Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

To 1= or not to 1=?

While explicitly naming |1= is not required, it has been widely adopted for this template and the docs still prominently feature it. Since WP:PIQA conversions began a few days ago, I've noticed that two bots, User:Cewbot and User:Qwerfjkl (bot), are implementing competing formats, the former with and the latter without naming the parameter. Should we aim for consistency in this regard? If so, what is the preferred format? Yes, I realize that this is a completely comsetic question. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference. The times when it would make a difference are:

1. when the presence or absence of leading and trailing whitespace is significant
2. when the parameter value contains an equals sign that is outside of template transclusions

Of these, (1) doesn't normally apply when the template has a Lua core, as this one does; and (2) won't apply to WPBS because there are no situations when the parameter content has anything outside template transclusions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If there is no difference, it seems to me that the bots should not be "correcting" this particular syntax. In particular, edits like this, where "fixing" |1= is the only change, are unnecessary and are just clogging our watchlists.— TAnthony^Talk 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

This seems to have been raised at User_talk:Qwerfjkl#Cosmetic_edits. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I can't get worried about it either way, but I guess without the 1= is slightly tidier — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I can eliminate |1= if there is a consensus. I will follow User:Qwerfjkl (bot)'s practice and not to add "1=". Also the discussion about whether to choose between |blp= and |living= seems to be expired. There seems to be no consensus? Kanashimi (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I certainly agree this doesn't really matter, but if both of these bots are doing it without, is there any benfit of getting WP:RATER to go without too? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The |1= has kind of bugged me for a while since most templates don't request it. Support not using it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Prehaps also noteworthy: AWB actively adds |1= unprompted. IceWelder [✉] 00:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Late the conversation, but FYI, that only happens if you run AWB with "apply general fixes" enabled (which a lot of users do). But you can turn that off if you didn't want it to be applied automatically. The genfixes setting is not always desirable. Depends on the use case. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Now edits like this are real watchlist-cloggers. I'm going to call WP:COSMETICBOT on that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. There must be a way to avoid edits like this @Qwerfjkl — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

MSGJ, it's because the page was edited before the bot, so it no longer had anything to do, leading it to make a cosmetic edit. This shouldn't happen much. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So you need to build in some detection to check that the page actually needs editing. Otherwise this kind of thing will happen a lot. If you look at the history of Talk:Troon railway station (1839-1892), the bot already edited the page on the same day, so why is it revisiting the same page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

MSGJ, I was running the job twice (once for testing purposes, the other as a regular bot run). These jobs overlapped, causing duplicate errors like this. User:Trappist the monk notified me of this at WP:BOTN so I killed the other job. This error should no longer occur. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

(please  mention me on reply)— Qwerfjkltalk 16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect

Having a problem with the article -izzle, which is a soft redirect. Tried tagging it as a redirect but this is not working. The banner shell said (incorrectly) that it was a redirect without a class parameter, but adding one has not removed it from Category:Unassessed articles. How do we tag it as a redirect. and remove it from this category? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Martin? — Qwerfjkltalk 19:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

We now have the ability to detect soft redirects in Module:Pagetype so I was planning to use that to automatically rate such pages as Redirect-class. I assume that would solve this problem. (But why did you say that banner shell incorrectly detected it as a redirect?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Two problems here:

1. The Rater tool does not allow me to set the class=Redirect in the banner shell. Is it missing metadata?
2. Setting class=Redirect did not remove it from Category:Unassessed articles when set manually, so automatically rating it won't work without changing the banner shell.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I assumed point 1 was intentional because Redirect detection was automatic, but point 2 seems like an issue. It seems odd to me use of the text This redirect has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I thought "redirect" was the assessment? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the template is using Module:Pagetype for some of its logic, but not the part where it actually sets the class. I will try and sort this shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

living vs blp

Is everyone okay with migrating all uses of the living parameter to blp? At the moment living is an alias for blp, but there are some articles that are using both, and the bots could tidy these up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No objections, though noting I believe WP:RATER uses living. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

As long as AWB doesn't remove them all a la https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suzanne_Deutsch_de_la_Meurthe&diff=prev&oldid=1207780075 :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

True. We have not had a response to our request at AWB yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: Per Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Request to change banner shell general fixes, did you (or anyone else) file a Phabricator task for the AWB developers? GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't, and have never used Phabricator before. MSGJ, please could you handle that? Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Would there be any WP:COSMETIC concerns here? Sdkb ^talk 21:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I would hope this not be the only change, but if it could be done as part of PIQA then probably better to standardise. What we don't want is |blp=yes and |living=no which has happened — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

No objection then. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 22:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

