almost always used, the default can be yes anyways so only when it isn't needed, the banner should set
- For group 2 and 4, this change will make things more consistent across all banners so instead of something like
|image-needed = {{{image|{{{image-needed|{{{needs-image|}}}}}}}}}
it will be|image-needed = yes
with only one of these names (or we could still leave all versions, messy but works).
Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Nice ideas. Just a few comments at this stage.
- These templates follow a long-standing convention of using upper-case parameter names for configuration settings and lower-case parameter names for passing values. So perhaps
|CLASS=yes
would be more respectful of that convention, if we wish to retain it. - I would prefer to default to "no" in almost every case. There are already plenty of cases of editors using features that they don't actually need.
- I can't think of any examples of group 2?
- I suppose the module could check for all reasonable variants of parameter names, e.g. image, imageneeded, image-needed, etc. Or are you suggesting a harmonisation effort?
- For group 4, we could do something like
|TF_1=utah
which would tell the module to check the|utah=
parameter and link it to task force 1. - Currently the module does not look at any of the parent frame arguments (i.e. parameters passed from a page), it only looks at the frame arguments (i.e. parameters passed from the template), so this would need a fairly major restructure of the code
- These templates follow a long-standing convention of using upper-case parameter names for configuration settings and lower-case parameter names for passing values. So perhaps
- — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- #1: That can work and would also make the conversion smoother as both parameters can work until all banners are converted.
- #2: A blanket no would be counter-productive here. class is used in almost all banners but a few. Having this line added to all of them instead of only the handful that don't need it is less ideal.
- #3: Probably one word parameters, so something like
|attention=
. - #4: I'd prefer we harmonize on one name, yes. But that's my personal preference here. Having the module know all versions can work, but will be ugly and messy.
- Gonnym (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ha, your edit to the sandbox will definitely not work without significant other changes! For example it would allow you to use features that the project does not even use. Let's start on a small scale with group 1.
- listas - I would prefer to move all these to the banner shell and then delete from the banners. So let's work on tracking these instead?
- substcheck - I have a feeling there is now a much better way to detect if a template has been substituted. So maybe look into that, and hopefully we can do without this parameter altogether.
- category - this would be a good one to start with, and would prove the concept.
- demo_page - this is undocumented, but very useful when testing to see how banners behave on different pages. It would be useful if we could use this parameter directly without having to pass through the template.
- — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The edit was just to see if the basic thing breaks (which it didn't so that's good news). If a project banner doesn't support a parameter (as in, the parameter isn't one of the default parameters, or isn't set to "on") then using it from a talk page shouldn't do anything other than place that parameter in the unknown parameter category. Gonnym (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ha, your edit to the sandbox will definitely not work without significant other changes! For example it would allow you to use features that the project does not even use. Let's start on a small scale with group 1.
If we start using |CLASS=yes
then it might be a good time to stop using |class=
altogether, because all of the ratings should now be in the banner shell so this parameter is not needed. The only barrier to this is Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings which is a massive barrier, and we have made almost no progress in resolving ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could you in the code sort the pages by the conflicting class? That would probably make it easier to see what issues can be solved with a bot run. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could sort by class, or alternatively the number of classes that it differs from the PIQA rating (e.g. if class=start and PIQA=B then difference=2). Or we could put use subcategories like Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings that differ by 1 class, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not a number as that doesn't give us any information to work with. A class can show us patterns. This Talk:1876 United States presidential election in Rhode Island, for example, is not a list. If we can single these out then we can start clearing them. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay that's fine. But sorting by class is problematic before start/stub and fa/fl start with the same letters. What sort keys would you like to use? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter to me, as long as they are different. I'm also quite sure we won't have more than a handful of articles with FA/FL issues, if at all. Maybe place stub as 0. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- With this edit we could split out the category into different classes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- The subcategories of Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings have now populated — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the 3k pages at Category:List-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings. I think we can safely have a bot run and remove the pages marked as list from all pages except those in the format of "x in y" (Talk:1962 in anime). There might be some false positives, but that isn't something that can't be fixed manually when someone sees it. All the others aren't lists, but low-quality articles.
