Module talk:WikiProject banner/Archive 16

This is an archive of past discussions about Module:WikiProject banner. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

@MSGJ: The new temporary …pages→…articles fallback, introduced in the latest edit to this module, is conflicting with the existing Category-Class…→NA-Class… fallback. This causes category talk pages to be placed in Category:NA-Class Comics articles instead of Category:Category-Class Comics articles. (And similarly for other classes and WikiProjects.) jlwoodwa (talk) 03:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I've got a fix working in the sandbox; could an admin please sync this change over to the live module? jlwoodwa (talk) 04:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

How does your code interact with the exists check in lines 409-413 and 620-624? By the way, the bot should now be actively moving these categories, so it should all be sorted in a few days, so we could just wait? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The moving of the categories seems to have stalled at CfD, so we should probably fix this. Can you see if your code can be simplified so we don't check categories exist multiple times? By the way, it's great to have another Lua editor to help out — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the duplicated expensive function calls are bugging me too. I've reworked the function so it stores "which suffix worked" in a variable, and I've added a case before both exists-checks you mentioned so they'll use that variable instead if it's non-nil. That leaves at most three exists-checks per category (except maybe an edge case for FM); does this look good? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Great, well I will do some testing and then deploy — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I think I've figured out why e.g. Category:Template-Class redirect pages articles is being populated – it's because assessment_category normally removes " articles" from the ends of category names, but hasn't been updated to also remove " pages". I fixed this in the sandbox and added a new testcase to demonstrate it. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Easiest way to fix that is by editing the banner template [1] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

At Module:WikiProject_banner#L-283, the banner name should not be the value of local banner_name = mw.title.new(args.BANNER_NAME or 'Template:WikiProject ' .. (args.PROJECT or 'PROJECT')), but it should instead be the value of mw.getCurrentFrame():getParent():getTitle(), as this will allow any redirect usages to be validated as well, and not only those templates titled "WikiProject something". Gonnym (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding this here incase anyone has the time. Template:WikiAfrica/Share Your Knowledge (and the templates that use it such as Template:WikiAfrica/Artgate) should be converted to use the WP banner system. Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In the autodoc section of Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage, the |class= and |listas= values should be removed and shown in the examples in use inside the WikiProject banner shell.

Convert:

Basic usage
Place this on the talk page of relevant articles:
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers |class= |importance= }}

to:

Basic usage
Place this on the talk page of relevant articles:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance=}}
}}

and

Full usage
It is usual to remove any unused parameters from the template call.
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers |category= |listas= |class= |importance= |attention= |needs-infobox= |unref= |Imageneeded= }}

to:

Full usage
It is usual to remove any unused parameters from the template call.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|listas=|
{{WikiProject Skyscrapers|importance= |attention= |needs-infobox= |unref= |Imageneeded= |category= }}
}}

here also move |category= to the end as it's the least important parameter. Gonnym (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. Are you happy to make those changes to the code? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not touching the code anymore. Gonnym (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

How's that looking now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Looks good. In the "deprecated" section, maybe also add the "this parameter should be used with the banner shell template" to the class parameter. Gonnym (talk) 10:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a suggestion (link) that importance ratings e.g. |importance=mid should be ignored on non-articles, like redirects. At the moment the module will automatically apply NA-importance to these pages if no importance is specified, but it will not override a specified importance. What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The suggestion makes sense, and overridden pages can be filtered into Category:Pages with conflicting importance ratings. As long as any WikiProjects that wish to use their own importance scheme can use a custom importance mask, I don't see a problem. I would just be careful about not emptying that category too quickly, to give WikiProjects that do importance-rate #Rs, cats, templates, etc., time to make their own masks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If the rating is ignored, then it doesn't create a conflict. For example if you type |class=C on a redirect, then that will be ignored and it will still be classified as a redirect, and it does not trigger the conflicting ratings category. Should that be the same for ignored importance ratings? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