On a related note, I just modified the documentation slightly (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_banner_shell/doc&diff=prev&oldid=1209824156) to clarify this parameter should be used for all biographical articles, not just for living people. Please reword it if my change isn't clear. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow, @Kj cheetham. Is the idea that it should be used for non-living people? Or for non-person biographical articles of animals? The parameter is about WP:Biographies of living persons, which kinda spells out its scope in its title. Sdkb ^talk 19:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Good point about animals! It should be blp=yes for bios of living people, blp=no for bios of dead people. Effectively if the article is tagged with WikiProject Biography and doesn't have the blp/living parameter set it ends up in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I think it needs to be worded clearer than I put it... -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, the ability to use it but set it to "no" was what I was missing. I took a stab at clarifying. Thanks, Sdkb ^talk 19:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your wording is definitely clearer. I noticed you changed the TemplateData too to make it required - I wasn't sure about that because it's not required for all articles, and I don't know what impacts that change would have. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

If the default is "no", and the parameter is marked as required and missing, I assume that's fine? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

My brain is asleep today haha; self-reverted the TemplateData part. Sdkb ^talk 21:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Just need some more coffee. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If I am understanding correctly, all or most of the living/blp parameters should have been transferred into the banner shell by now. Would it be worth setting up a tracking category to find which ones have not been? Then we can look at removing those parameters from {{WikiProject Biography}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Set index articles

I tried to rate a WP:WikiProject Military history article as a set index article in the WikiProject banner shell. Category:SIA-Class military history articles does exist, but it inexplicably defined it as a list-class article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martin. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

SIA is non-standard so cannot be used in the banner shell. Yes it's an alias to "List" on the standard scale. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay then. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible bug?

What's gone wrong with Talk:Abu Bakr Rabee Ibn Ahmad Al-Akhawyni Bokhari still having WikiProjects saying they are Unassessed when |class=stub is in the banner shell? Is the length of the article title an issue at all? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Kj cheetham, fixed, there was a stray } which presumably messed up the pattern matching. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well spotted! Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

living/blp on categories

Should |living=no/|blp=no be removed on category talks only, since there are no categorization changes whether or not they're used? I've seen them on a small-ish # of very old {{WP Years}}+{{WP Biography}} categories.

Presumably, |living=yes & |blp=yes should be kept even on categories, since the category is then added to Category:Noindexed pages?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: If you remove those parameters from a talk page with {{WP Biography}}, then the talk page will appear on Category:Biography articles without living parameter until the parameter is readded. GoingBatty (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: that's true on article talks, but not for category talks. |living/blp=no seem to be useless on cats, so I've started removing them while doing more significant changes.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Thank you for setting me straight. GoingBatty (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of Template:Banner holder

Module:Banner shell is currently calling Template:Banner holder. I'm not overly keen on a module calling a template, but in this case the module overrides most of the default functions of Banner holder. So I'm wondering if this template could be bypassed and its functionality merged into the module? Ping @Izno who was involved in some 2022 changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Banner holder is intended to be 1) a generalization for WPBS, which you reimplemented in this module despite using the general name, and 2) a holder for tmboxes that aren't WikiProject banners. I don't see an issue merging it into the module, but it would be prudent to separate out the WikiProject-specific parts into their own part of the module and then call the holder function, which should be a public API. And given the name of the module, that function should probably be the "main" function, with the WikiProject specific portions in some p.wikiproject_shell. Izno (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay let's merge it into the module. I don't think the name of the module and its functions are particularly important, but no opposition to your ideas. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Started in sandbox [1]. Lots more work and testing needed yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Coding finished and I'm fairly happy with it. Further testing still to do. @Izno: would you mind checking the stylesheets because I'm not very knowledgeable on that aspect? I assume I can merge Template:Banner holder/styles.css and Template:WikiProject banner shell/styles.css into Module:Banner shell/styles.css? Are there any further improvements possible, for example the hard-coded styles on L-37 and L-200? I don't understand your comments at Module:Banner shell/styles.css#L-54 but can any improvements be made here? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't get any response from Izno, but it passed all my tests so  deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One issue I've just noticed. It no longer makes the small banners large when inside the shell - (see Template:Banner holder/doc#Examples). This is supposed to be done by Module:Banner shell/styles.css#L-25 but not sure why it's not working now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Module:Message box/tmbox.css#L-81 isn't being changed back to 100%, it seems. – Hilst [talk] 11:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Could it be the order of the definitions? Before it was and now it's the other way round . Perhaps the overriding definition needs to come later? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

That's probably what's causing it. In any case, you could always just throw in a few !importants :V – Hilst [talk] 14:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I switched the order in the sandbox and that seems to have fixed it. This is why I asked Izno to check! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Spacing change?

Is it just me, or does this template suddenly have a lot less space between the contents and the border? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Probably related to the above. I have switched the order of the definitions. Please confirm (after a purge) if that is looking normal again? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Add tracking categories

@MSGJ Can you help add some tracking categories of {{WPBS}}?

