Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 4a

Purpose of this template

This template is designed to combine multiple wikiproject templates on an article's talk page into a single, default-hidden template.

Usage

A mockup is available at talk:Jogaila

Things to do

This template is still being prototyped. Things to do:

• Implement parser functions
• Support Wikipedia:Version 0.5, Wikipedia:Version 0.7, and Wikipedia:Version 1.0

---

Why is there a diff

I have a last question: There's a Template:WikiProjectBannerShell out there, which one should be used? they're almost the same I think the shell is better though (filled my concerns above) --Andersmusician $ 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

also since {{Skip to talk}} exists, why should be have this wikiprojectbanners that hides everything huh? --Andersmusician $ 16:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware there is no consensus as to which one is better, so you are free to choose. {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} looks better for your purposes, because the WikiProject name is shown without having to click [show].

I find that {{Skip to talk}} is often a self-defeating template, because it adds to the clutter problem itself. Inviting people to click skip doesn't help attract notice for the WikiProjects. When I see it stacked on top of other banners that do not use the small option, I shrink/organize all the other banners, and then get rid of it because skipping becomes no longer necessary. –Pomte 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct there is no consensus, I brought it up at the VP and no consensus was reached:[1] Quadzilla99 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This Template was created because originally only a few templates could be used with Template:WikiProjectBannerShell. As nowadays it is more efficient to simply convert tempaltes for the more advanced format, on can expect this template to eventually become obsolete. Circeus 01:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It already is; the {{BannerShell}} adjunct template fixes the problem of "recalcitrant" banners that do not yet support the "nested" parameter used by {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Then is it not time to actively migrate to the new one? Having 2 just makes more work. For example, I'm programming my bot to support these tags; WikiProjectBannerShell is already done, now I have more work to do when really my job should be done. --kingboyk (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This project {{WikiProjectBanners}} allows the {{Blp}} message to display when the |living=yes parameter is set within {{WikiProject Biography}}. However {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} aka {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} does NOT display the {{Blp}}. 98.71.212.16 (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

With either shell, you should be specifying the "blp=yes" parameter on the shell so the blp notice is always visible, as even with WPB the WikiProject Biography-added notice is not visible by default. Anomie⚔ 19:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I double-checked at the sandbox. With {{WikiProject Biography}}, as long as the required parameter living=yes is set, the {{Blp}} displays automatically. This is also true when {{WikiProject Biography}} is within the {{WikiProjectBanners}} shell. But when {{WikiProject Biography}} is inside the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} shell, the {{Blp}} does not appear. 74.178.202.19 (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Try it with WPB, with javascript enabled so the shell actually does what it is supposed to. Can you see the blp banner without clicking the show link? Didn't think so. Anomie⚔ 13:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Yes, I see the problem. This may be due to the recent edit to {{WPBIO}} which was an effort to compact these boxes when the banner was collapsed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

See the comments at TT:WikiProjectBannerShell. The blp notice should never be hidden inside the shell, it should always be displayed outside. Unfortunately I can't think of a good and reliable way to 'move' the blp notice outside the shell; JavaScript would work but is not universal. Happy‑melon 11:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

How many templates is multiple?

I think 3 or more. 2 direct on the page seems ok to me. However, I see people using these shells when there are only 2 WikiProjects tags on the page. Just wondered what others think. --kingboyk (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC) PS These templates are of course a kludge, with a better solution being to reduce the number of WikiProject tags. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject reform and in particular this talk page thread and this one for some of the ideas currently being discussed.

Policy proposal

There is a proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines#Article_talk_page_banners for the guideline to include some aspects of banner placing and sequencing. All comments welcome. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Slimmer

{{editprotected}}

 Not done Please establish a consensus for this fairly noticeable change. Happy‑melon 14:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we remove the line break in the collapsed display? It makes the box larger than necessary. For instance:

---

! style="text-align: center;" |This article is within the scope of multiple [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]].<br/><span style="font-size:85%;">Click [show] for further details</span>

---

would become:

---

! style="text-align: center;" |This article is within the scope of multiple [[Wikipedia:WikiProject|WikiProjects]]. Click [show] for further details.