If any and all WikiProjects that currently use importance on non-articles (idk what that # is) have their importance masks in place, then sure, importance ratings can be ignored.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Are there any projects that currently categorize their redirects by importance? Gonnym (talk) 12:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

None intentionally, as far as I am aware. The only ones I have encountered have been left over from a move or merge of a page. If we did this, it would affect all non-articles, i.e. disambiguation pages, templates, portals, etc. would all get NA-importance automatically. So we should consider projects like Template:WikiProject Templates, Template:WikiProject Portals, etc. which may be tracking the importance of these pages. If they are, then a custom importance mask can be used — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:49, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

What is a custom importance mask? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:00, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, WikiProject Underwater diving classifies redirects with the potential to become full articles with the importance the full article would have, thereby giving anyone who might be considering converting to a full article some idea of whether it would be worth the effort. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:47, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If we are going to do this, then we need the check all possible projects which are tracking non-articles by importance. If there are any, then they need to be switched to a custom importance mask. I will add candidates to check to the table below — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay so we can do this - will look at coding it next week. It will be an opportunity to move away from using {{importance mask}} and use a Lua version instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed code in sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm. The new version will force NA importance on any non-article, but it will still permit NA to be used on an article. Is this correct? Would it be better to prohibit NA in article space, in which case NA would resolve to Unknown? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

NA on an article sounds strange. I'd like to see an actual usage where one would set this. It would seem that if an article is NA then it's pretty much not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (or that the project shouldn't have tagged it). Regarding the other namespaces, any project that wants to give importance to non-articles should have a custom mask? Gonnym (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. NA on an article would not make much sense, and if any project wanted to do that, they should set up a custom mask. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Pages like List of storms named Ningning which is a set index article, are often assessed with NA-importance. These will become unknown importance if we change this. Is that a problem? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Set index pages should probably be treated like disambiguation pages, unless some projects are actually setting different importance to them. Gonnym (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I have long argued that set index articles should be classified as disambiguation pages, because that is what 99% of them are. There may be a few real SIAs with actual content, but most are just a collection of links. The easiest way to do this, is make an edit like this, which would convert all the list articles on surnames into disambiguation pages in one swoop. But as you can see I was reverted back in 2023, and many kB of discussion ensued which did not reach a satisfactory conclusion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Another option is to have a list like Module:Disambiguation/templates for Category:Set index article templates so the module can detect them. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We already have that list and can detect them. But the problem is that set index articles are supposed to be articles and shouldn't be getting NA importance — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:05, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well in that case, an article shouldn't get NA importance and should get categorized as unknown (though again, I personally think they should be detected as set index and set to NA). Gonnym (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If we make this change I anticipate some queries/complaints along the lines of "why can't I set NA importance for this set index article?" I think we are taking the reasonable and appropriate action, but the mis-classification of SIAs continues to cause problems ... To reduce confusion, let's keep the possibility of assessing articles with NA-importance for now. If the SIA/disambig issue is ever sorted properly, we can revisit this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hang on a bit here. WikiProject Underwater diving uses importance on redirects to indicate which could/should reasonably be converted to full articles some day, and how important the topic is to the project. Are you classifying redirects as non-articles? How will we visibly indicate which redirects are potentially articles and which are not? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, all redirects are classified as non-articles. We can set up a custom importance mask for your project, and you can continue to assess importance in any way you wish — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That seems an entirely reasonable option, thanks for your response. My template coding skills are rudimentary, so I may have to come bck with some questions about how it works if I don't manage to get it to do what is needed. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It's already done. So you won't need to edit it, unless you want to make any other changes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:12, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I understand, and don't expect any problems or need for changes, but you never know... · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done at Template:WikiProject Underwater diving/importance. This should now be handling importance the same way it was before — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the change has caused some issues with WP:RATER, in that it is now impossible for the script to assign values to importance other than NA to all articles, not just set index and redirects (see talk page discussion there). Reconrabbit 17:38, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Articles should not be given NA. If it's NA for your project, then your project shouldn't tag that page. Gonnym (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not what they are saying. They are saying that Rater will only allow them to rate NA. I can confirm that I am seeing this too, but need to look into why this might be — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The change to this module does seem to have mucked up rater. I have no idea why, because the module is working just fine. But perhaps we should consider a partial revert to allow time for @Evad37 to look into this and apply a fix — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

