Template talk:WPBannerMeta

Active discussions
WikiProject Council  
This template relates to the WikiProject Council, a collaborative effort regarding WikiProjects in general. If you would like to participate, please visit the project discussion page.

Wikiproject peer reviews requestEdit

Hi all, I am gradually working away at trying to clean up, simplify and improve peer review. I was wondering if I could ask you MSGJ how many wikiproject templates actually use the Wikiproject-specific peer review parameter? (not sure how to find this information...) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Low estimate, 87. That's the count of WikiProject banners whose doc pages have a line like this
{{WPBannerDoc/peerreview |peer review=peer-review |old peer review=old-peer-review |LINK=Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Peer review |CAT=Requests for Birds peer review |OLD_CAT=Old requests for Birds peer review }}
Of course, there are a number that don't use that line, because I've not verified the doc pages for every banner. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Do you have a list I can access? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I just realised, my count includes sandboxes, many of which display the doc for the main template. These all transclude Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/peerreview:
I have excluded /sandbox etc. subpages. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
In addition to the above, there are some WikiProject banners which do not use Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/peerreview but instead use one or more sets of NOTE parameters for peer review. These include, but are not limited to: Template:WikiProject Baseball; Template:WikiProject Chicago; and Template:WikiProject Olympics. Then there is Template:WikiProject Molecular Biology which despite its documentation has no provision for peer review - this is because it shares its doc page with Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Redrose64, thanks for your help fixing up my peer review documentation and things. I went through the templates and have removed the capability from projects that don't use it; there will be another batch in the next week or two. Please let me know if there's anything I've consistently overlooked so I can do it myself next time :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

View to eventual deprecation?Edit

I've gone through all 109 peer review pages of Wikiprojects and none actually use WP-associated peer reviews to review articles anymore. Around 10 - 15 have old reviews associated with them, and of those it seems like most wikiprojects haven't actually tagged the majority of articles that underwent peer review in this manner.

There are a couple of problems with using this template in this way. Firstly, reviews are often hidden in three-deep template collapses (multiple WP banner --> WP banner --> other). Secondly, the process is unused and there is a huge discrepancy between what have had a review, what are on the talk page, and whether the review was attended to. Thirdly, links can be broken as articles move. Lastly there is no capacity for a second review page.

I am contemplating moving all these links to {{Old peer review}}. Probably it will be using a wrapper called {{Old Wikiproject-associated peer review}}, to make tracking of those reviews easier. From my point of view this has a number of benefits. It standardises the way peer reviews are displayed (13,000 reviews including some WP reviews, are already displayed using Template:Old peer review vs. < 1000 using this banner). It increases exposure to the reviews, which might end up improving articles. We can use technical means to track and fix when links are broken and to update the usefulness of information attached to them (now a reader can include the ID and date of the reviewed page, which are very useful to see, and eventually a bot will do a full sweep).

I have started by updating the peer pages of all the wikiprojects, and have notified all projects as I've gone. This included updating the banners of the projects that hadn't actually used this functionality at all. That leaves me with about 10 Wikiprojects that have < 10 reviews, and a handful with a significant amount of reviews.

My concrete plan is to move links from old reviews from this template to {{Old Wikiproject-associated peer review}}, starting with Wikiprojects that have only a handful of reviews created this way, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Peru and Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece. If it seems to work smoothly then I'll work from there. Eventually I think this parameter could be deprecated. What are others thoughts about this? Ping to Redrose64 as you commented above. I guess my main goal here is to standardise how things are done, make peer review related maintenance easier, and also improve the overall peer review related process.--Tom (LT) (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Request for WikiProject Current Events BannerEdit

So currently, the Current Event WikiProject's banner moves left to be in line with other WikiProject banners. The Current Event WikiProject doesn't rate articles (Like every other WikiProject) as we only work with articles for a short time. Due to that short time we work with articles, the WikiProject's banner is placed above other WikiProject banners (Makes sense, since we deal with new/current articles that change all the time).

Is there a way to get the WikiProject's banner to be centered instead of a "left center"? See Talk:Hurricane Iota as an example of the "left center".