---

This way the box would only take up one line of height. This would not only be a more efficient use of space but also make the box more pleasing to the eye, IMO. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:45, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well I consent to the change =P Anyone else? Equazcion •✗/C • 14:19, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it looks now:

And here's the proposed change:

• Acra (fortress)
• Angkor Wat
• Anthony Roll
• The Battle of Alexander at Issus
• Belton House
• Blakeney Chapel
• Bodiam Castle
• Book of Kells
• Borobudur
• Boydell Shakespeare Gallery
• Bramall Hall
• Brougham Castle
• Buildings and architecture of Bristol
• Buildings of Jesus College, Oxford
• Buildings of Nuffield College, Oxford
• Bruce Castle
• Buckingham Palace

Equazcion •✗/C • 14:23, 25 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much involvement on this talk page, can we make this edit and wait for someone to complain about it, ala BRD? Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:37, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Well I declined the request last time partly because I didn't like the idea, so my opposition makes it 1-1 :D. I find the use of small text useful to differentiate the important from the less important. Also, the template will still wrap to two lines on narrow screens or browsers with larger text. Obviously if there is more support for the change I will make it regardless. Happy‑melon 14:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

We can still use small text without breaking to a new line. Would you mind keeping the editprotected template transcluded here, to attract more attention? Generally those aren't deactivated until the decision has been arrived at. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:21, 12 Apr 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, the {{editprotected}} instructions specifically indicate that the banner should not even be placed until consensus has been arrived at. I'd know... I wrote them :D. {{editprotected}} is like the CSD templates - it should only be active for long enough to attract the attention of an admin through the appropriate maintenance category (CAT:EP or CAT:CSD, respectively), who can take immediate action: either performing the edit and disabling the template, or just disabling the template and indicating {{not done}}. Otherwise CAT:EP would get hopelessly clogged up with edit requests that are still 'under discussion'. However, I do agree that it's often difficult to find support for changes on out-of-the-way pages, so I suggest that you place a few notes on appropriate talk pages: I've left a comment here, for example. Happy‑melon 08:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

let's do this. The whole point of wpb is to conserve space on banners that nobody pays attention to anyway. This edit loses a lot of dead air which contributes to that problem. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Reactivating editprotected. If nobody's opposed to this, we've got silent consensus. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hide/show

There is no way to fully expand this banner. There should be a 'show all' option. Richard001 (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's called {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} :D Happy‑melon 21:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Need more than 10 projects

{{Template:editprotected}}

Someone fancy expanding this by another five or so? We've just hit eleven nested projects on talk:Abraham Lincoln. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are that many projects, clearly something is wrong. 11 projects can't possibly be helping the article improve. At this point, it's just adding categories and bytes to the page without being helpful. --- RockMFR 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I daresay that spamming wikiproject banners onto articles doesn't help them much in the first place, but that's besides the point. Right now the template simply silently drops additional banners after the tenth - if this is not by design (and it doesn't appear to be), then there's a trivial fix for it. I'd make the edit myself were it not for being a second-class citizen on templatespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. But this makes me wonder if these projects need some reorganization. WikiProjects US Presidents, US Congress and US presidential elections all be task forces placed under a Parent project, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Government? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, you do realise that {{WPB}} can safely take the same syntax as {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}?? That is, you can rewrite long banners to only use one parameter, as was done at Abraham Lincoln]?? Of all the issues that are caused by having these two different banners to do the same thing, this is probably the most ridiculous... Happy‑melon 20:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would I have any reason to have known that when the documentation doesn't mention it? Thanks for the pointer, though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

No reason whatsoever :D... it's obvious to a template coder like myself, but not necessarily so to others, I guess. I'll go fix... Happy‑melon 21:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Change format

We've been gradually drifting towards greater standardisation between WPB and WikiProjectBannerShell over the past few months, with the result that now the two have identical syntax. Perhaps it's time to consider unifying their appearance, by adding the lighter internal background to {{WikiProjectBanners}}. Compare the current banner (top) with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} (middle) and the new style, bottom:

I think this looks much more professional, making the individual projects more easily distinguishable when the banner is expanded, while not affecting its default appearance. What do others think? Happy‑melon 21:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the silence here, and because I'm impatient, I've made the change. Retrospective comments are still welcome :D Happy‑melon 14:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

With the risk of looking like I am stalking you Happy-melon, but I have had this page on my watchlist since you pointed it out for me some months ago.

I have always disliked the dotted border. It looks like there's some display error or something. I made a screen dump and tested some variants in my image editing program: I think the dotted border should be changed to a solid border with the same colour as the outer border.

Note: I use a fairly low screen resolution. Those of you who use a higher screen resolution don't really see that it is a dotted border, so you will not see any difference if we change it.

