Content deleted Content added
Magioladitis (talk | contribs) m →Assessment link: clean up, replaced: tl|Business → tl|WikiProject Business (2) using AWB (11754) |
Plastikspork (talk | contribs) Remove page from Special:WantedTemplates |
||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 9:
:This was actually something that I was going to propose once. However the small form is not so widely used so I am not sure if it's worth it. In the meantime you can do it manually using a parser function, for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:D%26D/core&diff=273391176&oldid=271361162]. [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 09:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
::Ah... thanks. I wasn't completely sure whether or not that would work in combination with the Meta template. -[[User:Drilnoth|Drilnoth]] ([[User talk:Drilnoth|talk]]) 14:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Since this can be ''so'' easily set by doing <
== Taskforce hook and hide subpage ==
Line 18:
::It wasn't connected to /hide. It was just a BANNER_NAME paramter incorrectly set. I've fixed it for you. [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks for fixing that. I'm pretty sure that all of the task forces were displayed before I created the hide subpage, but since it is working now, I guess it doesn't really matter. --[[User:Scottalter|Scott Alter]] 22:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Doing sanity-checks for things added by hooks is probably ''possible'', but certainly rather complicated. I'll have to have a think about it...
== Migrating [[Template:WPAVIATION]] ==
Line 24:
:Yes, you can implement it with the five items. Alternatively you could use six items but set the 6th to "yes" by default so that the existing articles are not affected. That might be confusing though. [[User talk:Msgj|Martin]] 21:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, looking at [[Template:WPBannerMeta/class]], it doesn't look like the 6th parameter is currently checked for the B class assessment. That might be a bug in the WPBannerMeta code. For more complicated banners such as WPAVIATION, it's alway good to start the changes in a [[Template:WPAVIATION/sandbox|sandbox]] version first and see how it goes. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 21:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
:::That is indeed a bug, now {{fixed}}. How well do the 5 milhist criteria map onto the 6 WP1.0 criteria?
::::It looks like it's just that they don't use b6. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 08:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Line 43:
</pre>
-- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 08:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
:It would be kinder to write a hook for {{para|HOOK_IMPORTANCE}} rather than add another #ifexist: call to all million-odd transclusions. This is the first project other than MilHist that I've seen to use the 5-point scale.
::WikiProject Films and WikiProject Comics also use the 5-point scale. :) [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Line 92:
#It will accept an input of "unused" from the project banner in which case it will not display anything for that criterion. This might allow projects which use 5-point checklists to use the standard code instead of an extra hook. (But I'm not sure how to change the prompt which appears when no parameters are entered ...)
See my [[User:Msgj/Sandbox2|sandbox]] for an example. What do people think about this? [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 14:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
:"NA" would be a better term than "not used".
::Well, maybe, but NA often means "not article" rather than "not applicable", so that's why I tried to avoid it! [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Based on your idea I have implemented a "n/a" option so that if the reviewer of an article believes that a criterion is not relevant to an article, he/she can use "n/a" instead of "yes" and still award the B-class. (Of course this is only implemented on the default class mask and not on custom ones yet.) I still think an "unused" option might be useful when a project decides they won't use a particular criterion, and this would alleviate the need for the separate hook. But I think this needs some more thought to do properly. [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 23:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 105:
With the successful wind up of quite a long chain of changes, it is now possible for me to have a crack at resolving this issue that's been bugging me for a while. Please take a look at the nested examples below and tell me what you see:
<syntaxhighlight lang=wikitext>
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|category=no|1=
{{WikiProject Cutlery|class=FA|priority=low|category=no}}
{{WPBannerMeta/test|class=B|importance=Low|category=no}}
Line 113 ⟶ 114:
{{WikiProject Discworld|category=no|class=GA}}
{{WikiProject Australia|category=no|class=GA|Brisbane=yes|Canberra=yes|Adelaide=yes|NSW=yes|places=yes}}
}}</syntaxhighlight>
The WikiProject Cutlery is an example of the current display when no quality assessment is given. The Discworld banner shows the current display with a class rating, and the Australia banner shows the appearance when a number of taskforces are included. The three Video Games banners demonstrate the new layout; I like to think it is an improvement, not least because the centrelines of each banner will align correctly when a number of them are present on a page, such as [[Talk:Mohammed]]. Thoughts?
:It's nice that they're aligned, but I prefer the larger gap personally. [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 23:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
::We can make it as large or as small as desired - I've increased it a bit more.
:::I increased it a little bit more and like it. [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 00:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
:::: How about having the WP Name (and task forces aligned to the left) and then have the classes aligned to the right next to the show button (eg: Rated: C [Show]). [[User:Peachey88|Peachey88]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Peachey88|Talk Page]] | [[Special:Contributions/Peachey88|Contribs]])</sup> 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::I'll put some classes on the cells so you can inflict that on yourself if you want to... <
{{done}} finally.