Thanks, (Current Event WikiProject Coordinator) Elijahandskip (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

There is no way to centre that text currently. Editors on this page felt that it looks neater for all the project names to be right-aligned. See the discussion if you're interested! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


WikiProject Japan (well actually just Nihonjoe at the moment) are exploring putting some additional information in the collapsed banner, e.g. when a photo has been requested:

I think it would be neater to have that icon after the quality/importance ratings. Would it cause any problems to just move the hook to be after the bracketed portion, because I don't think there is any banner using both of these simultaneously yet? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

See also User:Headbomb/Sandbox/Banner#If_there_are_issues (3rd mockup, If there are issues), from a 2017 mockup. As well as 'Projects expanded' from mockup 2. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I've seen those examples before Headbomb and I like them very much. It's high time for an overhaul of the quality assessment scales, and we should centralise them (one rating for all projects) and take them out of the individual project banners. (It's very rare that two WikiProjects assess an article differently, and if it ever happens, it is usually "fixed" very soon by a well-intentioned editor.) Would be a massive project though ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Am working on wikiproject-associated peer reviews as above, but I definitely think this is a worthwhile idea. I think it would have massive time saving impacts. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Done Hook moved after ratings — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Category parameterEdit

Since 2009 we have normlised the category parameter like this:

|category = {{yesno|{{{category|¬}}}|¬=¬|blank=¬|yes=¬}}

This means that a blank category parameter does not suppress categories, so the syntax on banner templates can be simply |category = {{{category|}}} which is more user friendly. However I have recently found out that not all the hooks behave the same way, and it is necessary to use |category = {{{category|¬}}}. I don't like the inconsistency, and I really don't see why ¬ is needed in this case. (We often use it in the meta-template to detect whether a parameter has been passed or not, which is very useful, but that does not apply here.) Any thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The way this parameter works is not obvious to me since starting Lua work. Also the use of yesno seems like overkill TBH. Also also ¬ is annoying to see. ;) --Izno (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Yesno probably is overkill, but it would be a bit weird if |category=yes were to suppress categories. So the Lua work has begun? :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Module:WikiProject and Template:WPBannerMeta/Lua and Template:WPBannerMeta/Lua/testcases. --Izno (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Do we really have to go the Lua route? That will seriously screw up my ongoing project of ensuring that all WikiProject banners have documentation, and that every parameter is documented accurately. I am still finding unusual codings in banners, and switching over to Lua will bring a complete stop to my work. In the last month, I've already lost another major workflow, which has put me on something of a downer. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Honestly this is a learning experience for me too as I work on this. I don't think conversion is going to go quick by any means as I have other stuff I'm working on simultaneously. So far I've honestly found the conversion process from wikitext to Lua simple. There's even a guide from 5 years ago about similar constructs that I've been using. You shouldn't have to trace, as below. Knowing whether a category is supposed to be output should be something that's easy to know, and right now it's horrific to know because of how decentralized category handling is (and there's really no other option in wikitext without painful duplication). I don't antipate your documenting of child modules needs to stop just because of the conversion, so you're safe on that front for the time being even should you decide that Lua is impossible for you. --Izno (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
I think this is my favourite edit summary so far ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
I live to please. --Izno (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
As for the purpose of |category= -
  • category – set |category=no if, and only if, a banner is being used for demonstration or testing purposes, to prevent unnecessary or undesirable categorization. Otherwise, omit this parameter.
Just one example of what I have done, through careful examination of the template code, tracing it through the various subtemplates. I simply cannot do that with Lua modules. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
It might not be possible to simplify all the way - this edit may not work, because |category=no will be treated the same as |category=¬. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The parameter is normalised in Template:WPBannerMeta before passing to any of the subtemplates. I propose to change this to use Template:Yesno-yes so that any non-negative input (including "yes" but also blank or "¬") results in a "yes" which will trigger the categories. Don't worry I will fully test everything first ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Initial tests working well. I need to check all the hooks next ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Fix the oversized image at Template:WikiProject Gilgit-BaltistanEdit

When I was creating Template:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan, I found that the flag image is oversized, and I can't be able to resize it à la Template:WikiProject India. Please fix it. --Soumya-8974 (he) talk contribs subpages 07:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it. You can use the |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE= parameter to set the size of the image. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Return to "WPBannerMeta" page.