1. Disambiguation pages or redirect pages are assigned classes.
2. Contains incorrect attribute values, e.g. living=no}.

If we already have such tracking categories, please let me know, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kanashimi

1. It should be impossible to assign classes to non-articles. Or rather, the template will just ignore those classes. Do you mean you want to find these incorrect parameters to remove? Wouldn't that be classes as a cosmetic edit, if the parameter is being ignored anyway?
2. Do you want me to track any values which are not valid as "yes" or "no"? That would be everything except yes, y, true, t, on, 1, no, n, false, f, off, 0. Yes that should be possible.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

1. GoingBatty mentioned that for these type of articles, the robot needn't inherit the class. I think if there is a tracking category like this, the robot can just delete the class.
2. Yes, Ipigott mentioned that wrong parameter values could cause template errors. If there is such a tracking category, I think the robot can help to correct them.

Kanashimi (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

MSGJ Thinking of tracking categories, is there one like Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells but just for articles (well article talk pages), i.e. not userspace or draftspace, etc. Would it be useful...? I'm thinking partly to see how much the PIQA bots have left to do in that area. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Not yet, but would be simple enough to set up. Alternatively, shall we propose adding the banner shell to other namespaces too? That is kind of out of scope of PIQA, but it seems that it has been universally accepted in article space, so editors might expect to see them in other namespaces too — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham I created Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I notice that Talk:48th Brigade (United Kingdom) is tracked as not having a banner shell, but it does have a banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Invalid parameters

Code on Module:Banner shell/sandbox for tracking any invalid values of |blp=, |living=, |blpo=, |activepol=, |collapsed= or |category= and will place them in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Code deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else want to lend a hand at Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters and we can get these cleaned up — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed about 70 of the 100-odd talk pages in the category, mostly those with either simple typos in the living/blp parameter values, or those where an {{Image requested}} tag was mistakenly in the banner shell. There's about 27 remaining, most of which are where the blp status is unknown or conflicting. Harryboyles 09:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to let people know that Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters is now tracking invalid uses of the |class= parameter. Basically anything other than stub/start/c/b/ga/a/fa/fl will end up in this category (sorted under "Z") — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting ratings

See also: Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 10 § Conflicting ratings

A few suggestions to help process articles with conflicting quality ratings:

• If the conflicting ratings comprise no more than a third of the total number of banners THEN use the majority rating
  • Rationale: the majority rating is more likely to be correct rather than an anomaly
  • Example: [2]
• If there is only one conflicting rating AND it comprises more than a third of the total number of banners AND it differs by no more than one grade THEN use the higher rating
  • Rationale: the higher rating is more likely to be more recent as articles tend to improve over time
  • Example: [3]

I think these would resolve a lot of the conflicting ratings. Please suggest any more with rationale and example — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal changed from 25% to a third because that still represents a clear majority — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that some television season articles are in that category because they are marked incorrectly as a list (Talk:A Certain Scientific Railgun season 1). Not sure how many of those are there, but those are an easy fix. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there an easy way to detect if an article is a list? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Television season articles are not lists as they should have sections detailing various aspects of them. If they look like a list that is just because they are at a start level. So any that are marked as a list are just wrong. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

A GA, FA or A rating should override the others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I have fixed all GAs that do not have A-Class ratings. I am not sure how to deal with A-Class, as that seems project specific and not Wikipedia-wide to me. —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I still believe we should retire A-class from the project-wide scale. It has never been adopted by the project at large, and the tentative plans to set up a project-wide review process have not led anywhere — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This information shouldn't be removed by bot. I know the number of articles involved is very large but the rules of thumb you propose are highly error-prone. In many cases the minority rating will be the correct one because an editor re-rated the article (e.g. because its quality had improved) but only changed one banner (because they were a member of that WikiProject or because they forgot to change the others etc.). This is actually what happened in the example you give, where B-class was what should have been used in the banner: it was the most recent rating given by a human assessing the article's quality (though I've now re-appraised the article and in my opinion it's C-class).

We still need to look at these on a case-by-case basis, but ideally we can group many articles into the same case: for instance, Talk:43rd People's Choice Awards, Talk:44th People's Choice Awards, Talk:46th People's Choice Awards will likely all have the same resolution, as might many other pages in some common awards category.

The starting place may be to identify how contradictory "List"/non-list assessments should be resolved. My suspicion is that the "List" assessment will be correct in most cases, but note that sometimes the intention might be to rate the list's quality like MilHist does and so this information shouldn't be removed without discussion by the WikiProjects. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I understand your points, but without some automation I do not see any realistic way of clearing these conflicts and implementing PIQA which is the strong will of the community. My proposals above were designed to be moderate and low-risk, but if you have better suggestions then I'm keen to hear them. The list/non-list issue is difficult because there are lots of articles which are partly list and partly prose, and it is not clear how to classify these. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to break Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings down by WikiProject and to invite people to fix this? It is only 120k articles overall, so if we get a hundred people from the active and semi-active WikiProjects to help out, it should be possible to deal with this backlog by hand (or Rater) in a few weeks. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a decent idea. We could either split up the category by using a sort key (so WikiProject Biography sorted under "B" for example), or we can create separate categories for any WikiProject that is interested in helping out (e.g. Category:WikiProject Biography articles with conflicting quality ratings) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Sort key only really works for articles that only belong to one WikiProject, so is perhaps not the best way to deal with articles with conflicting ratings (unless you want to sort by the odd one out). Categories should work better. —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay I'll add categories according to the scheme suggested above. Once the category is created, it will start populating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It might be better to just use category instersection tools (e.g. Petscan). — Qwerfjkltalk 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