:Not quite. On Firefox 3, there is a slightly annoying thing where the project name and class move slightly when showing/hiding their nested forms. [[User:Msgj|Martin]]<sup>[[User talk:Msgj|msgj]]</sup> 23:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:: Thats from the [Show/Hide] changing, since they are different lengths it increases the width of the box so the center dynamically changes so it contents will also slightly change as well. [[User:Peachey88|Peachey88]] <sup>([[User_Talk:Peachey88|Talk Page]] | [[Special:Contributions/Peachey88|Contribs]])</sup> 00:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Indeed, this affects all show/hide buttons now (it was that or keep wasting a quarter of the width of the banner ''on each side'' with a fixed-width box); I don't think it's possible to prevent this except by putting "show/hide" into a monospace font, which is likely to make big waves...
== Extension of B-checklist ==
Line 134 ⟶ 135:
:::::MilHist have an A-Class assessment checklist, I think. I know I copied someone's into the code for {{tl|Comicsproj}}. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
(note: I am a [[WP:MHCOORD|coord]] at MILHIST) - MILHIST removes the B-class checklist when an article passes GA, A, FA or FL, as we feel that it is redundant (although there have been a few discussions about the value of GA and if a MILHIST B is higher or equal to it).<br>
MILHIST does not have an A-class checklist for its template, but we ''do'' have [[WP:MH/A]]. Articles passing an A-class nomination must pass those 5 criteria. (FAQ page is [[WP:MH/A?|here]] for the interested) —'''<
*Hmm. I copied it from someone's template, so maybe it is in India's, Australia's, Film's or Africa's. I think those are the ones I've <s>stolen</s> borrowed from. [[User:Hiding|Hiding]] <small>[[User talk:Hiding|T]] </small> 10:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
== Category parameter = "none" ==
Line 142 ⟶ 143:
There is some code in the [[Template:WPBannerMeta/sandbox|sandbox]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/sandbox&diff=275788934&oldid=275787387 diff]). Please tell me if this is a good idea and if this code will do the trick. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:We'll need to go deeper than that, or it will just produce output like <
:Actually, most of these would have worked straight off. Only {{para|AUTO_ASSES_CAT}} requires any more groundwork, and that's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/autoassess&diff=275801290&oldid=264270677 now done].
::Great. {{done}}. Seems to be working correctly. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 157 ⟶ 158:
:Answer to #1 is {{para|COLLAPSED_HEAD}} & answer to #2 is that the custom class at [[Template:WikiProject Korea/class]] does not have the code to handle the B-Class checklist included. See [[Template:WPBannerMeta/class]] for how to do it. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 18:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::Ah, thanks. So presumably the answer to #3 would be no, because it will be needed to do #2. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Actually, as long as the "Good", "D", "E", "Cate" and "Tool" classes are being removed, you should be fine; you can go back to using the standard mask, which will include the C-Class force (assuming that's what you want, of course).
::::How would I best add a tracking category for the forced assessments? By adding the same ifexpr at the end of the banner code? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 19:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:Another question, in the "task force" instructions, it says that TF TEXT 1 is required, but it was left out in the original instructions. If TF NAME 1 is used, why would TF TEXT 1 be required and left blank? Thanks for the help! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 19:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
::It's not really required, it's just a cunning plot to confuse you <
:::Oh, I thought so. Thanks again for the help!! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 19:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
:--Need some more help, refering to this paragraph, under "Other details": "Normal project banners, which are substituted rather than transcluded, usually show up in Category:WikiProject banners, allowing for a periodic cleanout. Banners using WPBannerMeta do not appear in this category when substituted, making it easier for them to get lost."
Line 168 ⟶ 169:
:Well, in this context I think a "normal" banner is one which does not use {{tl|WPBM}}. However WPBM-banners are rapidly becoming the norm! I suppose if it gets lost, you can't find it. Otherwise it wouldn't be lost :) I agree that this sentence is a bit confusing. I don't understand why substituted templates would normally appear in [[:Category:WikiProject banners]], because that category is generally enclosed in noinclude tags and so not included whether transcluded or substituted. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::Waaay back in the very early versions of the documentation, it [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/doc&oldid=223895416 recommended] to use a template {{tlx|subst check}}, which I created for the purpose, so that accidentally-substituted templates would be neatly categorised into a cleanup category to be periodically desubsted. It took me a full three months to realise that I was actually talking complete and utter crap and that the method didn't work at all, for the obvious reason that the noincluded template wouldn't get substituted. Essentially the sentence is pretty much useless, as MSGJ notes, lost banners are just that, lost. It would be possible to get a list of substed banners by taking the list of all pages transcluding WPBM, then removing all pages transcluding each banner that's known to use WPBM; but that's quite an operation given how many pages this is used on.
