Perbincangan templat:WPBannerMeta

message: Following a discussion on Template talk:WPMED, would there be any opposition to adjusting the links to the quality and importance scales in the banner. The proposal is as follows:
If ASSESSMENT_LINK is specified then the word "rated" will not be linked, but "quality scale" and "importance scale" link to "ASSESSMENT_LINK#quality scale" and "ASSESSMENT_LINK#importance scale," respectively.
The idea is that if a project has its own scales then the generic WP1.0 scale is not necessary or relevant.
There is also a suggestion that if ASSESSMENT_LINK is specified the word "project" is inserted into the wording as follows.
*This article has been rated as XX-Class on the project's quality scale.
*This article has been rated as YY-importance on the project's importance scale.
Any comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some banners already use ASSESSMENT_LINK because their assessment page is not in the "standard location" as expected by the banner. If you want to change the purpose of ASSESSMENT_LINK then you should change those banners first by adding redirects on those projects so that they don't need to use ASSESSMENT_LINK.

text: An alternative suggestion would be to have a new parameter, ASSESSMENT_SCALE which would then control the "quality scale" and "importance scale" links and add the word "project's". You could also add a feature to ASSESSMENT_LINK so that ASSESSMENT_LINK=none would stop rated being linked. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I wasn't intending to change the purpose of the parameter and I don't see the need for a new parameter. Isn't the page that ASSESSMENT_LINK points to precisely the place where the scales should be? There seems to be some agreement that one link on each line is sufficient. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::So, do you mean that rated shouldn't be linked to at all and the link at the end should go the projects assessment page? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Yes, I think so. Because the quality scale should be on that page, otherwise how can you assess an article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::That's fine. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::That sounds like a good change. If the projects have their own assessment page there's no need to link to the 1.0 scale. §hepTalk 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the problem here. On , the word "rated" already links to our quality or importance scales (ie, how the article has been rated), while the words at the end of the line link to the WP1.0 scales (ie, how the article is supposed to compare with other articles on other subjects). That seems like a reasonable compromise to me. Am I missing something? Physchim62 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Because people don't click on "rated" when they want to find WP:MED's quality or importance scales; they click on "quality scale" or "importance scale".  If linking to both is important, then I believe we have these exactly backwards.  The "rated" link could go to a general explanation about why anything is being assessed at all -- but if you're trying to figure out why the article nearest to your heart got a "Low-importance" rating from WPMED, it would be more helpful to take the reader to the relevant scale.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I now have a concrete proposal for the change to the wording. The code is here and there are some examples in /Assessment examples. Please have a look and tell me what you think. The basic changes are:

text: :#Just one link in the sentence.

text: :#If the assessment link is specified the link points here (with #Quality_Scale) appended.

text: :#If not, then the default 1.0 scale is linked.

text: :#If the assessment link is specified, "project's" is added to the sentence to make it clear that it's the project's scale.

text: :I haven't done the importance scale yet, but a similar idea would work I think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No one has commented yet, so I'm planning to assume that everyone is perfectly happy with it and implement in the next couple of hours! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Ok, I'll add a comment. When the article does not require rating, why bother with a link to the quality scale. Why not just have "This page is not an article and does not require a rating." ? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Well, the quality scale explains the non-article grades somewhat. Just as it provides info on the standard quality scale, it also provides info on NA, Cat, Template, and other classes. DeFaultRyan (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: ::::(edit conflict) Okay, I guess it makes sense. But most of the quality scales (random example: Wikipedia:WikiProject Measurement/Assessment#Quality scale) include a description of these non-articles as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now implemented this on both the quality and importance scales, and would appreciate any feedback. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Would it not be better to allow a project to specify the anchor as part of the link given to the parameter? Not all projects use the same section headings (and anchors) on their /Assessment pages. Tothwolf (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ah, well, that would require two more parameters and be a much bigger job! But do you know any projects which use non-standard anchors, because I don't think I have come across any. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::You're right, I had a look at the code just before you replied and it would not be a simple task to implement. I was initially only thinking of the Importance parameter as that was the one in the sandbox example. I remember coming across a number of projects with nonstandard section headings, but I honestly don't remember which ones they were. I looked over dozens of project assessment pages before I decided on a layout for the WP:WPIRC /Assessment subpage. Maybe it would be better to work up a standard /Assessment subpage that used standard headings that projects could modify for their own needs? I never could find one myself. Tothwolf (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Well, I don't think it's too much to hope or expect that a project uses the anchor "Quality scale" for its quality scale and "Importance scale" for its importance scale. (Note that the term "Priority scale" is supported, as some projects use that instead of importance.) If it turns out that there are a significant number of projects who use a different anchor and who are averse to changing it, then we can think about it again. But I don't anticipate this being a problem. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I'd think as long as such limitations are clearly documented it wouldn't be a big deal. It may turn out to be something that someone else will eventually want to improve, in which case documenting the current limitation helps there as well. I've only come across a handful of projects using the priorityscale hook so far, but I guess its there mainly for projects that had a historical preference for "priority scale" and priority= in their original banners anyway? Tothwolf (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Well we haven't had any complaints about the change yet :) But one thing that is worrying me is that some projects (e.g. Template:Business) have an assessment subpage, but no quality scale. Therefore the link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment is a bit pointless. At the moment we are linking to the /Assessment subpage by default if it exists. Maybe this is something we need to reconsider. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Am I missing something on ? It looks like the links are going to the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team pages. Tothwolf (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think you are missing something. Because  links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::It didn't when I left the comment above, but it certainly did when I checked it again later. I guess the server just still had an old version in cache. Tothwolf (talk) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
===Suggestion===
Regarding the above, I make the following suggestion:

text: Instead of ASSESSMENT_LINK defaulting to /Assessment if that page exists, the parameter should be explicitly specified if there is an assessment page which the project intends to use.
Rationale: it seems that a significant number of projects have assessment pages with little useful content on them (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment mentioned above). At the moment there is no way to stop the banner from linking to these pointless pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Are there any comments about this? If we proceed then I will set up a tracking category to find banners which may be affected by this, i.e.

