Template talk:WikiProject Ships/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

WikiProject Ships Project Banner Design Notes

Two images were chosen for this banner to represent the dual nature of WikiProject Ships' scope. The USS Constitution represents the naval ship, the age of sail ship and an old ship. The RMS Queen Mary 2 represents civilian shipping, the steam ship, and a fairly modern ship. They are also from two of the biggest sea faring nations. --J Clear 16:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to fix assessed/un-assessed link inconsistency

It appears that our banner sometimes points to subtlety different links depending on if the article is assessed or not.

Here are the inconsistencies I see:

Just in case I made a mistake (I freely admit that I am not a pro when it comes to editing parsed templates), here are the changes I just made to the banner:

These changes should add consistency so that regardless of if an article is assessed or not, the linked terms should now point to the same pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

nitpicking

pick..pick... For the Category class can the template be made to recognize the entire word category in both upper and lower case? Currently it seems to only like Cat or cat; it will display the word category if you type it in but the article stays in the unassessed class article category. Also, for project pages can we invent the class Project instead of using double NA on project talk pages? --Brad (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added both "category" and "Category" to the template parser. Let me get back to you on the other half of this ... --Kralizec! (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately it appears that I cannot splice Project into our parser as that is not one of the currently utilized parameters on the back end ({{Grading scheme}}). --Kralizec! (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Project was just a thought and I think we'll survive without it. --Brad (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Argh.. I knew I would return.. Let's see.. I have come across several instances of |importance=medium or Medium which makes the tag display Mid importance but it does not remove the tag from Category:Unassessed-importance Ships articles. If medium was able to translate as assessed for Mid properly, the result would likely be the automatic removal of many tags from the above category. So maybe we should also cover Med or med as being acceptable to equal mid importance. --Brad (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Done! The following alternative spellings and capitalizations have been added to the importance criteria:
  • High: Hi , hi , HI
  • Mid: Medium , medium, MEDIUM
  • Low: Lo , lo , LO
While I was at it, I also added {{pp-template}} since the template was apparently protected in December. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Great! That just removed about 40 tags based on input glitches. --Brad (talk) 19:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
No doubt half of those were ID-Ten-T Errors from me. Thanks for catching and reporting this! --Kralizec! (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality scale

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Quality scale has apparently been improved since the template was changed to point to the WP1.0 Quality scale. I think it would be useful to switch back to the WP:SHIPS table. HausTalk 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong one -- what I meant was Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment has apparently been improved since the template was changed to point to the WP1.0 Importance assessment scale. I think it would be useful to switch back to the WP:SHIPS table. HausTalk 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think that both links in the tag should point to the wp:ships definitions. Better to give actual examples of assessed ship articles rather than generic ones. --Brad (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Our quality rating links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Quality scale while the assessment scale links to the official scale criteria at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Likewise, our importance rating links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships/Assessment#Importance assessment while the assessment scale links to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

DAB vs dab

Resolved
 – Done. Kralizec! (talk) 02:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Can someone alter the template to accept DAB as the same for dab or Disambig? I just ran into a bunch of pages that are marked DAB and they aren't cleared from the unassessed category. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 02:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alternate parameter names, acceptable values

Can the new B-Class parameters be set to accept y and Y in addition to variations on the word yes? Also, since we seem to be trying to match fairly closely the WP:MILHIST template {{WPMILHIST}}, can the alternate names for B-Class parameters—i.e. "B-1=" in addition to "B-Class-2="—be added as well. Many thanks? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

While this sounds easy, after poking around the parser, it appears to be more complicated than I feel comfortable doing. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The template already accepts |yes|y|Yes|YES|Y and |no|n|No|NO|N by the use of the sub-template Template:WikiProject Ships/YesNo. The alternate names for B-class parameters can be added easily with a little work. Eveywhere on Template:WikiProject Ships it asks for {{WikiProject Ships/Any|{{{B-Class-X|}}}|yes , replace it with {{WikiProject Ships/Any|{{{B-Class-X|}}}|{{{B-X|}}}|{{{BX|}}}|{{{b-X|}}}|{{{bX|}}}}}|yes . I can do this soon if nobody else does it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
When you say {{WikiProject Ships/Any|{{{B-Class-X|}}}|yes I presume you mean {{WikiProject Ships/Any|{{{B-Class-X|}}}}}|yes ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Other issues