== Tracking cats ==
Line 178 ⟶ 179:
::Could you explain why you think those categories are not populating correctly? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, the difference is in the namespace. The categories that are populating correctly only have templates in them, hence the cat name "WPBM banners (templates) with/using etc.", where the 3 other categories are populating every namespace, including the articles, hence the reason for 6000+ in the cats. Hope this helps... --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 17:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::::The latter ones are true "tracking" categories: they are only supposed to exist for as long as it takes for us to resolve whichever issue they document. As such they deliberately cover all namespaces (hence the "banners" rather than "templates". If article pages are being tagged with WPBM banners, that is itself a Very Bad Thing and should be resolved ASAP.
::Clarification, it's the "talk" pages that are populating the categories, not the article pages and one of those 3 categories in the not-populating-correctly group '''does''' use "templates" in their name, not just "banners" (eg: [[:Category:WPBannerMeta templates using obscure class values]]), so your explanation does not follow. If the tracking categories are supposed to cover all namespaces, then due to the extreme size of them, (8000+ talk pages), how could you possibly use those tracking categories to narrow down which of the WikiProject BannerMeta "templates" is causing a problem, if any? Wouldn't it be easier to just populate those categories with the templates only? Because, in their present form, they are really of no use other than to take up space. --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Funandtrvl - these are hidden categories. If they are worrying you, you may switch of their display in your preferences ;) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:No problem, just trying to help. --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:::''(ec)''Indeed, that's a mistake, but there's no point in renaming it given that it's only supposed to be temporary. The advantage of including all instances is that it means the categories are populated much faster; if a banner has 500 instances, then ''a'' page using that banner will appear in the category on average much faster than if only the template page would eventually appear (not least because the probability of one of those pages being edited, in which case it bypasses the job queue, is much higher). Once the template is fixed, of course, all its instances start to drain ''out'' of the category with equal speed. They do their job, which is the important thing.
== Bug report ==
Line 209 ⟶ 210:
:::Perhaps; my resolution is 1024x768. I don't see the issue with the Biography banner, but when I look at a page using {{tl|WikiProjectBanners}} ([[Talk:Augusto Pinochet]], for example) the meta and non-meta banners have a slightly different width. Is this a related issue? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 23:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
:I see this issue in Safari 3.2.1 on Mac OS X 10.5.6, regardless of browser window width. I do not see the issue in Firefox 3.0.7, Flock 1.2.7, Camino 1.5.2, or Camino 1.6.6. So, the issue seems to be in IE7 and Safari. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
:: I see the same thing without javascript. It's probably in the code in /core that displays the project name. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC) <br>[[Image:Bannerissue2.png]]
:::I'm just speculating here but in the header section there is <
::::Gosh that screenshot looks terrible! What browser did you say you are using? WhatamIdoing and Nihonjoe: is this the same issue that you were seeing? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yikes, that is awful! Ditto the "what browser" question; also, how did you get that display without JavaScript? Or did you enable JS temporarily to take the screenshot?
:::::: Specific screenshot came from Safari, like Nihonjoe. Of course javascript was enabled for that. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 20:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yes, that is exactly what I'm seeing in the browsers mentioned above (well, I only use Safari, not IE7, but same thing as far as appearance). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
My comments:
Line 225 ⟶ 226:
For what it's worth, this is what I see on my screen:
<div style="text-align: center;">[[File:Bannerwrappingissue.png]]</
As I say, for me there is only the wrapping on the Molecular and Cellular Biology banner. No big deal; it looks as if there is enough room for it ''not'' to wrap, though. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 10:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, looking at my screenshot again I can see there is a very slight difference in the height of Medicine & United States (meta) and Biography & Italy (non-meta). [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 12:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
::The reason the MCB banner wraps is because there's an invisible div floating to the left, approximately the same size and shape as the hide/show button on the right, to keep the headers centred. So consider that a 'feature'; it's certainly not something we can get rid of. The WPBM header row is actually explicitly padded (0.3em worth) which is the cause of the extra height in WPBM banners; obviously this is completely adjustable if people prefer slightly more compact display in WikiProjectBannerShell.
I get something similarly ugly in [[Google Chrome]]: [[File:WPBannerMeta issue.png|750px|center]]
Line 234 ⟶ 235:
Any chance someone who knows the template better could get the WPBannerMeta-using banner (the first one) to have a title aligned more like the bespoke one (second), please? :o) — [[:en:User:OwenBlacker|OwenBlacker]] ([[:en:User talk:OwenBlacker|Talk]]) 18:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
:Ah, interesting. Now we have a specific browser I can start trying things. I see the difference in colour is due to a declaration in your monobook (I have something very similar myself); and the whitespace was just an extra linebreak in {{tlx|WikiProject Typography}}, now fixed.