- The pages in Category:GA-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings seem to be Military History articles tagged as "A". So in this case (and probably also in all other categories) we can decide to go with the higher tagged page, as an editor intentionally decided that article was that level (it's not our job here to check if we agree or not, just to fix the conflict). The stub pages can be double checked if the article itself still has a stub template, if it doesn't, it's not a stub. Gonnym (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I like these suggestions — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter to me, as long as they are different. I'm also quite sure we won't have more than a handful of articles with FA/FL issues, if at all. Maybe place stub as 0. Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Okay that's fine. But sorting by class is problematic before start/stub and fa/fl start with the same letters. What sort keys would you like to use? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not a number as that doesn't give us any information to work with. A class can show us patterns. This Talk:1876 United States presidential election in Rhode Island, for example, is not a list. If we can single these out then we can start clearing them. Gonnym (talk) 09:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could sort by class, or alternatively the number of classes that it differs from the PIQA rating (e.g. if class=start and PIQA=B then difference=2). Or we could put use subcategories like Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings that differ by 1 class, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The code for using parent arguments for category and demo_page is now coded on sandbox, if you'd like to check it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Tested the category=no at Draft talk:Template:Test banner and looks good. Gonnym (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- Ok BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 01:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- A fix for this is now in the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 13:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Ok, thanks BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 21:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Thanks BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 13:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- A fix for this is now in the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok BombCraft8 (talk) (contributions) 01:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Moving listas to banner shell
[edit]I have coded some tracking categories to help us ensure that all listas values are moved into the banner shell template. I have created the following tracking categories:
- Category:WikiProject banners with redundant listas value (394)
- Category:WikiProject banners with listas value which needs moving to banner shell (984)
Category:WikiProject banners with conflicting listas value (0)
My plan to deal with these is:
- Parameter removed by bot (User:Qwerfjkl has offered to use his bot)
- Parameter moved by bot (I think User:Cewbot should already do this)
- Human review needed. (These should already be tracked in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts and possibly cleared out by other editors working through this category.)
Any comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- When completed and categories emptied, I think the code can be simplified to just have "Category:WikiProject banners with listas value which needs moving to banner shell", when listas is used. Gonnym (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. And after a while, we could just remove the parameter entirely and then they will turn up in the unknown parameter categories — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Planning to remove Category:WikiProject banners with conflicting listas value because they will be picked up by Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Martin, I don't understand this. Listas and defaultsort refer to the article page but the banner shell is on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
- You can sort any page, including talk pages. The banner sorts the page it's placed on. Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
False positive demo
[edit]@MSGJ: I think your recent edits to this module might have caused it to treat real transclusions as demo. A box with the text
Categories:
is showing up underneath WikiProject banners on talk pages, e.g. WT:NFC. (This includes banners that are inside a banner shell, but tracking category issues aren't as urgent.)
