User talk:Pyrospirit/metadata/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes is assessed incorrectly

It says "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former featured list candidate." when it should say "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former featured list candidate. A current featured list candidate." Because it failed FLC before, but it's at FLC right now again :) Gary King (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This was due to an error on the article's talk page; the {{FLC}} template was subst'ed instead of transcluded. As a result, the script wasn't picking the current FLC at all. I've fixed this, and it now only displays the current FLC. I don't think it's necessary to mention a former FLC that failed when there's currently another FLC, since it's better to just present the most relevant information in the limited space. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A way to remove colors?

Is there a way to shows just the text below the title, but the title of the page to stay black? I find this pretty disturbing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixman (talk • contribs) 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Go to Special:MyPage/monobook.css and add the following line:

.firstHeading {color: black !important;}

That will ensure that the top header always remains black. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Fixman_{(Criticise me)Disclaimer: no animals were harmed with this edit, but they will be if you undo it} — Preceding undated comment added 02:51, 20 September 2008

I also added ".firstHeading {color: black !important;}" to my monobook but I didn't remove the colors from the main header. Is there something I did wrong? Thanks. Great gadget by the way, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 21:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You're customizing it with CSS rather than JavaScript, so add it to your monobook.css, not monobook.js. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

D'oh! Thanks Pyrospirit, αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ ^(talk) 22:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Previous failed FACs

When an article has failed more than one FAC, the earliest one is linked. Could the most recent one be linked? Gary King (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series does not mention that it's currently at FAC. Gary King (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal disputes over the Harry Potter series correctly shows that it's at FAC for me. Try bypassing your cache and see if that fixes the problem. As for linking the most recent FAC, I agree that it would make sense, and I'll try to find a way to do this. Thanks for the suggestion. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Any chance the most recent FAC could be linked? Gary King (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I figured out how to get it working now. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong assessment?

Hi! The article BTR-90 seems to show a wrong assessment. It was previously a stub, and was rated as B-class recently. But the assessment shown under the article title is start-class. Is something wrong here? BTW, I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.9 and I'm using this as a gadget from 'my preferences'. Cheers. Chamal ^Talk ± 12:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed Gary King (talk) 15:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's OK now. Thanks :) Chamal ^Talk ± 02:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove the color from the edit link

For those of us who have enabled the gadget to show an edit link for the lead section, it is colored the same way as the class assessment. Could you please add this to the script: .firstHeading.editsection { color: black; } Gary King (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Surname disambiguation pages

This gadget identifies disambiguation pages with {{surname}}, such as Pokorný, as unassessed pages, which is incorrect. Could this be rectified? This, that and the other _[talk] 09:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed. The script now correctly recognizes such pages as set index articles. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Accessibility

For the benefit of people who are colour-blind, or using a monochrome monitor, or a non-visual device, could this script optionally provide a text clue, such as:

• Tourette Syndrome [featured]
• United States [A-class]

as required to meet "priotiy 1" (i.e most important) WCAG guidelines? Thank you.Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That information is already displayed by default in the tagline just below the article header, so I don't see why this would be necessary. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 18:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that this script does that? It's not readily apparent from the documentation. Perhaps you could kindly upload a screen-shot? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

See the big box covering most of the right side of the documentation page? That shows what the script looks like, including the changes to the tagline. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

So the text, such as "A featured article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" is included? Like I said, that's not apparent - i thought that was just labelling for the coloured headings. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the text describing the assessment replaces the default tagline of From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. I've reworded the documentation so that it's clearer that it does this. Did you try using the script before posting here, by the way? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good article nominees

For good article nominees, it's acceptable how they are currently assessed; however, how about linking to the specific GA subpage when there is a review and the GAN is on hold? An example would be Radioactive waste, where the GA subpage is at Talk:Radioactive waste/GA1; the {{GA nominee}} template on the talk page notes the GA subpage number with "page=1", pointing to /GA1; if it was "page=2" then the GA subpage would be /GA2. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done as requested. The subpage is only linked to when status=on hold is found in the {{GA nominee}} template. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Also: Cold War is currently a good article nominee. It failed three featured article candidates. The assessment should probably say "Currently a good article nominee. Also a former featured article candidate." or something along those lines. Gary King (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be an improvement, certainly. However, it would be quite difficult to implement given the current way the script is structured. I'll see what I can do, but it'll at least require substantial changes to the script. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Incorrectly assessed disambiguation page