text: *there is an existing assessment subpage; and

text: *the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter is undefined.

text: Then these banners can be reviewed, and the assessment link specified if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Can the tracking category be put into Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage rather than Template:WPBannerMeta this time though? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That's what I was thinking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Actually I'm not sure, because it won't be possible to know whether or not ASSESSMENT_LINK has been defined from templatepage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Why not? No reason why it shouldn't AFAIK... Happy‑melon 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Because if /Assessment exists then Template:WPBannerMeta will set  to that if it is undefined, so there would be no way to know if  was actually specified or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Gah! Well spotted, I would have walked right into that one.  Yes, on WPBM itself it is, then. Happy‑melon 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Or ... make the change, then add the tracking cat on templatepage, and fix the banners within a couple of weeks. No one will notice the difference :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
===Implementation===
Well I am back from holiday, and as there have been no further comments on this I will start to implement in the next day or two. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have updated the main template to pass an unaltered ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter to the template. There are warnings that will display on the templatepage in the following cases:

text: *Banners that have an ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter which points to a non-existent page. These will appear under the heading N on :Category:WikiProject banners with assessment link issues and need to be fixed - probably the parameter just needs removing.

text: *Banners that do not specify the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter, but have an assessment subpage which might contain a quality scale. These appear under the heading U on :Category:WikiProject banners with assessment link issues. If the assessment subpage does contain a quality scale then the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter should be added to the banner to point to this page.

text: Any help fixing up these would be appeciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Okay, this is going to require a little more thought. As I write there are nearly 500 templates in that category so it would take much longer than I anticipated to fix them all up. Furthermore, 95% of them seem to have a decent quality scale in the assessment page, so I was affecting a majority of them needlessly just because of a few problem cases. I have reverted for now. What I'm thinking is allowing a parameter ASSESSMENT_LINK = none which will override the default in the few cases where there is a useless assessment page existing. Comments welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have found the best solution, I believe. Banners will continue to use an /Assessment page by default but will display a warning on the templatepage when doing so. An option of setting ASSESSMENT_LINK=no will override this. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment link 

message: Regarding the above, I make the following suggestion:
replies: text: Instead of ASSESSMENT_LINK defaulting to /Assessment if that page exists, the parameter should be explicitly specified if there is an assessment page which the project intends to use.
Rationale: it seems that a significant number of projects have assessment pages with little useful content on them (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment mentioned above). At the moment there is no way to stop the banner from linking to these pointless pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Are there any comments about this? If we proceed then I will set up a tracking category to find banners which may be affected by this, i.e.

text: *there is an existing assessment subpage; and

text: *the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter is undefined.

text: Then these banners can be reviewed, and the assessment link specified if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Can the tracking category be put into Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage rather than Template:WPBannerMeta this time though? -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That's what I was thinking. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Actually I'm not sure, because it won't be possible to know whether or not ASSESSMENT_LINK has been defined from templatepage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Why not? No reason why it shouldn't AFAIK... Happy‑melon 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Because if /Assessment exists then Template:WPBannerMeta will set  to that if it is undefined, so there would be no way to know if  was actually specified or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Gah! Well spotted, I would have walked right into that one.  Yes, on WPBM itself it is, then. Happy‑melon 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::::Or ... make the change, then add the tracking cat on templatepage, and fix the banners within a couple of weeks. No one will notice the difference :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Well I am back from holiday, and as there have been no further comments on this I will start to implement in the next day or two. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the main template to pass an unaltered ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter to the template. There are warnings that will display on the templatepage in the following cases:

text: *Banners that have an ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter which points to a non-existent page. These will appear under the heading N on :Category:WikiProject banners with assessment link issues and need to be fixed - probably the parameter just needs removing.

text: *Banners that do not specify the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter, but have an assessment subpage which might contain a quality scale. These appear under the heading U on :Category:WikiProject banners with assessment link issues. If the assessment subpage does contain a quality scale then the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter should be added to the banner to point to this page.

text: Any help fixing up these would be appeciated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Okay, this is going to require a little more thought. As I write there are nearly 500 templates in that category so it would take much longer than I anticipated to fix them all up. Furthermore, 95% of them seem to have a decent quality scale in the assessment page, so I was affecting a majority of them needlessly just because of a few problem cases. I have reverted for now. What I'm thinking is allowing a parameter ASSESSMENT_LINK = none which will override the default in the few cases where there is a useless assessment page existing. Comments welcome. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I have found the best solution, I believe. Banners will continue to use an /Assessment page by default but will display a warning on the templatepage when doing so. An option of setting ASSESSMENT_LINK=no will override this. Please let me know if there are any problems with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation

message: Some projects are using a "bottom" option for importance (see Template:Bottom-importance and :Category:Bottom-importance articles). This template does not seem to support it at the moment (see the WPRocketry template on Talk:Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Complex 1). Would it be possible to enable support for it. Thanks. --GW… 08:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see /Archive 3#Bottom-importance. —Ms2ger (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :There is actually a greater use of , though I suppose that would be handled by the meta in the same way? PC78 (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: As I understand it from the archived page linked to above, the main opposition to the introduction of these features is complexity. I've just created a custom version of this template for WPRocketry to support these parameters. The difference is two lines of code to allow both options:
  |no   = No
  |bottom = Bottom

text: Inserted between the fourth and fifth lines of Template:WPBannerMeta/importance. Am I missing something? --GW… 13:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :That most projects don't want to use No- and/or Bottom-importance. —Ms2ger (talk) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