I'm surprised that's what you're getting in IE7. Here's what I get: [[File:WPBanners (Capecchi).png|100px]], all nice and perfect. [[User:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#4c7d7e;">§hep</span>]][[User talk:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#4c7d7e;"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 241 ⟶ 242:
----
Ok, it seems the main problem is with a set of browsers including Safari and GoogleChrome, whereby the cell widths in the header sub-table are completely screwed over by something. Unfortunately I'm off on holiday in about an hour's time, so unless the random attempt I made in /core/sandbox worked first time, I'm out of this one for a week. But of course, that's why we gave Martin the admin bit <
One thing that I'm sure would be hugely helpful: can someone who's got one of the affected browsers temporarily put
<
#bodyContent * {border: 1px solid red !important;}
</syntaxhighlight>
into their monobook.css and take another screenshot? As you might guess, that gives ''everything'' a red border, which makes it easy to see what's going on. We need to know if the issue is with the way the width is distributed between the three columns of the table, or if the table is not actually filling the entire header cell. Good luck!
:[[:File:Wpbm redborders.png]], I think that screenshot is showing the correct things, right? On the left is Firefox, on the right Safari (looked the same as Chrome for me) '''[[user:chandler|chan]][[user talk:chandler|dler]] [[Special:Contributions/Chandler|·]]''' 17:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 270 ⟶ 271:
:Where using text instead of images would be even more useful would be for the notes and/or taskforces. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 19:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
:I agree. If something could be set up to create a small div instead of the image, with the text sized appropriately to fit. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|<
== Transcluding pages of images ==
Line 286 ⟶ 287:
Would there be any concerns about having a templatepage version of the comments subtemplate? I think it would be helpful to see that on the templatepage. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
:I think that would be a good idea; but how do you suggest it should be designed?
::I think the version in [[Template:WPBannerMeta/comments/sandbox]] should work. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Tried it, it doesn't work, because the call in /templatepage sets {{para|category|no}}, and /istemplatepage therefore decides that it's not a templatepage (and has to do so, or genuine examples in template documentation would break).
::::Puzzled. Why is it any different to the many other templatepage versions of things that we have? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::It's because the /comments stuff is part of the core banner, but isn't called by an explicit parameter. For things like taskforces or notes, we do some clever stuff on /templatepage to see if the parameter is defined, and always set it to yes in that one demo; there's nothing in /taskforce that checks for is-templatepage-ness.
On a related note, I like you moving the {{para|COMMENTS_CAT}} default out into the mask where it belongs; but I've reverted your change from {{para|COMMENTS_CAT}} to {{para|COMMENT_CAT}}. While that's something that's bugged me for a while, I think the way to resolve it is to change the external syntax to the plural form. Otherwise we still have the external inconsistency of the main parameter {{para|COMMENTS}} being plural, but the others being singular.
:Just posted on your talkpage about this. I care little about semantics, but I do care that it took me half an hour to debug some code on templatepage due to the slightly different parameter name on different templates :) Whatever it is called, it should be the same on all, IMHO. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
::{{done}} transition complete.
== Please pass parameters FQS and B_CHECKLIST on to custom overrides of WPBannerMeta/class ==
Line 308 ⟶ 309:
::::Sorry about the editprotected thing: I'll keep that in mind. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] basically summed up my opinion. First step over at [[WP:CFB]] was to standardize the banner. I'm considering introducing the B-checklist in the near future, but that means I'll have to update my class template again. Not really a big deal, but like Tothwolf said, it could trip up a newer editor, just like it tripped me up. And it causes the banner not to behave in a non-intuitive fashion (copy/pasting the default class template breaks FULL_QUALITY_SCALE). But if you guys really feel strongly about it, then I'll drop it. Anyway, thanks for helping edit my class template, and thanks for discussing this issue with me. What about that other idea of mine? The possibility of leaving the default class template in place, and enabling the other assessment categories on a parameter-by-parameter basis? The only reason I'm using the custom class template is to utilize the non-standard quality classes - in every other way, the default behavior is what I want. Is it feasible to "turn on" the extended classes by means of a template parameter? [[User:DeFaultRyan|DeFaultRyan]] ([[User talk:DeFaultRyan|talk]]) 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::"copy/pasting the default class template breaks..." is the desired behavior: it stops people doing precisely that when there is no need to do so; this would result in a banner unnecessarily using a custom mask, and hence not being able to take advantage of improvements to the default mask. Custom masks should and must be designed somewhat differently to WPBM's default mask, as individual banner masks do not need to be able to adapt to multiple possible configurations of the overlying banner template, as MSGJ noted.
