Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Module talk:WikiProject banner) (bot |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 717:
:I can't think of any others — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
== Full admin protection? ==
{{ping|MSGJ|Gonnym}} IIUC, this module was restricted to admin editing because Gonnym did not adequately test their changes before going live? Admin-level protection has downstream (unintended) consequences. [[Module:WikiProject banner]] depends on [[Module:Portal]], which I have been maintaining for the past 2+ years. But now [[Module:Portal]] must be admin-level protected also, which means I have lost edit rights (because I am only a templateeditor). I know I can still ask admins to check in changes for me, it would still be better (IMO) to be able to edit [[Module:Portal]] directly.
Would it be possible to resolve the issue in a different way than restricting editing of [[Module:WikiProject banner]] only to admins? For example, could Gonnym agree to always test their changes before committing the code to the live Module?
Thoughts? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 22:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:A few comments.
:* I don't necessarily see any link between the protection of this module and Module:Portal.
:* There is no policy that templates with a certain number of transclusions should be fully protected. I once tried to start [[Wikipedia talk:High-risk templates#Should some templates be fully protected?|a discussion]] on this, but got no response. So currently it is entirely up to admin discretion. I know {{ul|Pppery}} has definite views on this.
:* I have tried to discuss my concerns with Gonnym and their talk page, but have not made much progress. Your suggestions sounds sensible to me.
:— Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:: My belief has long been that the highest-risk templates on the project with millions to tens of millions of transclusions should be fully-protected (and also listed on [[WP:CASC]]). This view is only weakly held. The much-more-strongly-held position is the a template's dependencies must be protected at least as well as the base template, and [[Template:Portal]] (and hence [[Module:Portal]]) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3Aportal&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns1=1 has 6mil of its 10mil transclusions on the talk namespace] (and hence presumably via [[Module:WikiProject banner]]), which establishes a dependency chain sufficient to bind the protection to the full protection here. {{pb}} For me, the reason for that position is about trust - the level of trust required to edit the highest-risk templates on the project is much greater than the level required to edit templates with a mere 5,000 transclusions. And while you of course could have pblocked Gonnym instead of full protection I think the recent incident proves my trust claim right by saying that Gonnym does not have that trust. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
== Why do WikiProject banners link to portals anyway? ==
I cannot figure out why having WikiProject banners link to corresponding portals is helpful. When an editor is on a talk page, I can see them wanting information about how to edit articles that belong to a WikiProject, or asking questions at the corresponding WikiProject Talk page. I don't see why they would want to go to a Portal to get overview information on the topic. We generally want editors to bring off-wiki information into WP, rather than recycling information between pages.
I propose removing Portal links from WikiProject banners. What do other editors think? — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 06:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
:The first Portals were created in February 2005 and were originally set up as subpages of {{-r|Wikipedia:Wikiportal}}, such as [[Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Biology]], which I think was the first one. The Portal: namespace was created in August 2005, and existing Wikipedia:Wikiportal/... pages were moved there on 27 August, together with some templates that were only used for building Portal: pages.
:Some WikiProject banners have had portal boxes since 2006, e.g. {{tlx|WikiProject Trains}}, it's possible that some were given portal boxes in 2005. Some portals predate the corresponding WikiProjects, and I think that they served as a central discussion point until WikiProjects became more established. If a topic had both a Portal and a WikiProject, it was natural to provide a link between them. --[[User:Redrose64|<span style="color:#a80000; background:#ffeeee; text-decoration:inherit">Red</span>rose64]] 🌹 ([[User talk:Redrose64|talk]]) 09:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::In the early days of Wikipedia, it probably made sense to link to portals from this box. But now, both WikiProjects and Portals are well-established with very different aims. The link from article talk to corresponding Portal seems superfluous. — [[User:Hike395|hike395]] ([[User talk:Hike395|talk]]) 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
== Redundant class params & WP Ireland ==
[[Draft talk:Daire Scully]], [[Draft talk:Marion King]], [[Draft talk:Raj Vrinceanu]], and others have no parameters, yet show up in {{cat|WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter}}. The common WP between them all seems to be {{tl|WP Ireland}}. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 12:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:Most likely because of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_Ireland&diff=prev&oldid=1170552908 this edit] — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
== Cleaning up NA-class categories ==
Hi, at [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Cleaning up NA-class categories]] there seems to be consensus about the removal of a number of NA-class categories from most pages. Can the editors here take a look if anything important is being missed in that discussion, and if not see how this can be implemented? [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 14:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Ooh, this is timely, as we are making other changes to the category tree ("articles" -> "pages"). I will look through and respond with any comments — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 15:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::Thanks! [[User:Fram|Fram]] ([[User talk:Fram|talk]]) 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== Redlinked categories ==
The recent "articles vs. pages" activities here have resulted in the hypergeneration of an absolutely massive number of redlinked class-rating categories at [[Special:WantedCategories]], to the point where the latest run of that report features over 700 redlinks on it where it should normally have less than ''200'' — and while ''technically'' redlinked maintenance categories aren't as big of a deal as redlinked ''mainspace'' categories are, redlinked maintenance categories actively ''interfere'' with the process of ''finding'' redlinked mainspace categories in the list: the amount of eyeglazing scroll-scroll-scroll needed to bypass all the class-rating categories makes it easier to ''miss'' mainspace categories hiding in ''between'' the class-rating categories, and the entire report has a limit to how many categories it can find or list at any one time, so every time categories get left unresolved across more than one update of that report it gets pushed that much closer to the limit.