text: However some do, and providing the means for these projects to use this template should not affect those that do not. The fact that a feature is enabled doesn't mean it has to be used. Some projects don't have rating, but the template still provides a means to rate articles. --GW… 15:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :If a project does not use bottom-importance then it would not usually be desirable for the template to accept such a rating, as it would be classifying articles into non-existent importance classes and categorising into non-existent categories. I agree that this issue is something which needs to be thought about though. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: :The issue is that by adding the functionality in the manner you suggest, we unavoidably add it for all projects using WPBM.  This means that setting  on any banner will mark it as "Bottom-importance", whether the necessary infrastructure (categories, assessments, project support) exists or not.  This is unlike custom quality classes where the class is added only for that project, and is not 'forced' upon all projects.  Happy‑melon 18:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottom importance 

message: Currently, for task forces to be enabled that are coded by the hook (Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces), the parameter on talk pages needs to be set to "yes" in lowercase.  Using "Yes" as a value will not work.  However, task forces coded by WPBannerMeta directly can be set to any capitalization of yes.  To fix this, the lc function should be used in Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces.
"{{#ifeq:|yes|" should be changed to "{{#ifeq:|yes|" for each of the 10 tf variables.  Thanks.  --Scott Alter 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, good idea. I think perhaps we could move the parameter checking to the Template:WPBannerMeta/taskforce code to avoid repeating it many times. We should also accept "y" as well as "yes". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Scratch that. The 5 main taskforces will accept any non-blank parameter (even "no"), so it would seem to make sense to adjust the hook to mimic this behaviour. It might seem illogical to accept "no" but this is the probably simplest and consistent with other parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created  as a generic normaliser for this sort of thing and implemented it pretty much universally across WPBM and hooks; it's a bit funny with having to handle the tildes differently in different situations, but it should improve consistency in this area. Happy‑melon 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks.  --Scott Alter 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taskforce hook parameter capitalization bug 

message: One thing leads to another, and I find myself deciding to sort this issue out properly.  We currently support Redirect-Class as an extended quality scale assessment.  This obviously requires all projects that use the extended quality scale to create and maintain a Redirect-Class Foo articles category; you can see that a significant number of the categories are created with the standard WPBM preloaded edit summary: they were created from the prompts below a WPBM banner.  There are currently some 370-odd of these categories, of which 168 are completely empty and over 300 of which contain less than ten articles. Of the ten thousand pages marked as Redirect-Class, over 80% of them are assessed by just 15 projects. This seems to me to be indicative of a class that is very 'niche', and is only properly and correctly used by a tiny minority of projects, in the same manner as Current-Class and Future-Class.  I am inclined, therefore, to treat Redirect-Class in the same manner as these other classes: easily accessible through a custom mask, but not something we should be 'inflicting' on every project that uses the extended quality scale.  Thoughts? Happy‑melon 18:57, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolute and total agreement. I've never seen the point of Redirect-Class myself but, if you say that some projects are using it, I wouldn't want to stop them. Most projects can't be bothered, or don't have redirects which are THAT important. Physchim62 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I agree. In my opinion redirects shouldn't ever have talk pages, but that's another matter altogether. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I think it would be better if more projects did keep track of redirects but most probably don't even know how to use them efficiently. Categorized and subtopic redirects in particular are often not updated and maintained properly when editors make major changes to the articles that they redirect to. For WP:WPIRC, I've sifted out most of the redirects and placed them on a project subpage but I've not yet reworked all the article redirects and tagged them. In terms of numbers, for this project, there probably are as many redirects as there are actual articles. Tothwolf (talk) 23:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
A random sampling of categories suggests to me that Portal-Class, Image-Class and Project-Class (maybe others?) have a similar or lower level of usage than Redirect-Class. (Side question: Why are we still creating Image-Class categories? Have we not yet fully switched over to File-Class?) Personally I think you should scrap the extended quality scale altogether and then projects can pick and choose exactly what they want to use. At the very least I think it needs a rethink above and beyond the inclusion of Redirect-Class. PC78 (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: But unlike Redirect-Class, those classes can be automatically assigned by namespace: all the project has to do is tag the relevant pages.  It is a difference, I'm not sure if it is a fundamental one.  I agree that it's an issue that probably needs to be looked at again.

text: Transitioning from Image-Class to File-Class is possible, but is a big step that will require us to switch the categories for each and every project using WPBM; it's difficult if not impossible to do it piecemeal.  It would be a huge operation. Happy‑melon 09:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Classes can only be automatically assigned if a page has been tagged in the first place, and I think that's the reason for low usage. Regarding Portal-Class, surely it stands to reason that not every project will have an associated portal? What about Disambig-Class? I've not checked, but is there a significantly higher level of usage compared with Redirect-Class? PC78 (talk) 09:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Disambig-Class has 648 subcats, of which again over half are empty.  There are 80 categories with ten or more members, and numbers are more evenly shared amongst the populated categories than with Redirect-Class. Just food for thought. Happy‑melon 14:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Just wondering if that data is accurate, it says :Category:Disambig-Class Baseball articles has 0 when infact it has 5. (I know still not a high usage, but could be an issue with the rest of the categories]].). Same thing with :Category:Disambig-Class Indian music articles, shows 0 on your list but really has 1. Borgarde (talk) 11:35, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: :::Can you find out how many talk page transclusions each of the non-standard class templates have? That might give some indication as to their level of usage. PC78 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I can get that data from the toolserver, but it'll be impossible to filter out the uses in banners from uses on /Assessment project pages, etc.  I'll get all transclusions to be consistent. Happy‑melon 17:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: :::: - 15,125 distinct pages.