:::::The whole point of the class mask system (which is computationally significantly more expensive than a parameter system) was to allow projects to have complete and easy control over which classes they wanted to allow. The parameter alternative would require the banner to have code for every possible class requested by every project using the banner, with an open-ended list of parameters to enable and disable them. This would be detrimental to the vast majority of projects who do not use these nonstandard classes.
::::::Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your response, or the other way around, but I wholeheartedly agree with keeping the class mask system in place. In fact, I agree with nearly everything you said. I think the class mask system is valuable for complete and flexible control. I think that individual masks should be a bit different from the default. That's where the seeming contradiction enters my mind. [[WP:CFB]] isn't using any completely different classes, like B-plus, or what have you. So there's probably not a need for our custom class mask to be very different from the default. However, the desire to use the "quasi-standard" classes of Future, Current, and Needed, neccessitated a custom class mask that was a copy/paste from the default, because that was the only way to enable those classes in our banner. My request for a parameter system wasn't for the set of all possible classes that could arise in any project (I agree, that's untenable). It was for a parameter to enable the "quasi-standard" classes of Future, Current, and Needed (and possibly Merge), in much the same way as FULL_QUALITY_SCALE=yes enables Category, Template, etc without the need for a custom class mask. {{tl|WPBannerMeta/class}} even says "Please do not just copy the contents of this subpage to create a custom mask. If the banner does not need to have a significantly different handling of the |class= inputs, then leave the default mask in place.", but that's precisely what I was forced to do in order to enable Future, Current, and Needed with otherwise default behavior. My question to is, does merely using the Current, Future, Needed, and/or Merge classes need to constitute a significantly different handling of the |class= inputs? I don't believe the answer is "yes", because the only difference in handling is adding 3 lines: "|needed = Needed, |current = Current, |future = Future". If the answer is "no", then shouldn't there be an alternative way of utilizing these categories without incurring the overhead and risk of a custom class mask, i.e., a parameter to enable them similar to FULL_QUALITY_SCALE. I'd just as soon use something like that and delete our custom mask altogether. I suspect other projects that deal with annual events might also want to utilize Current and Future class without creating a custom class mask. [[User:DeFaultRyan|DeFaultRyan]] ([[User talk:DeFaultRyan|talk]]) 00:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The "Future", "Current", etc, classes are now considered no different to any of the other wierd and wonderful custom classes we have [[:Category:Classification templates|available]]. There isn't a particular distinction between these and wierd things like {{tlx|AfD-class}}. So the "quasi-standard" grouping that you describe doesn't really exist.
I strongly disagree with the assumption that a custom class template does not need to be able to adapt to multiple configurations. It should still be ''possible'' to design a custom class template that will properly handle both the FULL_QUALITY_SCALE and B_CHECKLIST parameters that are passed to {{tl|WPBannerMeta}}. Not passing these parameters to the custom class template imposes an artificial limitation on what can be done within the template and this is always something that should be avoided in modular programming.<br />While I can understand wanting to discourage people from using a custom class template when it isn't really needed, I wanted to make use of some of the newer class types that are not present in the default class template. In particular, I intend to make extremely heavy use of the Needed and Merge classes as I'm sorting out and overhauling an entire hierarchy of categories and articles with tons of redirects.<br />''"(which is computationally significantly more expensive than a parameter system)"''<br />Are you certain? In most programming languages, switch statements are ''much'' more efficient than cascaded or sequential if statements.<br />I'd like to propose a compromise. Why not pass B_CHECKLIST and FULL_QUALITY_SCALE to the custom class templates and have the default class template continue to use FQS and possibly something like BCHKLST (instead of B_CHECKLIST). This would prevent anyone from doing a simple copy/paste of the default class template as a custom template and still allow those of us who wish to make use of B_CHECKLIST and FULL_QUALITY_SCALE in custom class templates to do so. Passing the real parameter names to the custom class template makes the most sense anyway as it makes it clear that these are the same parameters that are used for {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} itself.<br />--[[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 01:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:Now this is an interesting idea, which may well be workable. I'll have a think, but I can't see any immediate reason why this wouldn't work.
