Template talk:WikiProject Astronomy

update

This template needs an update due to the new preprocessor. I noticed a helpful comment at Template_talk:!#New_preprocessor. I've tried to update the template at User:Sverdrup/WPAstronomy. Please verify that it works.

A "test rendering" is at User:Sverdrup/test1

The problem: the localurl magic word doesn't work with the { {! } } template anymore, and this breaks the edit, history, etc links when an article has comments. Let's update the template as soon as someone has verified the changes are sound. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Once implemented, you may want to check some of the talk pages listed in Category:Astronomy articles with comments just to make sure it's worked OK. Mike Peel (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Implemented and seems to be good.-- Sverdrup (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Editprotected

{{editprotected}}

I forgot some = signs assigning bad categories to category-class and template-class articles.

replace

 |Category|category|CAT|Cat|cat|[[Category:Category-Class Astronomy articles]] {{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Category-Class Astronomical Objects articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}{{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Category-Class physics articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}
 |Template|template|TEMP|Temp|temp|[[Category:Template-Class Astronomy articles]] {{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Template-Class Astronomical Objects articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}{{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Template-Class physics articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}

by

 |Category|category|CAT|Cat|cat=[[Category:Category-Class Astronomy articles]] {{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Category-Class Astronomical Objects articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}{{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Category-Class physics articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}
 |Template|template|TEMP|Temp|temp=[[Category:Template-Class Astronomy articles]] {{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Template-Class Astronomical Objects articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}{{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Template-Class physics articles{{!}}{{PAGENAME}}]]|}}

I also have to do some maintenance to optimize code that. Semi protecting the page for a day would allow me to update the code. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 13:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Change done. I can semi-protect the template if you want, but could you not play around with a test template, and apply the change in one go? Mike Peel (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it can be done in one edit. I have the code written in another template, it just needs to be adapted a bit. Sames goes for {{physics}}. Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 14:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Text overruns the icon box.

I'm seeing some format issues when I view this template in an IE browser. (It seems okay in Firefox.) On talk pages where there is an assessment rating, the text description is writing over the white box on the left side. An example is here: Talk:Thuban. Could this possibly be fixed? Right now it looks a little unpolished. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. This has been taken care of, along with a complete rewrite of the template code. Let me know if you see any irregularities. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeated Importance Wording

(It's funny where the Random article button takes you.) Noticed in the WPAstronomy template on 3949 Mach, when an article is rated "Low" the phrasing that appears after it is: "This page has been identified as being of Low-Low-Importance within Astronomy." Noticed the same thing on the example of the template, where "NA" appears twice. I know I'm not smart enough to try to fix this. Reaching out to those that are. Gnowor (talk) 05:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done, my fault. No clue how that happened. Fixed with this diff. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Comments about these ratings"

Would it be possible to replace the bottom (i) template section (with the "ratings summary page" link) by something similar to the "Comments about these ratings" box that is used on the Physics template? The latter is nicely implemented and it would get rid of that distracting red link text that shows up on virtually every talk page. (Few people bother to generate a ratings comments page.) Thank you!—RJH (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I can't figure out why there is so much whitespace in the drop-down section though...nothing I can do will get rid of it. Thankfully, it is hidden. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 22:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That looks good. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Documentation for the importance of an article

Why is the importance parameter not listed in the documentation? I suggest changing the page to:

{{WikiProject Astronomy
 |class=XXX
 |importance=<!--Top/High/Mid/Low/NA-->
 |object=yes
 |astrophysics=yes
}}

• class: Options are FA, A, GA, B, C, Start, Stub, Cat, NA. If blank, this will default as Unassessed. Descriptions of the options can be found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. NA is "not applicable".
• importance: Rate how important the article is within WP:AST. Options are Top/High/Mid/Low/NA and guidelines are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings.
• object: If the page is an astronomical object, set this to yes. Otherwise, remove it.
• astrophysics: If the page also discusses physics, set this to yes. Otherwise, remove it.
• auto: This parameter is for the use of bots. It calls the {{stubclass}} template.

