Template talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Archive 1

message: "above" doesn't always work (unless we move all the usage notes out). I liked it with more detail. ++Lar: t/c 22:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Above"

message: The idea was mooted at Talk:The Beatles of adding a bit to this template to indicate that Beatles articles should be written in British English.  Opinions? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would want to see the content kept inside the tan box, with a heading that suggest that more guidelines might be coming along. But ya, seems a good idea. Before we do it would like to hear more thoughts from other project participants. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have a play in my sandbox if you like. Can then delete or do a history merge depending on if people disprove/approve. --kingboyk 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A history merge may be a bit of overkill to just see what it looks like, you can just paste the change in to the real template once we like it, presumably... but sure! Sounds good.  ++Lar: t/c 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya, I meant once it had been approved and hacked about. It's currently in User:Kingboyk/Sandbox but read only for a few mins pse. --kingboyk 02:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current text (modded and edited down) of  should be inside the upper tan box as a bullet point under the heading "suggested article guidelines" (coming up with at least one more guideline would help make sense of that I guess) Maybe you're working on it! If you don't follow, LMK and I'll have a go... ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hack away. --kingboyk 03:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I will. ++Lar: t/c 03:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally I like it seperate. My reason for including it in the template was ease of propogation. YMMV. --kingboyk 03:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking it's just one of several guidelines we'll want to introduce though... we don't want to cruft all the articles up with a bunch of boxes because they included one template. The guideline text should be smaller but I was messing about with font and div and small and stuff to no effect. If it's the ONLY guideline, then ya. See how it looks now and then say what you think (I added another guideline bullet, it may not be a keeper but it gives an idea.++Lar: t/c 03:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job. Is there any way of adding an optional argument to turn the British English message off for articles to which it probably shouldn't apply (of which there won't be many, if any)? I'm pretty sure there is but I forget (qif??). --kingboyk 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  should do it, I think but I forget too. There's also a way to do it with css (class "hidden structure) I expect, see  for example. (that includes things if a parm IS present, we want the opposite though...) before you copy it over let me have a hack by using table cell formatting to see if I can get the text smaller. Probably time to archive off all the stuff that I commented out back when (the cover image we can't use, for example) too... Gimme a few min. However now that we've both been hacking, ya, technically under GFDL a history merge is needed... ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We can leave it in the sandbox until we have at least a 3rd opinion (and until you're done) and then I can move it into place. Trust me I'm a wiki-doctor! (Lar shudders) --kingboyk 03:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ya, but are you in National Health or private practice? Trust you??? You've been reading talk:Seduction Community and its links again haven't you? OK, give it a boo, it's at 80%. Reformatted but not all the commented out stuff removed yet. I did not do the qif thing though... Try including it from some other page as a test, and point us back here will ya? (this whole convo will redlink once we're done I guess) Totally down with waiting for the final surgery till we hear from others. ++Lar: t/c 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As is often the case, I've no idea what you're talking about so will just vaguely agree! :P I've read "The Game" though - cracking read. OK, I'll take a look. Convo won't so much redlink as point to whatever garbage happens to me in my sandbox at any given moment :) --kingboyk 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It may well be too small... I had it at 85% and decided to "push it" to 80%... even 90% would make it seem smaller and therefore not the dominant part of the box so that's certainly an option. I'm done for now, then... we've got time of course. What I mean by try including it from some other page is just to do an inclusion as a test to see what it looks like included (we're looking at it when the "noinclude" switches are tripped)... go here: User:Lar/Sandbox to see it included. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure about that, I actually seem to recall the opposite, that all articles are to be in American English (WM foundation is a Florida corporation, Jimbo is a US citizen, etc.) unless the subject is based in a country which speaks a different dialect... 98% of these articles (but not all, articles on American record company activities or memorable US shows, to make up some examples, which I have no idea of their existance or not) are British english subject matter. But I don't have a cite to back me up at the moment. Good thing we're doing this in sandboxes then, I guess. I'm not too sussed if we ditch it. Or ref some project standards guideline, as suggested below. The advantage of having it in the box is that it's in sight. Out of sight, out of mind. Links you have to follow don't always get followed, so some inyourface-ness may be good, if it's polite. ++Lar: t/c 05:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, here's some cites... style actually is as given here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling (read at least through 
"National Varieties of English" and here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28spelling%29 ... so I wasn't quite right, but close.  ++Lar
* Articles should use the same dialect throughout.
* If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.
* If there's no strong tie, try to find synonyms that can be used in any dialect.
* If no such words can be agreed upon, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English
--kingboyk 06:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not the guidelines at all. The guidelines are that the dialect of the original author is retained, unless the article is on persons/places/concepts which are geographical. I prefer the seperate box though, I think, because it's a Wikipedia policy not ours. (See Talk:The Beatles for how this discussion arose, by the way). --kingboyk 05:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still like the separate box better? it doesn't always apply, and as soon as we mod it, it's our sub-policy, not overall project. ++Lar: t/c 05:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: lol, I'm getting a headache now. Nothing suggested so far has been outrageous or disagreeable so somebody please be bold :) If that involves moving a sandbox and restoring page history give me a shout. --kingboyk 06:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importing content from [[:Template:British-English]] 