Slipknot is considered unassessed even though it has {{WikiProject Disambiguation}} on its talk page and {{disambig}} on the article page. Gary King (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed. Happy-melon (talk · contribs) modified {{dmbox}} recently, changing the ID of the table produced by {{disambig}} from disambig to disambig_disambigbox. I've adjusted the script to detect either ID. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Former featured article is assessed incorrectly

I was going through the Star Wars film articles, and found a few issues with their assessments:

• N Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace should be a "former featured article", not "former featured article candidate" as it currently shows.
• Y Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones is correctly assessed as a former featured article.
• N Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith should be a "former featured article".

I think that's it. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

 Fixed. The problem was actually in the articles' {{ArticleHistory}} template, which in both cases had currentstatus=GA rather than the correct currentstatus=FFA/GA. However, the rest of the ArticleHistory template has enough information for the script to figure out that it's an FFA, even with the incorrect parameter, so I've added a few lines for that purpose. Thanks for noticing that. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons is incorrectly assessed. It's an interesting case; it was promoted to FA, then demoted, then promoted again to FA. So it says "A featured article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. A former featured article." when it should probably only say "A featured article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Gary King (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. Just a small bug in the way I fixed the above bug with the Star Wars articles. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Boston College is a good article?

I can't see where this is designated on the talk page. Where is this rating being pulled from? ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems the ACC WikiProject rated it as a Good article. (Though this rating was only present in the template and didn't actually show up in the text of the talk page OR sort the page into any categories based on this. In fact I'm fairly sure the parameter doesn't do anything in the {{WikiProject ACC}} template.) ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the script just looks for something that looks like |class=GA anywhere in section 0 of the talk page, so it'll find stuff like that even if the template doesn't actually display it. Someone should figure out what's going on with the {{WikiProject ACC}} template, though; it should handle an assessment of GA properly rather than just ignoring it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Display problem

Hi I find this a really useful feature. I sometimes see disagreements between the assessment displayed on the article page with that given on the talk page. Rolls-Royce Merlin is showing B class but the talk page has Start class. I just assessed Rolls-Royce aircraft piston engines as Start for both projects on the talk page but it is still showing as a stub even after purging. I am sure it is a problem with the talk page templates but I can't see how to fix it. Any advice gratefully received! Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Purging won't fix it. You need to refresh. Gary King (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I happened to do a defrag and restart on my PC which has fixed one article, the Merlin though is showing as B class, the template code is showing B class (although the checklist has not been completed) and the project banner is showing start class. Must be a template thing. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Template:WPAVIATION is broken. Gary King (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Perhaps Trevor can fix it, I did wonder. It looks like it is engineered not to show B class unless the checklist has been completed although I can't be sure. All beyond me I'm afraid. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Those templates that display Start-class when it's assessed as B-class with an incomplete checklist really need to be fixed. It's misleading to the person assessing it, since it's not apparent why the wrong assessment is showing up, and it's impossible for many scripts to detect when that happens. I think the correct behavior would be to display an error message. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Sorry to clog up your page when the problem is elsewhere. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 09:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Assessment not displaying in one article

Hi, I'm using IE7 with the gadget version of the script, and it works fine on all articles I've checked, except for Guitar Solos. For some reason it is not picking up the assessment (B-class, GAN) from Talk:Guitar Solos and I can't see why. Do you have any ideas? Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me with both Firefox 3.0.5 and IE6. Try bypassing your browser cache with Ctrl+F5 on both the article page and the talk page. If that doesn't work, more information would be useful: Does it say that the article is unassessed, or does it not work at all? Do you get any error messages? Pyrospirit (alt) (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried Ctrl+F5 and it still returns unassessed. The article has been recently assessed and it keeps on pulling in the old assessment. But I've actually solved the problem now. I emptied both my browser and Java cache and now it's picking up the new assessment. Unfortunately I emptied both caches at the same time so I'm not sure which one did the trick. But I know what to do now. Thanks for your response. --Bruce1ee^talk 15:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Java has anything to do with it. Unless you mean JavaScript? Gary King (talk) 15:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any browser where JavaScript has a separate cache, so it must have been the browser cache. Pyrospirit (alt) (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What I deleted (on XP) was the Java Temporary Internet Files in the Java Control Panel, which is a separate cache from IE's cache. But you're right, it probably was the browser cache because I think the mistake I made was that I did Ctrl+F5 on the article page, but not on the article talk page. Stupid me! Sorry. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The Ctrl+F5 needs to be done on the article page, not the article talk page. Gary King (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did Ctrl+F5 on the article page and it didn't work. Clearing the cache worked. --Bruce1ee^talk 06:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Colors not showing?