:The mask system uses an #ifexist: statement to check whether the custom mask exists or not, which is three orders of magnitude heavier on the servers than either #switch: or #if:/#ifeq:. So while you're right about nested ifs vs switches, the #ifexist: blows that completely out of the window. Fortunately, we [[WP:PERFORMANCE|don't need to worry]] about load on the servers, only on how our code affects the end-user. Just FYI <
::I forgot about the #ifexist: in the parent code. Still, even with [[WP:PERF]] there's no point in using an expensive parser function if its not needed.<br />Is there a reason #ifexist: was used instead of passing a parameter to {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} pointing to the custom class template? If done as a parameter, it would be possible to keep different flavours of class templates with {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} itself. Perhaps something like <code>CUSTOM_CLASS_MASK = full_path/to/template</code>? [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 16:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::That would be rather bizzarre centralisation: the whole point of the mask system is to move control over which classes are supported to the invidual banners, ''away'' from the core code that has to be shared with every project. There is no need to require the banner coder to specify in a parameter what can be determined automagically. The point of [[WP:PERF]] is to say "ignore the performance impact ''at our end'', do whatever is best ''for the reader/user'' and we'll pick up the pieces as far as possible".
::::The other thing that comes to mind is won't #ifexist: return true even for an empty or redirected file? If the class template is blanked or moved (leaving a redirect) in an attempt to remove it, the parent code will still try to use it and not the default class template. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 18:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Nothing wrong with a redirect; that could be just moving the mask to a more convenient ___location. Difficult to check if a custom mask is blank, but the ''other'' reason to 'outsource' the masks is to say "you use a mask, it's your problem if things go wrong". Obviously if people come here saying "my banner's broken" we can check and quickly see what the problem is, and fix it; but trying to build exception handling into wikitext is a fundamentally Bad Idea: it's a markup, not a programming language.
::::::Well, I'm wondering if it might be better to have the custom mask template specified as a parameter to {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} because it would allow someone without the admin bit to remove the custom mask template from their project banner. With the current #ifexist: check it isn't possible for a non-admin to effectively remove the custom mask template from a project banner because even if they blank the custom class template or move it elsewhere the parent code is still going to try to use it. Just something to think about anyway I guess... [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 18:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::That's what {{tlx|db-g6}} is for <
::::::::Not everyone knows about the speedy delete templates or how to use them though. It is a minor issue, but still something that could be confusing for people who haven't looked at the code used by {{tl|WPBannerMeta}}. Maybe this is something that could go on the to do list for the next update? [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 20:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::If you mean a more rigorous check for if the custom mask 'exists', that can be done. My ''personal'' reaction to the parameter suggestion is {{wontfix}}. Of course this isn't bugzilla; there may be consensus to the contrary, but I don't think such a move is a Good Idea.
:::::::::I've made a modification such that empty (blanked) custom masks will now be ignored.
::::::::::Good deal, that should help prevent some confusion. I still think it may be better as a long term solution to have the custom template ___location passed as a parameter to {{tl|WPBannerMeta}} but I'm well aware that this would be a multi-step change that would involve modifying any project templates that use a custom class template so it wouldn't be a simple thing to implement. For that fact, it would also allow a project to use different custom class templates for different sub-project banners via a subtemplate, but there probably aren't too many projects that currently do that. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 21:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
{{done}}: parameters {{para|FULL_QUALITY_SCALE}} and {{para|B_CHECKLIST}} are now available to custom masks; copying WPBM's own mask will still break.
== Random useful fact ==
Now that [[Special:MostLinkedTemplates]] has been out of action for so long, we've had no way to know just how many pages this was being used on. I've just run a database query on the toolserver's replicated copy of the templatelinks table; it took eleven minutes to run, and returned, wait for it, '''1,709,150 pages'''. There have probably been some other changes at the top, but I don't think there's any doubt that we're now working on a top-ten, probably top-five, template. Keep up the good work!
:You disappoint me! I was expecting a comment along the lines of encouraging projects to use the following code:
|note 1 = <nowiki>{{{RUF|}}}</nowiki>
Line 345 ⟶ 346:
</nowiki> to a few cat talk pages today, a new red-linked page at the bottom of the transclusion list shows up, only if one adds the "importance" parameter, along with the "class" parameter; it doesn't show up with just the "class" parameter. This only displays in the "edit" mode. For an example, see: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Former_United_States_Executive_Cabinet_positions&action=edit
Template:WikiProject United States/class] and look at the bottom of the opened "edit" page. Just wondering! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 22:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
:Hmn, this is interesting. This is a result of my recent change to how the template looks for custom masks (see [[#Please pass parameters FQS and B CHECKLIST on to custom overrides of WPBannerMeta.2Fclass|above]]). I changed from using the <
:Filed, {{
::Oh-oh, see what you did and look what I started!! :) Thanks --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 00:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Actually, I think I'm the guilty party here ;) [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 00:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 354 ⟶ 355:
[[Template:WPAVIATION/sandbox]] is giving an error, " Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "," ". It's not showing on other meta banners, which makes me think it may have something to do with the recent changes to incorporate a 5 part checklist. Any ideas? - [[User:Trevor MacInnis|Trevor]] [[User talk:Trevor MacInnis|MacInnis]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/Trevor MacInnis|Contribs]])</small> 05:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:That was an error on the templatepage which is now [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage&diff=279964746&oldid=279877705 fixed]. Apologies on behalf of happy-melon. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
::Indeed, apologies... not sure how I managed to fix that error in the main code but not in the /templatepage...