message: Tomorrow's soon enough. I'd like to hear from the editor that suggested we talk here but then, yes, I plan to be bold and go with the version in Kingboyk(Steve)'s sandbox. Steve'll need to do the merging of history (although I have half a mind to just do a diff on the two pages and apply all those changes at one go and call them all mine, I don't think Steve had that many non minor edits to it. ++Lar: t/c 06:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work. I can just delete the sandbox afterwards. --kingboyk 06:44, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm back.  Overall, I'd say it looks good enough to go live with.  Not knowing much about the coding involved, I don't have any fancy technical suggestions.  I previewed the sandbox version with both 85% and 90% for the text size, and I like either one better than 80%, which renders funny from where I'm sitting.  If there are any problems, somobody will point them out when it appears on 64 talk pages. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've taken the sandbox version live. --kingboyk 06:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I MEANT to do it but my wikitime this weekend was spent on other stuff. Sorry! Let's go with 85% ? ++Lar: t/c 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headache? It can wait  

message: Hey, I liked that... why'd you go back? It's cool. ++Lar: t/c 16:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean? Should still work? I think it's very cool too, thank WikiProject Japan for the idea. --kingboyk 16:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, I dunno. Maybe I was thinking of the revert you did to remove the edit link? ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  show/hide todolist  

message: Awesome change. Keep it. Nice work ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that bothers me is that people might click on HELP! rather than "Show". I could change the link I suppose :) (Dastardly plan maybe, but I'd like to see some stuff get crossed off that list. Seems like it's the 2 or 3 of us at the moment). --kingboyk 21:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (HELP! - good change or not?) 

message: Myself and Wing Commander Lar have made some changes to this template to have it display our article classifications. The default is just as before, but there's now a groovy set of values to be passed as an optional parameter. For example,  produces the following:
	 	This  is part of The Beatles WikiProject, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of The Beatles and related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached page, do a task from our to-do list, or visit the project page, where you are more than welcome to join the project and/or contribute to discussion.
	 	Suggested article edit guidelines:
* Most articles should be written in British English. Some terms may be different from - or non-existent in - American English, and some spellings may differ. For more information, see American and British English differences. Document exceptions on the talk page of the article and here.
* It is Project policy that (with possible exceptions depending on context) all article references to the band's name should be in title case ("The Beatles" and not "the Beatles")
* Please give careful thought to categories. There are a lot already, and it may be a good idea to discuss new ones on the project talk page.
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:	
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:	
The Beatles To-do: You can HELP!:
and adds the article to :Category:FA-Class Beatles articles. Please send bottles of champagne to the usual address :) --kingboyk 19:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, why does the "Help" bluelink go to the album? Is this just an example of "Beatlesque humour"?LessHeard vanU 20:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. --kingboyk 20:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This template just got serious :) 

message: We seem to be getting some extra undesirable whitespace, possibly dependent on the parameters. See e.g. Talk:Paul Is Dead. Can someone fresh try to fix it? --kingboyk 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not see this problem before my most recent tweaking... but it looks OK to me now! I'll claim to have fixed it if I can get away with it! What ho? ++Lar: t/c 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitespace issues? 