That seems a prudent response, Rater is quite heavily used and there in no great urgency for this change, Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted the change to the importance mask (although I still can't think of any way this could have an impact). Please let me know if you notice an improvement to rater? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It allows an importance to be allocated to a redirect for Wikiproject underwater diving, so OK on that count. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to toss in a general comment that supports allowing projects to tag the importance of Drafts and Redirects. In the former situation, I will find drafts from the New Article reports and tag them appropriately with all of the desired details. Then when someone reviews it, that editor only has to assign a quality rating. I find that well-meaning people don't always know what importance to assign when they aren't active members of a project, and I'll have to go tweak the rating later. Also, the importance rating can serve as an indicator of which drafts should get attention to push them across the finish line as articles.

As for redirects, it's similar. Some redirects have possibilities for expansion into future articles, and if we can rate them by importance now, it gives some indication on which should be prioritized over others. Not every project may see the utility in this, but some will. Removing this possibility across the board disallows projects to use this potential tool. Imzadi 1979 → 18:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree on both counts, but this tends to be different for different projects. Some do not allocate an importance at all, others find it a useful tool. I would suggest that only non-articles that have the potential to become articles can usefully be allocated an importance, and all others should probably be rated as NA, while all actual articles should have a non-NA rating if the project allocates importance. If the project does not allocate importance, then no importance should be the only and automatic rating, and no options are needed. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:08, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Importance for drafts and redirects (and userspace drafts?) sounds reasonable for the reasons stated. I guess it depends on how many projects are actually doing this. If it's common, then we should support this as standard. It it's niche, then those projects can easily use a custom mask — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:29, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

We now have the green light to reimplement this change. So we need to decide whether to allow importance ratings for certain non-articles, e.g. redirects and drafts, or treat all non-articles as NA. Does anyone else have any opinions on this, or should we try WT:COUNCIL? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Just to make sure that everyone is board with this change, the table below clarifies the proposed output in different scenarios, as I understand it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

looks ok to me. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This is now coded on the sandbox — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Diving should now be able to go back to the standard importance mask (unless there is anything else non-standard that you want to do) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Does that require any action from us? · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that on Draft talk:Quantum Coupling Hypothesis the importance is set to low, but this is being ignored and they are getting NA-importance. This suggests that the code approved above is not working correctly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Apparently this was never implemented properly for drafts. I only tested it on redirects! Now fixed on the sandbox. This means that the page type will be displayed on the banner. Which is better: draft or draft article?

• Current: This page is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...
• Option 1: This draft article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...
• Option 2: This draft is within the scope of WikiProject Physics ...

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I would go for option 1 first, 2 second, without any strong feelings about the choice. Both are better than current. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I've gone with option 2 for now because that matches what the banner shell template uses, but don't really mind either wy. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Code on the sandbox:

• Fix the problem with drafts not being able to rated for importance (see #Override importance to NA on non-articles)
• Remove the transition code for the category moves from "articles" to "pages" (see #Fallback conflict)
• Add transition code for the intersection categories (see bottom of #Changes for FM-class)
• Fix an issue where the class was not being shown in the banner when there is no banner shell rating.
• Remove all code for the listas parameter (see #Moving listas to banner shell)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Deployed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have coded some tracking categories to help us ensure that all listas values are moved into the banner shell template. I have created the following tracking categories:

1. Category:WikiProject banners with redundant listas value (0)
2. Category:WikiProject banners with listas value which needs moving to banner shell (0)
3. Category:WikiProject banners with conflicting listas value (0)

My plan to deal with these is:

1. Parameter removed by bot (User:Qwerfjkl has offered to use his bot)
2. Parameter moved by bot (I think User:Cewbot should already do this)
3. Human review needed. (These should already be tracked in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts and possibly cleared out by other editors working through this category.)

