Template talk:WikiProject Geology

needs-infobox parameter broken

The Infoboxneeded template was deleted per this discussion, but this project banner still includes it. The needs-infobox parameter should either be ignored or the functionality fixed. {{WPMILHIST}} uses a category to implment the same concept. --J Clear 16:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Converted it to a category and updated the project's page to reflect that. --J Clear 16:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Update undone

Hi,

I've just undone a standardisation of this template to the "Wikipedia standard" as it removes the subcategorisation functionality I've just coded into it. Feel free to re-standardise it once the main template also has this feature.

Verisimilus T 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't want functionality to be unnecessarily lost. What, exactly, was removed that you need? Happy‑melon 15:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you've done. To be honest, I can't see the usefulness of manually creating category intersections like this. It would just multiply by three (or seven for project using the extended quality scale) the number of subcategories in cats like Category:Start-Class articles, while providing minimal extra functionality (especially given that CategoryIntersection (through something like this is (perpetually) just around the corner). It might also be causing errors in summaries like theseCategory:Pageview bot (the number of FAs is wrong, so there is definitely a systematic error somewhere). However, if you want to include the functionality in this project banner, don't let me stop you: it's as simple as adding the extra categorisation code below the WPBannerMeta code - there's no reason why the template has to just consist of a call to {{WPBannerMeta}}. I've restored the meta code with this extra categorisation, which should resolve the issue. Let me know if there is any more important functionality that I've inadvertantly removed. Happy‑melon 15:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, of course - I should have realised that. Great stuff, thanks. I think the intersection categories are incredibly useful; combined with this template they make it very easy to identify which articles are in most urgent need of improvement. I think the problem with the statistics is that it takes some time for the pages in each category to be updated if the category is generated by a template (e.g. this template; the error has a half-life of about a day as correct categorisation steadily trickles through!)

Anyway, thanks for your help and efforts here! Verisimilus T 16:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

One small hitch with the standardisation of the template has appeared now that User:Pageview bot has been run. The {{viewcount}} template needs adding in a slightly different way; it appears as at Talk:Accretionary wedge whereas it should appear like it does on Talk:Accolade. Any easy way of fixing this? Thanks. Verisimilus T 21:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

List-class articles not working

FYI, List-class articles like at Talk:List of impact craters in Africa are not showing up. At the same time, those are appearing the bizarre Category:Na-importance List-Class Geology articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Where aren't they showing up? And they appear in that category because their importance has been set to "NA". If you chose to rate their importance (I don't see why you shouldn't!), they'll fall into the right category.

Verisimilus T 07:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the double categorisation should be removed from this template. For example the categories like Category:Low-importance B-Class Geology articles are of limited use I think. It is also categorising some which don't even exist, for example Category:Unknown-importance Template-Class Geology articles.

Also Category:All geology articles is a duplication of Category:WikiProject Geology articles and should be depopulated.

Also there seems to be a <includeonly> and <noinclude> near the bottom which do not have matching closers. In short this template needs cleaning up. MSGJ 15:12, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request from WOSlinker, 2 April 2010

{{editprotected}} Can the last edit to this template by Od Mishehu be reverted as the category was added outside of the noinclude tags. Thanks.

WOSlinker (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

QUALITY_SCALE

Why not set QUALITY_SCALE to extended? It might be useful to know what Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project and Template files are associated with this project. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012

After

|FORMAT              = ICT

add

|tf 1=
|TF_1_LINK           = Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Cambrian explosion
|TF_1_NAME           = the Cambrian explosion task force
|TF_1_NESTED         = Cambrian
|TF_1_TEXT           = 
|TF_1_IMAGE          = Cambrian explosion taskforce logo.svg
|TF_1_QUALITY = yes
|TF_1_MAIN_CAT       = Cambrian explosion articles
|tf 2=
|TF_2_LINK           = Wikipedia:Wikiproject Geology/Periods
|TF_2_NAME           = the Geological periods task force
|TF_2_NESTED         = Periods
|TF_2_TEXT           = 
|TF_2_IMAGE          = 
|TF_2_QUALITY = yes
|TF_2_MAIN_CAT       = Geological periods articles

Reason: To allow the two task forces in WP Geology to tag articles in their domain. They will inherit quality and importance ratings from the parent project. RockMagnetist (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Added with a few minor changes. The categories need creating now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012

Please add

|tf 1 importance={{{Cambrian-importance}}}
|TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Cambrian explosion articles

and

|tf 1 importance={{{Geological periods-importance}}}
|TF_1_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Geological periods articles

in the appropriate places.

I overlooked this - the task forces should have their own importance rating schemes. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Don't forget to create the necessary categories. Anomie⚔ 20:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 November 2012

Please replace
{{documentation|content=This template '''{{WikiProject Geology}}''' adds articles to [[:Category:WikiProject Geology articles]]. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Assessment#Instructions|Usage instructions are available here]]. [[Category:WikiProject Geology templates]] }}
by
{{Documentation}}
Reason: I have created a documentation page (Template:WikiProject Geology/doc). RockMagnetist (talk) 06:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 December 2012

Please add the following:

|tf 3={{{meteorite|}}}
|TF_3_LINK           = Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites
|TF_3_NAME           = the Meteorites task force
|TF_3_NESTED         = Meteorites
|TF_3_TEXT           = 
|TF_3_IMAGE          = 
|tf 3 importance     = {{{meteorite-importance}}}
|TF_3_ASSESSMENT_CAT = Meteorites articles
|TF_3_QUALITY = yes
|TF_3_MAIN_CAT       = Meteorites articles

after:

|TF_2_MAIN_CAT       = Geological periods articles

(see Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Meteorites).

RockMagnetist (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:TESTCASES, I've added the code to Template:WikiProject Geology/sandbox. Please verify that it's what you want. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good! RockMagnetist (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Redrose64! RockMagnetist (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012

Following on from the request above, please update the image definition line to:

|TF_3_IMAGE          = Meteorite taskforce logo 2.jpg

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geology/Meteorites#Meta. -Arb. (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I would, because a small change like that won't break anything - but at the small size used by WikiProject banners, it looks like a dark grey-brown rectangle. Is there an image with a light background? --Redrose64 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You are quite right. How about ? Request above changed to reflect new file name. -Arb. (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks better - the casual reader will see that there's a shape anyway, and the text alongside will hopefully explain what that shape demotes, so  Done. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks Redrose64. -Arb. (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Would someone please add redirect class?

I can come up with multiple applicable redirects with discussion on their talk pages for which this would be useful (most recently Talk:Stone), and it says there should be a redirect class on the documentation. Dustin (talk) 23:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The most straightforward way to do this is to use a custom mask that will add several classes such as redirect, category, and project. This is a big enough change that I have proposed it on the Geology wikiproject page. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Options for the additional parameters

Can you provide options for the additional parameters? I admit to limited academic understanding here. For "Geological periods", should one:

• respond with only yes or no?
• list only the period(s) represented, if somehow comprising multiple periods?
• list the period, epoch and age if, for example, a stratigraphic unit?

Thanks. - Trilotat (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)