49621 for WPBio — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I prefer to start small: fixed all 18 from Category:Mainz task force articles. Off to the next WikiProject... —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not the same as the category I was planning to make though. That is 49621 pages with conflicts which also have the WPBio template on them. My category would be just the WPBio templates which are causing the conflict, which would probably be much smaller ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter which of the project templates "causes the conflict"; from my experience in an hour of fixing rating conflicts today, the odd one out is correct a lot of the time (there were a lot of GAs with non-GA rating in the banner shell template). —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Can we tell how many of the 123k articles have a conflict only between Stub and Start? Nurg (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not with the current tracking methods. All conflicts are lumped together in one category. Why do you ask? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

this might work if it doesn't timeout. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Martin, I asked because I wondered if they were (a) quite numerous (b) low-risk for an automated tool to deal with. Low-risk because Start would usually be the right class (my guess, and see WhatamIdoing's comment at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 10#Conflicting ratings), and the harm would not be very great in cases where the tool got it wrong. If it's only 1% of the 123k, it's not worth bothering with, but if it was 10% or 20%, worth investigating further, preliminary to farming out the whole lot for WikiProjects to do manually (if we go that way). Nurg (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it is a substantial amount. Just adding "WikiProject Biography articles" to Gonnym's petscan makes it not time out and yields 32663 WPBIO articles that have both stub and start ratings. Some of these might also have C-Class ratings but I guess a third of the total conflict is stub/start. —Kusma (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the subsequent comments from everyone. Maybe we could consider semi-automated responses for start/stub conflicts, perhaps with AWB set to 500 words or ORES or some trade-off between including most affected pages and reducing false results. Kusma's investigation confirms my suspicion that the odd-one-out rating is often the correct one. It'd be brilliant if we could do some Petscan links for major WikiProjects and enlist help to fix this. It should be stressed that this is not a technical change but a content assessment and that the editors are responsible for determining which rating is accurate. If that means we re-assess a good deal of articles from first principles then that's also work worth doing (I'm sure we also have hundreds of thousands of consistent but years-out-of-date class assessments).

Can anyone look at the list situation—is it a substantial percentage of these pages? Is there information that needs to be kept in the non-list-class ratings? — Bilorv (talk) 21:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion per Nurg above, that we could perhaps all get behind? We can change 3000 to a different number. I am using byte count rather than word count because I don't know how to automatically count words.

• IF the PIQA rating is Start-class AND the conflicting ratings are Stub-class (or vice versa) and the size of the article is more than 3000 bytes THEN use Start-class
  • Rationale: an article of size 3kB+ is unlikely to be a stub
  • Example: [4]

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

While I would prefer "500 words" or "ORES rating is better than Stub", I think this will probably work OK. I still think we should crowdsource all of the more complicated cases. —Kusma (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles using WikiProject banner shell with empty class parameter

Category:Articles using WikiProject banner shell with empty class parameter is now empty, and I don't think we need this tracking category anymore, as any article picked up by this should also be in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Amazing milestone

Thanks to ‎TAnthony and many many other editors, we have now emptied Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating which means every single article in the project now has a PIQA rating. Great job everyone! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

needs-infobox, and related

I came accross Talk:Erin Hawley which has 4 project banners that all have |needs-infobox=yes and |needs-photo=yes and was thinking that it might be better to move most or all of these types of parameters into the banner shell. The banner should only place the page in project category if that category exists Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Would it need to populate all the separate categories, like United States articles needing infoboxes, Women articles needing infoboxes, Biography articles without infoboxes, Politics articles needing infoboxes or just one category like Articles needing infoboxes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming nothing would change. Currently this populates:

• Politics articles needing infoboxes
• Wikipedia requested images of politics
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• Wikipedia requested photographs of people
• United States articles needing infoboxes
• Wikipedia requested photographs in the United States
• Women articles needing infoboxes
• Wikipedia requested images of women

I don't think this should change as it will allow projects to find articles in their scope that need attention, but it shouldn't add a red-linked category if it does not exit.