Any comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:57, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

When completed and categories emptied, I think the code can be simplified to just have "Category:WikiProject banners with listas value which needs moving to banner shell", when listas is used. Gonnym (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. And after a while, we could just remove the parameter entirely and then they will turn up in the unknown parameter categories — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Planning to remove Category:WikiProject banners with conflicting listas value because they will be picked up by Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Martin, I don't understand this. Listas and defaultsort refer to the article page but the banner shell is on the talk page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You can sort any page, including talk pages. The banner sorts the page it's placed on. Gonnym (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

It's taken a while but I think we are now ready to remove all the code for listas from this module. Any remaining values will be picked up by the unknown parameter tracking — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

 Removed. Now if you remove |listas={{{listas|}}} from banner templates, any use of listas will tracked as an unknown parameter — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

A few days ago Category:FM-Class articles and all its subcategories were renamed to Category:FM-Class pages and the module needs to be updated to reflect this.

I am requesting a code review of changes here. There is a test case at Module talk:WikiProject banner/testcases#FM-class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: I don't know Lua, but it seems like this change made some talk pages of Wikipedia essays be categorized under Category:Top-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages articles instead of simply Category:Top-impact WikiProject Wikipedia essays pages (also applies to high, mid and low importance). For instance, Wikipedia talk:Inline citation used to be correctly categorized, but after the module edit, the red linked category was there. The latter category page says that 9 pages are under it, but after purging one of those pages, it appeared under the red linked one. ObserveOwl (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I think I know how to fix that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, not sure of the best way to fix this, but we also have Category:NA-Class AfC project pages articles. Basically any project that was not using "articles" at the end of their assessment category will be affected. The next step is to rename other non-article page categories to "pages", and then I think this problem will largely be resolved. But it may take a bit of time to do this ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads still broken. See File talk:Bixby Creek Bridge, California, USA - May 2013.jpg. Gonnym (talk) 19:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

U.S. Roads does not use this module for its task forces. I have looked into converting it in the past, but there were barriers. I may have to move those categories back to their original names — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this module should continue supporting the handful of templates that want to do stuff their own way. Gonnym (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Redirect and Category:NA-Class redirect pages articles also causing problems. Gonnym (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: all remaining non-article categories have been nominated for moving. Please comment here. Once these are done, we can fix this mess properly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the required changes for all the remaining categories is now in Module:WikiProject banner/sandbox, but would appreciate any help testing and reviewing code — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ: File-Class categories are now listed at WP:CFDW for Speedy processing. Please could you repeat your FM-Class edits to Module:WikiProject banner for File class? – Fayenatic London 10:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be best if we could process all the others in one go, i.e. wait for these to be closed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No it would be best to fix this now. This renaming has caused chaos because the bot can't process it and the templates can't be easily amended. Please make the necessary amendments immediately. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

You are being overly dramatic, using words like "chaos", and it is not helpful. A handful of redlinked categories does not constitute chaos. I believe the necessary changes have now been made to the module, sop hopefully the bot can continue its work — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject assessment category check needs to be updated. Gonnym (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: like this? – Fayenatic London 22:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I didn't check what needs to be done, I just noticed it was causing errors when looking at another page. Gonnym (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten Template:Category class in Lua, so it will now recognise categories with "pages" instead of "articles" — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you MSGJ, that looks to have been quite a big piece of work. Please can you help with Gonnym's request above? For future reference, Template:Assessment Class Summary is another template that needs updating if any other classes are renamed from "articles". – Fayenatic London 22:08, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

@MSGJ:: There is quite a bit of work not yet done to clean up the mess created by all this category renaming. Just to take the first two categories appearing in Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories:

1. Category:Category-Class 20th Century Studios articles of NA-importance contains 94 pages that are being placed in this category by {{WikiProject 20th Century Studios}}.
2. Category:Category-Class Alabama road transport articles contains 49 pages that are being placed in this category by {{WikiProject U.S. Roads}}.

