Template talk:WikiProject banner shell

message: Code on Module:Banner shell/sandbox for tracking any invalid values of , ,  , ,  or  and will place them in :Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Code deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I've fixed about 70 of the 100-odd talk pages in the category, mostly those with either simple typos in the living/blp parameter values, or those where an  tag was mistakenly in the banner shell. There's about 27 remaining, most of which are where the blp status is unknown or conflicting. Harryboyles 09:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid parameters 

message: 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)
replies: text: We have this for FA and GA (possibly A-Class too), but not for B-Class and lower. However, I am certain that this has been suggested and rejected on several occasions - just not on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured that might have happend. I'm just not sure where the old discussions are, so if you know, could you link it? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm not dead set against the idea, but unless there was a concerted effort (or even a requirement) to use this parameter then it would rapidly become useless — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain why? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was implemented, I honestly can't see it getting regularly updated other than by a bot. I'm also not convinced of the benefits of having it at all. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. Never mind. I was thinking it would help, but I guess there's no point if it's just a random date. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a nice idea, just difficult in practice. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: @OrdinaryGiraffe: Some WikiProject templates have an assess-date parameter (e.g. ).  If there's a particular WikiProject that you think would benefit from an assess-date parameter, you could discuss it on that WikiProject's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any point in having these parameters in WikiProject banners now that the quality rating has been moved to the shell? (I guess it could refer to the importance assessment.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my original idea., because importance ratings usually aren't supposed to change. Quality is. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Alternatively, to catch most old and incorrect ratings, is it feasible to regularly compare all article assessments with their ORES predictions and then manually re-assess all those where ORES and the assessment are more than one level apart? —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine there would be the volunteer labour to do that manual re-assessment on an ongoing basis, but I would like a "last assessed" parameter (that automated tools like Rater could be expanded to interact with) and the ability to analyse data on class assessment and ORES prediction on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis. — Bilorv (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add assessment date and/or assessed revision for article quality ratings 

message: 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)
replies: text: Alternatively, to catch most old and incorrect ratings, is it feasible to regularly compare all article assessments with their ORES predictions and then manually re-assess all those where ORES and the assessment are more than one level apart? —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't imagine there would be the volunteer labour to do that manual re-assessment on an ongoing basis, but I would like a "last assessed" parameter (that automated tools like Rater could be expanded to interact with) and the ability to analyse data on class assessment and ORES prediction on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis. — Bilorv (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Last assessed" parameter? 

message: A few suggestions to help process articles with conflicting quality ratings:
* If the conflicting ratings comprise no more than a third of the total number of banners THEN use the majority rating
** Rationale: the majority rating is more likely to be correct rather than an anomaly
** Example: 
* If there is only one conflicting rating AND it comprises more than a third of the total number of banners AND it differs by no more than one grade THEN use the higher rating
** Rationale: the higher rating is more likely to be more recent as articles tend to improve over time
** Example: 
I think these would resolve a lot of the conflicting ratings. Please suggest any more with rationale and example — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal changed from 25% to a third because that still represents a clear majority — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I noticed that some television season articles are in that category because they are marked incorrectly as a list (Talk:A Certain Scientific Railgun season 1). Not sure how many of those are there, but those are an easy fix. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there an easy way to detect if an article is a list? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Television season articles are not lists as they should have sections detailing various aspects of them. If they look like a list that is just because they are at a start level. So any that are marked as a list are just wrong. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

text: A GA, FA or A rating should override the others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed all GAs that do not have A-Class ratings. I am not sure how to deal with A-Class, as that seems project specific and not Wikipedia-wide to me. —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I still believe we should retire A-class from the project-wide scale. It has never been adopted by the project at large, and the tentative plans to set up a project-wide review process have not led anywhere — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: This information shouldn't be removed by bot. I know the number of articles involved is very large but the rules of thumb you propose are highly error-prone. In many cases the minority rating will be the correct one because an editor re-rated the article (e.g. because its quality had improved) but only changed one banner (because they were a member of that WikiProject or because they forgot to change the others etc.). This is actually what happened in the example you give, where B-class was what should have been used in the banner: it was the most recent rating given by a human assessing the article's quality (though I've now re-appraised the article and in my opinion it's C-class).We still need to look at these on a case-by-case basis, but ideally we can group many articles into the same case: for instance, Talk:43rd People's Choice Awards, Talk:44th People's Choice Awards, Talk:46th People's Choice Awards will likely all have the same resolution, as might many other pages in some common awards category.The starting place may be to identify how contradictory "List"/non-list assessments should be resolved. My suspicion is that the "List" assessment will be correct in most cases, but note that sometimes the intention might be to rate the list's quality like MilHist does and so this information shouldn't be removed without discussion by the WikiProjects. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your points, but without some automation I do not see any realistic way of clearing these conflicts and implementing PIQA which is the strong will of the community. My proposals above were designed to be moderate and low-risk, but if you have better suggestions then I'm keen to hear them. The list/non-list issue is difficult because there are lots of articles which are partly list and partly prose, and it is not clear how to classify these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a way to break :Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings down by WikiProject and to invite people to fix this? It is only 120k articles overall, so if we get a hundred people from the active and semi-active WikiProjects to help out, it should be possible to deal with this backlog by hand (or Rater) in a few weeks. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a decent idea. We could either split up the category by using a sort key (so WikiProject Biography sorted under "B" for example), or we can create separate categories for any WikiProject that is interested in helping out (e.g. :Category:WikiProject Biography articles with conflicting quality ratings) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort key only really works for articles that only belong to one WikiProject, so is perhaps not the best way to deal with articles with conflicting ratings (unless you want to sort by the odd one out). Categories should work better. —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I'll add categories according to the scheme suggested above. Once the category is created, it will start populating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be better to just use category instersection tools (e.g. Petscan). — Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