For the infobox category for example, Template:WikiProject Women, Template:WikiProject Politics and Template:WikiProject United States use the default naming convention category, while Template:WikiProject Biography has one manually set (though Bio could probably be updated to use the non-note version of the code). Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

So individual projects will be inheriting the need-infobox from the banner shell. In that case the relevant note will not be displayed in each banner, but will somehow be displayed in the shell? How do you envisage this would look? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something like above. --Gonnym (talk) 10:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Excellent idea, and one that will likely lessen the # of pages ending up at Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters (532).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:33, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks promising and happy to explore further. We would need a way to display the whole message, rather than just the icons. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

"Articles without infoboxes" is something very different from "Articles needing infoboxes". Many articles without infoboxes deliberately do not have them or otherwise do not need them. This is a terrible flag that should be removed instead of made universal. —Kusma (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

There are 512 categories listed at Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request. This isn't adding any feature. Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

My point is that noticing that an article does not have an infobox is not a request for an infobox. Any attempt to unify these categories should clarify this. The banner shell should be neutral in the infobox wars. —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, the above does not add any new feature. If a project, lets say WP:WikiProject Television already has a category (Category:Television articles without infoboxes), then the page will be added there. If a project doesn't, then nothing happens. This also isn't added by bots noticing that an article does not have an infobox, but by editors who would anyways be adding |needs-infobox= to the projects (see Talk:Erin Hawley). Gonnym (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Gonnym thanks for clarifying for everyone, I love this.— TAnthony^Talk 14:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Is |needs-infobox=no what needs to be on an article that correctly does not have an infobox?

Talk:Erin Hawley is an odd example: the article has had an infobox since the first edit. —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

A mock-up with an expanding version — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ditto map request (Template:Map requested) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:49, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• Ditto logo request (Template:Logo requested) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
• What about spoken article request? (Template:Spoken article requested) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  None of these are supported natively by Module:WikiProject banner so it would be more difficult to merge because they may not have standard wording, purpose or parameter names. It would probably be simpler to start with the native notes before thinking to add others — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Template:WikiProject United States (and probably others) use |needs-map=. Another possible addition for the second wave of parameters is |unref= (used by templates like Template:WikiProject United States) and |needs-refs= (used by templates like Template:WikiProject Television). Gonnym (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Let's concentrate on the first wave first? Opinions on mock-up above? Obviously there are spacing issues and we can probably lose the bold. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

  The mock up looks good (but yeah, reduce the amount of empty space). Gonnym (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

BLP tagging

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T358963

I'm hoping somewhere here is more familiar with the correct policy on this. According to the section on the AWB general fixes pages, AWB "removes |blp=no, |activepol=no, |collapsed=no" from banner shells. It also says:

If WikiProject Biography exists inside the shell:

with |living=no then removes |blp=yes if exists

with |living=yes then adds |blp=yes

with |activepol=yes then adds |actipol=yes

with |blpo=yes then adds |blpo=yes

This means that talk pages with blp=no in their banner shell will lose the living parameter when AWB is run on the page. The living parameter is required on all biographies per Template:WikiProject banner shell#Parameters. See this edit for example. The biography articles without a living parameter category has a sudden 650+ page backlog because of this. I'm assuming this is supposed to happen but I don't understand the point. Are articles supposed to have the blp parameter in the banner shell or in the WikiProject Biography template? Is the |living= alias preferred over blp=? Does this change if the subject is living or dead? Because right now AWB just seems to be removing living parameters and not replacing them. What's going on here?

Tagging GoingBatty because they've helped with similar issues.

Thanks in advance, Clearfrienda ^💬 17:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. AWB should not be removing |blp= from any biography. The AWB team were formally asked to stop doing this in February 2024, so it is concerning if this is still happening. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda and MSGJ: Unfortunately, the AWB developers have not yet updated the AWB to match the many changes made to the banner shell. I added the {{Tracked}} template above for you. GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Who are the developers, and have they indicated any timescale for making these changes? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: Is there anything we can do about this in the mean time to stop the growing backlog of biographies without a living parameter? Clearfrienda ^💬 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Clearfrienda: You could reach out to the individual AWB users who are adding pages to the backlog to explain the impact of their actions. GoingBatty (talk) 15:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Unassessed WikiProject banner appear inside an assessed banner shell

I do not know if this is a one-off issue simply because of the particular banner settings I used but when I edited the banner shell and added two WikiProject banners on the Talk:Herman Helcher page, all the individual WikiProject banners displayed "Unassessed" and I had to add class= settings to each individual banner. Each banner now displays a separate "C class" assessment. This is unlike previous behaviour where the banner shell assessment was propagated to each WikiProject banner inside the shell. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed - removed stray "}".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:16, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Tom.Reding: Thanks for that. Sometimes it is hard to spot those stray characters. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Cooperation oddity

