Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

New implementation of WikiProject banners

I am delighted to be able to introduce an exciting (if you're that way inclined, anyway :D) set of tools for handling WikiProject banners on talk pages. The net effect of these new features is to remove the need for the |nested=yes parameter when putting WikiProject banners inside banner shells, and to make it trivial to manipulate the appearance of shelled banners on a per-user or per-page basis.

The system is a combination of new JavaScript to expand the CollapsibleTables system, and new CSS designed specifically for WikiProject banners. Full details of the new JavaScript code can be found at Help:Collapsible tables. The most important step is to add one of the two new CollapsibleTables classes (('outercollapse') to the cell in the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} template into which the WikiProject banners are inserted. This means that any collapsible tables which are A) placed inside this cell, and B) given the 'innercollapse' class, will automatically collapse themselves. This means that it is no longer necessary to use the |nested=yes parameter to define whether or not to add the CollapsibleTables functionality to a banner. Now we can have that functionality always enabled, and the banners will be collapsed inside WikiProjectBannerShell and uncollapsed when they are alone on a page. The CSS classes selectively hide the header row of all WikiProject banners which are not inside a banner shell. It achieves this by hiding the header row, which is identified by the class 'wpb-header', in all instances, then re-enabling it when the banner is inside an object with the 'wpbs' class. So banners outside a banner shell are still theoretically collapsible, but the hide/show button is not visible, duplicating the current behavior. So the next most important step is to also add the 'wpbs' class to some part of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. Both of these steps already been done.

With these preparations completed, it is now possible to convert individual WikiProject banners to use the new system. The header of a typical WikiProject banner usually looks something like this:

Example 1:

{| class="{{#ifeq:{{{nested|}}}|yes|collapsible collapsed messagebox nested-talk|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|messagebox small-talk|messagebox standard-talk}}}}"
{{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{nested|}}}}}|yes|
{{!}}-
! colspan="3" style="text-align: center" {{!}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Old|WikiProject Old]]{{#if:{{{class|}}}|      (Rated {{ucfirst:{{{class}}}}}-Class)}}
}}
|-
|width="48"|[[Image:Information.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|40px|60px}}|Icon]]
|This article is within the scope of '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Old|WikiProject Old]]'''. For more information, etc etc etc...

...

|}

With the new code, it is possible to rewrite this banner replacing the red code above with the green code below, like this:

Example 2:

{| class="wpb collapsible innercollapse messagebox {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|small-talk|standard-talk}}"
|- class="wpb-header"
! colspan="3" style="text-align: center" | [[Wikipedia:WikiProject New|WikiProject New]]{{#if:{{{class|}}}|      (Rated {{ucfirst:{{{class}}}}}-Class)}}
|-
|width="48"|[[Image:Information.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|40px|60px}}|Icon]]
|This article is within the scope of '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject New|WikiProject New]]'''. For more information, etc etc etc...

...

|}

As you can see this is considerably simpler to write, easier to debug, and more friendly on the eye. It is also fractionally kinder on the MediaWiki parser, although this is not really important. However, the results are now very different. Compare the two banners outside any banner shell:

Example 3:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Old. For more information, etc etc etc...

WikiProject New
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject New. For more information, etc etc etc...

With their appearance inside a banner shell:

Example 4:

WikiProject Old
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Old. For more information, etc etc etc...

WikiProject New
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject New. For more information, etc etc etc...

Example 5:

In the top instance of {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, a parameter default simulates how the banners would look if the parameter |nested=yes was passed to them. The bottom instance does not contain this tweak. The obvious effect is to make the |nested= parameter completely unnecessary. This means that WikiProject banners can now be moved inside a banner shell just by placing a shell template around them. This should greatly simplicy the process of tagging and assessing banners. Secondly, it means that the behaviour of all the WikiProject banners within a banner shell can be manipulated easily. By adding or removing the 'outercollapse' and 'wpbs-inner' classes, it is possible to control the collapsed/uncollapsed state of all the banners inside the shell. The new parameter, |banner collapsed=no, to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, enables this switch.

The code for these changes is now completely decached, and is visible to all users. If we make a concerted effort to change the 800-some WikiProject banner templates to use the new system, it could easily be deployed within a few weeks. This would also be an excellent opportunity to convert WikiProject banner templates to use {{WPBannerMeta}} or at least the new 'tmbox' classes.

Comments and suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Happy-melon 19:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

On my browser, your example 5 doesn't show both wikiprojects collapsed. Only the second one is. In fact, your example 5 exhibits the problem I wrote about in the previous subsection on this talk page, namely, one of the wikiprojects in your banner isn't collapsible at all; no gadget appears for collapsing it. Try it with IE7. ~Amatulic' (talk) 20:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm running Firefox 2 and I see the same non collapsible rendering for the example 5 that Amatulic apparently does. Is that intended? I do like to hear that there might be possible simplification pending and agree that if there is going to be a pass through all the banners, revisiting/fixing other things might be goodness. ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the code, it's not supposed to collapse; it's a hard-coded sample of a "nested"-using banner without the actual parameter invocation. Kirill ^(prof) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've updated {{WPMILHIST}} to use the new code, and it seems to be working fine. Thanks to Happy-melon for setting this up! Kirill ^(prof) 00:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is intentional, but the top two examples are left-aligned, and the subsequent examples are centered. (This may be due to my system configuration, already known by David G. and others : )

So the improvements may indeed be improvements on that count too. - jc37 08:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy-melon is going to tease me for this, since I have told him to not edit my examples on talk pages...

I took the liberty of editing the examples above to make it clearer which banners are using the old code and which are using the new code. I renamed "WikiProject Foo" to "WikiProject Old", and "WikiProject Bar" to "WikiProject New". And I added example numbers so it is easier to discuss the different examples. I also slightly edited the comments of Amatulic' and Lar to reflect the new example numbers.

Amatulic' and Lar: Right, in example 5 above, the old banner doesn't collapse, doesn't get a header, and doesn't get a show/hide button. That is correct since that example shows what happens when a banner with the old code isn't fed the required "nested=yes" parameter. Then that banner doesn't know it is inside a bannershell. While the new banner in example 5 auto-detects that it is inside the bannershell and shows the right appearance, without the "nested=yes" parameter! And that is what all this is about: The new banners don't need the "nested=yes" parameter, instead they are fully automatic.

jc37: I guess you are using an older browser, perhaps an older Internet Explorer, right? And what you see is that in example 3 the two boxes are left aligned instead of centred on the page, right?

The reason is that the examples above use the older "messagebox" CSS classes, instead of the newer "tmbox" classes. In some older browsers if a box uses the "messagebox" class then they get left aligned, when placed directly on a page not surrounded by the bannershell. The newer "tmbox" classes fixes that box flow problem. That is a partly separate thing from the announcement here: That banners with the "innercollapse" class no longer need the "nested=yes" parameter. Well, the "messagebox" and "tmbox" classes have been updated to work together with this new "automatic detection when inside a bannershell" system.

So the solution to the alignment problem you see jc37 is to upgrade all old boxes to use the new "tmbox" classes.

--David Göthberg (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for sorting that for me. Much appreciated. This seems a uniformly good idea then. All that remains, then, before doing this to all the project banners, is to identify what else might need doing in a big edit pass? Oh, can I tease you about editing examples too, or is that restricted to HappyMelon? :) ++Lar: t/c 19:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lar: Nah, I guess anyone can tease me for it now, since it backfired. So I should perhaps withdraw my old statements (on other talk pages) that you should not edit my examples and change it to: "You may edit my examples, but if you do then take care so you don't break them. And more importantly, you must state that you edited them and preferably mention what changes you did." Since as I see it we sign our comments and examples on the talk pages, and not stating that one has edited another comment means false attribution and causes all kinds of confusion. It is especially confusing if others have already commented on the previous version of the examples.