text: 49621 for WPBio — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to start small: fixed all 18 from :Category:Mainz task force articles. Off to the next WikiProject... —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

text: That's not the same as the category I was planning to make though. That is 49621 pages with conflicts which also have the WPBio template on them. My category would be just the WPBio templates which are causing the conflict, which would probably be much smaller ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't really matter which of the project templates "causes the conflict"; from my experience in an hour of fixing rating conflicts today, the odd one out is correct a lot of the time (there were a lot of GAs with non-GA rating in the banner shell template). —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Good point. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Can we tell how many of the 123k articles have a conflict only between Stub and Start? Nurg (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not with the current tracking methods. All conflicts are lumped together in one category. Why do you ask? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: this might work if it doesn't timeout. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Martin, I asked because I wondered if they were (a) quite numerous (b) low-risk for an automated tool to deal with. Low-risk because Start would usually be the right class (my guess, and see WhatamIdoing's comment at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 10#Conflicting ratings), and the harm would not be very great in cases where the tool got it wrong. If it's only 1% of the 123k, it's not worth bothering with, but if it was 10% or 20%, worth investigating further, preliminary to farming out the whole lot for WikiProjects to do manually (if we go that way). Nurg (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a substantial amount. Just adding "WikiProject Biography articles" to Gonnym's petscan makes it not time out and yields 32663 WPBIO articles that have both stub and start ratings. Some of these might also have C-Class ratings but I guess a third of the total conflict is stub/start. —Kusma (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the subsequent comments from everyone. Maybe we could consider semi-automated responses for start/stub conflicts, perhaps with AWB set to 500 words or ORES or some trade-off between including most affected pages and reducing false results. Kusma's investigation confirms my suspicion that the odd-one-out rating is often the correct one. It'd be brilliant if we could do some Petscan links for major WikiProjects and enlist help to fix this. It should be stressed that this is not a technical change but a content assessment and that the editors are responsible for determining which rating is accurate. If that means we re-assess a good deal of articles from first principles then that's also work worth doing (I'm sure we also have hundreds of thousands of consistent but years-out-of-date class assessments).Can anyone look at the list situation—is it a substantial percentage of these pages? Is there information that needs to be kept in the non-list-class ratings? — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

text: While I would prefer "500 words" or "ORES rating is better than Stub", I think this will probably work OK. I still think we should crowdsource all of the more complicated cases. —Kusma (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting ratings 

message: Module:Banner shell is currently calling Template:Banner holder. I'm not overly keen on a module calling a template, but in this case the module overrides most of the default functions of Banner holder. So I'm wondering if this template could be bypassed and its functionality merged into the module? Ping @Izno who was involved in some 2022 changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Banner holder is intended to be 1) a generalization for WPBS, which you reimplemented in this module despite using the general name, and 2) a holder for tmboxes that aren't WikiProject banners. I don't see an issue merging it into the module, but it would be prudent to separate out the WikiProject-specific parts into their own part of the module and then call the holder function, which should be a public API. And given the name of the module, that function should probably be the "main" function, with the WikiProject specific portions in some p.wikiproject_shell. Izno (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay let's merge it into the module. I don't think the name of the module and its functions are particularly important, but no opposition to your ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

text: Coding finished and I'm fairly happy with it. Further testing still to do. @Izno: would you mind checking the stylesheets because I'm not very knowledgeable on that aspect? I assume I can merge Template:Banner holder/styles.css and Template:WikiProject banner shell/styles.css into Module:Banner shell/styles.css? Are there any further improvements possible, for example the hard-coded styles on L-37 and L-200? I don't understand your comments at Module:Banner shell/styles.css#L-54 but can any improvements be made here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get any response from Izno, but it passed all my tests so  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Module:Message box/tmbox.css#L-81 isn't being changed back to 100%, it seems. – Hilst [talk] 11:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be the order of the definitions? Before it was  and now it's the other way round . Perhaps the overriding definition needs to come later? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably what's causing it. In any case, you could always just throw in a few !importants :V – Hilst [talk] 14:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I switched the order in the sandbox and that seems to have fixed it. This is why I asked Izno to check! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Probably related to the above. I have switched the order of the definitions. Please confirm (after a purge) if that is looking normal again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of [[Template:Banner holder]] 

message: Is it just me, or does this template suddenly have a lot less space between the contents and the border? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably related to the above. I have switched the order of the definitions. Please confirm (after a purge) if that is looking normal again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spacing change? 