-Anthony Rushton (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It happened because somebody forgot to update the doc page. I updated it. Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please revert to the template used before the metabanner

{{editprotected}}

The meta banner doesn't do many of the things the old banner did. Please revert.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. In my opinion, while the meta template is fine for those projects who seek an easy way to establish a banner system, for well-established projects with more complex and intricate templates, it is unnecessary, uncalled for, and potentially damaging. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 05:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well. Allow me to highlight a few of the issues with the template as it currently stands:

• Incorrect implementation of DEFAULTSORT overrides other invocations on talk pages
• Use of 'messagebox' CSS classes, which are deprecated
• Use of |nested= parameter to trigger nesting inside banner shells, deprecated
• Broken check on |class= parameter values returns incorrect logic (will treat |class=cheesecake as valid input!).
• Inconsistent support for upper/lowercase |class= values (some areas treated "FA" as "fa", others didn't)
• Duplication of a large chunks of code
• NavFrames render oddly inside bannershells in the cologneblue skin; also extremely bulky inefficient code
• Comments implementation returns a redlink when /Comments subpage does not exist
• No support for category suppression

There are other issues but they are minor in comparison. Would you care to elaborate on the meta-template being "unnecessary, uncalled for and potentially damaging"? I can also provide a list of advantages of using the meta-template if you would like to hear them. I apologise if I sound patronising, but I genuinely do not understand why you think the existing inefficient, deprecated, broken code is better than using {{WPBannerMeta}}. Happy‑melon 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb, please also elaborate on any functionality that was lost in the transition: obviously such a loss is unacceptable and I will do my best to ensure that it is corrected. Happy‑melon 00:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters, the metabanner doesn't categorize articles into their respective "X-class Astronomy articles" and "Y-importance Astronomy articles" categories, and doesn't flag those with |astrophysics=yes as being physics articles that should be tagged with a physics template instead, nor does it tag them those with |objects=yes as being WP objects articles of X-class etc... It also does not support the comment box. The template code is currently going under revision so it can support category intersections (see User:Headbomb/Sandbox4, edit at will). I'm all for improving the code, but unilaterally editing a protected page without even mentioning something about it first is not how one should go about to do things.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I simply don't believe that you are correct in that assessment. I have restored the WPBM code to Template:WikiProject Astronomy/sandbox and set up a few testcases in User:Happy-melon/sandbox3 - as you can see quite clearly, every category appears correctly as before. If you use Special:ExpandTemplates and add an instance of the sandbox template, setting the title to a page that has a /Comments subpage (Talk:Pluto, for instance) you can see that the comments are transcluded correctly where they exist, and the unnecessary redlink is suppressed when the page does not exist. By setting the parameter |COMMENT_FORCE=yes, you can invoke a "please leave comments" message when the page does not exist, which is superior to the simple redlink in any case. I don't think your concerns are correct. Happy‑melon 15:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Metatemplate is better suited for {{WPSpace}} banner. I fixed obvious errors in it, but it is still substandard in my opinion. Ruslik (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is it not suitable for both? :D Happy‑melon 17:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Headbomb wants to write his own code, and I do not want to dissuade him from this (his position has some merits, for instance, additional customization is possible). On the other hand nobody cares about WPSpace. Ruslik (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