Happy-melon: I tested your examples above in my three web browsers: In my Firefox 2 and IE 5.5 they work perfectly (apart from the known left align issue with example 3 in IE 5.5). But in my Opera 9.02 when I click [hide] on the entire bannershell in example 4 and 5, then the bannershell collapses all right, but it also becomes slightly less than 80% wide. I tested on some other talk pages but I don't see this problem when I click [hide] on the bannershells there. When I click show it expands again and also gets 80% wide again. This is just a minor problem, since it doesn't matter much that the bannershell becomes less wide when collapsed. But I guess we should investigate it when we get the time.

--David Göthberg (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Debugging is still needed. This template on Talk:Muhammad is appearing (on IE7) fully expanded, with no options to show or hide anything. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it has nothing to do with the "New implementation of WikiProject banners". It's the same problem as described above under #Nothing collapses, no show or hide gadgets, this time in {{WPMA}}. Anomie⚔ 22:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Usage guide

Please describe or link the meaning of the parameters "1=" and "nested". `'Míkka>t 00:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading Template:WikiProjectBannerShell#Usage. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and I suggest you reading and understanding my question before answering. `'Míkka>t 15:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• "1=" simply means the first parameter. You will find documentation at meta:Help:Template
  • Oops, my stupid. `'Míkka>t 03:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Though I don't understand the nested parameter nor can I quickly uncover the documentation, evidence suggests that it is obvious to those who edit the code for WikiProject banners. Meanwhile, for you and I, we merely need to know that we must add |nested=yes when nesting a (compliant) banner inside a WikiProjectBannerShell.
  • After some playing, I see that it controls the appearance of the show/hide link in the subtemplates: they disappear with "nested=no" or absent param. The question is whether it does something else. `'Míkka>t 03:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• Judging by your experience, Ms2ger and I seem to have a blind spot as to the wording of the documentation. I have tweaked Talk:Hinduism in Russia to conform to the recommendation at Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/doc. Could you give us the benefit of your fresh eyes to recommend or add changes to the documentation that would have made it more clear to you how to use the banner shell?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It is exactly in Talk:Hinduism in Russia I suspected that "nested" must work as I've just described here, but it does not work as I expected in that block of templates, as predicted in the /doc: "If that is not the case, use {{BannerShell}} as described below". But again how the heck I know that "that is not the case" if I don't know "the case" :-) `'Míkka>t 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some nitpicking:

• It says that |blp=yes must be added 'before 1=. May be it is my nastiness and hatred to voodoo programming, but I would like toread whether this requirement is because you want BLP piece right on top or simply because otherwise it will not work.

That is not a true statement. It's easier to see if you add it before the 1=, but it's not necessary to do that first.

It is, however, far more error-prone in the bottom position; users will typically add new banners just before the closing brackets, and this may cause them to be passed into the |blp= parameter rather than the |1= parameter. Kirill ^(prof) 04:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, isn't it true for other optional parameters as well? My point is why only this one is isngled out? Needs explanation in the manual IMO. `'Míkka>t 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• As for "nested=yes", I finally guess that the intended usage is to have subtemplates collapsed, hence the recommendation about "nested" with no extra fuss. If it is so then the phrase "The template condenses each banner " must be written as "If used as described below, the template condenses each banner " or something like that, or postpone the talk about "condensation". Plus, I have found that often there is one major WP for an article and several secondary WPs. In this case it is convenient to set "nested=no" to the main one (I guess will not work for non-compliant subtempates). `'Míkka>t 03:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While that's not the way this template was coded, that will indeed work. In cases like that, I would recommend not even including the "main" template inside the shell, but that's just preference - the manner you have described works just as well. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There should probably be some information added that if a project banner is based on {{WPBannerMeta}}, "nested=yes" isn't necessary, as the nesting is done automatically. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We should eventually get to the point where all banners either use WPBM or use the enhanced nesting system described in the thread above, at which point we can update the documentation. We're some 62% of the way through that process at the moment, so there are still a large number of banners that don't support the new system. Happy‑melon 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just finished resolving the conflicts in Category:Pages with DEFAULTSORT conflicts (along with other editors but I do not know who they are) and where there were more than three banners on a page I nested them. If I used WPBS without the nested=yes in each banner, some of the banners would not nest. I eventually gave up on WPBS because WPB, which was created two weeks before WPBS, nests and collapses everything.

In most, probably all but I am not certain, of the cases where WPBS had already been used on a living person but the blp parameter was note the first parameter the blp banner did not show on the page. This is also true of WPB.

I only looked at 2,000 pages, more or less, so your results may vary, void where prohibited, shipping & handling not included, some assembly required and not available in any store.

JimCubb (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, we are now in a transitionary period between the system using the |nested= parameter and the system where banners automatically collapse. As such, the nested parameter is still required for some banners, as you note. Approximately 35% of WikiProject banners still need to be converted to the new system. In the interim, adding |nested=yes to shelled banners won't ever hurt; if the banner uses the new system the parameter will simply be ignored. Happy‑melon 20:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Noncompliant templates

{{Science Fiction Project}} and {{WikiProject Technology}} aren't nesting automatically.
—WWoods (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you give an example page where this is not working? Talk:Ursula K. Le Guin seems to work. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. Talk:Technological singularity has

—WWoods (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Um - I don't think they're *supposed* to nest automatically. WikiProject Sociology is the first I've ever seen that was coded that way. All the rest (that I've seen) need the "|nested=yes" parameter. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently {{WPBannerMeta}} now somehow detects when it is inside a banner shell, and auto-collapses. How it does this is beyond me...I've spent several minutes so far looking through code and cannot even find the blasted "nested" param...just the task force ones. Bah. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 09:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Look in the archives for this talk page, there is a good bit of discussion of that feature there. The short version is that it's done with CSS, and a some new Javascript to conditionally apply the collapsing. nested=yes is still required for any banner that hasn't been rewritten to use this new CSS, which probably means any not using {{WPBannerMeta}}. Anomie⚔ 12:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Needs Attention

I would like to see a way to note that an article has been marked as needing immediate attention (similar to how it shows that the article has an assessment comment page). This will allow us to clean up the talk page without losing the ever-important notice that an article needs attention. Oldiesmann (talk) 03:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this for a particular WikiProject? Or can you give an example? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Similar vein; It would be nice if ANY banner had ANY "needs" function activated; that it would "un-collapse" or "show"? Or maybe show some stock "Needs Attention" message at the top (like BLP?). I could cite Talk:Sam Hinton; that I just implemented. -- Mjquin_id (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing

Hmmm...Can an expert help me with the following:
Implementing "|banner collapsed=no"; in order to "show" the banners inside the shell. Does not work as expected on Talk:Sam_Hinton.
Secondarily, my hope on this page was for WPBIO to be shown and the rest collapsed...Doable? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no |banner collapsed= parameter in this template. You're looking for {{WPB}}. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Other way around. You're using {{WPB}} where you should be using this template. Also, none of the templates on that talk page are actually using the new way of collapsing, so it won't work anyways. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:12–19:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Private Equity not nesting properly

{{WikiProject Private Equity}} Any ideas? Thanks. ~ Paul^T+/_C 15:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Can you link to an example? Happy‑melon 16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it! It works fine now. :) ~ Paul^T+/_C 16:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Report on Banner Template Updates

Background

There are 374,407 pages in Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. Not that all the non-trivial DEFAULTSORT conflicts have been resolved, I am adding listas parameters. (At the rate I am able to work I will not finish this in my lifetime.) As in my previous project, I am also nesting banners when it is appropriate. Because of this I will be able to report on the project banners that are not fully compliant with WPBS when I find them. I will add new information to this section.