text: :::: - 25,352 pages

text: :::: - 95,367

text: :::: - 1,516

text: :::: - 3,336

text: ::::Any more people want? Happy‑melon 20:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Image/File-Class? PC78 (talk) 11:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::: - 19,612

text: :::::: - 19,854 − 19,612 = 242

text: ::::::I think it's obvious which are the new kids on the block :D Happy‑melon 17:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Interesting, I was expecting Image-Clas to be much lower than that. PC78 (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok, I'm going to start doing this.  It's a complicated operation, and one that's reasonably easy to revert if consensus swings against it.  But it looks like there is general support for removing at least Redirect-Class.  Any further comments still welcome, naturally. Happy‑melon 12:43, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :So, which ones are going? Are Template and Category going to stay, because they fit into the group of classes that can be automatically assigned from the namespace. DeFaultRyan 18:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Right now I'm only doing Redirect-Class.  Template and Category are by far the most used of the non-article classes; they'll be the last to go anywhere.  It's certainly something we need to look at more closely though. Happy‑melon 19:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I am skeptical towards the changes made today by Happy-melon with respect to Redirect-class pages (see also this discussion). I do agree with the perception that this class is being put to use by very few projects, but then again, a lot of projects aren't very concerned with assessments at all. I basically don't see the need for any intervention at this time. I think this particular class should be simply left alone for now. However, I wouldn't mind the transition from the extended quality scale to an opt-in scheme where this class would have to be added separately. Because we should expect a reasonably long acclimatization period for this class, I suggest we revert Happy-melon's changes made today and re-evaluate the situation in one year at the earliest, unless events make an earlier discussion appropriate. If we make a policy decision on this now, I fear that will be a premature one and we stunt this structure's natural development potential. __meco (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't think you fully understand what has been done here.  You say you support a "transition to an opt-in system": this is exactly what is being undertaken.  Today I have gone through and 'opted in' around fourty projects that clearly make use of the Redirect-Class assessment; this is in addition to those projects who had previously implemented custom masks.  This morning there were 3,600 pages in :Category:WPBannerMeta templates using obscure class values; I manually redirected or reassessed less than 220 of them; the remaining 3,380 remain as Redirect-Class.  The only cases where I altered the talk pages were where it was abundantly clear from the population of the relevant "Redirect-Class Foo articles" category (often just a single article) that it was a pure accident, a result of a passing editor reasessing all the banners on a page with no thought for whether the class was actually being used.  There are over ten thousand articles tagged as Redirect-Class: if you thought that this is a move against the classification itself, you are simply mistaken.  This is purely a process to transform Redirect-Class into the opt-in assessment that you suggest, and also to clear up a mess that, by forcing all projects to adopt the assessment whether they wanted to or not, the banner has perpetuated. Happy‑melon 23:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Does Template:WPBannerMeta/class need changing now to remove the Redirect code? -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I left it overnight to see if any new pages dropped out of the woodwork, but yes, removing the class is now just as easy as removing the line from /class, which I've now done.  Mission accomplished. Happy‑melon 16:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Right, now that that part is done, what about all the empty categories? Should they just be CSD or does it need a CFD? -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::They'll become elegible for WP:CSD#C1 in four days, or they're arguably elegible for G8 now as being "populated by a deleted or retargeted template".  There's no rush, but equally no need for a CfD.  We can keep checking that list to see if any projects start using the category again, and in a few days go through and delete the ones that are still empty. Happy‑melon 16:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I'd urge caution in using WP:CSD for these. There are those who would delete them again after a project later recreates them if they were previously deleted with a CSD log entry. I'm also concerned some editors may take this as a valid reason to begin flagging all empty project assessment/rating categories for speedy deletion. Tothwolf (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Neither CSD criterion is appropriate for 'active' assessment categories: C1 includes an explicit exclusion for "project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion", G8 explicitly names only "categories populated by deleted or retargetted templates". If a category can be filled by a template, then it cannot be CSD'd. G4 (recreation of deleted material) does not apply to speedy deletions.  Anyone who acts as you claim would be acting in violation of the deletion policy and should be treated accordingly. Happy‑melon 11:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::I would hold one a while before starting deletion of these categories, until the projects that were using them have had a chance to respond to the change. (TimothyRias (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC))
replies: text: ::::::Well if I did my job properly on Saturday the projects that were using them should still be using them.  The projects that weren't but had a few articles accidentally drop into them are the ones we're looking at :D. That said, I agree with you that there is no rush.  Although if a project doesn't even notice that the category has been deprecated, then that doesn't really encourage me to think they were using it in the first place... Happy‑melon 11:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::::Well, WP Physics was (sort of) using these cats. "Sort of" meaning that we had a somewhat populated "Redirect-Class physics articles" category, that nobody had really got around to looking at. I only noticed today, that the numbers in some of our article overview where off. (we suddenly had a lot more redirects with NA importance then our total number of redirects.) In the mean time, I have start a discussion on the project page if we really need these cats, which can take a while since the projects policy page doesn't really get that much traffic. (TimothyRias (talk) 14:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC))

