Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Template talk:WPBannerMeta. |
add |
||
Line 386:
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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks. --[[User:Scottalter|Scott Alter]] 23:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
== Assessment link ==
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:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 08:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
: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.
: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. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 08:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::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? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 13:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, I think so. Because the quality scale should be on that page, otherwise how can you assess an article? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::That's fine. -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 21:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;color:#3399ff;">§hep</span>]][[User talk:Stepshep|<span style="font-family:Helvetica;color:#3399ff;"><sup>Talk</sup></span>]] 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I understand the problem here. On {{tl|WPMeasure}}, 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? [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 22:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 04:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
::I now have a concrete proposal for the change to the wording. The code is [[Template:WPBannerMeta/qualityscale/sandbox|here]] and there are some examples in [[/Assessment examples]]. Please have a look and tell me what you think. The basic changes are:
::#Just one link in the sentence.
::#If the assessment link is specified the link points here (with #Quality_Scale) appended.
::#If not, then the [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Quality_scale|default 1.0]] scale is linked.
::#If the assessment link is specified, "''project's''" is added to the sentence to make it clear that it's the project's scale.
::I haven't done the importance scale yet, but a similar idea would work I think. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 23:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
:::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
::::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." ? -- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 18:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::Well, the [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Quality_scale|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. [[User:DeFaultRyan|DeFaultRyan]] ([[User talk:DeFaultRyan|talk]]) 19:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::(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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I have now implemented this on both the quality and importance scales, and would appreciate any feedback. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 22:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 22:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
::::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::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 <code>priority=</code> in their original banners anyway? [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk: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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
:Am I missing something on {{tl|Business}}? It looks like the links are going to the [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] pages. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 18:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
::I think you are missing something. Because {{tl|Business}} links to [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Business/Assessment]]. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 19:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Tothwolf|Tothwolf]] ([[User talk:Tothwolf|talk]]) 19:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
===Suggestion===
Regarding the above, I make the following suggestion:
:Instead of ASSESSMENT_LINK defaulting to {{{PROJECT_LINK}}}/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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
: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.
:*there is an existing assessment subpage; and
:*the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter is undefined.
:Then these banners can be reviewed, and the assessment link specified if appropriate. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
::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... <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 19:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 20:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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)
===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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 14:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
: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:
:*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.
:*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.
:Any help fixing up these would be appeciated. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 09:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 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 <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 20:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
== -Class ==
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]]. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|<font face="Goudy Old Style" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font> 12:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 15:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 16:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
: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? <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 16:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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. <font color="404040">[[User:Skomorokh|<font face="Goudy Old Style" color="black">Skomorokh</font>]]</font> 16:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 19:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::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? <tt>:D</tt> <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 19:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::::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 <tt>:D</tt>. [[Template_talk:WPBannerMeta/Archive_2#Editlinks|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:
<source lang=css>
.wpb .assess img {display: none;}
.wpb .assess-fa img,
.wpb .assess-fl img,
.wpb .assess-a img,
.wpb .assess-ga img {display: inline;}
</source>
:::::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 21:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
::::::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)
:::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 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 <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
<source lang=css>
.wpb .assess * { display: inline; } /* show all */
.wpb .assess-b * { display: inline; } /*show B-Class*/
</source>
:Hopefully this will make everyone happy. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 14:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::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.-- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 10:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:::: Yes, my misunderstanding. Thanks for the clarification. -- <font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">[[User:John Broughton|John Broughton]] </font> [[User talk:John Broughton |(♫♫)]] 18:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
== ''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 <tt>old-peer-review=''page''</tt>, in an attempt to use the parameter as the link, but come to find out, {{tl|yesno}} just translates that to ''no''. So what is {{tl|yesno}} needed for? [[User:MrKIA11|MrKIA11]] ([[User talk:MrKIA11|talk]]) 20:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
:{{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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 11:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
::It works, but I was hoping to not have another parameter. If {{tlx|yesno}} wasn't used, then it could just check if <tt>old-peer-review</tt> is defined, and if it ≠ <tt>yes</tt>, then it would assume it was the ___location of the peer review. [[User:MrKIA11|MrKIA11]] ([[User talk:MrKIA11|talk]]) 14:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
:::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? <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 14:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::::[[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). <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 20:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
::Okay, you've convinced me! — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 06:58, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
== Image list ==
{{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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 11:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
== Generic self-documentation ==
I have added to the documentation a "Generic self-documentation" section, that documents a minor problem and its solution. Regards, <span style="color:#00F">—</span> [[User:The Little Blue Frog|The Little Blue Frog]] ([[User talk:The Little Blue Frog|<span style="font-weight:lighter">ribbit</span>]]) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:Interesting. I thought putting a pre inside a noinclude would mess things up. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 06:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::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.) <span style="color:#00F">—</span> [[User:The Little Blue Frog|The Little Blue Frog]] ([[User talk:The Little Blue Frog|<span style="font-weight:lighter">ribbit</span>]]) 17:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
== "This article is within the scope..." ==
{{Resolved|[[PEBKAC]].}}
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". — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
:That's because {{tl|WikiProject Cue sports}} sets the {{para|MAIN_TEXT}} 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 "<nowiki>{{#if:{{SUBJECTSPACE}}|page|article}}</nowiki>".
Another option could be to not set MAIN_TEXT at all and just use the following instead
<pre>
|MAIN_ARTICLE = [[Pocket billiards|pool]], [[carom billiards]] and other [[cue sport]]s
</pre>
-- [[User:WOSlinker|WOSlinker]] ([[User talk:WOSlinker|talk]]) 06:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::Oh, duh. Thanks. I put that one together so long ago I forget that the {{para|MAIN_TEXT}} option even existed! — <b><span style="font-family:Tahoma;">[[User:SMcCandlish|SMcCandlish]]</span></b> [[[User talk:SMcCandlish|talk]]] [[[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|cont]]] <b>‹(-¿-)›</b> 07:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
== Broken? ==
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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 21:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
::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... <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 21:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
== Custom class query ==
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... <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 10:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
::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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 10:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
:::Lol, seems we're thinking along ''exactly'' the same lines. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 11:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
:::: :) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
== Proposed change of colour for Portal-Class ==
Discussion '''[[Template talk:Grading scheme#Proposed change of colour for Portal-Class|here]]'''. Not a meta-based issue ''per se'', but it may be of interest to you guys. Regards. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
== Problem with {{tl|yesno}} ==
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. <font color="forestgreen">[[User:Happy-melon|'''Happy''']]</font>‑<font color="darkorange">[[User talk:Happy-melon|'''melon''']]</font> 18:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 18:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
== [[Template:WPBannerMeta/bchecklist]] ==
I'll not make a proper edit request because I know you guys are generally on the ball, but this subtemplate might as well be using {{tl|classcol}} for the checklist background. [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 22:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
:{{done}}. Hope you're not planning to change this colour as well ;) — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 05:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::[[Hot pink]], anyone? [[User:PC78|PC78]] ([[User talk:PC78|talk]]) 14:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
:::[[Light pink]] is closer to the colour of [[vomit]]… [[User:Physchim62|Physchim62]] [[User talk:Physchim62|(talk)]] 15:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
::::[[:Category:Vomit-Class articles]]? — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
| |||