• WikiProject Biography Template requires the nested parameter to be set to yes in order to nest.

JimCubb (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This would be a fantastic resource; if you are prepared to take the time to construct it we would all be very grateful. And also huge kudos for being prepared to take on the monumental gnome job of clearing that category! Happy‑melon 12:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, User:WOSlinker and I have been working on such a list at Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Compliant banner list. It contains most, if not all, banners in Category:WikiProject banners and {{WPBannerMeta}}'s categories. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

About a month ago I was directed to that list and was immediately overwhelmed -- way too much information for what I was doing. I just looked at it again. WP Biography was missing so I added it. (It only has 618,693 pages that use it.) All the US States, Canadian Provinces and countries seem to be there. As I see it the only way it could be improved would be to have the number of pages that carry each template but that may not be possible.

I would suggest that WP Biography and the banners for all the US States be updated as soon as possible just because of the number of pages involved. I realize that it will be a terrific load on the server but it will only be worse later.

JimCubb (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum
Rather than re-invent the wheel I am only going to update Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/Compliant banner list as needed. When I find that a template has been updated, such as Western Asia, I will change the N to a Y. If I find a banner that is no listed, I will add it. Okay?

JimCubb (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

How close are we to having WP Biography compliant? JimCubb (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Verbiage

Could the template's coding force a change to the verbiage when the collapsed parameter is used? Please?

This is the problem as I see it. The standard notice for this banner is "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:". That is fine when this template is not collapsed because the collapsed versions of the projects' templates follow the notice. When this template is collapsed there is nothing following the notice. In order to avoid using {{WPS}}, which I notice is no longer derided in this template's documentation, it is necessary to insert the text parameter and use the notice from {{WPS}}, "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details."

I am getting tired of adding yet another parameter to this rather cumbersome template when there are six or more project banners on a page. I was rather forceably converted to this template away from {{WPS}} but I am leaning back towards using it because of its simplicity. KISS, remember? JimCubb (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose you're talking about {{WPB}}, not {{WPS}}. The notices are

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. (WPB)

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. (WPBS)

Is that a big problem? —Ms2ger (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I see what Jim is asking about, and while I'm not sure its a big deal, I'll see if I can work on some coding a bit later. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 19:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad hands! Of course I meant WPB, WikiProject Banners.

When this banner is collapsed none of the project banners are visible. There is nothing following the verbiage. It is worse than a contradiction.

See next paragraph for details on contradictions.

See previous paragraph for details on contradictions.

It is a null statement, an antecedent without a consequent.

I hope that clarifies the issue. Yes, it is a problem. JimCubb (talk) 00:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Please report any problems. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The old verbiage is back and the show/hide button doesn't work. Has someone has been playing with the code?

JimCubb (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No one's touched it since. Where do you see the issue? Does is remain after purging etc? Happy‑melon 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I just tested it again on a couple of random talk pages, and everything seems in order. I'm a bit confused.... — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It may have been an IE glitch on the computer at work. All seems well at home on Firefox.

JimCubb (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Required parameter?

Is the |1= still required, the instructions say so, but I'm not so sure. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that it has ever been required, but is a placeholder which explicitly calls the first paremater, rather than a named one. I think that it's an optional artifact of the way that programming languages are constructed. This may be incorrect, however. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not required. Happy‑melon 08:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I really hate to tell you this but right after I read the above I added the listas parameter to Unexpect and, as there are three banners, enclose the banners in the shell. Nothing happened without the |1= .

JimCubb (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Happy‑melon 08:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A "1=" is required if the parameter value contains an "="; whatever text is before the first "=" is interpreted as the name of the named parameter, so we have to explicitly name the parameter if the value contains an "=". The old parser would look for the "=" in the transcluded text, and thus would have screwed up without the "1=" if any banner contained <span style="..."> or other HTML tags; the new parser does not do this, so the "1=" is now unnecessary for this template. Anomie⚔ 11:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I had completely forgotten about that change; of course you're completely correct, it was the preprocessor upgrade that removed the need for this. Happy‑melon 11:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reported a bug in AWB/KingbotK plugin. The parameter is necessary in order AWB not to crash. I am not sure that this is unnecessary. How do we distinguish the template for the parameter "blp=yes"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Collapsed=yes has stopped working

On Talk:2009_swine_flu_outbreak. Any thoughts ? Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Worksforme, what browser/OS? Happy‑melon 23:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Namespace switch

I put a #switch in in order to differentiate between namespaces. Not all pages this is used for are articles, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, so it would be useful to provide for those exceptions. (Feel free to revert if this causes any problems.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Please sync with the sandbox, so this also works on file talk pages and when the banner shell has not been collapsed. Thanks for suggesting this change on the talk page before making the edit, User:King of Hearts. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done as you request. However I must say I found your comment snarky. In view of WP:BOLD there is no need to discuss simple changes such as these in advance. In any case, a simple request would come across better than sarcasm. Just a suggestion. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Importance

Currently, the bannershell only displays the quality assessment, but not the importance. This ought to be implemented IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this template has no control over what the individual project banners display when collapsed. Each banner, or if used, the {{WPBannerMeta}} meta-template, determines its reaction to the activation of |nested=yes or being inside this template. If you want this changed, you'd best get WPBannerMeta modified, though given that some projects use criteria other than "importance" and consistency may become an issue, you may have a challenge. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 07:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'll head there. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, So Close

Within the last seven hours the WP Biog template was fixed so that it would nest withing this shell without the nested parameter. Seriously, it did not nest on my last attempt at work and it did work on my last attempt here at home, about seven hours later. However, if the living parameter is set to yes in the template, the blp banner is within the shell and duplicates the blp banner that is above the shell when the blp parameter is added to the WPBS template.

The fix is easy, delete the living=yes from the WP Biog banner, but I believe that there are categories that draw on the living parameter from the WP Biog banner. Could the WP Biog banner template be further modified so that it will not display the blp banner when it is nested? The blp parameter is too easy to insert into the shell for anyone to have grounds for complaint.

JimCubb (talk) 06:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? It doesn't nest for me, and I can't see any reason in the code (no changes since October) why it should. Happy‑melon 08:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Since I cannot reproduce what I thought I saw, no, I am not sure. Chalk it up to an old guy's overly long day and wishful thinking.

Now that I have your attention, is there a target date for updating that banner? It is on more than 20% of the articles and not that there are a few of us working on Category:Biography articles without listas parameter it would make our efforts so much easier.