Some oddity in case someone stumbles on this later on and wonders why. I noticed that both Cewbot here and Qwerfjkl here didn't place Template:WikiProject Cooperation inside the shell, I'm assuming it's because at the time it wasn't using Module:WikiProject banner and used {{tmbox}} instead. Gonnym (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Using tmbox would certainly cause it to not be treated as a WikiProject banner, although I think that {{WPBannerMeta}} or its inactive veriant is what is really being searched for, rather than the module. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure both of our bots used categories to determine which templates are wikiproject banners. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Extra pipe

It happens reasonably often that editors put an extra pipe in the syntax which means the content of the shell becomes the second positional parameter instead of the first, which is not recognised. An example is here. I think the code could be adapted to ignore an empty first positional parameter and use the second one instead. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd prefer we track all incorrect usages, including these, in Category:WikiProject templates with unknown parameters. Gonnym (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Enhancement request for article vital level

Can you add a new entry point so that I can create a template {{vital level|Article name}} that will return the vital level for a given article, and empty string if none? So that we would have:

• {{vital level|Mathematics}} ⟶ 1
• {{vital level|Logic}} ⟶ 2
• {{vital level|France}} ⟶ 3
• {{vital level|Qin dynasty}} ⟶ 4
• {{vital level|Sam Rayburn}} ⟶ 5
• {{vital level|Manor of Haccombe}} ⟶

(Unfortunately, Template:Vital is already a redirect to a WikiProject, or I would've used that name.) There is already code in the Module to find vital level, so hopefully adding an entry point would not be too onerous. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I think you have posted on the wrong talk page. This relates to Module:Vital article, correct? I assume you are aware of {{vital article link|Mathematics}} which produces Mathematics  1. You are asking for just the level number only? I would suggest a parameter on that template, e.g. |level_only=yes which would hide the name of the article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

PS, we already have a function for this: {{#invoke:Vital article|isVital|page=Mathematics}} produces 1 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) MSGJ, Thank you, yes, I meant to post on the Module talk page. I was not aware of {{vital article link}} (advanced search leaves a lot to be desired) but I thank you for that as well. The new param you suggested sounds ideal for that.

(post-ec) I hadn't noticed the isvital function somehow, and that totally solves the problem! Mathglot (talk) 08:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

class=NA

Most of the invalid values of |class= that are being tracked in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters are there because |class=NA. At the moment this is not recognised and these are just left unassessed. That's because non-articles (e.g. redirects and disambiguation pages) are supposed to be identified automatically and the class is only for classifying articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Martin, presumably they can just be removed then? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Qwerfjkl: The value of NA was never intended to be explicitly set in a |class= parameter, it was always set automatically under certain circumstances - such as that the |class= parameter is blank or absent, and the banner was used on a talk page for something other than an article (file, template, category etc.), and that the banner did not use the extended quality scale. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Unless anyone thinks that NA should be able to be set explicitly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

How should subpages in the article namespace (such as Talk:WandaVision/FAQ) be handled? Gonnym (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there any subpages that need WikiProject templates? Why? —Kusma (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

The WP banners on article talk pages are meant to assign the articles themselves to WikiProjects, not necessarily the talk pages. So FAQ pages are like talk archives in that they are not meant (in my view) to be tagged into Projects, because they are not directly attached to article pages.— TAnthony^Talk 19:50, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

They are not even remotely close to talk archives. They are more similar to project pages that offer information and are actively updated and edited (unlike talk page archives). They should be tagged and categorized as any other project page. Gonnym (talk) 21:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Hard to do for a project page in talk space. The WikiProject banner for such a page needs to go in the Talk talk: namespace. —Kusma (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Would suggest that if Talk:WandaVision is tagged for the project, then that should be sufficient? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice that the page is listed in Category:Unassessed television articles and can't be taken out of it either with |class=NA or |class=Project. Gonnym (talk) 08:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, will need to look into this. Perhaps because the subject page does not exist, it is automatically classifying it as a non-article. What would be the expected behaviour for a subpage in the Talk namespace? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:FAQ expects FAQ pages to be in Talk:<article>/FAQ (this can be manually set to a different page but most probably aren't changing the default location) so this is a unique sub-page in talk article space. One solution would be to handle all /FAQ sub-pages here as project pages. Gonnym (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Pagetype will now check that pages in mainspace exist and will not classify a non-existent page as an "article". So I think we can update the code in this module, to say something like "This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale" as per other non-article pages. It will also need an update to the Wikiproject banner module to ensure that these are rated NA-class rather than unassessed. I started looking at this yesterday but it got a bit complicated and I need to test everything thoroughly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed icon for non-existent pages — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Instead of repurposing |class=NA, a value that many people and bots automatically remove outside of mainspace, I think a different and more descriptive value should be used. Since this will be used for non-existent pages, what about |class=DNE for "Does Not Exist"?   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  10:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't need to use the class parameter for this, as it will be detected automatically. When I said NA-class I was referring to the categories like Category:NA-Class medicine articles which are a catch-all for non-articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Looks like @TAnthony has cleaned these out, thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Support for non-existent/vacant pages added to sandbox. I think the best approach is just to remove these banners (because a non-existent page does not need to be tagged as within scope of a project). However in case someone adds them to the talk page of a deleted page, it might be useful to change the message to explain why no rating is accepted — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:50, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm unclear why this is tagged as "vacant page". Just use "page" or let users override it as it's a project page. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume we are talking about WandaVision/FAQ. It's not a project page (these are in Project namespace). It's a subpage of an article which does not exist. Technically it's not even a page because it doesn't exist. Any other suggestions? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Shortened "vacant page" to "page" on sandbox, but still uses the specific icon which may provide some explanation of why a rating is not required. I would still prefer to say "vacant page" or "non-existent page", but happy to drop if it looks awkward. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