While I entirely understand Headbomb's interest in template coding, it's hardly appropriate to leave broken code on 22 thousand pages just to give him working space. There are thousands of pages in the Template: namespace that desperately need the attention of a talented template coder. Happy‑melon 18:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I invited you to edit my sandbox. If you're going to stand there and do nothing, don't criticize those who try to do something. I don't know what you mean by incorrect implementation of DEFAULTSORT, it's not me who wrote that, but rather someone who came and said that this was a fix and the "proper" way to do things. Use of deprecated parameters in not a sin, it's simply not being up to date. The lack of check on input isn't that big of a thing either, as they remain in the unassessed/unrated categories, so people will eventually get to them, but it can easily be implemented. All lowercase and uppercase variations are supported, so I don't know where you get that from. I'm currently waiting for a reply on the size of the white boxes by RJH, before I continue working on it. The most urgent need is category intersection. The template in my sandbox is ready to do that, metabanner doesn't. You'd be much better of in improving whatever's in my sandbox than trying to implement metabanner.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Using deprecated parameters is not "simply not being up to date"; of course it's an unavoidable result of progress and hardly an uncommon situation, but the schemes are deprecated for very good reasons and they should be phased out as soon as possible. In this case, the banner will appear left-aligned in several common browsers and will fail to collapse inside banner shells with increasing frequency as time goes on and people stop being careful to pass |nested=yes. The defaultsort issue is serious, as not passing a correct |listas= parameter will actively break correct syntax in other banners on the page. And regarding your white boxes, have you tried resizing your browser window to about a third of the screen? That's what it looks like on low-resolution monitors. Now go to http://en.wikipedia/org/w/index.php?title=User:Headbomb/Sandbox4&handheld=1 - that's what it looks like on mobile phones. Try the same actions on Template:WikiProject Astronomy/sandbox.

I hardly think it's sensible to accuse me of "doing nothing" to resolve these issues; this whole conversation is a consequence of my actions to do precisely that. Implementing category intersection on the meta-template version is trivial; I have added the necessary code, based on your sandbox, to Template:WikiProject Astronomy/sandbox. I have already provided a full solution to the issues at hand; I am trying now to understand why you refuse to make use of it. Why would I or anyone else want to reinvent the wheel and apply the same fixes and improvements, that have already been achieved with so many hours work at Template:WPBannerMeta, to this template separately?

It sounds like I'm laying into you here, when that's really not my intention at all. All I'm trying to point out is that designing a WikiProject banner is many times more difficult than it looks or sounds; I've screwed up more spectacularly, and affecting many more pages, than any of the issues here. There are so many things than can go wrong in so many different ways, and it takes a huge amount of effort, and an ongoing bug-resolution process, to find the problems and either fix them or guard against them. {{WPBannerMeta}} is used on over half a million pages, and there are prominent notices on every template page to funnel such bug reports to Template talk:WPBannerMeta where they can be acted upon. As a consequence, the majority of these bugs have been fixed or resolved. You're clearly a talented template coder; there are thousands of much more prominent templates for which a 'new wheel' needs to be discovered, new ideas applied to fix old problems. There are plenty of imperfections in {{WPBannerMeta}} itself that would benefit from some attention; the documentation at Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage is a complete mess, for instance. There are better things for you to do with your time and talents than reinvent the wheel on this project banner. Happy‑melon 12:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)

Alright, the metabanner offers more flexibility, a lot more flexibility than I thought it did. A few things:

• A note similar to "Once this has been done, please remove the |needs-image=yes parameter from this template." for the |needs-infobox=yes would be nice.
• The "Astronomy articles without comments" can be removed
• The importance scale message should also link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings, and should specify that this is the importance of the topic within astronomy.
• What's {{#ifeq:{{{category|μ}}}|μ doing?

If the three things above are implemented, then I can't be opposed to switching to the metabanner. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 17:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, a challenge! :D I like! Number 2 is trivial, of course; and I've added something for numbers 1 and 3. I'm not sure if it's the best way of phrasing it for 3; perhaps you can think of a clearer explanation? And the 'mu' code is part of the category-suppression system; basically the parameter default at every stage is the character 'mu', which is incredibly unlikely to ever be set as the value at the endpoint. So when you set, say, |category=no, every time a category is supposed to be invoked, the value of |category= is compared against "μ" and the category is only added if they are equal (ie, nothing has been passed to the category parameter at any point in the chain). Since we've got hardcoded category additions (most of the category links are buried deep inside the banner code) the slightly obscure syntax is quite visible, but it's entirely harmless. Good question though! Happy‑melon 17:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I created User:Ruslik0/Sandbox1 a draft version of {{WPSpace}} template (see also User_Talk:Ruslik0/Sandbox1). Comments are appreciated. Ruslik (talk) 10:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks great! What's the rationale behind the long {{{class}}} conditionals for importance and quality scale triggers? Happy‑melon 17:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not want to implement all classes from the full quality scale. Only redirect, template, dab and category classes are used (in addition to standard classes). As to importance, I do not think it makes sense to assign importance ratings to redirects, categories, dabs and portals. Ruslik (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