--David Göthberg (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have fairly similar watchlists, so no worries there. I personally like the dotted border very much: it suggests that the inside of the banner (where the individual banners are) is not distinct from the surrounding shell. The borders of the individual banners form their own divisions; no need to create a 'no man's land' between the banners and the outer shell. In the greatest tradition of formatting disputes everywhere, I've added ids to the various sections in both WPB and WikiProjectBannerShell, so you can style it to your personal preference using #WikiProjectBannerShell-inner :D. Happy‑melon 16:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Similar watchlists but dissimilar taste. :)

I changed the ids to classes, since for instance on talk pages like this one you might need to demonstrate more than one. And I see you used the same ids for both {{WikiProjectBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, and both of them are demonstrated at Wikipedia:Template messages/Talk namespace, so it needs to be classes.

Basically, using ids sooner or later gets you into trouble. I always use classes nowadays, just in case.

--David Göthberg (talk) 17:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

small option

Is the small=yes option actively used in the template? Perhaps a hidden category could be added to findout and if not then support for small should be removed. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

→ ROFL!! That's ridiculous! I'll do exactly as you suggest, and hopefully we can get rid of it... Happy‑melon 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've removed all those in the category apart from this one and a userspace one, so you should be able to remove the small option now. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Display problem

Has something happened recently to this template? The nested projects are now not displaying full width of the enclosing box. You can see the problem by expanding one of the templates earlier on this page. Keith D (talk) 13:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The nested projects have never displayed at the full width of the enclosing box. You may be thinking of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

May be I was, it just looked rather peculiar and I cannot recall seeing it like that. Keith D (talk) 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Watch this space - this is an issue we're trying to fix. But Satyr is correct: banners inside WPB have always displayed at 80% of the width of the enclosing box, rather than 80% of the entire page. WikiProjectBannerShell does not have this problem, which is one of the reasons it's a better template. (also)Happy‑melon 12:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there active discussion somewhere on this? I can't imagine it can be too difficult with CSS selectors. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cunningham: Hehe, we are already some steps ahead of you. We updated the CSS code for the tmbox classes in MediaWiki:Common.css on 15 September to handle that. (The ".mbox-inside .tmbox" class set to 2px margin and removed the ".tmbox .mbox-text .tmbox".) And since the Wikipedia CSS files are set to cache in the browsers for 31 days we can deploy this at 17 October, since then all users have the new version of MediaWiki:Common.css.

I see that Happy-melon has today added the tmbox classes to {{WikiProjectBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, to prepare for the change.

But we should perhaps wait to add the tmbox classes for the banners that go inside, since that will cause slightly bad margins when they are inside, for those users who still have the old version of MediaWiki:Common.css in their browsers. At 17 October we can start to convert the banners to use the tmbox classes. Then those banners will automatically get 100% width when inside {{WikiProjectBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. During the time when we convert the banners to use the tmbox classes it will look a bit strange: Banners that have been updated will have 100% width while at the same time "old" banners will have 80% width, when inside {{WikiProjectBanners}}. My apologies in advance for that ugliness. We will not see that effect in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} since there the banners already use the manual parameter "nested=yes" to set their width to 100% when inside.

The goal of all this is to make the banners look better in {{WikiProjectBanners}}. I hope you will like having 100% there too. And to get rid of the manual "nested=yes" parameter for banners in {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. But to completely deprecate "nested=yes" we also need to do some more CSS and javascript changes to handle the hidden header and the collapsing automatically. Happy-melon is hard at work with that.

Chris Cunningham: These things are being discussed at Template talk:Tmbox#Nested strikes back... and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Nesting project templates without a bannershell and some other places that I don't find right away now.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Many thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Comments problem

The displaying of "This article has an assessment summary page" like on Talk:Bing_Crosby, comes out to be wrapped over 6 lines if anyone knows how to fix it.—Borgarde^talk 16:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do :D  Fixed Happy‑melon 16:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Code fixes

{{editprotected}} Please change the 4th line of the template to the following:

{| class="tmbox tmbox-notice mbox-inside WikiProjectBannerShell collapsible {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{collapsed|}}}}}|no||collapsed}}" style="border-collapse:separate;" cellspacing="4"

Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Happy‑melon 17:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

new implementation of WikiProject banner nesting

Recent code updates have made it possible to significantly improve the handling of WikiProject banner nesting, deprecating the |nested=yes system. See Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#New implementation of WikiProject banners for more details. Happy‑melon 19:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Now please make this work with this template too. Replace