JimCubb (talk) 16:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no problem to fix. The Banner Shell is not malfunctioning. If you view the source code for {{Blp}}, it states clearly "don't display in banner shells". Therefore, you have to manually place the {{Blp}} just below the {{talkheader}}. The instructions for use the {{Blp}} code may need to change, or coding for the {{Blp}} may require adjustment, but not the Banner Shell code. edit to add signature, hit the save page a bit too quickly74.178.201.85 (talk) 15:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There Seems To Be a Problem

What is happening to the shell on Talk:Ya'akov Katz (politician born 1951) and Talk:Y. A. Tittle? It is not happening on Talk:Yaakov ben Moshe Levi Moelin and Talk:Yaakov ben Yakar. JimCubb (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any difference (FF 3.0.10). What difference do you see? -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, what is happening on those two pages? I assume that you see a rendering inconsistency, but I see nothing out of the ordinary on FF3/Vista. In general, when reporting a bug in any software, the more detail you can provide, the better. If the problem was blindingly obvious to all users, it would probably have already been fixed. That you have noticed an error means you're doing something different to the 'developers', not necessarily anything 'wrong', just something that hasn't been done by them before. As such, you absolutely have to include two pieces of information: what the problem is, and how you found it. In this case, what is the problem? It could be anything from a missing table border to your browser crashing whenever trying to load the page; your comment doesn't give any suggestions. Equally important is the details of how you found the bug: by that I mean what browser, OS and skin you're using, whether you're viewing or editing the page, etc. Any other details you can add are certainly never going to hurt, but these two things are absolutely essential; there is essentially no bug report without them.

Bug writing is certainly an art, I'm not trying to have a go at you for getting it 'wrong'. Have a read of mozilla's bug writing guide for a more 'professional' perspective if you want. But essentially there's nothing I or anyone else can do to fix or even find the problem with the information you've provided. Happy‑melon 20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

On Katz and Tittle pages the banners do not collapse within the shell. Tittle was applied yesterday and Katz was applied today.

The other two have their banners behaving as advertised and they were applied today. I just applied a shell to Talk:Yacine El Azouzi and it is behaving. The one that I applied before Tittle was Talk:Xuefei Yang and it is fine. The one I did after Tittle was Talk:Y. C. James Yen, it is badly behaved. The one after that was Talk:Yhonastan Fabian and it is fine.

I have cleared my cache. I have emptied Temporary Internet files. I have not checked these pages at home on Firefox. I don't think that there is a systeminc problem. I think it is topical. I was hoping other eyes could see a glaring difference between the two that I indicated as bad an the two that I indicated as good.

I apologize for the lack of substantive information but I really thought that it was obvious. With the possible of Tittle the subjects of the articles are not household names and I only applied the shells because I was adding the listas parameter. There is no reason to assume that anyone would have seen the pages in the last 24 hours.

JimCubb (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You still haven't said what browser you're using. :P Happy‑melon 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the page crashed, possibly too many windows open at once.

• IE 6 on VistaXP5.

I normally use FF 3.0.10 at home but have used IE 6 on Windows 2000. I just checked the first pages on each browser. IE 6 at home is the same as IE 6 at work. (The banners in Katz and Tittle are not collapsed within the shell. The other two originally cited are. I just did Talk:Yaakov Meir Shechter and it worked just fine.)

I seem to recall that I am using "collapsed" for banners incorrectly. What I mean is what the banners look like in the intermediate stage, whatever that is called, between no shell and the shell collapsed. The look that is lacking in WPS.

JimCubb (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. They display fine to me on IE6/XP (admittedly on a hardware emulator, but the effect should be identical). Can anyone else confirm with the exact browser/OS combo?

Do the show/hide buttons appear on the banners?? What about on the shell itself? If you add another collapsible table further down the page (another WPBS, for instance) does it collapse normally? Happy‑melon 08:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is how it looks here. (Note the correction to my OS.)

JimCubb (talk) 21:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm indeed. What about my other question (adding other collapsible tables)? Happy‑melon 22:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what it looks like at home

• IE6 on Windows 2000 5

Just for giggles I changed the shell to WPB and got this. There is certainly "something to make you say, 'Hmm'". When you delete your screen shot would you delete mine as well? If something more formal is needed for you to delete them, let me know.

JimCubb (talk) 01:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, it's definitely a JavaScript error that's causing your scripts to choke and die before it gets round to adding the collapse buttons. I know IE6 has sod all error reporting, but could you try, firstly, whether that particular combination of banners is the cause (ie if you copy the shell and banners to another page/sandbox, do you get the same issue? And if so, try removing the banners one at a time and find out which one(s) is responsible? Happy‑melon 08:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)I'm also having this problem, and it's happening on every talk page I've looked at that has WPBS installed, so it's not one particular banner that's the problem. This is with IE 7 under Vista. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up, Ed; this certainly seems to be a strange error. Is this shell affected? Happy‑melon 09:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

No, that shell is properly collapsed. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the problem still apparent? Happy‑melon 11:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, yes. The four talk pages I checked are still not collapsing. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Were they chosen at random, or are they the same ones as you checked before (in which case, which are they?)? Did you purge and/or null-edit the pages to make sure you got the latest render? Happy‑melon 11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Does the problem still happen if you view the pages logged out? If not, does it still appear if you turn off any gadgets you have activated and/or temporarily blank your monobook.js (don't forget to clear your cache)? Alternatively, could you duplicate one of the non-working pages in a sandbox and try to reduce it to a minimal example that shows the problem (i.e. remove all the comments, and then remove the banners one by one until you figure out which are necessary for the problem to occur)? I remember a while back you found a similar IE issue that only showed up for people who had certain gadgets/scripts installed, and discovering that was an important step in finding the underlying cause. Anomie⚔ 14:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Very good questions. At least one of the articles was a repeat from before, I'm not certain about all of them. So I started from scratch. I found 2 articles from the very beginning of my contrib history that I verified had WPBS installed, and on a two others I installed it myself. None of them were collapsing. Using Opera, I confirmed that they were collapsing with another browser, then I looked at each again with IE, purging the cache for each one - they still did not collapse. Finally I looked at them with IE, but logged out, and all of them collapsed properly, which indicates that something in my Wikipedia configuration is probably causing the problem under IE.

(For good measure, I also checked one article that used WPB, not WPBS, and the results were the same. The articles I used were Talk:Philip K. Dick, Talk:Colorado Plateau, Talk:Blackface and Talk:Panama Canal. The WPB article was Talk:Empire State Building.)

My next step is to find out which of my settings is causing the problem, so I'll start on that later today. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I had to make a null edit this morning before I was able to see them collapsing on IE. A purge wasn't enough. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

break: culprits

(out) What I've found is that if either of these two options in "Gadgets" is checked, the banner shell won't collapse:

• Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time.

• The JavaScript Standard Library, a compatibility library for browsers that lack full support for JavaScript 1.6. This includes Internet Explorer, Opera, and Safari.

There may be other Java-related options that cause problems as well, but these two are the only options of all that I have chosen in Preferences which cause the banner not to collapse. I hope that's sufficient to find a fix. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 17:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It certainly helps, thanks for taking the time to track that down. Happy‑melon 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, unsurprisingly trying those two gadgets with Firefox doesn't give anything to play with, not even non-fatal errors. Which means we're reliant on IE's own script error evaluation... Oh shit... :S Happy‑melon 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Without reading anything much of the previous discussion, doesn't IE8 have a Firebug-esque debug system built in? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(out)have there been any developments at solving the problem with IE? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 11:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had forgotten about this discussion (I can only get debugging time on a computer with IE7 on weekends). I found the problem in the "Change UTC-based times and dates" gadget and posted at User talk:Gary King/comments in local time.js about it; if Gary doesn't respond soon enough feel free to throw an {{editprotected}} on there (or on WT:Gadget) to attract an admin to make the change. When I tried Talk:Ya'akov Katz (politician born 1951) with only the JavaScript Standard Library enabled, the collapsing seemed to work fine. Anomie⚔ 17:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure who did what to which, but I didn't change anything in my preferences, and everything's collapsing very nice now. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the long wait with my script; I had to go out and get a copy of Windows XP and then get Parallels since I don't have a Windows computer. Anyway, it's fixed now. Gary King (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Automatic {{Blp}} works in one shell, but not the other