text: :::::I've still seen it done. I uncovered a number of articles in the WP:WPIRC scope that had been speedy deleted again (originally A1, A7, A9, etc) after they were recreated years later by a different editor. Some of them I intend to have restored but I just lack the time to deal with everything by myself. Tothwolf (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I have now deleted all the Redirect-Class categories that were still empty, some 234 in all.  Happy‑melon 20:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
===Default behaviour for Redirect-class now===
Now that support for redirect-class has been removed by default, I would suggest that a rating of Redirect-Class results in an NA classification. Any such instance would not be on an article and so it would not seem to make sense for it to go into the Unassessed category. This may seem like an anomaly, but it is exactly the way that we currently treat Template-Class and Portal-Class with banners that are not using the full quality scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Obviously, I disagree, although I'm open to persuasion.  Having decided to 'unsupport' Redirect-Class, we should do the job properly, not continue to 'half support' it by auto-assigning it NA-Class.  That would give the impression to editors who do 'hit-and-run' assessments that that is what the WikiProject in question wants done with their redirects, when in fact it's quite likely that the project doesn't want to deal with redirects at all.  I think that handling Redirect-Class should be left entirely up to the individual projects, through the use of custom masks. Happy‑melon 11:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think it should be quite obvious that a project is not using Redirect-Class when the banner comes up with NA-Class instead. But I don't think you can try to stop people tagging redirect talk pages - a determined editor could always use the NA-Class to tag it anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That's true, but what I meant is that it gives the impression that "WikiProject X wants any redirects under its scope to be classified as NA-Class", when that might not be the situation at all.  Naturally if an editor is determined to assess the redirect as something, we can't stop them marking it as NA, but at least we're not giving the impression that that's what the project wants when that might not be the case. Happy‑melon 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::But at the moment, they are going into Unassessed which may not be what the project wants either ... we should choose the more common-sense approach. And why do we classify templates as NA-Class if a project has chosen not to use the FQS? By your logic, they should be unassessed as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I do take your point, another situation in which FQS is somewhat confused.  Although Template-Class, Category-Class, etc, are different in being able to be assigned automatically by namespace.  I think PC78 is right in that we need to completely reevaluate the way we do QS and FQS. Happy‑melon 13:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Well let's see what others think. For me, the current behaviour is completely illogical. It's not the same situation for Future- and Current- class because they are likely to be articles and so "Unassessed" seems appropriate for them. But it would be the same if ever Project- or Disambig- class were ever scrapped. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I have some input from others on this please? I'm still not happy with the current situation. For example, today I converted Template:WikiProject Hinduism. I noticed there were a few redirects which had been tagged (for example Talk:Panchamukha Hanuman), but not enough to warrant a custom class mask in my opinion. However I would be much happier if those were classed as NA rather than Unassessed where it will waste the time of an editor assessing for the project in the future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Both sides make compelling arguments. It seems that if redirect-class is completely unsupported, resulting in "unassessed", we'll end up with a bunch of time needed for editors to go over all these newly unassesssed articles, and have to figure out what to do with them. Of those, some will just remove the banner entirely, but some will want to keep the banner on, in order to keep them in the categories, in which case they'll have to go and manually tag them as NA-class anyway. The software engineer in me wants to provide some sort of parameter or hook to allow projects to choose which approach to take, but we still have to decide on a sensible default... Sigh. Personally, I'm slightly leaning towards having redirect go into NA rather than Unassessed, but I'm open to changing my mind if I see a compelling reason I wasn't aware of. DeFaultRyan 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :"some sort of parameter or hook to allow projects to choose which approach to take"... <cough>custom mask</cough>... :D Happy‑melon 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Correct - the method exists for projects to control entirely what they want to happen. This question is about how we deal with projects that have not chosen. As H-M said, we do not particularly want to impose something on a project which they might not want, but unless we ask them individually (probably desirable for active WikiProjects, but unnecessarily inefficient for less active ones) we have to make an educated guess. The one that makes sense to me is to treat them differently from Cheesecake-Class: use the information we have (i.e. it's not an article) and use the most suitable class that the project is using (NA-Class). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect-Class 

message: Now that support for redirect-class has been removed by default, I would suggest that a rating of Redirect-Class results in an NA classification. Any such instance would not be on an article and so it would not seem to make sense for it to go into the Unassessed category. This may seem like an anomaly, but it is exactly the way that we currently treat Template-Class and Portal-Class with banners that are not using the full quality scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, I disagree, although I'm open to persuasion.  Having decided to 'unsupport' Redirect-Class, we should do the job properly, not continue to 'half support' it by auto-assigning it NA-Class.  That would give the impression to editors who do 'hit-and-run' assessments that that is what the WikiProject in question wants done with their redirects, when in fact it's quite likely that the project doesn't want to deal with redirects at all.  I think that handling Redirect-Class should be left entirely up to the individual projects, through the use of custom masks. Happy‑melon 11:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think it should be quite obvious that a project is not using Redirect-Class when the banner comes up with NA-Class instead. But I don't think you can try to stop people tagging redirect talk pages - a determined editor could always use the NA-Class to tag it anyway. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That's true, but what I meant is that it gives the impression that "WikiProject X wants any redirects under its scope to be classified as NA-Class", when that might not be the situation at all.  Naturally if an editor is determined to assess the redirect as something, we can't stop them marking it as NA, but at least we're not giving the impression that that's what the project wants when that might not be the case. Happy‑melon 11:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::But at the moment, they are going into Unassessed which may not be what the project wants either ... we should choose the more common-sense approach. And why do we classify templates as NA-Class if a project has chosen not to use the FQS? By your logic, they should be unassessed as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::I do take your point, another situation in which FQS is somewhat confused.  Although Template-Class, Category-Class, etc, are different in being able to be assigned automatically by namespace.  I think PC78 is right in that we need to completely reevaluate the way we do QS and FQS. Happy‑melon 13:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Well let's see what others think. For me, the current behaviour is completely illogical. It's not the same situation for Future- and Current- class because they are likely to be articles and so "Unassessed" seems appropriate for them. But it would be the same if ever Project- or Disambig- class were ever scrapped. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Can I have some input from others on this please? I'm still not happy with the current situation. For example, today I converted Template:WikiProject Hinduism. I noticed there were a few redirects which had been tagged (for example Talk:Panchamukha Hanuman), but not enough to warrant a custom class mask in my opinion. However I would be much happier if those were classed as NA rather than Unassessed where it will waste the time of an editor assessing for the project in the future. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Both sides make compelling arguments. It seems that if redirect-class is completely unsupported, resulting in "unassessed", we'll end up with a bunch of time needed for editors to go over all these newly unassesssed articles, and have to figure out what to do with them. Of those, some will just remove the banner entirely, but some will want to keep the banner on, in order to keep them in the categories, in which case they'll have to go and manually tag them as NA-class anyway. The software engineer in me wants to provide some sort of parameter or hook to allow projects to choose which approach to take, but we still have to decide on a sensible default... Sigh. Personally, I'm slightly leaning towards having redirect go into NA rather than Unassessed, but I'm open to changing my mind if I see a compelling reason I wasn't aware of. DeFaultRyan 15:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :"some sort of parameter or hook to allow projects to choose which approach to take"... <cough>custom mask</cough>... :D Happy‑melon 15:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Correct - the method exists for projects to control entirely what they want to happen. This question is about how we deal with projects that have not chosen. As H-M said, we do not particularly want to impose something on a project which they might not want, but unless we ask them individually (probably desirable for active WikiProjects, but unnecessarily inefficient for less active ones) we have to make an educated guess. The one that makes sense to me is to treat them differently from Cheesecake-Class: use the information we have (i.e. it's not an article) and use the most suitable class that the project is using (NA-Class). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Default behaviour for Redirect-class now