{| class="tmbox tmbox-notice WikiProjectBannerShell collapsible {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{collapsed|}}}}}|no||collapsed}}" style="border-collapse:separate;" cellspacing="4"

with

{| class="tmbox tmbox-notice WikiProjectBannerShell mbox-inside collapsible {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{collapsed|}}}}}|no||collapsed}}" style="border-collapse:separate;" cellspacing="4"

and

| colspan=2 class="" style="background:#fffaef; border:1px dotted gray; padding:2px 4px 4px 4px;"  |

with

| colspan="2" class="WikiProjectBannerShell-inner outercollapse" style="background:#fffaef; border:1px dotted gray; padding: 2px 4px;" |

Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Believe me I would like nothing more than to be able to make that change! However, such a conversion, however simple, is unfortunately also like to be controversial, hence it would be inappropriate for me to make such an edit to a protected template without first discussing it. In addition, there is the technical restriction in as much as this change couldn't be made anyway until all WikiProject banners are converted to use the new system. Otherwise people will see some banners collapsed inside WPB and some uncollapsed. If you want to speed this process along, and I certainly do, I suggest that you have a crack at CAT:WPB converting banners to use the new syntax. Happy‑melon 22:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think you might have missed something. Currently, all WPBanners used within this template have a |nested=yes parameter (or should have, at least, but the ones without can only improve). AFAICT, there won't be a difference for the unconverted templates, but an improvement for those that use the new code already. And FWIW, I have already converted 26 banners to use {{WPBannerMeta}} and a few to use the classes directly. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been unfortunately been customary that WikiProject banners inside {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} used the nested functionality, but that banners inside {{WikiProjectBanners}} do not. I agree that this was a very silly implementation, but it's one we've been stuck with for god knows how long. So the change genuinely can't be made until all banners have been converted. Good work on that front! Happy‑melon 20:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was completely unaware of that, thanks for the patient explanation. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:David Irving

When the collapsed banners at Talk:David Irving are expanded, the page becomes virtually unreadable. Where lies the error? __meco (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed, problem was leading spaces in Talk:David Irving/Comments. Happy‑melon 17:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Very good :-) __meco (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a quation. Why do the embedded banners behave so differently when the shell is expanded? __meco (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the page is using the wrong shell. {{WikiProjectBanners}} was never supposed to contain 'nested' banners. If you want the banners to collapse, the page should be using {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. Try changing the shell template over: you'll see that the banners now collapse (in fact, the ones that don't collapse inside WPB will collapse inside WikiProjectBannerShell even if you remove the |nested=yes parameters). Happy‑melon 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Width of project banners inside WPB

Looking at Talk:Abraham Lincoln as an example, the project banners inside WPB seem to have their widths unnecessarily shrunk. Why can't they be allowed to take up the entire available width? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:17, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Eventually they will. We are currently phasing in a new way of controlling banner nesting - see this discussion - which will give us greater control over how banners behave when they're inside banner shells. This new system is currently deployed on about half our WikiProject banners. Once it's fully deployed, we'll be able to do as you suggest and make all banners full width with one single edit, I shall take great pleasure in doing so! :D However, if we do that before the new scheme is fully deployed, we'll end up with a mishmash and some banners full width and others not, which will look very messy. So we have to wait until all the WikiProject banners use the new nesting method. Happy‑melon 17:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

When they are allowed to fill up the entire width, that will be good, because as along as the widths are shrunk, they take up considerably more vertical space when expanded. Thanks for your quick response! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Are We Dealing With The Same Two Banners?

While I was resolving DEFAULTSORT conflicts I also nested the banners when there were three or more. While I only dealt with about 2,000 pages I never encountered a banner that did not collapse under WPB but there were some that would not nest, no matter what the value of the nested parameter, under WikiProjectBannerShell. That is why I abandoned WikiProjectBannerShell except when a project leader specifically asked me to use it on articles that were in that project.

While it is possible that the relevant banners were updated after I gave up, I doubt it. The most commonly used project banner should have been updated first and I seriously doubt that any project has more pages in it than the 500,000+ that are in WPBiog and that project's banner's behavior was unpredictable to say the least.

After the experience I have had with both WPB and WikiProjectBannerShell I really do not understand why WikiProjectBannerShell has been allowed to exist. I would support very strongly any nomination for its deletion.