FYI. I double-checked at the sandbox. As long as the required parameter living=yes is set for {{WPBiography}}, the {{Blp}} displays automatically within the {{WikiProjectBanners}} shell. But when {{WPBiography}} is inside the {{WPBS}} shell, the {{Blp}} DOES NOT appear. Blp does NOT appear in the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} either since WPBS is a shortcut for WikiProjectBannerShell. So for Biography pages, WikiProjectBanners is the easier choice. 74.178.202.19 (talk) 11:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

copied by Magioladtis from Template talk:WPBiography -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProjectBanners:

WikiProjectBannerShell:

WikiProjectBannerShell with |blp=yes:

See my reply there. The BLP notice should not show within a shell, it should always be displayed externally via the |blp= parameter. PC78 (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I see what you mean. However, this is a misconception: the blp warnings should never be displayed inside the shell, they should always be displayed outside. This means you have to set |blp=yes on the shell, as well as in the banner itself, as I've shown in the final example. The blp warning is too important to be hidden inside a collapsed shell. Happy‑melon 11:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that something should display when living=yes so that

1. The page contains the blp warning, in case blp=yes is forgotten on the shell.
2. So that maintainers can see at a glance whether the living parameter has been set correctly.

I would suggest a message which is integrated with the rest of the banner, like needs-photo operates, if the banner is nested. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree fully; there should be a note in the banner in the usual fashion. Something to add to the (WPBM) sandbox version of {{WPBiography}}. Happy‑melon 13:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Since an improved version is on the way. Can we find a way that the |blp= is not needed? We could obtain information from |living= somehow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not reliably. We could use JavaScript to move the blp banner outside the shell, but that would only work for users with JS enabled. We'd need something like Variables (see T9865, it's not pretty!), or a total redesign to the banner system, to do it automatically. Happy‑melon 12:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that

{{WikiProjectBanners|blp=yes|1={{WPBiography|living=yes}}}}

produces:

Is there a way to remove the duplication here? PC78 (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Does what? :D  Fixed. Happy‑melon 16:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like how it's still duplicated, but just hidden with CSS, though. —Ms2ger (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? Happy‑melon 16:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

TOC

Can you get a TOC on the talk page when using this template? For example Talk:Michael Nyman. Hyacinth (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's the classic problem when headings are used in the comments subpage. The TOC was appearing just before the first heading, which in this case, was inside the first banner. I've now specified that it should be displayed after the banners. Unfortunately the three copies of the content on the subpage are unavoiable. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just don't use headings (<h#>Heading</h#> or == Heading ==) on the comments subpage. You can use various CSS to simulate headers if it's really necessary. Anomie⚔ 21:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just not use this template. Hyacinth (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If by "this template" you mean Template:WikiProjectBannerShell, you're dead wrong. If by "this template" you mean "pretty much any WikiProject banner", you're technically correct but I doubt you'll get consensus for that plan. Or if by "this template" you mean the Comments subpage, that's not really a template (even though it's transcluded) but otherwise you're correct. Anomie⚔ 02:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actual consensus?

JimCubb is convinced that we somehow all agreed to what he intended to say somewhere ("WPBS for 2-5 banners, WPB for 6+") rather than what we actually discussed above ("WPBS for 1-3, WPB for 6+, either for 4-5"). Rather than start a revert war over it, I'll just bring the question here explicitly: What did we actually decide? Anomie⚔ 00:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I checked the discussion in your talk page. There is a confusion which template is which. I support(ed) this one:

• Many banners (6+) then collapse as much as possible. Thus, WikiProjectBanners. (I hope this is the one with the single [show] line).

-- Magioladitis (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WPBS not showing the full list of banners

Is WPBS limited to only 10 WikiProject banners? Because in Talk:Barack Obama there's actually 15 banners but only ten are shown, up to Wikiproject Indonesia, the following are not visible:

11=AfricaProject|class=FA|importance=low|nested=yes|Kenya=yes|Kenya-importance=low

12=Project afro|class=FA|importance=mid|nested=yes

13=WikiProject Politics|importance=Top|class=FA|nested=yes

14=Talk Spoken Wikipedia|class=FA|Barack_Obama_1-31-2007.ogg|nested=yes

15=WPCD-People|class=FA|nested=yes

Is it because these extra wikiprojects are not fully compliant? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's because the template was only designed to hold up to 10 banners. I've upped the limit to 20 now, and all the banners display correctly (although the last two are not really compliant with the standard nested layout). Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 07:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :)

About Talk:Barack Obama. I've never seen so many talkpage banners and templates on a page! Funny thing is, after it I expanded all the collapsibles, the banners alone took up half the length of the entire page! -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 09:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

You can always put everything under 1=. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have now done this on Talk:Barack Obama. This change should probably be reverted as unnecessary. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if we allow the multi-parameter variant at all, then I don't see any real reason to cap the number at 10 when some pages have more banners than that; but I don't really care either way. Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 12:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I was about to do that. Thanks, MSGJ. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we deprecate the 2–10 parameters too, and force everyone to use parameter 1 only? It breaks the Zero One Infinity software design rule to keep 2–10 and not 11–20, since there exist pages that could legitimately use parameters greater than 10. A bot could easily enough convert any existing uses of those parameters, especially if we add a tracking category instead of requiring the bot to check all 96000+ transclusions. Anomie⚔ 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support that, except in as much as we at least know that shell templates using more than five parameters contain more than five banners; useful for the change I suggested above. However, if we're going to send a bot round, it might as well change to {{WikiProjectBannerShell|collapsed=yes}} while it's at it. On that note, is there support for migrating banner shells with less than, say, five banners, to the 'open' shell format, and leaving WPB shells with five or more in the collapsed style? Happy‑melon 14:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

To be clear: You're wanting to replace WPB with {{WPBS|collapsed=yes}} when 5 or more banners are contained (which causes absolutely no change in behavior) and with just {{WPBS}} when 4 or less (which does change behavior), and no change to existing WPBS? I support that change. We could also have the bot remove "nested=yes" from all banners if it is editing the talk page anyway, and check that blp=yes and activepol=yes match any {{WPBiography}} too.

IMO this would need wider advertising to get a true consensus before a bot could be approved, we don't want collapsed=yes-always partisans to (legitimately) complain that the decision was made without soliciting their input. WP:VPR and an explicit note on Template talk:WikiProjectBanners would probably suffice for that. Anomie⚔ 17:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I propose. I'll poke in relevant places. Happy‑melon 18:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Just followed the link from VPR, and wanted to let you know that you might want to clarify for the non-technical editor what you're proposing (preferably with examples) if you want non-technical / uninvolved editors to contribute to the debate. Which you might not want, of course, especially if it's just the editors with strong views on this topic that you're trying to contact. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. Anomie⚔ 18:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Part 1

This template and {{WikiProjectBanners}} currently support numbered parameters 1–10 for specifing the banners to be inside the shell; the output using these is identical to specifying all the banners in parameter 1. Recently, it was discovered that Talk:Barack Obama has 15 banners. Support for parameters 11–20 was briefly added, but it was met with opposition and reverted. This brought up the point that parameters 2–10 are exactl as unnecessary as 11–20, and by the Zero One Infinity software design rule we should use only parameter 1 if we are not going to add more numbered parameters as needed.