I do want to call attention to one specific small batch:
*{{cl|Mid-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles}}
*{{cl|NA-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles}}
*{{cl|High-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles}}
*{{cl|Top-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles}}
*{{cl|Low-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles}} (which I temporarily created as a categoryredirect to the correctly-named version, but it's still not empty)
*{{cl|Unknown-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles}}
But regardless of whether a category is "pages" ''or'' "articles", there's obviously no call for "pages articles", so this is just a straight-up error rather than an oversight on anybody's part.
Otherwise, the remainder are all either "FM-Class [project] pages" or "NA-Class [project] articles" categories that need to be either created if they're actually wanted, or get completely kiboshed if they're unwanted. I won't list them ''all'' here, as I'd be here for hours formatting them and this post would approach the size of a novel, but they can all be seen at [[Special:WantedCategories]] (where, just a reminder, the total number of entries is over 700, so it'll entail more than one page of results).
So could somebody associated with this project please take steps to either get them created if they're wanted or completely prevent their generation by the template if they're not, and could somebody please take steps to ensure that these changes don't keep spawning more and more redlinked categories in the future? It's just not a thing I can put up with working around, because these redlinks actively ''interfere'' with the process of cleaning up the more resolvable ones — it's a thing that needs to be resolved as soon as possible, because we can't just leave hundreds of redlinked categories sitting there unfixed for extended periods. Thanks. [[User:Bearcat|Bearcat]] ([[User talk:Bearcat|talk]]) 17:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, we are aware of the issue. See also above. As soon as [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 December 7#Category:Category-Class articles]] closes, we can sort this mess out properly. Please bear with us for a couple more days — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:15, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
== auto parameter ==
Since bots should no longer add a class parameter to the banner and instead should add to the shell, the {{para|auto}} parameter should either be removed completely or moved to the banner shell. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 12:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:Okay, I guess this makes sense. Are there any bots updating PIQA ratings? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
::I have no idea. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 14:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
== Punctuated WPs not recognizing duplication ==
{{tl|WP Anti-war}}, {{tl|WP New York (state)}}, {{tl|WP U.S. Roads}}, etc. don't show in {{cat|Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates}} if duplicated. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 11:28, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:The current pattern for capturing is <code><nowiki>'<span class="wpb%-project">([%w%s]*)</span>'</nowiki></code> and %w does not include punctuation marks. Could be updated in [[Module:Banner shell/sandbox]] — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::{{Done}} <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 12:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Would it be simpler to use something like <code>[^<]*</code> (any characters except <)? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 12:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Indeed it would...though I'd use <code>[^<>]*</code> just to be slightly safer. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Why isn't the essays banner recognised as a duplicate on [[Wikipedia talk:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom]]? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 13:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:Is it a namespace issue? {{tl|WP Wikipedia essays}} registers as a dup if applied in mainspace. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 13:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::Possibly, but I'm not immediately seeing any code that would exclude other talk namespaces — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Am I missing something? I don't see two of that banners there. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 14:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::I'm being an idiot. I meant to ask why it is not identifying it as being outside the banner shell — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::It's because it's using the redirect name. You'll need to check the code to see how you are tracking this. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 14:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, redirects aren't recognized, only canonical names. <b>~</b> <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:16px;">[[User:Tom.Reding|Tom.Reding]] ([[User talk:Tom.Reding|talk]] ⋅[[WP:DGAF|dgaf]])</span> 14:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
| |||