JimCubb (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems like there are a number of different possibilities for grouping the banners on a talk page, which could probably all be covered by one "merged" version of those two templates with the appropriate parameters:

		Shell
		Collapsed	Expanded
Banners	Collapsed	{{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}}	{{WikiProjectBannerShell}}
	Expanded	{{WPB}}	A bit of a pointless option {{WPB|collapsed=no}}

-- WOSlinker (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

One day this amalgamation will be painlessly possible. You picked a bad time to investigate the two banners, right as we're in a transition period between the two nesting systems. However, I do not belive you are correct to say that some "would not nest, no matter what the value of the nested parameter, under WikiProjectBannerShell". Although I am always willing to be proved wrong, I do not believe that this occurs. Please show me any examples you have encountered (whereupon I will immediately correct the banners so they function properly :D).

It is inevitable that you "never encountered a banner that did not collapse under WPB" because in fact no banner collapses under WPB; they all remain resolutely the same shape and if anything get even longer because they scale down to be 80% of the WPB shell width (64% of the total screen width) rather than taking up the full width as WikiProjectBannerShell banners do. As no changes whatsoever take place, it is not surprising that they are applied consistently :D.

It may interest you to know that WikiProjectBannerShell is used on (at the last count) about four times as many talk pages as WPB.

Happy‑melon 23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to WOSlinker, Edit conflict with Happy-Melon
If I infer correctly, yes, "Expanded Banners in an Expanded Shell" is a pointless option. It is just that, a pointless option, should never be necessary and it is not an advantage for WikiProjectBannerShell that it is able to do that.

However, in my experience those are not the options. The options are

• Nested Banners, No Shell, possible with a few banners but the nested banner is too wide;
• Nested Banners; Shell, the default for WikiProjectBannerShell, only works if there are no error messages and all the banners have the nested parameter set to yes (I know that the latter is in the process of changing after two years)
• Collapsed Banners, Shell

• This is the default for WPB that hides error messages, the carnage they can cause and does not depend upon the nested or collapse parameters.
• This is an option for WikiProjectBannerShell and requires that the collapse parameter be set to yes on every banner.

As for added parameters, why deliberately make things progressively difficult?

Say you come across Talk:C. S. Lewis with twelve banners neatly nested within WikiProjectBannerShell, spelled out. You add a message to the page indicating that the page, which is for discussion of ways to improve the article not to advertise projects and not to recruit members for the projects, would look better if the banners were collapsed. You say that you will collapse the banners in six weeks if no one objects before then. The six weeks pass and no one has said anything. Here are your options

• Type "|collapse=yes" before the first set of double right braces. Copy it and paste it to the left of every succeeding set of double right braces except the last one. Preview the page. Fix the errors. Save the page.
• Cut everything from the set of double left braces after the "|1=" through the penultimate set of double right braces. Paste it into a text processor or word processor. Replace every set of double right braces with "|collapse=yes" and a set of double right braces. Cut everything and paste into the Talk page. Preview the page. Fix the errors. Save the page.
• Change "WikiProjectBannerShell" to "WikiProjectBanners", i.e., change "S" to "s" and delete "hell". Save the page.

On a basis of time-required to benefit-derived, which of the three is the most effective?

JimCubb (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Happy-melon Really? WPB doesn't collapse banners? They sure look like they are collapsed on Talk:Terence O'Neill, Baron O'Neill but maybe that is just me. When I click "show" they are as you describe but why would I want to do that?

As for the relative usage of the two banners, poor advertising may have something to do with it. My immediate reaction was, "If 50,000 Frenchmen say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." No, I do not remember who said that.

JimCubb (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing youself. A WikiProject banner can exist in one of two states: "uncollapsed", where all the content is visible, and "collapsed", when only one summary line is visible and the rest becomes so after clicking a "show" button. Banners can be put inside a shell template to organise them; this has the effect of putting them inside a box. That box can itself be collapsed, hiding the content in the same way. The WPB shell is collapsed, but the banners inside it are not; conversely, by default the WikiProjectBannerShell shell is uncollapsed but it causes the banners inside it to collapse themselves. I believe you have confused the two concepts. Consequently, I can make very little sense of your comment to WOSlinker: the process you describe is never required to alter the configuration of banners inside a shell. What you want to do on Talk:C. S. Lewis is to collapse the shell as well as the templates. To do that, you need to add |collapsed=yes exactly once, to the WikiProjectBannerShell shell template. Adding that parameter to the banners inside the shell will have no effect whatsoever. Happy‑melon 00:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are three examples showing the three different options I mentioned in the table above: -- WOSlinker (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah Ha!

I think I misread the documentation for collapsing WikiProjectBannerShell and I was using the wrong terminology. If all the banners react to WikiProjectBannerShell as do WPDOGS and Project Colorado, life is better and the nested parameter is no longer needed, that is good.

