This template doesn't seem to accept class or importance assessments.--Hjal 22:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Class parameter is active but the Importance one is not. It was deemed that assigning an importance to an article sent the wrong message about environmental issues apparently. I do not agree and hope to have the Importance parameter assigned to the template. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the WikiProject Environment template does not allow article importance to be assigned. I would like to see the Impartance level used as article assessment. To illustrate why let me give some examples:
Yes, while many problems are more imminent than others, I don't want to see minor issues to be given a less priority (as it happens daily in mainstream media) because all issues are important regardless of its magnitude. The best is to leave it as it is, which is not assigning importance to articles. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The assessment is for WP admin only - not a POV on the article itself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Importance in any one individuals perspective needs more than 'I want' - surely all this should be discussed at the project noticeboard - you could (if anyone else was wanting to be involved) have one hell of a time arguing whether something is more important than something else - a pointless and frutiless exercise (POV and perspective could wasste so much time) - why doesnt somebody just reinstate the importance in the template (and understand it is for wikipedia purposes and not the actual issues -! ) you could create a separate in project heirarchy of importance - but to leave out the importance here is missing the point totally SatuSuro 05:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the above constitutes a consensus to add importance ratings to the banner. As this is quite a major change for the WikiProject, perhaps this could be discussed on the WikiProject talk page first? Please replace the request if and when a consensus has been found. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no consensus to have the importance ranking to the main banner and I suppose they should not be used on the task forces either. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. What parameter do you wish to use to trigger the taskforce? (e.g. sustain or sustainability or ... ?) Do you want quality or importance ratings for the taskforce? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have my nice waterfall picture used in the portal box? That image seems to have become a default for the portal. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the image please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I will add them now, but a note for the future: an occasional please and thank you wouldn't go amiss. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added. If you need to make any adjustments, please make them in the sandbox copy and then replace the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The template does not currently display articles' importance rating, and the rating's addition would make it easier for the WikiProject to prioritize. The discussion above demonstrates that article importance is (or at least appears to be) not displayed only because of the opinions of a single user. I've made the appropriate additions to the template in the sandbox. Karmos (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should enable the importance parameter. The parameter is already added on some of the articles but does not show in the article assessment pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the number of editors who have expressed surprise at the lack of the importance parameter it seems we have a consensus foe the change. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: This seems like a reasonable change to me, but I'm not sure that there is a consensus for it from the discussions above. The discussions on this page took place a long time ago (2009 and 2010) and did not involve many editors, so members of the project might not be aware of them. Could you start a discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment? If there is a consensus to add the importance scale after it has been open for a week or so (actually, a little more would be best as it is Christmas now), please reactivate the edit protected template and someone can implement the change. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius(have a chat) 09:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, CARPIX isn't a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline and I think it redundant in my opinion, seeing as the "requirement" were rewritten by someone specifically to support their way of photographing cars. Especially seeing that you are replacing every single image on here and other language Wikipedias of a Nissan Leaf whether the previous image was already appropriately relevant to the article or not. I intentionally left some articles related to electric vehicles untouched because the picture depicting the vehicle appropriate in that topic. (e.g. a taxi in China, a car photographed in Brazil to talk about the sales of electric cars in that country.) --Vauxford (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vauxford, thats not the point. The point is that we should aim to use the highest quality images available. I took this Nissan Leaf vehicle on the streets with a clean background and is appropriate for the article. Further off, the Japanese image is of lower quality because it has been photographed in the showroom, which you tend to complain about. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits) 01:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also to add compare and see which of the two is better quality. In lieu, car shows generally have very low quality and the Japanese image is very glaring. I am not mentioning WP:CARPIX, I believe personally that my image is natural and simple and is the most appropriate for the article. Best --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits) 10:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EurovisionNim, You just mention it was. You said " I am suggesting complies with WP:CARPIX requirements". Personally, for this occasion I think it should be kept like that for both historical and mostly the reflection bring out more details of the car. --Vauxford (talk) 17:30, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There have been complaints you have made in relation to the quality of images having reflections. The Japanese image also has heavily distracting backgrounds, which in my opinion is ruining the quality. I believe my image of the Nissan is pictured in a clean background. I also carefully analysed the image before replacing it. It may be a QI candidate, who knows? Its a good quality shot and also it should be a perfect replacement. --EurovisionNim(talk to me)(see my edits) 15:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EurovisionNim, You're definition of "high quality" which is mostly depends on more pixels doesn't make it a good image to replace, although rare I say that but for this exception. Anyway I doubt they will respond to your request and this disagreement, this talkpage was last touched 5 years ago. I already made my point on here and yes reflection is a very important aspect for a picture but at the right lighting such as ones in the car show one, it brings out the detail of the headlights, the fenders etc as well as the Zero Emission label show the historical importance of this picture since this was a pretty radical car at the time when it was unveiled. So for the historical and importance for this Wiki Environment project, it should be kept. --Vauxford (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HELP NEEDED.. task force has been upgraded to standalone project[edit]
The task force is now found at WP:WikiProject Climate change. We'd like to manage the full suite of auto processes and request help designing a new template. Once ready, we'll also need help doing a mass update to articles (1) now bearing the task force banner and (2) in various categories. In theory there should some sort of 1:1 relationship between bannered and categoried articles, and we're still trying to inventory everything so we can write that up. But this cat and banner stuff is pretty new to project participants and we're drowning a bit. help please! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno: thanks for the help earlier today identifying the show cause button issue I was having. I saw your name in the cat for template editors. I'm not seeking any specific template help at the moment, but hoping you can provide some "best practices" pointers, given that the old task force templated and categorized a lot of articles, and we'd like to convert to the new thing in a graceful way, with all the bells and whistles for developing the project further. Thanks for any help NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's Redrose64 who could help set up the banner itself; conversion is outside my bailwick moreover and is really a discussion for WP:Bot requests, where I think I've seen you leave a comment already. --Izno (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry to double up the help requests. Just floundering not venue shopping. Thanks for the pointer. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added. If you need to make any adjustments, please make them in the sandbox copy and then replace the request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:54, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done: This seems like a reasonable change to me, but I'm not sure that there is a consensus for it from the discussions above. The discussions on this page took place a long time ago (2009 and 2010) and did not involve many editors, so members of the project might not be aware of them. Could you start a discussion about this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment? If there is a consensus to add the importance scale after it has been open for a week or so (actually, a little more would be best as it is Christmas now), please reactivate the edit protected template and someone can implement the change. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:58, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
_hatchback_(2018-11-02)_01.jpg)