message: I'm wondering if we ought to:
*Switch to named parameters, e.g. class=. With an AWB run and a suitable regular expression we could easily fix current uses of the template.
*Add features such as "this is a Featured Article", "this article had a peer review", etc to reduce talk page clutter - see e.g. 
*Replace such things as  with code which checks the namespace. Any non main space pages would get "category", "template", "Wikipedia page" instead of "article" and would automatically be excluded from the assessment categories
*Add classes for dab pages and redirects, and keep track of those in new subcategories of our articles category
Thoughts? --kingboyk 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've got this feature working in , and aim to work on  tommorow. --kingboyk 23:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next phase 

message: The importance categories are correctly assigned from what I can see, but the importance box isn't displayed. A minor bug no doubt but I can't see it at the moment. --kingboyk 16:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kirill Lokshin fixed this, with thanks. --kingboyk 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance box not being displayed 

message: Something else still needed: If the article is within the scope of WPBiography and needs an infobox, add it to their infobox needed category too. They're better qualified to fix up bio infoboxes than we are. Likewise for attention, and WPSongs if they have those categories. We also might need to display a "this article needs an infobox" banner like we do when attention=yes. --kingboyk 18:21, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All done. --kingboyk 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor features still needed

message: wow you were cranking right along, weren't you? So, is there anything left that needs doing? I've not much time these days it seems but if there is, I can give a boo. But looking over the above items I'm not seeing too much... Nice work Steve! LMK... BTW, interested readers should also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council, I've mentioned this box on the talk page.  ++Lar: t/c 18:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, yes, there's one thing: formatting, making the tranclude of  have less whitespace below it (living=yes), and if possible making the template a bit smaller still. --kingboyk 13:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll give that a boo tonite then. ++Lar: t/c 17:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingboyk: A whirling dervish of productivity 

message: As you've hopefully noticed, I've set up a really spiffing scheme whereby our articles are now Mathbot-listed by subject. This has the positive affect of removing e.g. Badfinger from The Beatles list (where it's tenuous) and adding it to the Apple Records list (where it's fully on-topic). This has also allowed me to widen the scope a little, for example all articles relating to Handmade Films are now assessed and listed at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/George Harrison articles by quality.
What I haven't done is implement a seperate Importance scheme for these sub-topics. It would require yet more parameter complexity, and some Projects don't even assess for importance at all. So, I'm wondering if the template ought to not display the Unassessed for Importance box when the article is not in the main Beatles list. The logic is something like this:
if((((if Apple=yes then return 1)+(if George=yes then return 1)+...)>=1 and also-beatles=yes) or ((if Apple=yes then return 1)+(if George=yes then return 1)+...)=0) then
:display importance box
end if
Is there an easier way to express this in the very limited logic we have available? --kingboyk 10:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Following on from the comments just made at the Assessment Department, let me add that importance is terribly hard to judge and is causing a few problems for other WikiProjects. I'm not proposing we abandon it, but I don't much care if we have articles unassessed for importance provided that if we assess any for importance, we have all High and Top importance articles marked as such. There is a case for abandoning the importance altogether but I won't make it just yet. --kingboyk 15:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Bio-importance is the importance for the Biography WikiProject. The categories at the bottom of the talk page are the important thing, not what the template says. James McCartney isn't on the Beatles list (importance=), he's in WPBiography (bio-importance=) and the Paul McCartney list (no importance scheme implemented). That's why I have to remember to turn this display code off :) --kingboyk 11:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: Given that all editors who are likely to edit the code are admins (Lar, me, Oleg, Kirill and so on) and given that the instructions are in a seperate page, do you agree with me that there's a strong case to be made for protecting this template? --kingboyk 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak, yes. Strong? no. Is this a high risk template in the meaning of the phrase? I think not, as it never appears in articlespace and vandalization can be reverted presumably. In general I feel protection should be used very sparingly. Do we have a history of vandalism of it? ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't thinking of vandalism, but of well-intentioned screwups, resulting in, perhaps, the Mathbot logs getting screwed. But, no bother, it was just a thought and perhaps not a very good one :) --kingboyk 17:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mate, at this point I'm as likely to screw something up (which is why I take it over to a sandbox and play, and then bring it back) :) as the rankest newb... protection ain't gonna protect us against that. Still, it won't hurt. I'm not opposed but if it's questioned on the page protection list i'm not sure there's a strong defense. But, go for it. ++Lar: t/c 18:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protect? 