I just checked with some of the banners that were giving me fits and they automatically nest under WikiProjectBannerShell.

Now all that is needed is to change the verbiage for WikiProjectBannerShell collapsed=yes to the verbiage for WPB and WikiProjectBannerShell may be worth using despite the additional effort it requires.

As it is now the verbiage for WikiProjectBannerShell collapsed=yes is "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:" but nothing follows. The verbiage for WPB is "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details."

Does that make sense? Can the verbiage be changed?

It may help all the evangelists for WikiProjectBannerShell to know that I dislike things that need additional parameters to make them work as things that need no parameters. Also, I realize that I no longer type as quickly or as well as I did even ten years ago. If I don't have to type more than a few characters, I am happy.

JimCubb (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that we can certainly manage.  Done. I fully agree with you about additional parameters, which is why we're making the huge effort to change the banners over to a system that doesn't need any by default. Previously I would have agreed with you that WikiProjectBannerShell was more "effort" to employ. But since now we increasingly only need to add the shell template and not worry about the |nested= parameters any more, the two really are interchangeable. Happy‑melon 10:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editprotected}}

Could Template:WikiProjectBanners/sandbox be copied over to Template:WikiProjectBanners ? The changed I've done allow the banners inside to be displayed at full width.

-- WOSlinker (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjectBanners

I think that this will only increase the confusion that is already common surrounding these two templates (see many examples). In the not-too-distant future we'll be able to merge them completely, let's not confuse the issue further in the intervening period. Happy‑melon 16:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Not done I defer to the judgment of Happy-melon. Ruslik (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The time has come

the walrus said, to speak of many things... no cabbages or sealing wax here, but we are nonetheless at a crossroads.

We have come a long way with these two templates, {{WikiProjectBanners}} ("WPB") and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} ("WikiProjectBannerShell"), and the road hasn't always been smooth. In my opinion, we made a mistake to ever have two parallel templates running side by side. It's a situation we have been stuck with ever since, due to the huge inertia of the 12,000 pages that transclude WPB and the 43,000 that use WikiProjectBannerShell. I'm very pleased to be able to say that that inertia is no longer present. Following the development of a completely new way of implementing the nesting functionality in WikiProjectBannerShell last Autumn, we have literally just now finished deploying this functionality on all WikiProject banners in use on en.wiki. I'd like to thank WOSlinker and Ms2ger in particular for their efforts in updating over a thousand banners to use this new system. With this code in place on all project banners, we really are at a turning point. We can now control the appearance of all 12,000 WPB shells by editing solely the WPB template itself. We can collapse every banner in every shell by adding just 26 characters to the banner template.

So essentially this is now a time for us to take a step back and decide how we want to proceed. What do we want to do with WikiProject banners? Happy‑melon 00:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

How about leaving them as they are? There is no need to change WPB to WikiProjectBannerShell, is there? As the original documentation for each banner stated, discussion on each individual Talk page was to occur before such a change is made. It is still easier to collapse the banners with WPB than it is with WikiProjectBannerShell. (Delete the "S" vs. type "|collapse=yes".)

There are a few other things that could be done to make the Talk pages cleaner. The first one that I would suggest would be to hide all the categories regarding the class and priority of an article. I think that anyone who cares about such things will be using the specific category page, not the bottom of each Talk page. Such as Category:Unknown-priority biography (musicians) articles (there are more than 41,000 of them) rather than the bottom of Talk:Ørjan Hartveit.

JimCubb (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree about categories taking up some space at the bottom. The suggestion here, though, is that the two templates are now performing exactly the same functions, so why have two? In all other cases on Wikipedia, duplications such as these are merged together. I think it's time to do so here as well. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's go for it, it can be done now with out affecting anything so let's implement it. —Borgarde 09:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Go for what? I'm not clear about what is being proposed. Martin 10:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Can {{Coopshell}} also be considered? -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

So can we just replace this template with the following? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed={{{collapsed|yes}}}
 |banner collapsed={{{banner collapsed|no}}}
 |1={{{1|}}}
}}