message: Can someone please check the code in the meta?  now has a default link to :Category:Unassessed-Class articles, but for some reason meta banners are creating a red link to :Category:-Class articles. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (hiveminded with the above) Project banners using the meta template leave unhelpful redlinks when |class= is omitted or undefined. Expecting an A/B/C/Start/Stub type designation, where the argument "A" would yield the link "Category:A-Class Project articles", it links to "Category:-Class Project articles" See this version of Talk:Veganarchism for an example, where the link is :Category:-Class Philosophy articles. This does not help the passing editor; what might help is a link to guidelines on how to assess an article, or something like WP:COUNCIL/AFAQ. Skomorokh 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :This is due to this change: previously the ??? wasn't linked at all.  I'll dig. Happy‑melon 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::The bug appears to be in , where  should be replaced by Unassessed. Physchim62 (talk) 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I imagine the problem lies with  as the meta does not have the same problem with . PC78 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
, prompted me to polish off and implement the shiny new  template. Needs reworking to fix Future-Class, Current-Class, etc etc, but it works for most, and keeps WPBM nice and clean. Happy‑melon 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Yikes, that brings its own set of problems. First, we need to lose the icons, second there is the issue you mention above with the non-standard classes, plus it's mucking up SL-Class in . PC78 (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Ironed out the issues with nonstandard classes and SL-Class.  Only the icons to think about.  Personally I rather like them; I've always thought it rather wierd that we only show icons for a handful of classes.  What do other people think? Happy‑melon 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::I find them rather gratuitous myself. They're OK for FA/FL/GA (A is pushing it a bit) because the icon ties the class to the process, but beyond that they're unnecessary, especially for the non-standard classes. 2¢. PC78 (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: ::Thanks very much for sorting that, H-m, your speedy attention is helpful as always. Skomorokh 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, I've added some code at  which will force the icons for FA/FL/A/GA with the ability to remove them using . PC78 (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: And I've implemented it, along with using  (useful template that, well done creating it!). I'd still like to hear some more opinions before deciding which  option to use. Happy‑melon 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I'd like to keep the previous default of only having images for FA/FL/GA/A. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Got a vote for the new icons over on my talk page.  Seems there's mixed opinion. Happy‑melon 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :How feasibile would it be to have a parameter in the meta to turn the icons on or off? PC78 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Easily feasible, but utterly pointless.  If we can't agree I'll just wrap the icons in some classes so people can hide or show them with CSS to suit, like we did with the vde links... I bet you don't even remember that they're still there, do you? :D Happy‑melon 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::vde links? I was thinking a parameter would allow the decision to be made at project level. PC78 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Told you :D. Too much turkey and mince pies.  This is just such a pointless thing for a project to have to think about: why should one project choose one way and another project the other? fundamentally it's an individual editor preference, not a project preference.  You can actually hide the images now with CSS if you don't like them:
.wpb .assess img    {display: none;}
.wpb .assess-fa img,
.wpb .assess-fl img,
.wpb .assess-a  img,
.wpb .assess-ga img {display: inline;}

text: ::::Will hide all the icons, then show the FA/FL/A/GA ones.  Which gives you complete personal control over which icons to hide and which to show (you don't like the A-Class one, don't have it!) Of course if you only include the first line, you can be rid of the icons completely.  Personal choice, which I'm a big fan of. Happy‑melon 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::December? You can't expect me to remember that far back, surely? :) As for the other, I'm all for making this a CSS thing and leaving it to individual choice (I'm not one for mucking about with that sort of thing myself), but it still leave the question of what becomes the default. PC78 (talk) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text: ::A vote against the extra icons on my talk page. If we really want to gauge opinion on this, it strikes me that this talk page may not be the best venue. Perhaps the village pump would be better? PC78 (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::I concur: although I think the discussion should stay here, it would be helpful to poke a few pumps.  I'll go do that. Happy‑melon 09:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm voting for removing all but FA/FL/GA/A icons as well. They are unnecessary, a bit distracting, and some of the icons are not great anyway. As there have been several voices of dissent now, we should probably revert back to this state while the discussion continues. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: You're probably right. , with a bit of unwanted tag nesting, but still reasonably cleanly. You can now show or hide the images to your heart's content with 
.wpb .assess * { display: inline; } /* show all */
.wpb .assess-b * { display: inline; } /*show B-Class*/

text: Hopefully this will make everyone happy. Happy‑melon 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I support the decision to hide B-class and lower icons, but wonder why I'm not seeing GA icons (as, for example, at Choral symphony, which I've never viewed before [so no cache issue?]), while I do see FA icons (as at Florida Atlantic University).  (Firefox 3, MacOs X, if that makes any difference.)

text: :Also, I note that editors who want to automatically see the class of an article they're viewing can also select the gadget "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article".  That places some text, such as "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" immediately under the name of an article.-- John Broughton   (♫♫) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Hmn, they display for me, both logged-in and logged-out, on FF3 and IE7.  Are you looking in the right place? These are the icons that display inside WikiProject banners, in the (in this case green) box to the left of the "this article has been rated as GA-Class" notice. Happy‑melon 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: ::Me too. Me thinks that John might be thinking about the featured article star which appears on the article itself. I don't think there has ever been an equivalent for good articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::Indeed; there have been occasional attempts to introduce a parallel GA icon in that location, but none have ever gained consensus. Happy‑melon 10:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: ::: Yes, my misunderstanding.  Thanks for the clarification.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 18:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  -Class 

message: What is the reason that all the parameters use ? Especially the NOTE parameters. For example, in our project, we are trying to have our old peer review link to a custom page, usually because the paged was reviewed and then moved. We tried to put old-peer-review=page, in an attempt to use the parameter as the link, but come to find out,  just translates that to no. So what is  needed for? MrKIA11 (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: is used to 'normalise' the value of 'trigger parameters' so they behave more as you would intuitively expect. For instance, editors might expect to be able to trigger a note with , but also with  or perhaps .  On the other hand, you would intuitively expect  to not trigger the note.  The yesno template makes these responses consistent across all the trigger parameters, and provides one central location where we can define and control these responses.

