Template talk:WPBannerMeta

This is the most confusing template ever, I need someone smart
Does anyone have a clue as to a way to add Category:Articles covered by WikiProject Wikify (dated) and Category:All articles covered by WikiProject Wikify to all articles tagged as needing an infobox? This would be in addition to the current default and the WikiProject categories. would work, it's just a matter of where to put it so it is only enabled if the page needs an infobox and doesn't get overriden. Ryan Vesey 15:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess this is follow-up to WP:VPT. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's something in the [//corporispublica.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/core/sandbox&diff=506920145&oldid=506919602 sandbox] to add those two cats. working with dates would need few more changes to WPBannerMeta and also to all of the individual banner templates to pass through the date param as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's undated, I wouldn't want it to be a part of the non-all category. Is there any reason that the two wikimarkup categories couldn't be replaced with the template I provided?  In either situation, we need to hold off for User talk:Ryan Vesey to be cleared up before we move forward. Ryan Vesey 18:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * [//corporispublica.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Template:WPBannerMeta/core/sandbox&diff=506930484&oldid=506920145 Here it is] using the DMCA template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I see what you meant by a date parameter. I guess that wouldn't work very well since there isn't a date parameter in the templates.  The best solution then is probably to only add the "all" one. Ryan Vesey 19:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of discussion links
Where a talk page has more than one instance of this template, we end up with two or more, ambiguous  links. Also, the wording suggests that discussion takes place on the project page itself, (not the talk page) I therefore propose, to resolve these issues, that we change:

to:

Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've amended the because the code for this is in, not  - this talk page is shared. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there is no confusion possible, because of the previous sentence. (This article is within the scope of XYZ ...) And using before discussion would sound unnatural in many cases. In any case, this needs more discussion, so I have disabled the request. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't be  alone - when   or   are unspecified, the code in Template:WPBannerMeta creates replacements for those as   or   respectively. Consider : the message would be   which produces "or join the |WikiProject Albums discussion." -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. In that case it would possibly look okay, so my opposition is reduced. But I still question whether this is needed. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Assistive technologies like screen readers used by people who have sight impairment offer the option to read links in isolation. WCAG accessibility standards say that links should be distinguishable in such circumstances. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of a response by Martin, does anyone else have a view? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Add category Exclude in Print
I recommend adding logic to include all WikiProject banners using this template to be included in Category:Exclude in print. Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I also suggest someone remove the affected WikiPrjoject banners from MediaWiki:PDF Template Blacklist. I can't think of a good reason they are there anyway.Kumioko (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:WPBannerMeta/templatepage is only semi-protected so you can do that yourself. -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its done thanks. Kumioko (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Limit to the number of task forces?
Hi. I am currently looking at adding UK Parliament constituencies as a task force of the broader Politics of the United Kingdom. It has now been suggested that we have separate task forces for UK Parliament constituencies (eg Argyll and Bute) and Scottish Parliament constituencies (eg Argyll and Bute) so there are separate sets of quality data. This suggestion has merit but could lead us to having 5 or 6 different task forces to cover the various political institutions. Is there a limit to the number of task forces that can be supported by this template? I wouldn't want to use up so many task forces if the number is limited but there won't be an issue if the number is very large or infinite. Road Wizard (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a builtin limit of 5 but you can add more using the hooks system. See WikiProject United States, WikiProject India, WikiProject Film and others for examples of the use. -- WOSlinker (talk) 17:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * By using hooks, you can in theory have an infinite number of taskforces, but in practice the MediaWiki template limits will kick in at some point. Where that point exactly lies varies according to what else (primarily other WikiProject banners) is on the target talk page. In the UK we have something like 650 parliamentary constituencies, and I don't know of any WikiProject banner that has that many task forces. The one that I know of with the highest number is - that has over 100 taskforces, one or more for each state plus a few more besides. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If a taskforce was needed for each parliamentary constituency then something custom could be written rather than using the standard taskforce hook template. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you both for the replies. Just brainstorming a list of potential sub-topics for the project I can only come up with 30 distinct areas, so it sounds like we have plenty of capacity. However I expect most of those sub-topics will never get to stage of having their own task force. I'll take a closer look at those suggested banners if I need to add the hook code. Road Wizard (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Taskforce parameter syntax
At present the syntax for a taskforce is:

I would like to see it changed to:

The latter is more intuitive for new editors.

The old syntax may have to be retained? Is all this feasible? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are banners that have more than one taskforce enabled at once, so would also need
 * The old syntax would have to be retained, not may. It's all possible to implement but would probably need discussing somewhere more visible first if it were to be configured on all banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The old syntax would have to be retained, not may. It's all possible to implement but would probably need discussing somewhere more visible first if it were to be configured on all banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The old syntax would have to be retained, not may. It's all possible to implement but would probably need discussing somewhere more visible first if it were to be configured on all banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The old syntax would have to be retained, not may. It's all possible to implement but would probably need discussing somewhere more visible first if it were to be configured on all banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The old syntax would have to be retained, not may. It's all possible to implement but would probably need discussing somewhere more visible first if it were to be configured on all banners. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Would also need corresponding params for importance for those taskforces that assess importance independantly. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * So it is feasible? Also, if the new method is adopted I would like the current syntax to eventually be deprecated. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the current syntax is probably clearer than what is proposed. It may make sense for projects with mutually exclusive task forces, but this is not usually the case. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't do this. WikiProject US has like 90+ subprojects all using the same banner and this new code would make that impossible and or a complete nightmare to update. A lot of other projects are similar like Canada, Milhist and others all have a lot of taskforces. Kumioko (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Martin, whta prompted me to propose this change is that creating  is completely counter-intuitive.   seems better to me. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Kumioko, if both formats are used it is not an issue. Also if the current format could be deprecated and a bot could make the tedious and extensive changes to the proposed format. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is  completely counter-intuitive? To me, this is saying "yes, this is related to Nigeria". Besides, it's the same technique as is used for virtually every other taskforce or subproject in virtually all WikiProject banners (I say "virtually", because I can't prove 100%: but I don't recall seeing it done any other way). For example,  allows yes, yes, and many others, meaning "yes, this is related to stations", "... to locomotives", etc. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * IMHO Trains and Stations would be better for newbies. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it is worth reiterating the point made by WOSlinker above, that would make this system less intuitive than you might think. Suppose we had an article related to Nigeria and Cameroon, of high importance to the former, but low importance to the latter. Under the current system, you would enter the following: which is fairly clear. However, under the proposed system, this would become: It is now not as clear that the "high" is related to Nigeria, and the "low" is related to Cameroon. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Taskforce portals
I notice that the recognised parameters for the five "main" taskforces are not the same as those for those provided via. Ignoring the permitted number of taskforces (5 vs 10), I've found that doesn't recognise TF_1_PORTAL. This has come to light because only added two portal boxes, not the expected three. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The TF PORTAL params are only support through the hook mechnism. As to reason why, I'm not sure. But I've fixed it by stopping to use the 5 builtin ones and adding more hooks. See [//corporispublica.shoutwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_Novels&diff=517459238&oldid=517453725 this edit]. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)