Yes, if we want to. We'd need to pass through all the unnamed parameters. Happy‑melon 22:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well is there any reason not to? As far I as I can tell, the behaviour would be unaffected except that the banners will take the full width of the shell which looks much nicer. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideally I'd like to do something clever to convert WPB shells with less than, say, five banners in them, into WikiProjectBannerShell uncollapsed, and shells with more than five banners into WikiProjectBannerShell collapsed (ie no change). I'm not sure how best to do that, or even if it's possible without a bot. Happy‑melon 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't help you. I don't even understand the magic which makes banners collapse automatically inside banners ... But in the meantime, before anything cleverer is possible, is there any possible disadvantage of the proposal above? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Just needs the blp, activepol, text & 2 to 10 parameters passing over as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Think we might need to tweak my last edit by changing the banner collapsed parameter to

banner collapsed={{{banner collapsed|{{#ifeq:{{{collapsed}}}|no|yes|no}}}}}

Otherwise if collapsed=no then nothing will collapse! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would be too hard. I might even find the time to implement it in a few weeks. —Ms2ger (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There is now a concrete proposal on this at WikiProjectBannerShell talk. Please come and discuss. Happy‑melon 18:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Please add parameters

{{editprotected}} Recently, support for numbered parameters 11–20 was added to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, after this request. In order that the two banner shell templates may have roughly the same parameters, please make the same change to this template. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 11:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look above, we are actually talking about merging these two templates. So that would make this request unnecessary. In any case, I don't think you need to use these parameters, as all banners can be put in the first parameter ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that, but it's not happening right this instant. And I know that, but for some reason we support multiple numbered parameters anyway. IMO, it would be better to not have to remember "WikiProjectBannerShell supports up to parameter 20, but WPB only goes up to 10 for absolutely no good reason". Anomie⚔ 11:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd wait—Hopefully, WikiProjectBannerShell will be reverted. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, should we deprecate the 2–10 parameters and force everyone to use parameter 1? Discuss at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#WikiProjectBannerShell not showing the full list of banners. Anomie⚔ 14:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

They are deprecated, parameters 2 to 10 are not mentioned in the template documentation. Removal though would require some bot work. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

AnomieBOT can do it easily enough, as long as there is consensus to do it. Anomie⚔ 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Important Change

As of 29 May 2009 this template did not exist with its own logic and programming. On that date its programming was changed so that it now calls {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with the collapsed parameter set to "yes". The only notice of this change is in the edit summary of the change and a mention of it after the fact in an indented aside on the WikiProjectBannerShell Talk page.

This change will only have a slight, probably rare, effect on this template, although the effect is a negative one. Before the change was made, when WikiProjectBannerShell had a problem (crashed seems to be a little strong) WPB may or may not have had the same problem. Now, when WikiProjectBannerShell has a problem, unless the problem is ameliorated by the collapsed parameter's being set to yes, WPB will have the same problem.

Other than that, this template should still work as well and be as easy to use as it has always been. For those who prefer WikiProjectBannerShell, life just got a little easier. Instead of typing:
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes etc
all that is needed is
{{WikiProjectBanners etc
but it was always so.

Happy editing!

JimCubb (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the extra improvement of the banners now being full-width, not eighty-percent-of-eighty-percent.

As I've explained a couple of times before, {{WPB}} is actually equivalent to {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes|banner-collapse=no}} (or equivalently, WikiProjectBannerShell is equivalent to {{WPB|collapsed=no|banner-collapse=yes}}; and has been so for some time. Happy‑melon 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

While I am not entirely certain that full-width is an improvement over 64%, thank you for the clarification and elaboration.

JimCubb (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I mean the full width of the banner shell, not full width of the page (which I agree looks awful). Do you really prefer the thinner (hence longer) nested banners? Happy‑melon 08:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Parameter Documentation on template main page

On 21 June 09, ListasBot applied fixes to banner templates related to the O F Hunziker article. In particular, ListasBot added "collapsed=yes|1=" parameters to the WPB template. When I review the template page for WPB (WikiProjectBanners), I do not find any documentation regarding a "collapsed" parameter. When I asked about this at the ListasBot talk page, I was informed that:

"collapsed" isn't specifically documented as a parameter to {{WPB}}, but if you look at the source code, {{WPB}} calls {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and passes the collapsed parameter (or "yes" if collapsed is not specified). Therefore, it is a little redundant, but still valid.

Also, although the WPB template page lists the "1=" parameter, its function is unclear. In response to my inquiry, I was informed:

"1=" specifically tells the template where the banners start, and should be included in all circumstances. The wiki code usually does OK without it, but other bot operators told me that it breaks their bots, so that was added in to help them out.