redirects, categories, dabs and portals are assessed as NA-importance by default (with the option to override it if its importance is genuinely... er... important :D). What's wrong with that? The option to only implement a selection of classes from the full quality scale is something I need to work on building in internally in some fashion. Until that is done, there is some efficiency to be gained by using lc: - I'll implement that now you beat me to it! - but other than that it looks good to me! Happy‑melon 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well,you may be right about importance. I removed that part of the code. Ruslik (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Great, looks like it's ready to go live. And {{WikiProject Astronomy}}?? I'm minded to restore the meta-template code given the way this discussion has progressed; if anyone objects do please speak up. Happy‑melon 23:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I currently do not have objections. You can implement it now. Ruslik (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. WPSpace is looking good too! Happy‑melon 18:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the {{physics}} template while you're at it?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you turn the full scale on? Or at least enable template, category, disambig, redirect, and image?Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Of which template? I'm losing track! Happy‑melon 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He means that FULL_QUALITY_SCALE should be set to 'yes' in Template:WPAstronomy. Ruslik (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's indeed what I meant, yup. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 22:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Stub category.

The stub-class isn't included in the custom categories.

*** CUSTOM CATEGORY CODE FOR INTERSECTIONS AND "[[Category:X articles with comments]]" ***
--><includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{category|μ}}}|μ
 |{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments
  |{{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Astronomical Objects articles with comments]]}} {{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Physics articles with comments]]}}
 }}[[Category:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{class|}}}}}
  |fa|fl|ga|a|b|c|na={{uc:{{{class}}}}}-Class
  |start|list={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{class}}}}}}}-Class
  |category|cat=Category-Class
  |template|temp=Template-Class
  |disambiguation|disambig|dab=Disambig-Class
  |image|img=Image-Class
  |#default=Unassessed
 }} Astronomy articles of {{#switch:{{lc:{{{importance|}}}}}
  |top|high|mid|low={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{importance}}}}}}}
  |na=NA
  |#default=Unknown}}-importance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}</includeonly><!--

should be updated to

*** CUSTOM CATEGORY CODE FOR INTERSECTIONS AND "[[Category:X articles with comments]]" ***
--><includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{category|μ}}}|μ
 |{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments
  |{{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Astronomical Objects articles with comments]]}} {{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Physics articles with comments]]}}
 }}[[Category:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{class|}}}}}
  |fa|fl|ga|a|b|c|na={{uc:{{{class}}}}}-Class
  |start|stub|list={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{class}}}}}}}-Class
  |category|cat=Category-Class
  |template|temp=Template-Class
  |disambiguation|disambig|dab=Disambig-Class
  |image|img=Image-Class
  |#default=Unassessed
 }} Astronomy articles of {{#switch:{{lc:{{{importance|}}}}}
  |top|high|mid|low={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{importance}}}}}}}
  |na=NA
  |#default=Unknown}}-importance|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}</includeonly><!--

Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 10:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops!  Done Happy‑melon 13:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Importance message

I think a better message would be

The importance rating reflects the importance of this article within Astronomy.

Same goes for the {{physics}} template which is currently without such a message.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings was in the template earlier this year, but it has since been removed. As a member of WP:ASTRO, I would also like to see that restored to the template. It allows the project members to customize the criteria based on astronomy-specific factors. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The HOOK_IMPORTANCE parameter is still used and contains a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings. However it is not displayed. Something probably happened with BannerMeta. Ruslik (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed Oops, sorry! Happy‑melon 13:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Great! Thank you very much.—RJH (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Bottom importance

{{editprotected}} Per this discussion, there was consensus (or at least no objection) to adding a {{Bottom-importance}} rating to this template. Please could this be implemented? Once this is complete we can set up the bottom-importance category and begin to populate it. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Is this abandoned?—RJH (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This can be done, but is non-trivial with the meta banner, currently. A couple of other banners have been implemented. Could you give me a day or two and I'll see what I can do. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be excellent. Thank you very much.—RJH (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done, please create the category. I also made a few other tweaks and general updates - please let me know if any of them are not desired. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the category. Thank you!—RJH (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Astronomical objects image