message: Some bot User:CmdrObot came by and made some changes. I reverted them as they break the spacing put in the template to make the code readable. ++Lar: t/c 00:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot changes reverted 

message: I would prefer that the link to WPBIO(A&E) be severed. This link has the unfortunate effect that any priority rating given from a WPBeatles PoV, is then also the priority for the WPBIO Project. For example, Brian Epstein clearly merits Top-priority for the Beatles Project, but I think not for WP:BIO in general. Errabee 08:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't. It's a seperate parameter (bio-importance=) for the workgroup. WP:BIO doesn't do overall priority, it does it only for workgroups - and I think Epstein should be Top importance for A&E. That said, you can change it without breaking WP Beatles ratings! Come on, I code smarter than that! --kingboyk 18:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why the link with WPBIOA&E? 

message: A trifling point, perhaps, but why is :Image:Abbey Road sin Beatles.jpg used on the template when it's not actually a picture of Abbey Road but, as the image description says, "a Parisian zebra crossing near the Champs-Élysées"? --Rrburke 18:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it looks nice. We're restricted to free (not fair use) images; if you can find a better one please suggest it here. --kingboyk 18:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Image changed. Robert K S (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, I thought I changed it.  The picture's different on the template page, but not on the template's application on the Wikiproject page.  What's the deal? Robert K S (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: see below, i have a problem with this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of image 

message: Any chance this banner could be converted to the  format? See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 June 5#Template:Needsinfobox. --Geniac (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we ought to, it looks a right mess on John Lennon, especially on my school's IE6...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to attempt it at User:Dendodge/Sandbox/Beatles template...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to get the extra bits in, (the John, Paul, Ringo, George, Musician etc.) but by no means impossible, I'm working on it!...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm having a couple f problems, if anyone else wants to help out...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 18:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the basic stuff, but I still can't do the john, paul, ringo, george etc. to work...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 19:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: , but I've asked at WT:TB before implementing.  If I don't receive any nays, I'll go ahead...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 16:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I know - that was unavoidable, I'm afraid...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 11:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: WPBannerMeta

message: WP:Musicians has become the musician-work-group of WP:Biography over a year ago, and this template adds the text "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians on Wikipedia", but it does not use the WPBio category structure (including assessment classes).
On Talk:Paul McCartney it says "", but most of the  functionality is missing IMHO. As far as I can tell, this template's parameters musician=yes and living=yes do put tagged articles only into a few biography categories.  But in my view, an article like Paul McCartney should show in :Category:Musicians_work_group_articles and the related subcategories of :Category:Biography (musicians) articles by quality, same with e.g. Grapefruit (band), but both of them don't. So I think either this template should add articles in question (musicians and musical groups) to all the related WPBiography categories (as  apparently does), or the WPBiography template should be used on these articles additionally. Regards, BNutzer (talk) 01:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand things, WPBeatles is one of several task forces by band within the WikiProject Biography Musicians Work Group.  At this time, I see little ganging support for multiple Categorizations in Template:WPBannerMeta, so properly categorizing WPBeatles articles and images among Biography Articles, Biography (musician) Articles and Beatles Articles at the same time, given common Parameters, would understandably take some labor.  The obvious question for me is whether it can be done in one Template.  Just some food for thought.  B. C. Schmerker (talk) 07:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPBiography support 

message: The template displays text like Paul McCartney and Grapefruit (band). BNutzer (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, I'm trying to fix it...... Densock .. Talk(Dendodge on a public network) 12:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange output 

message: This banner is still a bit of a mess. I have just enabled the quality scale for some of the taskforces which was missing. A problem is that The Beatles uses the extended quality scale (including redirect-class, image-class, etc.) but most of the taskforces/workgroups do not. Therefore it will be categorising into nonexistent categories at the moment. There is also the problem that biography uses the term priority instead of importance, which this banner cannot handle so easily. Martin 08:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality and importance scales