message: Most of the invalid values of  that are being tracked in :Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters are there because . 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)
replies: text: Martin, presumably they can just be removed then? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  The value of NA was never intended to be explicitly set in a  parameter, it was always set automatically under certain circumstances - such as that the  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)

text: Yes. Unless anyone thinks that NA should be able to be set explicitly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How should subpages in the article namespace (such as Talk:WandaVision/FAQ) be handled? Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any subpages that need WikiProject templates? Why? —Kusma (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

text: The WP banners on article talk pages are meant to assign the articles themselves to WikiProjects, not necessarily the talk pages. So FAQ pages are like talk archives in that they are not meant (in my view) to be tagged into Projects, because they are not directly attached to article pages.— TAnthonyTalk 19:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not even remotely close to talk archives. They are more similar to project pages that offer information and are actively updated and edited (unlike talk page archives). They should be tagged and categorized as any other project page. Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hard to do for a project page in talk space. The WikiProject banner for such a page needs to go in the Talk talk: namespace. —Kusma (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Would suggest that if Talk:WandaVision is tagged for the project, then that should be sufficient? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that the page is listed in :Category:Unassessed television articles and can't be taken out of it either with  or . Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting, will need to look into this. Perhaps because the subject page does not exist, it is automatically classifying it as a non-article. What would be the expected behaviour for a subpage in the Talk namespace? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Template:FAQ expects FAQ pages to be in Talk:<article>/FAQ (this can be manually set to a different page but most probably aren't changing the default location) so this is a unique sub-page in talk article space. One solution would be to handle all /FAQ sub-pages here as project pages. Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Template:Pagetype will now check that pages in mainspace exist and will not classify a non-existent page as an "article". So I think we can update the code in this module, to say something like "This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale" as per other non-article pages. It will also need an update to the Wikiproject banner module to ensure that these are rated NA-class rather than unassessed. I started looking at this yesterday but it got a bit complicated and I need to test everything thoroughly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  Proposed icon for non-existent pages — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of repurposing , 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  for "Does Not Exist"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to use the class parameter for this, as it will be detected automatically. When I said NA-class I was referring to the categories like :Category:NA-Class medicine articles which are a catch-all for non-articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Looks like @TAnthony has cleaned these out, thanks!  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm unclear why this is tagged as "vacant page". Just use "page" or let users override it as it's a project page. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume we are talking about WandaVision/FAQ. It's not a project page (these are in Project namespace). It's a subpage of an article which does not exist. Technically it's not even a page because it doesn't exist. Any other suggestions? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Shortened "vacant page" to "page" on sandbox, but still uses the specific icon which may provide some explanation of why a rating is not required. I would still prefer to say "vacant page" or "non-existent page", but happy to drop if it looks awkward. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

text: It's also still didn't fix the actual issue of leaving the page in :Category:Unassessed television articles. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It will. But the television banner is still using the live code instead of the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  class=NA 

message: :Category:Articles using WikiProject banner shell with empty class parameter is now empty, and I don't think we need this tracking category anymore, as any article picked up by this should also be in :Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles using WikiProject banner shell with empty class parameter 

message: Thanks to ‎TAnthony and many many other editors, we have now emptied :Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating which means every single article in the project now has a PIQA rating. Great job everyone! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amazing milestone 

message: 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: 
:If WikiProject Biography exists inside the shell:
:with |living=no then removes |blp=yes if exists
:with |living=yes then adds |blp=yes
:with |activepol=yes then adds |actipol=yes
:with |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, Clearfrienda 💬  17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for bringing this up. AWB should not be removing  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)
replies: text:  Unfortunately, the AWB developers have not yet updated the AWB to match the many changes made to the banner shell.  I added the  template above for you.  GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are the developers, and have they indicated any timescale for making these changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

text:  Is there anything we can do about this in the mean time to stop the growing backlog of biographies without a living parameter? Clearfrienda 💬  17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Clearfrienda: You could reach out to the individual AWB users who are adding pages to the backlog to explain the impact of their actions. GoingBatty (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  BLP tagging 

message: 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)
replies: text: - removed stray "}".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Tom.Reding: Thanks for that. Sometimes it is hard to spot those stray characters. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unassessed WikiProject banner appear inside an assessed banner shell