Thus, we propose:

1. Edit {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} to place pages using the numbered parameters 2–10 into a tracking category.
2. Have a bot go through the tracking category to merge the values of 2–10 into parameter 1.
3. Edit {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} to remove support for numbered parameters 2–10.

Part 2

Due to work done on the tempates recently, {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} are now almost identical. The only difference remaining is that the former defaults "collapsed=no" while the latter defaults "collapsed=yes". If existing uses of {{WikiProjectBanners}} are changed to specify "collapsed=yes" explicitly, we can merge the two templates.

Thus, we propose:

1. Replace {{WikiProjectBanners}} as follows:
   • If the shell contains 4 or fewer templates, replace it with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} (or do nothing).
   • If the shell contains 5 or more templates, explicitly specify "collapsed=yes"
2. Redirect {{WikiProjectBanners}} and its redirects to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}.

In the actual case, both parts would be done in parallel to save edits. The exact threshold (5 banners) in Part 2 is open for discussion.

Discussion

Remember, this is not a vote.

I'd rather default to collapse in all cases where it's worth employing this kind of template. Rd232 ^talk 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems a fair proportion of people disagree with you, WPBS has about 4.475 times the usage of WPB. Anomie⚔ 20:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor who is currently working on WPBS is also quite active on WP Biog and the Project Council and has lobbied for the exclusive use of WPBS for a long time even though WPB is much easier to use

JimCubb (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about me? I am not at all active on WPBiography; my interest is mainly to do with WikiProject banners. Could you support that statement "WPB is much easier to use", please? I do not think it is correct: the syntax for both shells is now essentially identical; that's why we're having this discussion. Happy‑melon 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I am certain that I have read in many places that only the "1=" was necessary and there was no need to use any number larger than "1=". I am equally certain that I have not used a number greater than "1=" this year. When I collapsed the 13 banners that were on Talk:C. S. Lewis at the time all were valid and there was no number greater than "1=".

Rather than bother with individual instance of numbers greater than "1=" would it not be simpler to edit {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}} to ignore all numbers greater than "1=" much the same as the project banners except WP Biog were edited in regards to the listas parameter?

Is there a need to eliminate {{WikiProjectBanners}}? It still works and works well. It is not subject to the problems noted in the discussion immediately above this one. Its verbiage is still valid, unlike the verbiage for the collapsed version of this banner which refers to something that does not exist.

The original guideline was to apply a shell where there are more than two banners and collapse the shell, if necessary (only applies to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}) where there are more than five banners. As that only leaves uncollapsed shells on pages with three, four or five banners and the number of banners per page seems to be growing, perhaps the uncollapsed state should be eliminated. That would also eliminate the need for this shell. All pages with more than more than two project banners could have them placed within {{WikiProjectBanners}} and it could be done by a bot much more easily than what is given in part two. Great care would have to be taken regarding the blp parameter.

As I understand this (from the first page)

Please do not implement this template on talk pages already using the {{WikiProjectBanners}} template, without first discussing the change on that talk page. {{WikiProjectBanners}} is a similar nesting template with an alternate appearance, the use of which is dependent on editor preference. When one type of template shell has already been established on a talk page, it should not be changed to the other, without discussion.

one was only to be replaced by the other after a thorough discussion on each Talk Page. It also seems to me to be more than a little autocratic and over-bearing for one of the templates to take steps or even suggest taking steps to eliminate the other template.

JimCubb (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Using parameters greater than one is indeed not necessary, and has been deprecated for some time. However, they are still in use, and continue to be used, leading to issues like the one above. I don't understand many of your other comments. We cannot simply "edit WPBS and WPB to ignore [other unnamed parameters]" without editing all the banner templates that use them first, or it will cause banners out 'in the wild' to simply disappear without reason or justification. I don't understand what you're talking about vis the listas parameter.

WPB is the older of the two templates, the less well-developed and sophisticated, and the less popular of the two. Again I do not understand your point: the "verbiage" of the two templates, by which I assume you mean the "this page is within the scope..." wording, is identical between the two templates. I think you are basing your perspective on badly out-of-date information.

Do you have any evidence that "the number of banners per page seems to be growing"?? I do not believe this to be the case. Rather, as the number of articles continues to grow at a rapid rate, I suspect the average number of banners is declining. Yet again I do not belive that your assmption "could be done by a bot much more easily..." is correct: the complexity of the task is identical, but as WPBS is used on five times as many pages as WPB, tens of thousands of extra pages would be affected. Again, do you have evidence to justify the extra effort?

That quote from the documentation is ancient, and from a time when conversion between WPB and WPBS was a fiddly and complicated operation (needed adding |nested=yes to each banner, for instance). That is no longer the case. And quite apart from WP:CCC, that statement was more indicative of a lack of consensus than a consensus in favour of two separate styles; it was just too awkward to switch between the two. That is no longer the case; we no longer have two separate styles, only one style awkwardly duplicated between two templates. Happy‑melon 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would support this. Whether to use one or the other is a style issue, I don't even use WPB unless I'm really trying to save space and reduce clutter. If WPB can be duplicated with WPBS then why not deprecate it, merge the two, duplicate the "collapsed=yes/no" options making everyone happy and let the bots do all the work? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 22:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly support this, since having two wrappers that essentially do the same thing (or can be made to do the same thing) is redundant. As far as WPB is concerned, adding the collapsed parameter to this template renders the same result. A bot should easily be able to completely phase out WPB while retaining the style preferences that many of the WPB users sought. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rd232. Collapse all by default. Whenever I display a talk page, I'm either interested in looking at the TOC, or am immediately CTRL-END'ing to the bottom of the page. Having too many banners just makes it more inconvenient to access the TOC. In the rare cases that I do look at the banners, the only think I am likely interested in is the associated projects. I consider the rest is fluff and I would prefer it minimized as much as possible by default. (An alternative idea: Why not display the TOC above the banners?) -- Tcncv (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it might be possible to have a user setting whereby all banners can be collapsed by default?

Maybe. It could probably be done if there's call for it. Happy‑melon 15:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, as has been pointed out many times, all banners can easily be collapsed. Use {{WikiProjectBanners}}, aka {{WPB}}. As with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, aka {{WPBS}}, the |blp= should follow the name of the template and "1=" is still needed but |collapsed= is not needed. Collapsed banners with less effort. It is a pity that its use fell into disfavor.

JimCubb (talk) 01:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jim, did you know that all {{WPB}} does is to call {{WPBS}} with the parameters collapsed=yes and banner collapsed=no? In other words it doesn't do anything which this template can't do. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, from what appears in the histories of the two templates, as {{WPB}} seems to have been created on 4 February 2007 and {{WPBS}} was created on 20 February 2007, I never considered the possibility that {{WPB}} would call a template that would not exist for two weeks. Shows what I know. Appearances can be deceiving. JimCubb (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I credit you with enough intelligence to understand that Martin was talking about the status of the template now, not two and a half years ago. I recognise that your personal preferences on these two templates differ from mine, but I have seen no explanation of why that should be the case that is not based on clear misunderstanding or confusion. Happy‑melon 20:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Even though there was a guideline, policy or merely strongly stated person preference for placing project banners in a shell when there are more than two of them on a page and collapsing the shell when there are more than six banners on a page and I follow that, I do not agree with it. I really do not think that the average editor really cares about which projects have "adopted" (my term since I cannot remember the correct one) which articles. I also do not think that having the banners visible on a page recruits many new members for projects. I have always thought the project banners were instrusive. I think it would be much better for the standard to be that if there are two or more project banners on a page, the banners are to be nested within a shell and the shell is collapsed.