Still outstanding as of now:

  • A class articles are still missing though we only had 4 in that category.
    • Still needs to be dealt with since MILHIST is continually promoting. USS Mercy (AH-4) was promoted today. -MBK004 15:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I think this should be fixed now. The new template was requiring a paramater that MILHIST uses but we do not (a passing A-class review). --Kralizec! (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
        • I notice now that there are many "Start" class articles that have fallen into the unassessed class category. I estimate about 200 did so. Why the rest of them didn't is a mystery. Also, we should have 5 A class articles but right now only two are showing in the category. --Brad (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Disregard. Apparently they've fixed themselves. There has been some high database lags today. --Brad (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
            • Sorry it took so long; the A-class fix was a lot more complicated than I expected. The cause of the issue was located both in this template, as well as the new {{WikiProject Ships/Class}} sub-template. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Category, Template and Image pages aren't auto-assessing.
  • There is a problem with NA class articles in that they are falling into the unassessed category except for the project pages.
Disregard. They're actually doing what they should be doing ie not being able to assess NA class on a main space article. --Brad (talk) 05:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this working more like you expected now? --Kralizec!(talk) 05:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes; Thanks. What are you doing up so late? --Brad (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
--Brad (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed another problem: if any criterion is left unchecked, it keeps it at start class, even if that criterion is one of the ones that may be entered as a no for C class (eg Talk:HMS Kent (1746)). Seems to me that 'unchecked' is no different from 'no' in these things - treating unchecked as no certainly wouldn't promote an article when it shouldn't be if it was taken as a no... Martocticvs (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Copied over from WTShips. --Brad (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Brad asked me to look in here on my talk page (and I alerted Kirill to the discussion) but I'm not very clear what input I/we can provide. Perhaps if this could be firmed up into a list of problems/fixes needed/cooperation needed we could help? --ROGER DAVIES talk 05:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more specific to begin with but essentially there is a list of repairs in this topic that need to be preformed on our project banner. I've already struck the ones that have been fixed but the more important ones are still open. Our A class articles are still not functioning correctly which would be the most important. --Brad (talk) 07:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
This should be fixed now, however the high database lag today will probably prevent both Category:A-Class Ships articles and {{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ships articles by quality statistics}} from updating in a timely fashion. I have no clue how to fix the non-functioning auto-assessment for category, image, and template pages. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the A-Class fix, Kralizec. One note: although alternate names for parameters are accepted (putting "B1=y" shows the criterion as met), a B-Class rating seems only to appear if the parameters are entered in the style of "B-Class-N". — Bellhalla (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List of repairs needed

The problems listed above are now so spread out I thought I would bring the outstanding ones down here to clarify what still needs working on.

  • Category, Template and Image pages aren't auto-assessing. - The idea was that placing our banner on these pages would automatically give them the correct ratings. This isn't very important but would be nice to have.
  • If any B or C criterion is left unchecked, it keeps it at start class, even if that criterion is one of the ones that may be entered as a no for C class (eg Talk:HMS Kent (1746)). Seems to me that 'unchecked' is no different from 'no' in these things - treating unchecked as no certainly wouldn't promote an article when it shouldn't be if it was taken as a no.. (note from Martocticvs}
  • Although alternate names for parameters are accepted (putting "B1=y" shows the criterion as met), a B-Class rating seems only to appear if the parameters are entered in the style of "B-Class-N". (note from Bellhalla)
    • This will be addressed when the {{editprotected}} request below is completed. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
      • And should be working now. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Admins involved so far in this have been Trevor, Roger Davies, Kirill and Kralizec!. I'm not sure what the confusion has been but all of these wanted changes have been discussed and consensus reached to make the changes. --Brad (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Has any progress been made on any of these? — Bellhalla (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Has any progress been made on the B-Class rating for alternate parameter names? — Bellhalla (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
While I have looked at the guts of our parsing code, unfortunately I am not very sure where this issue is coming from. The last big upgrade to our banner made the complexity of the template go through the roof. Perhaps I can try again over the weekend ... --Kralizec! (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Placing this template in the hopes that someone can fix the outstanding issues discussed here. There is a sandbox template to practice on. --Brad (talk) 01:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not what editprotected requests are for. Try the technical village pump or AN. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit request to fix two problems

