Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/Future

message: Things are coming to a head, my friends. WP:PLANTS has started assessment. It adopted a bottom-up approach, whereby subprojects WP:BANKSIA and WP:CPLANTS have their own assessment templates, which categorise into their own and their parent projects' assessment categories. Since I had to revise  to include WP:PLANTS assessments, I added WP:AUS assessments too. See, for example, Talk:Banksia epica.
Having implemented WP:AUS assessments via the  banner, I proceeded to remove (actually comment out) the WP:AUS banners. Ah, but in doing so I removed the capacity for articles to be tagged into WP:WA, for example. WP:WA has lost two of its featured articles from its stats, because I've removed the WP:AUS banner from Banksia brownii and Banksia epica. The only way to reinsert these into the WA project is to reinsert the WP:AUS banner. If I re-insert it as  then it will end up in :Category:Unassessed Australia articles. No, I have to give all the assessment all over again, and suffer a redundant tag on the talk page, just to get the article into WA assessments.
The problem is of course that WP:PLANTS uses bottom up subproject integration, whereas WP:AUS uses top down, and WP:BANKSIA is stuck in the middle. Neither system is wrong, but they are utterly incompatible, so only one can survive. This is annoying the buggery out of me, and I'm sure you're not enjoying me whinging all the time either. I think, though, that this problem is much bigger than the three of us, and may be about to reach tipping point. Kirill has posted Wikipedia:WikiProject reform, which might get the ball rolling.
Hesperian 01:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Banner again

message: Hi have noted Oceania as parent, Australia as a component, and the sub portals of - Adelaide, South Australia, the new in process Western Australia - and Military  (any other candidates hiding themselves at all?) - I think there is a need for a more thorough cross referencing between the portals - possibly apart from boxes indicating sub portals - any suggestions? SatuSuro 08:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portals

message: While using AWB to tag importance for some of the now 18,000+ unassessed Australian importance articles I had this discussion with User:Longhair I brought up the possibility of expand the Attention option to classify what attention is needed on any article. to do this instead just a "yes" I thought it could have a number of diffent options and each would place it into a new category. To go with this a simple bot to maintain a counter table on what has been tagged and why, this list could be displayed on the notice board, and the more active editors could also put the list on their "links page" so that article with issues get addresses quickly. 
My thoughts on the tags and why are :
* rating  -- importance/class needs to be review (excluding unrated)
* content -- needs wikifing, missing important content 
* policy  -- concerns over WP:N, WP:V, or WP:NPOV 
* media   -- subject of media commentary
* afd     -- subject of a recent AfD, address concerns/information raised during the dicussion
I realise this would raise some concerns about how complicated the template is getting together with this change taking place I think there should be a set of instructions on how to tag the template correctly getting the best benefit for all projects. This feature would enable WP Australia to better serve and maintain articles of interest, at the moment the talk page header really is just an advertisement for the projects. Gnangarra 03:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This sounds like an excellent feature. I'm not sure on what you're suggesting the bot will do, however. Is it possible to have a bot run through all Australian articles (those tagged with WP Australia anyway), check whether they have meta tags (ie, , ,  etc), and if so, note accordingly in an appropriate parameter of the banner on each respective article's talk page?--cj | talk 03:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I was thinking was to have a bot produces a simple table/list with a count of how many are in the category, this would just provide a quick way to monitor the categories. Gnangarra 14:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly, that's required. However, it would be dependent on individual users adding the required parameters to individual banners. I think it would thus become outdated and unmaintainable. Hence my suggestion to have a bot run through articles and update the banner when clean-up tags are present. I'm not a bot expert, but I imagine this is possible – it would operate much like bot which does auto stub assessments.--cj | talk 08:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Apologies for my late re-entry to this conversation. Wikipedia:Pages needing attention/Australia looks to be close to what Gnangarra describes above. I'm unsure how current the information is however, or whether or not it's still maintained by a bot as described. The last time a bot touched this page was way back on November 3, 2006. -- Longhair\talk 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template - functions