When I first became involved with the shells there were quirks in the Project banners and each banner needed the |nested= parameter to be set at yes for {{WPBS}} to work. {{WPB}} ignored the quirks for the most part and did not require that the banners have the |nested= parameter.

Then came the joyous announcement that {{WPBS}} had another parameter |collapsed= so that the banner could be collapsed. (I believe that this was just after {{WPBS}} no longer required the |nested=.) I pointed out that there was still a problem, a defect compared to {{WPB}}. The same wording was used in the collapsed version that was in the uncollapsed version, "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects" but, because the shell was collapsed, there was no list of projects. After I stated the problem a few different ways someone finally understood that it might be less confusing to change the wording "This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects."

It could only have been after that change that simply typing
{{WPB, the |blp==yes (if applicable) and 1=, plus two closing braces at the bottom of the banner list,
"called"
{{WPBS, the |collapsed=, the |blp==yes (if applicable) and 1= plus two closing braces at the end of the banner list.
I did not notice such a change in the history of {{WPB}} but I was not looking for it.

I have read many claims of points of the superiority of {{WPBS}} over {{WPB}} but have yet to see any examples of greater power or sophistication. As for the claim of greater flexibility, yes, {{WPBS}} will allow for both a collapsed and an uncollapsed state whereas {{WPB}} only allows for a collapsed state. The flexibility has only been achieved satisfactorily within the last four or five months. The flexibility has come at great cost and can only be enjoyed at a cost.

There was the effort that was required to make all the programming changes. There is the added effort that is required to make the collapsed version of {{WPBS}} look like {{WPB}} has looked from the beginning. Look at the lines above that show what calls what. Which is easier to type? Notice how much easier it has always been to convert an uncollapsed {{WPBS}} to a collapsed {{WPB}} than to convert an uncollapsed {{WPBS}} to a {{WPBS}}. (Which is easier: Erase an S or type "|collapsed=yes"?) Further work has been done to reprogram {{WPB}} so that it "calls" {{WPBS}} with the parameters collapsed=yes and banner collapsed=no to do what it always did on its own. This last is analogous to my choosing not to make a legal right turn on 1st Street but cross 1st Street, turn left on 2nd Street, left on Broadway and left on 1st Street.

Is my position clearer now?

JimCubb (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Further on the above.

I found that WPB had been recoded to call WPBS on 29 May. Not too long before that, in the same discussion, it had been noted that WPB and WPBS were not the same and should not be treated as if they were. Had I not been trying, will little success, to avoid WP politics and clean out Category:Biography articles without listas parameter I would have reverted the change as soon as it was made. The various problems that WPBS has had over the past six months seem to me to be a very good reason to have another shell that did what it was supposed to do very well for more than two years. There was no need to eliminate the need for nested parameters in the project banners as there was for WPBS, because WPB somehow forced nesting. There was no need for a collapsed parameter as there was for WPBS, because collapsing was the default.

I do not pretend to understand programming but it seems to me that WPB and WPBS (with all the latest tweaks) were different approaches to the same solution, a condition that is not unknown in the history of science. It seems to me that WPB acted as a control for the changes to WPBS and that seems to me to be a shame.

JimCubb (talk) 04:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please get an understanding of the terminology we're using here (and have been using for some time, several of which discussions you have participated in). Banners ({{WPBiography}}, etc) are nested inside shells ({{WikiProjectBannerShell}} and {{WikiProjectBanners}}). Banners can be collapsed; they collapse by default inside WPBS. Shells can also be collapsed; WPB is collapsed by default while WPBS isn't. The two are not the same, please do not treat them as such. A user preference to cause all banners to be collapsed, whether or not the shell is collapsed, would be difficult to implement. Happy‑melon 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Support sensible proposal. 5 sounds like a reasonable number. Of course, any shells where the collapsed parameter is already specified should be left alone. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

 Review The code for point 1 of part 1 is in the /sandbox (diff). It will put pages which use parameters 2-10 into Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters. Does that look okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks about right to me. Be sure to create the category page (with {{hiddencat}}) before actually making that edit, of course. Also, we should find someone uninvolved to determine the consensus on Part 2 (most of the real opposition above is one long-winded "I hate WPBS" editor, and the other two are similarly wanting to force collapsed=yes on all 81482 or so articles using WPBS, but IMO consensus may be "set collapsed=yes on all existing WPB" rather than just WPB with >4 banners) before moving on Part 1, since it would be much more efficient to do both edits at once. AnomieBOT is ready to go either way. Anomie⚔ 11:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your analysis, although it seems one or two editors were of the impression that the current default behaviour of WPB was just WPBS with "collapsed=yes" which is not true (it also has the "collapsed banners=no"), so there may be some misconceptions there. Regarding your proposal to just set WPB=WPBS|collapsed=yes, this would probably be the method which has the least visual effect on the articles. However on pages with just 2 or 3 banners, some might see it as excessive to collapse the shell and the banners. I'll make the tracking category now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It would need {{WPBS|collapsed=yes|banner collapsed=no}}? That seems a bit much for people who want WPB behavior. Unless we change the default for {{{banner collapsed|}}} to be {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{collapsed|}}}}}|yes|no|yes}}, I'm now leaning towards keeping {{WPB}} as-is (i.e. no Part 2). Anomie⚔ 12:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it's a lot to type and maybe it could be simplified. Your proposal would not work because it would affect the many WPBS instances with collapsed=yes (and banner collapsed unspecified). However it might make a lot of sense to do it the other way round:

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

because one wouldn't normally want neither to be collapsed (or else why use a shell?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how common that is, and how often it's actually intended as opposed to just "WPBS is too big for my taste, I'm going to add collapsed=yes and not care what the expanded version looks like". {{WPBS|banner collapsed=no}} is counterintuitive (say "banner collapsed=no" to get it collapsed?), and still somewhat long to type.

AnomieBOT could easily enough add an explicit "banner collapsed=yes" to those WPBS instances, especially if you add {{#ifeq:{{lc:{{{collapsed|}}}}}|yes|{{#if:{{{banner collapsed|}}}||x}}}} to the tracking category (and if you keep doing the sortkeys the same way, the bot can skip "sortkey=0 and in my list of former WPBs" to avoid wasting resources rechecking those pages). Anomie⚔ 16:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Section break

It seems we may have found the perfect compromise. I've been discussing this with Jim Cubb in other places and he seems to support what you say about people not caring what the uncollapsed version looks like - he just wants to reduce the space they take up when there are 6 or more banners on a page. He has proposed that WPB is retained as a shortcut for WPBS|collapsed=yes, and this seems sensible to me, as it is quite a lot to type. However this means that instances of WPB on pages where there are few banners should probably be replaced by WPBS. I'm not really following your last sentence - there is no sortkey=0 because they are the ones without any deprecated parameters. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If you add "pages using 'collapsed=yes' without specifying 'banner collapsed'" to the tracking category without changing how the sortkey is calculated, pages doing that without using 2-10 would end up with sortkey=0. Anomie⚔ 11:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well I think we are moving towards a default behaviour of "banner collapsed=yes" anyway so I don't think adding that parameter is necessary ... we certainly wouldn't want to have to type that to get the normal usage of WPBS. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It would only be useful if we were going to change the default for "banner collapsed" to "the opposite of 'collapsed'" and we wanted to change any existing WPBS specifying collapsed=yes without banner collapsed to explicitly specify "banner collapsed=yes" to preserve the current behavior. If we don't want to change that default, or we don't care about changing the behavior of existing WPBS with collapsed=yes and no banner collapsed set, then of course it's not necessary. (BTW, the current behavior is "banner collapsed=yes", and as far as WPB goes if we're keeping it as calling WPBS instead of just redirecting to WPBS then IMO there's no point in not leaving it as-is.) Anomie⚔ 14:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