I'm in Firefox 3.0.5, and the assessment colors are not showing up for me. The script is working with the words, if that helps. I noticed this problem at USS Iowa turret explosion, a Featured Article and confirmed that there was a problem with USS Texas (BB-35), a Good Article. Also, I'm not using the monobook version, just whatever is loaded into the gadgets we get through user preferences. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've refreshed my cahce and reloaded the pages multiple times to no avail. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me Try clearing your monobook.js to see if any of those scripts conflict with this one. Gary King (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Tried that, the problem still exists for me. I'm about to go to class and won't be on for more troubleshooting. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's because of a recent change to the CSS classes for the colors. The gadget needs to be updated to the latest version by an administrator; I've already put in a request for this. It should work again as soon as the gadget is updated. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could fulfill that editprotected request, but I've got to go to class. Thanks for the troubleshooting. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Nihiltres just updated it. The colors should start working again. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me now -MBK₀₀₄ 04:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong assessment

Hi! 2008–2009 Battle of Kilinochchi article was promoted to GA today, but still shows up as a B class and a good article nominee. Something wrong here? I'm using Firefox 3.0.5, and the gadget version of this tool. All other pages I've tried look fine. Chamal ^talk 13:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

 Works for me. This is probably a caching issue. Try this:

1. Go to Talk:2008–2009 Battle of Kilinochchi and bypass your browser cache.
2. Go to 2008–2009 Battle of Kilinochchi and bypass your cache again.
3. If that doesn't work, clear your browser cache entirely (press Ctrl-Shift-Delete and uncheck everything but Cache).

Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 15:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

An interesting one

Hubert Maga is rated as a B-class article. It underwent a failed GA nomination. However, the tagline says: "A B-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently undergoing a reassessment of its status as a good article." The first sentence is correct, the second one is not. The article was never an actual good article; it was only considered for said status. Not sure if you can do anything about this. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently undergoing a reassessment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hubert Maga/1 Gary King (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because the article was failed earlier. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah; well, the script probably just checks to see if {{GAR}} is on the talk page, and if so, then output that text. So, I guess it will have to check if the article is already a Good Article or not and then output text based on that. Although, isn't "Currently undergoing a reassessment of its status as a good article." ambiguous enough to work for both situations? Kind of. Gary King (talk) 04:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess. Perhaps change the phrase: "Currently undergoing a reassessment of its status as a good article"-->Currently undergoing a good article reassessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it just looks for the {{GAR/link}} template produced by {{subst:GAR}}. Good suggestion—I'll change the wording later today. That should work for both cases. Pyrospirit (alt) (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better. Is there a way to link to the GAR page itself? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it. It's probably not particularly difficult to do. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. It now links to the GAR page directly. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Very cool. Thanks for all your work. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Link to FAC/GA/Peer review page?

For featured articles, why not have a link to the FAC review for that article (i.e. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/%articlename%) instead of a link to the featured article guidelines? It is a trivial change and would make it easier to check the latest status of the review for a page. In addition, it would be really nice if we could also do this for GAs, although it would involve checking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%articlename%/GA[n+1] until you find the latest GA review number. And lastly, if an article has been peer reviewed, maybe you could add something to the title like "This article has been peer reviewed" with a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/%articlename%/archive[n+1] (once again, incrementing until the latest peer review is found). ←Spidern→ 03:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It does link to FAC, FLC, GANs, and PRs already. But, I'm guessing you are referring to articles that are no longer candidates, but have passed one of these processes? Gary King (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well dear me, I neglected to read the section directly above this one. You're quite right. I've had this idea for a while but failed to notice that it was actually implemented already on the latest .js! (I was using the gadget version till a few moments ago) My apologies. ←Spidern→ 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Although, that being said, it would still be nice to still link to FAC or GA reviews for articles that are currently of that status. ←Spidern→ 03:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It would be possible to do that, but I don't think those links would be as useful. This script is used by a wide variety of people, including those who don't know the inner workings of the assessment system in much detail. For old FAC/FLC/GAN discussions where the article passed, it's much more useful to link to the page describing what a FA, FL, or GA is than to link to an archived discussion, which most likely only contains issues that were fixed during the discussion or people supporting the nomination. Besides, you can always find links to those discussions on the talk page.