Again, this is literally just the first two out of some 6,000+ assessment categories that may need to be reviewed and templates that need to be updated to use the new category names. It would be greatly appreciated if this could be made a priority, because the current backlog of incorrectly categorized pages is severely impacting the category redirect fixing bot. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the former, I was not aware these were being moved yet. Please link to the closed CfD for this. For the latter, we are actively discussing a way to fix these on Template talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

OK - the 20th Century Studios category apparently was moved by an overzealous editor (per the history) who saw a bunch of similarly-named categories being moved, and assumed that this one should be too. But then you have Category:Category-Class Animation articles of NA-importance, which was moved by the bot after someone (not me!) marked it for CFD/Speedy. Don't know how many others there are like this. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I will try and look at the code changes needed for the intersecting categories as soon as possible (hopefully sometime this week) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay I have some code ready for review in Module:WikiProject banner/auxiliary/sandbox. Changes are:

• If |class=NA then no intersection category will be used.
• If |importance=NA then no intersection category will be used.
• For a non-article class (e.g. Redirect-class) it will check if the category with "pages" exists and will use that, otherwise it will use the category with "articles".

I tested this on Category:Redirect-Class India articles of Mid-importance which is now at Category:Redirect-Class India pages of Mid-importance and it seems to work okay — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

I jumped the gun on removing NA categories. There was a CfD but it only applied to two categories not more generally. I've left these in for now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@R'n'B This code has now been deployed, so we should be able to start nominating these categories for moving — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@MSGJ If you review User:RussBot/category redirect log, you'll see that there seems to be a new backlog of pages in the NA-importance categories that aren't being re-categorized by the template(s) correctly. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Something is causing NA-importance pages to appear in the articles redirects - see User:RussBot/category redirect log for many examples. Can this be fixed ASAP before this jams up the redirect bots. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Will investigate — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed silly error which did not show itself on my test cases — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster and @R'n'B have pointed out a problem with the code for projects that have opted out of PIQA. We are using Module:Pagetype to detect whether a page is an article or some other type of page (e.g. disambiguation pages and redirects are not classified as articles), and this is used to determine whether to use "pages" or "articles" in the category name.

The problem occurs for opt-out projects because they can set their class to be whatever they wish, regardless of the page type. For example C2Cl2F4 is a list article but WikiProject Lists classified it as a disambiguation page. Therefore it is going into Category:Disambig-Class List articles rather than Category:Disambig-Class List pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

We should distinguish between two things here. What a project classifies a page for their project, and what a page is. WP History can say that in their opinion an article is not the global quality of say "B" and they give it a "C", what they can't do, is say an article is a category. Same thing with disambiguation pages. A page is, or is not, a disambiguation page. That is something that is global. I'm opposed to any and all changes which let projects falsely identify pages. Gonnym (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

It appears the articles in Category:Disambig-Class List articles were just rookie mistakes. They are now in Category:List-Class List articles (not Category:Disambig-Class List pages since, as correctly stated, they are articles). Nurg (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

There are projects that choose to define certain categories as Project-class because they are internal project categories rather than content categories. I'm not sure we should be enforcing such a strict interpretation, to stop them doing that — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Well then, start an RfC and lets see where the consensus is. Gonnym (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not the one trying to change the status quo — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

See also related discussions at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Request: Class=Project to override other default allocations and Template talk:WikiProject Military history#Redlinked class-rating categories, again. I am thinking that we should keep a record of which classes are "pages" and which classes are "articles". Then opt-out projects can do whatever they like without messing up the category system — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Small inconsistency: in the #Deprecated parameters section, both listas & class bullets' 2nd sentence should start with either "Please see ..." or "See ..." and not both. This is the only instance of "Please see ..." I see, so preference goes to "See ...".   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/collapsed (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notecounter (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notes (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/taskforces/core (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)
• Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/tfnested (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