It's also still didn't fix the actual issue of leaving the page in Category:Unassessed television articles. Gonnym (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

It will. But the television banner is still using the live code instead of the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Any other comments on this, or can we move ahead? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Forgot all about this. Now deployed. So non-existent pages will be identified accordingly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Add assessment date and/or assessed revision for article quality ratings

Reason: This way, others can figure out if an article needs a reassement (or if it's just a diffrence of opinion) without going through talk page history and article history, and only need to compare the revisions. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

We have this for FA and GA (possibly A-Class too), but not for B-Class and lower. However, I am certain that this has been suggested and rejected on several occasions - just not on this page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 01:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I figured that might have happend. I'm just not sure where the old discussions are, so if you know, could you link it? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not dead set against the idea, but unless there was a concerted effort (or even a requirement) to use this parameter then it would rapidly become useless — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Could you explain why? OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If it was implemented, I honestly can't see it getting regularly updated other than by a bot. I'm also not convinced of the benefits of having it at all. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh. Never mind. I was thinking it would help, but I guess there's no point if it's just a random date. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, just difficult in practice. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@OrdinaryGiraffe: Some WikiProject templates have an assess-date parameter (e.g. {{WikiProject India}}). If there's a particular WikiProject that you think would benefit from an assess-date parameter, you could discuss it on that WikiProject's talk page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Is there any point in having these parameters in WikiProject banners now that the quality rating has been moved to the shell? (I guess it could refer to the importance assessment.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

That was my original idea., because importance ratings usually aren't supposed to change. Quality is. OrdinaryGiraffe (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Last assessed" parameter?

A major issue in the current assessment system is that many articles' assessment is years out of date. Even worse, there is no way to tell whether ten year old assessments are still current or not, as there is no way to explicitly agree with the current rating. Should we add a "last assessed" parameter to the banner shell that could be updated to the current time every time somebody used Rater or a similar semi-manual tool? —Kusma (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, to catch most old and incorrect ratings, is it feasible to regularly compare all article assessments with their ORES predictions and then manually re-assess all those where ORES and the assessment are more than one level apart? —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I can't imagine there would be the volunteer labour to do that manual re-assessment on an ongoing basis, but I would like a "last assessed" parameter (that automated tools like Rater could be expanded to interact with) and the ability to analyse data on class assessment and ORES prediction on a WikiProject-by-WikiProject basis. — Bilorv (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I see this discussion had ended nearly 2 months ago. Anyway, here's my thought:

• There should be an |assess-date= parameter in the Banner shell
• It should have the default value of {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}}, {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}} when initially adding the Banner shell.
• Automated tools such as Rater should add / update the date automatically when assessing / re-assessing an article (or any other page).

That's all I've got for now.

User ping: @Bilorv, @GoingBatty, @Kj cheetham, @Kusma, @MSGJ, @OrdinaryGiraffe, @Redrose64 Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells

This category is (almost?) entirely populated by non-mainspace pages, which there was contention about running our bots on. Is there any point in populating the category with non-mainspace pages that are probably going to stay there forever? Thoughts @Martin? — Qwerfjkltalk 10:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If the pages aren't published, they will eventually be deleted and the category will gradually empty.--Auric talk 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Auric, that's true for drafts (although probably it would be better to only consider them when they become articles), but not for any of the other namespaces. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion the banner shell should be added to all talk pages except the user talk pages* (with User:UBX sub pages being the exception as some userboxes are created as sub pages and should be treated like regular templates). But user talk should really be excluded from the category so it will be easier to monitor. Gonnym (talk) 18:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I think there is definitely a case for using banner shells in some namespaces. For example in draft space, from where articles are frequently moved into the main space. The advantages of the banner shell are two-fold: (a) having one assessment that works for all projects, and (b) avoiding the redundancy of saying "This article is rated blah blah" multiple times. In non-article namespaces (a) does not apply, but (b) is still a real advantage — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that shells should be added to draft talk pages. I'm also noticing that this maint category contains category and file talk pages, which I think we all agree should have them as well.— TAnthony^Talk 20:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Cewbot has recently cleared around 100k pages from the category from category, file, template, and module talk namespaces and I don't see any new post complaining on the talk pages. Gonnym (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay, let's continue. I note the bot was approved to work in all namespaces, even though we began with main talk — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Along with sub pages of User talk:UBX, sub pages of User talk:AlexNewArtBot should also be included in the bot run. Gonnym (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages of sub pages of User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project (User talk:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Beetle) should also be included. Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:BDP