For old peer reviews, I've considered adding those before, but never bothered implementing it. I'll do so now. By the way, the script doesn't have to check each possible peer review page to find which one to link to—that would be quite inefficient. Instead, it find the correct link in the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 14:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that if the article had multiple peer reviews, the script would provide the peer review for the most recent one, correct? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. As for old peer reviews, are they really that useful? I find that usually only the latest one is useful, as the last two reviews are often a year apart or so. Gary King (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll have available, but disabled by default, since most people probably wouldn't be interested in it either. Sound good? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. As for the {{articlehistory}} template, I was not aware of it (I'm only a couple months old here). I see easy access to most recent FA/GA assessment information as useful because I want to quickly check when the article was last assessed and compare the date with recent events in the edit history, to ensure that the article actually conforms to said quality standards. The downside is that not every GA uses the actionnlink field in {{articlehistory}}, so it would not always be trivial to find the correct assessment link. ←Spidern→ 06:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No longer displaying?

Hi, for the past week or so, the assessment is no longer displaying at all for me, after previously working fine. Has a new version unsupported by IE6 (my browser) recently been introduced?  JGHowes  ^talk 20:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

It last had a major update on February 2nd, which might be related. Gary King (talk) 00:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

That update shouldn't have caused any problems for people using the default settings for the script. I haven't introduced any changes that should prevent it from working in IE6. Have you tried bypassing or clearing your cache or anything similar?

Also, I highly recommend getting a newer browser if at all possible. IE6 is quite outdated and buggy, and Firefox (my personal favorite), Opera, Safari, and Chrome are all much better alternatives. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Or at least upgrade to IE 7 if possible. Gary King (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha, the Feb. 2 change would correspond to when the assessment disappeared for me. I already tried clearing the cache and have made no script changes. All I've ever done is check "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article" as a Gadget in My Preferences, which worked fine until now. Can the pre-Feb. 2 version be offered as an alternative for folks with older browsers like IE6 and older OS that don't support newer browsers?  JGHowes  ^talk 01:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just tested it, and it's broken in IE7 as well. I'm not sure what I did wrong, but I'll look through the script and try to figure it out. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 04:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed. It was caused by the fact that IE doesn't support JavaScript 1.6, which includes some methods used in the script. It should work for you now. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 17:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... this still isn't working for me (IE7). PC78 (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to request an update to the gadget. It should start working after an admin updates it. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 20:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Now again displaying assessment on page header for me (using IE6), except all classes display in blue instead of the various colors as before. Also links a GA article at FAC, such as John Wilkes Booth.  JGHowes  ^talk 19:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

All looks good to me in IE7. PC78 (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

...or at least it did. Seems to have gone again. Weird. PC78 (talk) 16:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

← There was an edit yesterday an hour after your reply, which was meant to fix something but I suppose it broke it for you. The edit is here, but be warned that it might freeze your browser as it's a pretty big diff. Gary King (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Short version: I broke it. Long version: I accidentally broke compatibility with IE, and then introduced a new bug when I tried to fix it, which caused it to crash on all articles without talk pages. Someone reverted the gadget when they saw the new bug, which broke compatibility with IE again. I have a new version ready that fixes both bugs, and I'm currently requesting an update to the gadget. Pyrospirit (alt) (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No longer linking to GA subpages?

Even after a hard refresh, pages that are currently GA candidates like Mac OS X do not have the assessment linking to the GA subpage. I believe it used to do that? Gary King (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a limitation of the script. The way this script works is by parsing the wikitext of the intro section of the article's talk page. Since {{GA nominee}} uses #ifexist to determine whether the article has a GA subpage yet, there's no way for the script to tell whether the article is being reviewed unless the status parameter of {{GA nominee}} is used. This means that for articles that are being reviewed, unless the reviewer has put it on hold or requested a second opinion, it will not link to the GA subpage.