== WP templates are now showing up in Category:Unassessed <project> articles ==
Noticed today that various "main pages" of WPM templates are showing up in the Unassessed class categories, see: [[:Template:WikiProject Philadelphia]]. It shows up in: [[:Category:Unassessed Pennsylvania articles]]. Also happening at What's up? --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 20:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
:{{fixed}} was just on that template and others using one particular hook, but I corrected that. Thanks for pointing that out!
::Thanks again! --[[User:Funandtrvl|Funandtrvl]] ([[User talk:Funandtrvl|talk]]) 21:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
== Bottom importance ==
Line 365 ⟶ 366:
{{tlx|editprotected}}
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. --'''''[[User:GW Simulations|<
:Please see [[/Archive 3#Bottom-importance]]. —[[User:Ms2ger|Ms2ger]] ([[User talk:Ms2ger|talk]]) 08:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
::There is actually a greater use of {{tl|No-importance}}, though I suppose that would be handled by the meta in the same way? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 373 ⟶ 374:
|bottom = Bottom
</pre>
:Inserted between the fourth and fifth lines of [[Template:WPBannerMeta/importance]]. Am I missing something? --'''''[[User:GW Simulations|<
::That most projects don't want to use No- and/or Bottom-importance. —[[User:Ms2ger|Ms2ger]] ([[User talk:Ms2ger|talk]]) 15:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
: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. --'''''[[User:GW Simulations|<
::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
::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 {{para|importance|bottom}} 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.
== Taskforce hook parameter capitalization bug ==
Line 384 ⟶ 385:
"<code><nowiki>{{#ifeq:{{{tf 1|}}}|yes|</nowiki></code>" should be changed to "<code><nowiki>{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{tf 1|}}}}}|yes|</nowiki></code>" for each of the 10 tf variables. Thanks. --[[User:Scottalter|Scott Alter]] 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
:<s>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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)</s> 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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 07:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I've created {{tlx|yesno}} 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.
:Thanks. --[[User:Scottalter|Scott Alter]] 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 440 ⟶ 441:
::Can the tracking category be put into [[Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage]] rather than [[Template:WPBannerMeta]] this time though? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::<s>That's what I was thinking. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:19, 25 March 2009 (UTC)</s> Actually I'm not sure, because it won't be possible to know whether or not ASSESSMENT_LINK has been defined from templatepage. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Why not? No reason why it shouldn't AFAIK...
:::::Because if {{{PROJECT_LINK}}}/Assessment exists then [[Template:WPBannerMeta]] will set {{{ASSESSMENT_LINK}}} to that if it is undefined, so there would be no way to know if {{{ASSESSMENT_LINK}}} was actually specified or not. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::Gah! Well spotted, I would have walked right into that one. Yes, on WPBM itself it is, then.
:::::::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Line 458 ⟶ 459:
Can someone please check the code in the meta? {{tl|-Class}} 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! [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 12:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:(hiveminded with the above) Project banners using the meta template leave unhelpful redlinks when <code>|class=</code> 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Veganarchism&oldid=281883472 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]].
::This is due to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:-Class&curid=5444362&diff=281882748&oldid=241993712 this] change: previously the ??? wasn't linked at all. I'll dig.
:::The bug appears to be in {{tl|WPBannerMeta/qualityscale}}, where <code>{{{class}}}</code> should be replaced by <code><nowiki>{{{class|Unassessed}}}</nowiki></code>. [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 15:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I imagine the problem lies with {{tl|WPBannerMeta/qualityscale}} as the meta does not have the same problem with {{tl|-importance}}. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 15:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
{{fixed}}, prompted me to polish off and implement the shiny new {{tlx|class}} template. Needs reworking to fix Future-Class, Current-Class, etc etc, but it works for most, and keeps WPBM nice and clean.
: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 {{tl|WikiProject Plants}}. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::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?
:::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¢. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks very much for sorting that, H-m, your speedy attention is helpful as always.
FWIW, I've added some code at {{tl|class/sandbox}} which will force the icons for FA/FL/A/GA with the ability to remove them using {{para|image|no}}. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:And I've implemented it, along with using {{tlx|classcol}} (useful template that, well done creating it!). I'd still like to hear some more opinions before deciding which {{para|image}} option to use.
