Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 11
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
To 1= or not to 1=?
While explicitly naming |1=
is not required, it has been widely adopted for this template and the docs still prominently feature it. Since WP:PIQA conversions began a few days ago, I've noticed that two bots, User:Cewbot and User:Qwerfjkl (bot), are implementing competing formats, the former with and the latter without naming the parameter. Should we aim for consistency in this regard? If so, what is the preferred format? Yes, I realize that this is a completely comsetic question. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 14:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- It doesn't make any difference. The times when it would make a difference are:
- when the presence or absence of leading and trailing whitespace is significant
- when the parameter value contains an equals sign that is outside of template transclusions
- Of these, (1) doesn't normally apply when the template has a Lua core, as this one does; and (2) won't apply to WPBS because there are no situations when the parameter content has anything outside template transclusions. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- If there is no difference, it seems to me that the bots should not be "correcting" this particular syntax. In particular, edits like this, where "fixing"
|1=
is the only change, are unnecessary and are just clogging our watchlists.— TAnthonyTalk 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)- This seems to have been raised at User_talk:Qwerfjkl#Cosmetic_edits. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- If there is no difference, it seems to me that the bots should not be "correcting" this particular syntax. In particular, edits like this, where "fixing"
- I can't get worried about it either way, but I guess without the 1= is slightly tidier — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I can eliminateI will follow User:Qwerfjkl (bot)'s practice and not to add "1=". Also the discussion about whether to choose between|1=
if there is a consensus.|blp=
and|living=
seems to be expired. There seems to be no consensus? Kanashimi (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- I certainly agree this doesn't really matter, but if both of these bots are doing it without, is there any benfit of getting WP:RATER to go without too? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- The
|1=
has kind of bugged me for a while since most templates don't request it. Support not using it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC) - Prehaps also noteworthy: AWB actively adds
|1=
unprompted. IceWelder [✉] 00:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)- Late the conversation, but FYI, that only happens if you run AWB with "apply general fixes" enabled (which a lot of users do). But you can turn that off if you didn't want it to be applied automatically. The genfixes setting is not always desirable. Depends on the use case. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
- Now edits like this are real watchlist-cloggers. I'm going to call WP:COSMETICBOT on that. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely. There must be a way to avoid edits like this @Qwerfjkl — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- MSGJ, it's because the page was edited before the bot, so it no longer had anything to do, leading it to make a cosmetic edit. This shouldn't happen much.
- So you need to build in some detection to check that the page actually needs editing. Otherwise this kind of thing will happen a lot. If you look at the history of Talk:Troon railway station (1839-1892), the bot already edited the page on the same day, so why is it revisiting the same page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- MSGJ, I was running the job twice (once for testing purposes, the other as a regular bot run). These jobs overlapped, causing duplicate errors like this. User:Trappist the monk notified me of this at WP:BOTN so I killed the other job. This error should no longer occur.
- (please mention me on reply)
- MSGJ, I was running the job twice (once for testing purposes, the other as a regular bot run). These jobs overlapped, causing duplicate errors like this. User:Trappist the monk notified me of this at WP:BOTN so I killed the other job. This error should no longer occur.
- So you need to build in some detection to check that the page actually needs editing. Otherwise this kind of thing will happen a lot. If you look at the history of Talk:Troon railway station (1839-1892), the bot already edited the page on the same day, so why is it revisiting the same page? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- MSGJ, it's because the page was edited before the bot, so it no longer had anything to do, leading it to make a cosmetic edit. This shouldn't happen much.
- Absolutely. There must be a way to avoid edits like this @Qwerfjkl — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Redirect
Having a problem with the article -izzle, which is a soft redirect. Tried tagging it as a redirect but this is not working. The banner shell said (incorrectly) that it was a redirect without a class parameter, but adding one has not removed it from Category:Unassessed articles. How do we tag it as a redirect. and remove it from this category? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- @Martin?
- We now have the ability to detect soft redirects in Module:Pagetype so I was planning to use that to automatically rate such pages as Redirect-class. I assume that would solve this problem. (But why did you say that banner shell incorrectly detected it as a redirect?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Two problems here:
- The Rater tool does not allow me to set the class=Redirect in the banner shell. Is it missing metadata?
- Setting class=Redirect did not remove it from Category:Unassessed articles when set manually, so automatically rating it won't work without changing the banner shell.
- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assumed point 1 was intentional because Redirect detection was automatic, but point 2 seems like an issue. It seems odd to me use of the text
This redirect has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
I thought "redirect" was the assessment? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)- I think the template is using Module:Pagetype for some of its logic, but not the part where it actually sets the class. I will try and sort this shortly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I assumed point 1 was intentional because Redirect detection was automatic, but point 2 seems like an issue. It seems odd to me use of the text
- Two problems here:
- We now have the ability to detect soft redirects in Module:Pagetype so I was planning to use that to automatically rate such pages as Redirect-class. I assume that would solve this problem. (But why did you say that banner shell incorrectly detected it as a redirect?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
living vs blp
Is everyone okay with migrating all uses of the living parameter to blp? At the moment living is an alias for blp, but there are some articles that are using both, and the bots could tidy these up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- No objections, though noting I believe WP:RATER uses living. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- As long as AWB doesn't remove them all a la https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suzanne_Deutsch_de_la_Meurthe&diff=prev&oldid=1207780075 :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- True. We have not had a response to our request at AWB yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: Per Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Request to change banner shell general fixes, did you (or anyone else) file a Phabricator task for the AWB developers? GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I haven't, and have never used Phabricator before. MSGJ, please could you handle that? Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- @MSGJ: Per Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Request to change banner shell general fixes, did you (or anyone else) file a Phabricator task for the AWB developers? GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- True. We have not had a response to our request at AWB yet — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- Would there be any WP:COSMETIC concerns here? Sdkb talk 21:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
- On a related note, I just modified the documentation slightly (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_banner_shell/doc&diff=prev&oldid=1209824156) to clarify this parameter should be used for all biographical articles, not just for living people. Please reword it if my change isn't clear. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't follow, @Kj cheetham. Is the idea that it should be used for non-living people? Or for non-person biographical articles of animals? The parameter is about WP:Biographies of living persons, which kinda spells out its scope in its title. Sdkb talk 19:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good point about animals! It should be blp=yes for bios of living people, blp=no for bios of dead people. Effectively if the article is tagged with WikiProject Biography and doesn't have the blp/living parameter set it ends up in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I think it needs to be worded clearer than I put it... -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, the ability to use it but set it to "no" was what I was missing. I took a stab at clarifying. Thanks, Sdkb talk 19:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Your wording is definitely clearer. I noticed you changed the TemplateData too to make it required - I wasn't sure about that because it's not required for all articles, and I don't know what impacts that change would have. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the default is "no", and the parameter is marked as required and missing, I assume that's fine? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- My brain is asleep today haha; self-reverted the TemplateData part. Sdkb talk 21:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just need some more coffee. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- My brain is asleep today haha; self-reverted the TemplateData part. Sdkb talk 21:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, the ability to use it but set it to "no" was what I was missing. I took a stab at clarifying. Thanks, Sdkb talk 19:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Good point about animals! It should be blp=yes for bios of living people, blp=no for bios of dead people. Effectively if the article is tagged with WikiProject Biography and doesn't have the blp/living parameter set it ends up in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I think it needs to be worded clearer than I put it... -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't follow, @Kj cheetham. Is the idea that it should be used for non-living people? Or for non-person biographical articles of animals? The parameter is about WP:Biographies of living persons, which kinda spells out its scope in its title. Sdkb talk 19:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If I am understanding correctly, all or most of the living/blp parameters should have been transferred into the banner shell by now. Would it be worth setting up a tracking category to find which ones have not been? Then we can look at removing those parameters from {{WikiProject Biography}} — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Set index articles
I tried to rate a WP:WikiProject Military history article as a set index article in the WikiProject banner shell. Category:SIA-Class military history articles does exist, but it inexplicably defined it as a list-class article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Martin.
Possible bug?
What's gone wrong with Talk:Abu Bakr Rabee Ibn Ahmad Al-Akhawyni Bokhari still having WikiProjects saying they are Unassessed when |class=stub
is in the banner shell? Is the length of the article title an issue at all? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
- Kj cheetham, fixed, there was a stray
}
which presumably messed up the pattern matching.- Well spotted! Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
living/blp on categories
Should |living=no
/|blp=no
be removed on category talks only, since there are no categorization changes whether or not they're used? I've seen them on a small-ish # of very old {{WP Years}}+{{WP Biography}} categories.
Presumably, |living=yes
& |blp=yes
should be kept even on categories, since the category is then added to Category:Noindexed pages? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding: If you remove those parameters from a talk page with {{WP Biography}}, then the talk page will appear on Category:Biography articles without living parameter until the parameter is readded. GoingBatty (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @GoingBatty: that's true on article talks, but not for category talks.
|living/blp=no
seem to be useless on cats, so I've started removing them while doing more significant changes. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)- @Tom.Reding: Thank you for setting me straight. GoingBatty (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
- @GoingBatty: that's true on article talks, but not for category talks.