text: In response to your actual issue, I've added a new parameter, , to the peerreview hook that you can use to specify the old title, I think this should work the way you want.  Let me know if it doesn't. Happy‑melon 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :It works, but I was hoping to not have another parameter. If  wasn't used, then it could just check if old-peer-review is defined, and if it ≠ yes, then it would assume it was the location of the peer review. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::But then if someone from WikiProject Tulips comes along and tags an article, and innocently thinks "no this article hasn't had a peer review, better set ", then he's quite rightly surprised when he gets the same result as setting .

text: ::It's possible to use a layer of logic on your WikiProject banner (which one is it, BTW?) to be able to use only one parameter for the 'end user', and split them into two to be passed on to WPBM.  It would look something like:

text: ::|peer-review=

text: ::|title=

text: ::Do you understand what those lines are doing? Happy‑melon 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::WP:VG. That's interesting. I didn't think of doing something like that. It should work. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea behind the yesno mask, but think we could do this more efficiently by placing the code on, e.g. Template:WPBannerMeta/note, rather than calling it 21 times on Template:WPBannerMeta when a lot of these parameters may not even be used. I've read WP:PERF but I still think we should strive for efficiency ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

text: But it would also have to be done for taskforces, which would be both in /taskforce for the notice itself, and also in /core for the nested links, plus a load of times in /core itself for the small options, etc. And then there would be issues over whether you'd be double-normalising it from hooks, which would be unnecessary inefficiency.  Keeping all the normalising functions together in WPBM main is certainly the clearest and least likely to result in parameters being missed, and the performance load is pretty small (smaller than the class mask, even without the #ifexist: statement). Happy‑melon 20:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Okay, you've convinced me! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''yesno'' 

message: used to list images that were missing. Doesnt do it antomre. The parameter was photo with choices na yes and no Victuallers (talk) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It expects values of "yes", "na" and "needs". This was, however, the behavior before conversion to WPBM, so nothing has changed in that area. Happy‑melon 11:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image list 

message: Now that the banner is using the  template, just thinking about having something similar for Importance. The Importance template is already being used, so would need to think of another name to use though. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, yes, I'd love to do that.  I think it's worth making at least an attempt to get hold of that template name; that template itself is essentially a fork of  and so should be merged/redirected there.  Do we have icons for the importance scale? Happy‑melon 13:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :What about using an abbreviation such as ? We don't have icons for importance, and (not surprising given my comments above) I don't see why we would need any. PC78 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

text: :FWIW,  is unused. I also went ahead and created  in anticipation of future use. PC78 (talk) 15:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::No way are we mixing up importance and priority any more than we already have :D It's a real shame we can't get hold of ; we may have to go for something silly like , and create a similar redirect for  for consistency. Anyone fancy setting this up? Happy‑melon 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: I've gone ahead and created  and . There are icons for NA-Importance and Unknown-Importance. The only thing left is to bring  into the template.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::::Hello? I never got a response from anyone about this. This seems extremely important. :|  Dylanlip  (talk) 12:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :::::Is it? IMO the total borkage on Safari would seem to be more important, although a much trickier problem to resolve.  Having said that, I am grateful to you for putting the code together.  Happy‑melon 13:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Will also need some support for the priority categories as well, either by adding support in  or by having a separate template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Would that not be done via the  parameter as with the existing templates? PC78 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :He means that the "-importance" part of the category link is hardcoded into , which will break when "-priority" should be used. Happy‑melon 17:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Why hardcode it then? That seems counterproductive here. PC78 (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I have added to the documentation a "Generic self-documentation" section, that documents a minor problem and its solution. Regards, — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I thought putting a pre inside a noinclude would mess things up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I was worried about that too, since the preview showed me those two extraneous "noinclude" displayed inside the Pre frame on the template's page itself, but I checked after the update by purging the banner then one page of Redirect-Class, Disambig-Class, and Project-Class, and everything was still working fine (text and categorization-wise). The extraneous "noinclude" that can be seen inside the Pre frame seem to be a minor Mediawiki bug when rendering the template page itself: I think the noinclude sections should have their noinclude tags stripped from the page's code before further parsing and rendering is done. I guess the developers didn't imagine we'd use a Pre tag under such circumstances. (I'm not sure if it's worth reporting to Bugzilla.) — The Little Blue Frog (ribbit) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic self-documentation 

message: I see code in Template:WPBannerMeta/core that suggests that the banners that use WPBM should be able to tell what kind of talk pages they are attached to, and change this wording accordingly, but I don't see this happening. E.g., at WT:CUE, it still says "article". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because  sets the  parameter to it's own value rather than using the WPBannerMeta one and it was just set to a fixed value.  I've now changed the code in the WikiProject Cue sports from "article" to "".
Another option could be to not set MAIN_TEXT at all and just use the following instead
|MAIN_ARTICLE = pool, carom billiards and other cue sports
-- WOSlinker (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Oh, duh.  Thanks.  I put that one together so long ago I forget that the  option even existed! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This article is within the scope..." 

message: Can someone with Safari or one of the other browsers that reported severe nastiness with the WPBM display inside banner shells, say if my attempt to fix in the sandbox has been successful? Take a look at the WPBS in Template:WPBannerMeta/testcases and say what you see? Happy‑melon 14:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be working.  -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yay! Happy‑melon 18:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: :I've implemented the new code.  Let's hope it works! Happy‑melon 19:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safari borken-ness, redux 

message: Has someone broke the template? Meta banners are displaying uncollapsed and without the show/hide tab, and are affecting other talk page templates with collapsible sections. Problem seems to go away if I remove meta banners from a page and preview. PC78 (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Usual question: what browser? Does it have an at-all-useful error console, if so, what is it saying? Clearly there's a javascript error somewhere, but what and why I'm not sure. Happy‑melon 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :IE7, and no. PC78 (talk) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That latter is certainly true! I can get as far as the cryptic "line 78: Expected identifier", but no further.  However, line 78 of Common.js is an IE-specific bugfix, which could be the issue.  I don't think it's been changed recently though... Happy‑melon 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken? 

