Template talk:WikiProject Classical music

Replace code

{{edit protected}} Please replace with the code at Template:Classical/sandbox. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Graham87 07:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

MetaBanner

Would there be any objections or concerns to converting this banner to use Template:WPBannerMeta? Martin 21:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please ask the Classical Music Project. Unfortunately no-one will see your question if you leave it here. --Kleinzach 07:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Why the change to this banner? Was the project told about it?

I see this banner has been moved by User:Happy-melon, see [1]. Perhaps we can have an explanation? Was the project told about it? I can't see any post at the Classical Music Project. --Kleinzach 07:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, isn't this template protected? --Kleinzach 08:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again this has been changed without notice by User:Happy-melon and it now seems to be set to B class! --Kleinzach 23:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Revert, please

{{edit protected}} Can we revert to the Antandrus version of 18 October 2008? This was changed without informing or consulting the project and seems to have been screwed up. It now displays B class — at least on the template page. Thank you. --Kleinzach 04:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain exactly what is broken? From what I can see, everything is working okay. --- RockMFR 06:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Look at the Template:WikiProject Classical music. As explained above it now says B class. --Kleinzach 06:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 Not done This is a default style I've seen on many other templates converted to this meta template. The template isn't broken. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Why doesn't this template assess?

I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't. So why has the assessment been turned off? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Very simple. This project doesn't do assessments. --Kleinzach 00:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord Strad

I was hoping that you could help me out with something. I reviewed a new article Lord Strad, which appears to be the name that authors of the book Lord Strad of 1716 gave to a "missing" Stradivarius that has the initial history of the Messiah Stradivarius. Would you mind taking a look at the information I posted at Talk:Lord Strad - and the options, whether to delete the article altogether or rework the article as Lord Strad of 1716 with information from a The Strad magazine review of the book. Or, another option based upon your subject matter knowledge?--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 June 2019

Just bringing this template in line with other WikiProjects. See here for suggested changes (excluding the /sandbox bit). Also, the noinclude tag is redundant with {{substcheck}} now (as is the BANNER_NAME which derives it by default). qedk (t 桜 c) 11:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Request to update documentation

Could someone please update the documentation to match the template parameters?

• Basic usage: {{WikiProject Classical music}}
• Full usage: {{WikiProject Classical music |category= |listas= |attention= |composition= }}

Where is the documentation for this template? It doesn't seem to be at Template:WikiProject Classical music/doc. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The doc went west with this edit. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: It seems like the auto-documentation feature of Module:WikiProject banner makes some assumptions that the class and importance/priority parameters are always going to exist, which is not the case with this template. It also currently assumes all task forces have acorresponding importance parameter.

I've made a change in the sandbox that checks all parameters before adding them - can you check to see if that's the right kind of change to address this issue? Harryboyles 15:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

It is supposed to be checking that already (in lines 556-557). I will check why it is not working properly here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:11, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

How's that looking now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Harryboyles 17:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)