"No point in not leaving it as-is." After I had thought about the grammar of that for a few minutes, I think I agree :) So, are we ready to go? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically, this is what I think needs doing (as well as removing parameters 2-10):

• Instances of WPBS:
  • If collapsed parameter is defined: no change
  • Up to 5 banners on page: no change
  • 6 or more banners on page and collapsed parameter undefined: add collapsed=yes
• Instances of WPB:
  • Up to 3 banners on page: convert to WPBS without the collapsed parameter
  • 4 or more banners on page: convert to WPBS with collapsed=yes
• If banner collapsed parameter specified for either template: leave it be
• If the bot makes an edit to a page, then it might as well expand the redirects: WPBS -> WikiProjectBannerShell, but probably not worth making an edit just for this.
• Retain {{WPB}} as a shortcut for WPBS|collapsed=yes

Comments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I like it! I don't understand the reason to expand WPBS to WikiProjectBannerShell and WPB to WikiProjectBanners and would prefer that it be the other way around so that mortals can see how easy it is to apply a shell when it is appropriate but that is a minor point. (I do not expect a bot to do continuous runs through all the talk pages of all the articles to find where shells are appropriate. I do expect editors to become aware of the use of shells and want to insert them.)

I very much like the underlying principle that the preferences of the editors who have put shells on pages should be respected and maintained. There are many cases where the editor did not really understand what should be done but I feel that those case are representative of good faith efforts that should be encouraged.

For the record, after the bot run I will probably collapse the shell for two banners if an uncollapsed shell takes more vertical space on the page that does the text of the article. There are pages with multiple banners, generally three, on articles that are too short to be called stubs.

Has the bot been approved yet? When will the run begin?

JimCubb (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has been approved to replace templates, change parameters, and such subject to consensus being demonstrated: see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 26. So I'm just waiting for a little more consensus. Personally, I don't see why to bother changing any WPB to WPBS|collapsed=yes if we're keeping WPB for that anyway. I may also run the bot at a slower edit rate than usual to give other editors (who ignored WP:VP and everywhere else this was advertised) a chance to come back and complain. Anomie⚔ 00:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked and WPB does not equal WPBS|collapsed=yes yet. (See Talk:Garry Moore.) As soon as that changes, please run the bot and let the annoyed be annoyed.

JimCubb (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is all fine with me. Happy‑melon 17:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So are we wanting to keep {{WPB}} as a shortcut for {{WPBS}}? If so, I don't see any reason to bother changing all the existing WPBs. I also don't see any particular reason to expand the redirects in any case.

I have no particular problem with having the bot follow a "WPBS if <=3, WPB if >=6, unless collapsed=yes/no is explicitly specified" rule on pages it edits for other reasons (this would include future WikiProject tagging runs), but before doing that I'd like to see the template docs changed to reflect the new guidance and to specifically state what people should do so bots won't mess with it (e.g. "To prevent well-behaved bots from adjusting the template to follow this guideline, explicitly specify collapsed=yes or collapsed=no"). I'd also throw it at WP:VPR one more time and give people a week to object before turning the bot loose on it. Anomie⚔ 01:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate and applaud your caution. Good luck on getting the documentation changed

JimCubb (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping I could be lazy and someone else would handle it, but no such luck. In 1 week, I intend to start the bot run as we all agreed above. Anomie⚔ 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Last-minute discussion

I may as well create a section for last-minute discussion, now that I posted a "final notice" on WP:VPR. Anomie⚔ 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Well done for pushing this forward. Just a comment on the use of {{WPB}}. I must say that it is not an intuitive shortcut for WPBS|collapsed=yes. I only suggested it to placate the editor(s) who thought that collapsed=yes was too much to type. I think it would be better to expand these uses, because the syntax will be clearer. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  It's not supposed to be intuitive, it's there for hysterical raisins. And it lets us not have to add "bots=no" or the like to tell bots not to mess with it. Anomie⚔ 12:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  No bot will touch it, if the collapsed parameter has already been specified. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  Exactly. If we deprecate WPB in favor of WPBS|collapsed=yes as you suggest, all those would have "collapsed" specified and therefore couldn't be changed by a bot again even if the bot merges projects to the point that only one banner is left. Anomie⚔ 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

  You're confusing me again. What is the advantage in leaving them as WPB? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  If you convert them to {{WPBS|collapsed=yes}}, then the "bots don't change any shell with collapsed explicitly specified" rule will prevent bots from changing those shells. If you leave them as {{WPB}}, no collapsed is explicitly specified and therefore bots can still change them if necessary.
  Consider, for example, if there are {{WPB}}s on Talk:Foo and Talk:Bar each containing the same 4 banners. Leave Talk:Foo alone, but convert Talk:Bar as you suggest: {{WPBS|collapsed=yes|1=...}}. Then one of those 4 projects is turned into a taskforce of one of the other three, and a bot is used to remove the obsolete banner and add the task force parameter to the parent project's banner. By the guidelines we developed above, the {{WPB}}s on Talk:Foo and Talk:Bar should now be changed to {{WPBS}} (3 or fewer banners left). The bot can do this on Talk:Foo, but since "collapsed" is explicitly specified on Talk:Bar the bot cannot change it. Anomie⚔ 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  Okay, I'm starting to understand, but not really sharing your concern.

  • I thought this bot would be run once and then leave the collapsed setting to be set by human editors. I wasn't expecting that it would be run occasionally to update the setting depending on the number of banners.
  • If you want to distinguish between a bot and a human setting the parameter, then a neater way might be to use collapsed=set_by_bot or something.
  • I doubt this is going to happen often enough to worry about.

  Anyway I don't care enough about this issue to hold up the process. As well as going through Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters, are we going to go through instances of {{WPB}} and uncollapse when there are less than 4 banners (unless collapsed=yes has been set)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

  My plan, as far as changing shells, is to add it to AnomieBOT's "general banner shell fixes" that is run when the bot decides to edit talk page banners. So every WikiProject tagging, assessing, or merging run done by my bot in the future will automagically change shells when appropriate just as it automagically syncs "blp=yes" and "activepol=yes", removes "nested=yes", etc.
  Also, the plan at the moment is to change WPB/WPBS found in Category:WikiProject banner shells with deprecated parameters as necessary, but not to go through all transclusions of WPB (or WPBS). Anomie⚔ 16:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Doing... The bot has started. If anyone needs to stop it for any reason, edit User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/TemplateReplacer15. Anomie⚔ 17:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Y Done I'll leave the bot running until I see that someone has removed the deprecated parameters from both templates. Anomie⚔ 03:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, I've removed them. Nice work, your bot works hard. I think the other task that I mentioned above needs doing as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to fix {{WPB}} too, so people looking at the source don't get confused. Anomie⚔ 11:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up

Anomie, could you address my request above. Specifically I ask if the bot could go through instances of {{WPB}} and where they contain fewer than 4 banners, convert to {{WPBS}}. There are now lots of examples of {{WPB}} being used for only two banners, (example) and collapsing the whole shell just to save a couple of lines is usually excessive in these cases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)