message: If a project wanted to use a new assessment class in their banner, how would they define the new class? Previously it would just be a case of creating a new  template, but presumably it's not that simple now the meta uses . Let's say for arguments sake that I wanted my project to rate articles as SubStub-Class; would it be necessary to a) request an edit to  in order to fix the capitalisation and not display the text as Substub, and b) request an edit to  to define a colour for the new class? PC78 (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would seem about right to me. Plus  if you wanted to define an icon for the new class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: (ec)And an edit to  if you wanted an icon for it, yes.  I don't think the slight extra hurdle is a particularly bad thing, it might stop the re-proliferation of classes like all those templates you cleaned out the other day... Happy‑melon 10:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Seems to me that we are putting class parameters through a mask twice, once on Template:WPBannerMeta/class and again on Template:Class. Don't know if we make this more efficient or not. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

text: :(ec) I've taken the case-normalisation rules out of , your example twigged me to the fact that they're completely unnecessary: everything is already normalised in /class.  So it would only be to  and  if you were that way inclined. Happy‑melon 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Lol, seems we're thinking along exactly the same lines.  Happy‑melon 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::: :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Custom class query 

message: Discussion here. Not a meta-based issue per se, but it may be of interest to you guys. Regards. PC78 (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed change of colour for Portal-Class 

message: The notes do not now accept triggers other than "yes", "y", and "1". This is a problem in the case that other values are required. For example Template:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology is not working because the portal parameters are supposed to accept a date. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've set the yesno templates on the main banner to return "yes" on a nonempty, but unrecognised, parameter, like this.  This would also fix the issue WPVG comments on above. Need to do the same thing for the hooks. Happy‑melon 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Thank you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with {{tl|yesno}} 

message: As promised... From the tracking category, we see that 27 banners use one or more of the collapsed notes.  From WhatLinksHere, we see that 21 banners use the /taskforces hook, indicating that they have an inadequate number of taskforces built into the banner.  These results surprised me a little, I admit, but they seem correct.  I remember that several of the projects using the hook have a huge number of taskforces, such that it would be a hopeless task trying to add enough taskforces for them.  Consequently, and a little surprisingly, I don't think there's anything to be done here.  Comments? Happy‑melon 19:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another question that could be asked is: Should WPBannerMeta still support the collapsed notes directly or should those banners use the HOOK_COLLAPSED parameter and the hooks/notes template instead? -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :I think it's important to have some support for 'basic' functionality in the core code; we could split a whole host of things out into hooks, but we'd soon find ourselves with nothing left in the main banner.  Whether collapsed notes count as "basic" functionality is not entirely unequivocal, however. Happy‑melon 20:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::27 is not so many, and it would actually simplify the syntax somewhat to just use hook_collapsed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Investigate balance of C_NOTEs vs TFs" 

message: Could we perhaps brainstorm some ideas of detecting and preventing editors from substituting project banners? There must surely be a way to do this. I have been spending some time finding substituted  banners and there seem to over 200 of them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done two templates: User:WOSlinker/Banner & User:WOSlinker/Banner/core to simulate Template:WPBannerMeta & Template:WPBannerMeta/core.
You then need to try normal transculsion & substituting the test banner on a test page:


And you'll see a warning & an extra category used for the substituted version. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: That's all very well, but it's not  that's being substituted (leaving direct calls to  out in the wilderness).  It's  being substituted to leave direct transclusions of ; your idea would require each individual banner to implement the bulk of the anti-subst checks, with the extra difficulty of how to react to banners not correctly implementing the check.  Could be tricky. But I admit, probably not as tricky as building a subst check system that is coded entirely in WPBM itself... :D Happy‑melon 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :Yes, the check would need to be an extra parameter added to each banner (just like small, category & listas) but the checking part would be in WPBannerMeta. The extra parameter should be written so that if it's blank then the banner isn't using the checking option and no warnings would ever be shown. Each banner that wanted subst checking would need to add something similar to:
|substcheck = {{subst:yesno|SUBST|SUBST}}
and then WPBannerMeta would need to check if the substcheck parameter was equal to SUBST and then display a warning message or add another category. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::That looks like a nice neat and easy way to do it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner substitution 

message: The ASSESSMENT_CAT value is being ignored in favor of PROJECT (I think), in the case of the category name used when AUTO_ASSESS is on. That is, for Template:WikiProject Belgium for example, all of categories used by this template for assessment and cleanup sorting are in the form "Category:Top-importance Belgium-related articles", "Category:Belgium-related articles needing attention", etc., with the sole exception of "Category:Automatically assessed Belgium articles". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are right, it will set to Automatically assessed  articles by default. I'm hesitant to just change it though because it may affect quite a lot of banners which already have the category in the current location ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: :It would require help at WP:CFD, a mass speedy rename. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ::Don't forget ; there is already the facility to customise this category.  I agree that it should include the value of  in the fallback chain, but we can probably make the change silently if we're careful. Happy‑melon 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor bug 

message: On a similar note, it's been bugging me for some time that the syntax of  as it applies to categories, and , are not the same: in the latter case you have to append "articles".  Every instance of ASSESSMENT_CAT has to include the word "articles", as all :Category:FA-Class Foo articles cats have that word at the end.  It's pointless, therefore, to have it as a separate parameter.  We should change the syntax of  to be just the "Foo" from "FA-Class Foo articles", just like  is.  I'm reasonably confident that this can be done silently.  If it can, is it a good idea? Happy‑melon 09:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ASSESSMENT_CAT