From what I can tell, I think we are all set to delete (under WP:T5) the templates listed above, but I am asking here before actually pushing the button. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/notecounter is mentioned at Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage#L-24. Other than that, the few transclusions left for the others can be deleted. Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to break that module; can that line just be deleted per WP:BEANS? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Figured out how to remove it. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:31, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The other remaining subtemplate – Template:WPBannerMeta/hooks/cats (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) – is still in use at Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/cats. I can see of several possible solutions, in order of increasing complexity:

1. Leave it be.
   • Pros: Very easy
   • Cons: Feels like we are inviting further use of a deprecated template
2. Move it to Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/cats/core (or some other subpage)
   • Pros: Easy, prevents use of the template in other locations
   • Cons: Still leaves around some technical debt
3. Merge its functionality with Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/cats
   • Pros: Marginally decreases technical debt; impossible to continue to use any of the hooks
   • Cons: More challenging; Template:WikiProject U.S. Roads/cats still exists

I lean towards option 2. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

2 will be the easiest for now and will allow to decouple it from the parent template. Gonnym (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I have actioned option 2. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

While processing a move request for Template:WikiProject Song Contests, and then updating the categories (for the first time), I was caught unaware of the changes to the NA-related categories, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_December_7#Category:Category-Class_articles. This led to an eventual deletion of Category:NA-importance Song Contests articles and Category:NA-Class Song Contests articles as these became redirects to the now non-existent Eurovision categories.

Then in the Template:WikiProject Song Contests page, warnings came up, requesting to create the 'articles' categories, leading to me recreating the redirects to suppress the warnings (cc: @Liz). Can these warnings be suppressed outright in the module codes since the articles are being automatically set to the 'pages' categories already? – robertsky (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes I will update those, thanks for the reminder — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done, finally got round to this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

We are still using the following templates:

• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/preloadqual
• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/preloadimp
• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/preloadmeta
• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/editintro

and these are also using:

• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/deduceclass
• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/deduceimportance
• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/impheader
• Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage/qualheader

I would firstly like to move these to a more suitable location (as Template:WPBannerMeta is no longer in use) and also to update and simplify this whole family of templates, because things can be done a lot more easily these days — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I have moved the three preload templates to Template:WikiProject banner preload template and deleted all the rest which are no longer needed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

I have made a few adjustments to the to do related code in /auxiliary/sandbox.

1. Converted the presentational table to a more appropriate div.
2. Use a dark mode token for the background.
3. Removed support for setting custom styles. Template:WikiProject Freemasonry is the only project which uses them (TODO_STYLE TODO_TITLE_STYLE), and the way in which they are used is not friendly for dark mode, though the particular color flavor happens to be readable. I removed another which was using the default in light mode.

It looks like Module:WikiProject banner/templatepage needs removal of the parameters of interest. Izno (talk) 02:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the info. I can deal with /templatepage — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Izno there is a slight spacing inconsistency with the new divs, which you can observe on Template:WikiProject Japan/sandbox. Are you able to line up the text on the left and the [show] links on the right? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Playing around with the left/right padding on the container seems to do it. Adding 2px on the left and another 2px on the right I think got it. Basically what's happening is that tables have a natural border-spacing (not coincidentally it's 2px) which is padding like but applied slightly differently. Izno (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Padding is always inside the border. The spacing outside the border is the margin. See The CSS Box Model. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Tables are special in that they have the border-spacing property. The point I was making is that in fact there is more to the box model than just padding and margin. Izno (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any changes to the sandbox and the example is still looking the same? If you can fix the spacing in the sandbox, I suggest we change all of the collapsible boxes in the module to use div boxes, to keep things consistent — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Izno are you still interested in this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

I didn't make any adjustments, which is why you do not see any changes.

I didn't change the other collapsible boxes because they're more or less fairly marked up as tables, from memory (and memory may be wrong of course). Izno (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

In that case I can't really see a benefit to converting the table to a div, as it will introduce an inconsistency. I have removed the style parameters from /templatepage, so these will now be treated as unknown parameters — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:53, 30 March 2025 (UTC)