::I'd like to keep the previous default of only having images for FA/FL/GA/A. —[[User:Ms2ger|Ms2ger]] ([[User talk:Ms2ger|talk]]) 18:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:Got a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Happy-melon&diff=281945711&oldid=281945490 vote] for the new icons over on my talk page. Seems there's mixed opinion.
::How feasibile would it be to have a parameter in the meta to turn the icons on or off? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 19:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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? <
::::vde links? I was thinking a parameter would allow the decision to be made at project level. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 19:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:::::Told you <
<
.wpb .assess img {display: none;}
.wpb .assess-fa img,
Line 484 ⟶ 485:
.wpb .assess-a img,
.wpb .assess-ga img {display: inline;}
</syntaxhighlight>
:::::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.
::::::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. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 21:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 491 ⟶ 492:
:::A [[User talk:PC78#Rating template signs|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? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 18:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::::I concur: although I think the discussion should stay here, it would be helpful to poke a few pumps. I'll go do that.
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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:You're probably right. {{done}}, 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*/
</syntaxhighlight>
:Hopefully this will make everyone happy.
::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.)
::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.-- <
:::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.
:::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::::Indeed; there have been occasional attempts to introduce a parallel GA icon in that ___location, but none have ever gained consensus.
:::: Yes, my misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification. -- <
== ''yesno'' ==
What is the reason that all the parameters use {{tl|yesno}}? 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 <
:{{tlx|yesno}} 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 {{para|foo|yes}}, but also with {{para|foo|YES}} or perhaps {{para|foo|1}}. On the other hand, you would intuitively expect {{Para|foo|no}} 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.
:In response to your actual issue, I've added a new parameter, {{para|title}}, 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.
::It works, but I was hoping to not have another parameter. If {{tlx|yesno}} wasn't used, then it could just check if <
:::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 {{para|peer-review|no}}", then he's quite rightly surprised when he gets the same result as setting {{para|peer-review|yes}}.
:::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:
:::<code><nowiki>|peer-review={{#switch:{{lc:{{{peer-review|¬}}}}}||¬|no=|yes}}</nowiki></code>
:::<code style="white-space:nowrap;"><nowiki>|title={{#switch:{{lc:{{{peer-review|¬}}}}}||¬|no|yes=|#default={{{peer-review|}}}}}</nowiki></code>
:::Do you understand what those lines are doing?
::::[[WP:VG]]. That's interesting. I didn't think of doing something like that. It should work. Thanks, [[User:MrKIA11|MrKIA11]] ([[User talk: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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
: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).
::Okay, you've convinced me! — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 531 ⟶ 532:
{{tlx|Project Derbyshire}} used to list images that were missing. Doesnt do it antomre. The parameter was ''photo'' with choices ''na'' ''yes'' and ''no'' [[User:Victuallers|Victuallers]] ([[User talk:Victuallers|talk]]) 10:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
:It expects values of "yes", "na" and "''needs''". This was, however, the behavior [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Project_Derbyshire&action=edit&oldid=231022355 before] conversion to WPBM, so nothing has changed in that area.
== Generic self-documentation ==
Line 555 ⟶ 556:
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. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 21:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
: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.
::IE7, and no. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 21:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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...
== Custom class query ==
Line 563 ⟶ 564:
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 {{tl|Foo-Class}} template, but presumably it's not that simple now the meta uses {{tl|Class}}. 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 {{tl|Class}} in order to fix the capitalisation and not display the text as Substub, and b) request an edit to {{tl|Classcol}} to define a colour for the new class? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 10:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
:That would seem about right to me. Plus {{tl|classicon}} if you wanted to define an icon for the new class. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
:''(ec)''And an edit to {{tlx|classicon}} 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...
::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 10:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
::''(ec)'' I've taken the case-normalisation rules out of {{tlx|class}}, your example twigged me to the fact that they're completely unnecessary: everything is already normalised in /class. So it would only be to {{tlx|classcol}} and {{Tlx|classicon}} if you were that way inclined.
:::Lol, seems we're thinking along ''exactly'' the same lines.
:::: :) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 576 ⟶ 577:
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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
: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.
::Thank you. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Line 588 ⟶ 589:
== Safari borken-ness, redux ==
Can someone with Safari or one of the other browsers that [[Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_4#Playing_well_with_WikiProjectBannerShell.3F|reported]] severe nastiness with the WPBM display inside banner shells, say if my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/core/sandbox&diff=282767117&oldid=282766286 attempt to fix] in the sandbox has been successful? Take a look at the WikiProjectBannerShell in [[Template:WPBannerMeta/testcases]] and say what you see?
:Seems to be working. [http://browsershots.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WPBannerMeta/testcases] -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 17:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::Yay!
::I've implemented the new code. Let's hope it works!
| |||