There are two alternatives, neither of which are good options:

1. It could always link to the GA subpage as specified by the page parameter. However, this would link to a nonexistent page for most GA nominees, since most such articles haven't been reviewed yet.
2. It could request a page from the MediaWiki API to determine whether the GA subpage exists yet. The problem is that this would make the script far more complicated, and it would likely have a substantial impact on performance. (It could double the time it takes for the script to run.)

If you know any better options, please let me know. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

So did the script used to link to GA subpages but then you removed it afterward? Gary King (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It still links to GA subpages some of the time, just as it has in the past; I haven't removed any functionality. It does not link to the GA subpage if the status parameter of the {{GA nominee}} template is empty, since in most (but not all) cases, that means that it hasn't been reviewed yet, and thus doesn't have a subpage. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Frankly, the way it currently works is pretty pointless, as one would have to hover their mouse over the link to see if it leads to WP:GAN or the GA subpage, and by that point, one could have already just directly checked the talk page to see if subpage exists. I was thinking of just having it not link to any GA subpage, but I suppose it's still better for it to work sometimes than not to do it ever. Gary King (talk) 03:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Faulty link

SR-71 Blackbird is undergoing a GAR. The link shows up, but is directed to the wrong place. It directs us to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/SR-71 Blackbird/1, when the actual position is Talk:SR-71 Blackbird/GA1. The difference being individual reassessment vs. community reassessment. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It's due to the same limitation described in the section directly above this one, specifically the use of #ifexist in {{GAR/link}}. I didn't realize this was occurring for GARs as well. I'll try to figure out a good solution for it, and I'm open to suggestions. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 03:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggested stronger, darker colors

Could we have some stronger, darker colors for the classes? In my monobook.css, I use the same default colors, but with darker tones; please check them out and consider replacing the current ones with those. Gary King (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have tweaked the colors some more and have been using these new colors for about a week or two now; I think they are better: User:Gary King/monobook.css. Gary King (talk) 15:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've switched it to those colors. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong message for articles being peer reviewed

On List of Dallas Mavericks head coaches, it says: "A list-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Previously peer reviewed." The article's peer review is still open, and it should say: "A list-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently being peer reviewed." Dabomb87 (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks for catching that. I'm working on an option to detect past peer reviews, and I forgot to update part of the code to work with those changes. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I came here to report the same thing. Would you be able to update the Gadgets version as well? Or, judging by MediaWiki talk:Gadget-metadata.js, request that it be updated? Thanks, Dr pda (talk) 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, doing that now. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dr pda (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Gibbs free energy

It's assessed Start class, yet I'm getting "An unassessed article from Wikipedia". Using the gadget on Fx 3.0.6 on Vista 32 bit. --Izno (talk) 03:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed It had to do with the fact that the project banners were under a header. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

For performance reasons, the script only requests the intro section of the talk page. It used to request the entire talk page, but as you can imagine, that would take a while for long discussions. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Wasp

same problem as above, i thought it would be that the project header was lower than the schools CD banner but i think it might be because you don't need the class= syntax you can just put the assessment e.g. 'B', which i haven't seen before, Tom B (talk) 08:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed I just added the class= and importance= syntax. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it'd be way more effort than it's worth to figure out how to parse something like that. The named parameters are the only practical way I can think of to avoid having a massively complicated parser or ending up with tons of false positives. (The order of the template banners should make no difference.) Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 21:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Feature request: Importance.

I don't think I saw it anywhere in these archives, but a modification to this script (possibly a new script, if need be) to show the lowest (or possibly the highest; I personally have no preference) importance an article has would be cool. I hesitate to say useful, but then, this script isn't the most useful. Any chances? --Izno (talk) 23:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already written a script that does this, located at User:Pyrospirit/metadata/projectbanners.js. It extends the functionality of the existing assessment script, either the gadget or the userspace version. After installing it, you will see a [show] link to the right of the article header. Clicking this link brings up a table listing each WikiProject banner found on the talk page, along with that project's assessment and importance ratings for the article. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

That seemed of a heavier weight to me than necessary after reading the documentation (I did note that script before asking). Would it be possible for you or another to upload an image or two of the functionality and leave that in a conspicuous place? --Izno (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added an example of what it looks like into the section documenting it. The example is taken from the article Earth. It's actually a pretty lightweight script: It just looks for project banner templates, extracts any assessment information, and formats it into a table. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 02:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Izno (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)