I recommend that the "collapsed" parameter be documented on the WPB template page and that the "1=" parameter be discussed in a little more detail. I realize these issues might seem self-evident to those experienced with templates, but such documentation would likely help others maintaining articles.--Rpclod (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• You're right the documentation does need updating. I'll do it now.
• The discussion about adding the collapsed parameter can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ListasBot 5. As Matt says there is currently no effect in doing so, but it may make a difference depending on how a proposal to merge WikiProjectBannerShell and WPB turns out. Related discussion on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Proposal.
• Specifying 1= explicitly defines the first unnamed parameter. So usually {{template|1=foo}} is the same as {{template|foo}}. But the former is more robust in some circumstances (for example, the latter cannot cope with a = symbol in the parameter value) and so is preferred.

Hope this helps, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That was update was quick! By the way, I was not complaining. Being someone who does not deal with template coding often, I thought my perspective might be of use. Thank you for the very positive and informative response.--Rpclod (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you might have been a little to liberal in your copying.

• {{WPB}} is used when there are six or more project banners on a page. {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is used when there are more than two but fewer than six project banners on a page.
• The |nested= parameter was never needed by the original of {{WPB}}. It was needed only for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} until early this year.
• {{WPB}} is not on 60,000+ pages. {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is. When the two shells were developed there were very few pages within the purview of more than five projects. As the number of categories on pages increased the restriction on changing templates made it almost impossible for {{WPB}} to be added to a page.
• All project banners have always been compliant with {{WPB}} (which is what it so much easier to use than {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}) and have been made compliant with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} for quite a while so the "Ongoing cleanup project" section which was never relevant to {{WPB}} and is no longer relevant to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} should be removed.
• By allowing for 2= thorough 10= but nothing larger you have severely restricted the use of this template. All values above 1= should be ignored.

JimCubb (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Notice

There is a proposal for this template to call {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with the collapsed parameter set to "yes", but with the banner collapsed parameter not set to "no", as currently happens. There would be no visual effect in the collapsed version of the shell. The difference is that when uncollapsed, the banners inside will be nested instead of expanded. More details and discussion can be found at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Discussion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage guidance updated

Also after much discussion, the usage guidelines for {{WikiProjectBanners}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} has been updated: {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is now recommended on talk pages with three or fewer banners, and {{WPB}} is recommended on talk pages with 6 or more; no recommendation is made for pages with 4 or 5 banners. If local consensus on any talk page is contrary to this usage guideline, |collapsed= should be used explicitly to indicate that.

In one week, unless consensus changes, bots will begin a run through all pages in Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters (which represents about 14% of all banner shells currently in use) to remove the deprecated numbered parameters 2–10, and at the same time implement the above guidance on the pages edited. Please direct any comments to Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell. Thanks. Anomie⚔ 01:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have always read, in various places, that {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} is to be used on pages with more than two project banners and {{WikiProjectBanners}} is to be used on pages with six or more project banners. I am certain that such is the consensus among the folks who are concerned about the layout of the talk pages and I believe that such was the consensus at the WikiProject Council the last time I looked.

To restate this consensus in a more correct logical order:

• If the number of project banners is greater than or equal to six, use {{WPB}}, else
• If the number of project banners is greater than or equal to three, use {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, else
• no shell.

It would have been nice if I had noticed your announcement of the bots runs in time for you to make that change. As it is, when I let the folks who are concerned about the Talk Page layout know that the neat things that {{WPB}} used to do that {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} did not do no longer apply because {{WPB}} now calls {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} with |collapsed=yes, I also need to let them know that the numbers have changed for when to use what shell. I hope they take it well.

JimCubb (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you were involved in the conversation at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell. You even replied to the last post before implementation... Personally, I find even two (or for some particularly overgrown banners, even one) enough to make me want WikiProjectBannerShell. But I'm not about to have the bot go around messing with it either way, the only way it will remove a shell at the moment is if it finds one that is completely empty. Anomie⚔ 02:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I was and I just noticed my typo -- "<=3" should have been ">=3". I apologize.

I will let those folks know that the numbers changed because I screwed up.

I will be very surprised if the bot finds any empty shells. I will not be surprised if the bot finds shells on pages where the article has been redirected but the talk page still has project banners.

JimCubb (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't be surprised about categorized redirects either, some projects actually prefer to do so. Anomie⚔ 03:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not just use WikiProjectBannerShell with collapsed=yes on the ones with more than six? That way we don't need to have two templates at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.55.115 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Partly because some people wanted to keep this template as being shorter to type, and partly because it gives a simple way for users to override bots. Anomie⚔ 05:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wording change request

{{editprotect}} Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikiproject tags on biographies of living people, could we change the text of this template from "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:" to "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:"? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Deactivated as this is a duplicate request to that on Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell. (It's the same template.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)