As well as blp and blpo should there be a bdp parameter to accommodate wording for the application of WP:BDP? DeCausa (talk) 07:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Inline Templates not populating WikiProject banners without banner shells

I've noticed that if Template:WikiProject Inline Templates is the only template on a page and not in the banner shell, it does not trigger Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells. I can't find what is different about this template. Gonnym (talk) 09:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

From the code in Module:WikiProject banner, it looks like the code for detecting the banner shell is only evaluated if the WikiProject template supports class/quality assessments. Both WikiProject Inline Templates and WikiProject Disambig are examples of projects which do not use this, and in these cases the "no_banner_shells" category is not present. Harryboyles 08:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for finding out the issue. I wonder if that exception is needed (pages like Category talk:Citation templates take less space with the shell). Gonnym (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that distinction was intended. Will look at changing the code ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Use of banner shell in pages with only one project template

What is the point of using banner shell with a single project? This just takes away screen real estate from the WikiProject template for zero benefit. (The page in question certainly does not need a project template anyway). —Kusma (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

What real estate does it take away? The only thing it hides is the boilerplate text of This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun. The project name and its importance rating are still there. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As I said, this text is hidden for no benefit whatsoever. (The project name and importance rating could be hidden with less loss of information). —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

A related complaint

This is dumb. If you want to mandate that every page with a WikiProject banner have it be located inside of a WPBS, then figure out a way to just include it as part of the banners themselves. I don't care about "screen real estate" necessarily, but I do see little point in wrapping a single project banner inside of WPBS and giving a huge warning about it. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

See Module talk:WikiProject banner#Warnings for background. I think the message should be suppressed outside of mainspace. But we are trying to encourage editors to put the rating in the banner shell rather than in the banner — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Page not being recognized a disambiguation page

Talk:The Wizard of Oz (disambiguation) and Talk:1st Rank Raju are both disambiguation pages. Both are tagged with the Film and Disambiguation banner templates, but the banner shell does not recognize The Wizard of Oz as a disambiguation page. I can't see what is different here. Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Problem solved. It contained both templates {{disambiguation}} and {{nickname}}. The first identifies it as a disambiguation page and the second as a set index article. But it can't be both of these, so they were contradicting each other. Because the check for SIA comes before dab, it was identifying this page as an article rather than a dab page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Gonnym (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2024

Implement Special:Diff/1233809115/1242799168, to fix night mode issue with Template:Banner holder. Andumé (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

@I Am Andumé Can you point to a example of said issue. Sohom (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: See [5] for an example. Andumé (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@I Am Andumé I see no change on that specific page after apply your fix. Per that, I'm going to mark this  Not done for now. Sohom (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: See Template:Banner holder/sandbox for a clear example of the effects of my proposed change. Andumé (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I see what you mean, marking as  Done based on that. However, please be a bit more specific next time about the exact issue that you are solving in future requests. Sohom (talk) 03:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Why we should choose between blp or living

We should pick one parameter to support and bring all the others into line. I'm spending a good part of my life resolving conflicts where one says no and the other says yes. Just one example. If we allow editors to use either parameter, then this will keep happening — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll run a scan on Category:Biography articles of living people (1,160,497) to see what the natural preference is. My initial preference would be blp though, since it's half as long as living, and due to {{BLP}}/{{blp}}.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:12, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

On 2nd thought, insource searches for blp & living return 901,385 & 823,454, respectively, so I'm sticking with blp.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  21:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, technically those searches time out, but blp seems to always win, and as long as living isn't winning by a mile, I'll stick with blp.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess it would be more logical to use one parameter with options like |blp=yes, |blp=no, |blp=other, |blp=activepol but don't know if it's worth changing now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I was also thinking that way, but I wasn't sure if there was a situation where you'd need more than one at the same time. Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

According to Tom you can't use activepol unless blp=yes and you can't use blpo unless blp=no, so there is redundancy here — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but only based on the wording of Template:WikiProject Biography#Living people, active politicians and other BLP issues. I think it would be good to confirm with WT:Biography first whether or not there's (still?) a legit need for both params, just to be safe.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I have posted a message on the project talk page, in case anyone is active there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:02, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Depending on how fast & frequently Category:Pages using WikiProject Biography with conflicting living parameter (0) naturally fills up, it may or may not be worth it, but I think it's still a step in the right direction.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  09:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

My preference is also for blp, because that has always been the parameter used with this template. Living was migrated from WPBio, and it would have been better to convert it at that time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:03, 16 September 2024 (UTC)