jlwoodwa (talk) 06:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a problem with the inactive banners. I'll check ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Think I've fixed it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The inactive banners seem to be populating the quality categories now. For example see Talk:By the Way Tour. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Arghh noted. Fix in sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- Inactive banners are now missing categorization completely. Talk:Sudbury school should be in at least Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell. Gonnym (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I'm not sure that category ever worked on inactive banners. It probably should, but turning categorisation on selectively is going to be a pain — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- It did work, as that page was (currently still is) in the category (that's how I found it). Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I can't explain this. Will have to dig deeper into the code. The problem arises because of a compromise to display the quality assessments on these banners but without the categories. It would be much simpler if we could remove all the assessments from inactive banners, but some people found them useful. Perhaps this is less of an issue now with PIQA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- I reverted to the 5th September version of the code in the sandbox and Talk:Sudbury school is still not in that category. So I don't understand why you found it in that category, unless it was from a much older version of the code. I agree it would be better if it was in that category, but the way the code is currently set up is either no categories work or all of them work. The category opt-out mechanism would get rather messy otherwise. So this is my proposal: we stop displaying the class on inactive banners. Then I won't need to suppress the categories on inactive banners, and these tracking caegories should then work properly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Fix is on the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
- It did work, as that page was (currently still is) in the category (that's how I found it). Gonnym (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Actually I'm not sure that category ever worked on inactive banners. It probably should, but turning categorisation on selectively is going to be a pain — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- Inactive banners are now missing categorization completely. Talk:Sudbury school should be in at least Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell. Gonnym (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Arghh noted. Fix in sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- The inactive banners seem to be populating the quality categories now. For example see Talk:By the Way Tour. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Fixed. I have tested this as much as I can, and it seems to work now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
living/blp on categories
[edit]Is Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 11#living/blp on categories not valid anymore? I see categories have started filtering into Biography articles without living parameter when living/blp parameters are not present. Do we really want/need to add living/blp to the ~500k cats under Category-Class biography articles? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Seems a bit pointless to add that parameter to a category. Gonnym (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- And templates. The maintenance burden will be massive. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- Should we also exclude disambiguation pages and redirects? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- No, I don't think mainspace dabs & #Rs should be excluded. If they were excluded, then they could slip through to an easy circumvention of WP:NOINDEX.
- Now that you mention it...ideally, it'd be nice from a maintenance perspective if dabs & #Rs inherited their target's status, if it exists (for cases where both the dab/#R and its target are tagged with {{WP Bio}}). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 08:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- You mean that if an article is a GA, then the dab page should be set to GA? Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Gonnym, we're talking about the
|blp=
or|living=
parameters here. I'm not sure inheriting the status of the target would be appropriate. For example Matt Doherty Jr. redirects to the article on his father Matt Doherty Sr.. The former is alive but the latter is not — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)- Inheritance could be the weak default, as long as
|blp=
/|living=
are blank, but perhaps able to be forced with|blp=inherit
/|living=inherit
. Values ofyes|no
etc. would override any inheritance. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 09:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Inheritance could be the weak default, as long as
- Gonnym, we're talking about the
- I can't understand why you would want to use the living parameter on a disambiguation page. In almost every case there will be some people living and some not. There is also no content on a dab page, so little cause for BLP concerns — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:59, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I may be straying out of my depth, but any dab with a living main/1st target could/should conceivably use
|blp=yes
, for example Talk:Joey Lawrence (disambiguation), Talk:Sai Kumar, etc. I'm surprised Talk:Madonna (disambiguation) doesn't even use {{WP Bio}}, but so be it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- I may be straying out of my depth, but any dab with a living main/1st target could/should conceivably use
- You mean that if an article is a GA, then the dab page should be set to GA? Gonnym (talk) 08:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- Should we also exclude disambiguation pages and redirects? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:37, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
- And templates. The maintenance burden will be massive. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- This was an unintended consequence of a new module to check parameters Module:Check blp parameter. It should be fixed now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
If a page has |blpo=yes
then presumably it should not be in Category:Biography articles without living parameter, correct? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
- The wording of Template:WikiProject Biography#Living people, active politicians and other BLP issues under
|blpo=
says "It can only be used if
", so I don't think|living=no
|blpo=yes
on its own is enough to exclude it from Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I don't know if that dual requirement is a requirement of the previous template coding/logic, or if it was intended to be that way regardless. It does seem redundant to supply|living=
for either|living=no
|blpo=yes
or|living=yes
|activepol=yes
, but I've never asked nor looked through WT:Biography/{{WP Bio}} about this. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Can anyone help wit Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with conflicting living parameter? I took the weekend off, and now it's got 40 pages in it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've fixed a few but I noticed that a bot can easily fix most if not all of these and just needs to check if a page is in that category and also in Category:Living people. Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- See also {{WikiProject Reenactment}}. Same problem, I think. It needs documentation and a category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Yes I know this needs sorting. Just need some time to look at it ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
- See also {{WikiProject Reenactment}}. Same problem, I think. It needs documentation and a category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)- 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)
- If the rating is ignored, then it doesn't create a conflict. For example if you type
- Are there any projects that currently categorize their redirects by importance? Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
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)