{{editprotected}} I believe that File:M101 hires STScI-PRC2006-10a.jpg is a better image for Project Astronomical Objects, and is also consistent with the image for the portal and Astronomy, being another astrophoto. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As you wish.  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Image deleted

The current image Pleiades large.jpg has been deleted from commons. Please replace it in the template -- Raziman T V (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced it with another. Let me know if you have a better alternative. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

|astro=

After deleting Category:Pages within the scope of WikiProject Physics (WP Astronomy Banner) as an empty category, TimothyRias wrote a message in my talk page that the template "is used for a legacy feature of the {{astronomy}} template, which allows the astro=yes switch to tag articles which should also have the {{physics}} template. This category lists the articles that use that switch (which should then be tagged and assessed.) If this seems like a roundabout way of doing things, thats because it is. But as long as that option exists on the {{astronomy}} template, this category should exist to record its use."'.

So there are some things:

• This parameter doesn't appear in the manual and it's use is not explained,
• None used this parameter the last 20 days at least.
• I think this parameter totally unnecessary. If an article was to be tagged additionally with another banner then this is what it has to be done. I see no reason that some editors add the parameter and other finish the job.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Please write any comments in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 01:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If this option is removed, then the {{physics}} banner should also be removed from this talk page, as it would no longer be a physics template. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I support removing this parameter, for the reasons specified above. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just removed the |astrophysics= parameter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

wikiproject Astronomy objects

{{editprotected}} currently the project template can have a link to wikiproject Astronomy Objects rather than Astronomy object which necessitates a redirect i.e the actual project has a lowercase 'o'. this is a problem when using popups as it goes to the redirect page when adding a new topic [1], pls fix Tom B (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Redirects intersection

{{editprotected}}

Could someone change

Extended content

*** CUSTOM CATEGORY CODE FOR INTERSECTIONS AND "[[Category:X articles with comments]]" *** --><includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{category|¬}}}|¬ |{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments |{{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Astronomical Objects articles with comments]]}} {{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Physics articles with comments]]}} }}[[Category:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{class|}}}}} |fa|fl|ga|a|b|c|na={{uc:{{{class}}}}}-Class |start|stub|list={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{class}}}}}}}-Class |category|cat=Category-Class |template|temp=Template-Class |disambiguation|disambig|dab=Disambig-Class |image|img=Image-Class |#default=Unassessed }} Astronomy articles of {{#switch:{{lc:{{{importance|}}}}} |top|high|mid|low={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{importance}}}}}}} |na=NA |#default=Unknown}}-importance|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}</includeonly><!-- to *** CUSTOM CATEGORY CODE FOR INTERSECTIONS AND "[[Category:X articles with comments]]" *** --><includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{{category|¬}}}|¬ |{{#ifexist:{{FULLPAGENAME}}/Comments |{{#if:{{{object|}}}|[[Category:Astronomical Objects articles with comments]]}} {{#if:{{{astrophysics|}}}|[[Category:Physics articles with comments]]}} }}[[Category:{{#switch:{{lc:{{{class|}}}}} |fa|fl|ga|a|b|c|na={{uc:{{{class}}}}}-Class |start|stub|list={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{class}}}}}}}-Class |category|cat=Category-Class |template|temp=Template-Class |redirect=Redirect-Class |disambiguation|disambig|dab=Disambig-Class |image|img=Image-Class |#default=Unassessed }} Astronomy articles of {{#switch:{{lc:{{{importance|}}}}} |top|high|mid|low={{ucfirst:{{lc:{{{importance}}}}}}} |na=NA |#default=Unknown}}-importance|{{PAGENAME}}]] }}</includeonly><!--

Thanks. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 18:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 18:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Think I've solved your little problem. Let me know how you like it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Importance ratings

The link to the WP:ASTRO importance ratings has gone away again. Can this be restored? I believe a separate ratings list is strongly encouraged per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#WikiProject importance assessments, so it is unclear why that link would be removed. Removing the link also makes my efforts to rate all the astronomy pages pointless, and so I'll stop for now. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I restored the link. Ruslik_Zero 10:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.—RJH (talk) 16:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Bottom category

When the WPAstronomy template on an article is set to a "bottom" importance, the talk page is still being categorized under category:Stub-Class Astronomy articles of Unknown-importance (for a stub article) instead of category:Stub-Class Astronomy articles of Bottom-importance. Please could an Admin address that? Or is there another place I should report it? Thank you.—RJH (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

For Talk:Ganymede_City it works fine. Do you have any other examples. Ruslik_Zero 16:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked Talk:Google Mars, Talk:Kaohsiung Astronomical Museum, Talk:MySky, Talk:Lodestar and Talk:Middle Atlantic Planetarium Society. They all seem to be properly categorized now. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality scale

Since we don't have an Astronomy-specific quality scale, should the QUALITY_SCALE parameter be set back to standard for now? The current link is not very useful. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's actually the ASSESSMENT_LINK parameter that defines that. Unfortunately it is not possible to have different links for quality and importance so you can set |ASSESSMENT_LINK=no but then you will lose the link to the specific importance ratings. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll see if there is a quality scale template that I can include instead. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Found one. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WPSpace banner

I've asked a question regarding the use of the WPSpace banner here. Please reply on that talk page; thanks! :) Mlm42 (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

png → svg

{{edit protected}} Hello, the format of file:Nuvola mimetypes info.png is PNG. The same image exists in SVG format. Please change Nuvola mimetypes info.png to Gnome-mime-text-x-credits.svg. Nodulation (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2019

See here for suggested changes. Bring the template in line with other banners, the extra <includeonly> tags can be omitted now, as substcheck prevents improper substitutions of itself now. qedk (t 桜 c) 14:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you want it altered to use {{WPBannerMeta/sandbox}}? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Redrose64: The "sandbox" part is so that it doesn't throw errors in the sandbox. The change should be made without that, ofcourse. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done – bradv🍁 00:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

solarsystem option

Most if not all articles with the {{WikiProject Solar System}} template will also have this template. I think it would reduce maintenance to allow the former to be incorporated into the latter via a 'solarsystem' option. It should cause a 'File:Planets2013.svg' image to be displayed in the template. The concern may be whether separate importance tables can be assembled based on whether this option is set. But it appears that is already being done for {{WikiProject Mars}}, so a 'mars' option would also be needed. Praemonitus (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Force importance to 'na' based on certain 'class' settings

As a topic for discussion, I'd like to propose that we try setting this template's importance field as follows:

|importance={{#switch: {{lc:{{{class}}}}}
 | category = na
 | redirect = na
 | file = na
 | portal = na
 | redirect = na
 | template = na
 | #default = {{{importance|}}}
}}

In cases where an editor does not let the template autoconfigure 'redirect' articles, setting both 'class' and 'importance', this should force the 'importance' field to 'na' as per the default. (Here is an example.) The goal is to reduce maintenance of the selected 'class' categories. This will need testing, of course. Praemonitus (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Isn't this already done? To my understanding {{WP Astronomy}} already detects the namespace and automatically figures out if things are redirects etc., and suppresses the importance for anything that's not lists and articles. See for example the usage of {{WP Astronomy}} at the top of this page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:05, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: see Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Automated NA importance ratings? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't already done since I had to fix 150 just like the example provided. The automation only seems to happen if you don't add class/importance settings. As an example, in this edit I changed the template for a redirect page to '{{WikiProject Astronomy | class=redirect | importance=top | object=yes}}'. It now shows a top importance. Praemonitus (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

So don't add |importance=top / remove it from existing templates? It's a rather trivial thing to do with AWB. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Since I already noted that I made that change as an example, I find your response to be disrespectful. The point of this discussion was to avoid unnecessary make–work; all you've done is illustrate an alternate form of make–work. I can see there's little point in continuing this discussion. Praemonitus (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)