{{editprotected}} In order to fix some problems with this project banner template, can an edit be made to update Template:WikiProject Ships from this version of Template:WikiProject Ships/sandbox? Please omit the first line from the sandbox (<noinclude>{{Template sandbox notice}}</noinclude>), which is a sandbox template notice. The diff between the current and updated version of Template:WikiProject Ships should be the same as this diff from the sandbox.

Problems addressed
  • Affirmative variations (yes, YES, y, Y, etc.) for parameters nested and small are correctly evaluated.
  • Alternate names for B-Class parameters are both accepted and correctly evaluated with respect to B-Class assessments.
Testing

I created a test page with examples of current template calls alongside calls to the sandbox at Template:WikiProject Ships/testcases.

Thanks. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Also, the general convention is Template:WikiProject Ships/testcases for testcases. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the update, and thanks for the new bit of information. Link above updated accordingly. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Request an amendment

When an article has reached the external review stage ie GA, A, FA, the template recognises that B-Class are unneccessary and so doesn't require them. The trouble is we are still left with the "Additional information:" line. Could we have this hidden as well as the criteria when it is GA/A/FA? Thanks.Woody (talk) 17:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I also see this happening with stub articles as they aren't supposed to recognize a checklist. --Brad (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Fix coming soon — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

2nd Amendment

The right to keep and bear arms.. oh wait.. The Category, Template and Image areas are auto-assessing but only for class which is NA. The importance rating needs to auto-assess as well; also with an NA rating. Just an annoying thing to nit pick over but it dumps the problem into the unassessed importance category requiring that someone has to rate it anyway. --Brad (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Will address this too, if I can. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I just realized that I described class as assessing to NA when that is not correct. The importance rating not auto assessing is the problem but you probably knew that anyway. --Brad (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
DANGIT, Brad! Now you tell me! Just kidding. I figured that's what you were talking about. There will be some other goodies in the update that you, especially, will like. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Fix needed

It seems this template displays the "Additional information" line (and the associated hide/show link) regardless of whether there is any additional information. Can someone take a stab at enclosing that section of the code in an if statement? Maralia (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a stab at it... — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Will have a fix below very soon. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Keeping my fingers crossed for Bellhalla since I have not had luck with any of these ... --Kralizec! (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit request for template

{{editprotected}} Request completed --Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to fix some problems with this project banner template, can an edit be made to update Template:WikiProject Ships from this version of Template:WikiProject Ships/sandbox? Please omit the first line from the sandbox (<noinclude>{{Template sandbox notice}}</noinclude>), which is a sandbox template notice. The diff between the current and updated version of Template:WikiProject Ships should be the same as this diff from the sandbox.

Problems addressed
  • Correct the problem with the nested version that caused the "show" and "hide" buttons to jump.
  • Correct the category for FL-Class articles.
  • Display the "Additional information:" line for Start-, C-, and B-Class assessments, and do not display for all other class assessments (per two requests above).
  • Auto-assess pages in Wikipedia, User, Template, Category, Portal namespaces as NA/No-importance; all already auto-assess for Class (per one request above). Also, auto-assess Disambig-Class articles as NA/No-importance.
  • Tweak the "needs-infobox" parameter to generate the {{Newinfobox}} template when the value is set to "new". (Already displays {{Ship infobox request}} when parameter is set to "yes", "y", "Y", etc.)
Testing

I created a test page with examples of current template calls alongside calls to the sandbox at Template:WikiProject Ships/testcases. Because of the auto-assessment performed for Template namespace articles, some of the testcases will need to be pasted and previewed in other namespaces to verify that the code is working properly.

For any problems with the code, please reply here (and revert if necessary). Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved
 – Template changes implemented. -Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The requested changes have been made to the template [1]. However since this template is transcluded into 27,845 pages, it may take some time for the changes to appear on all of the pages. In case there are any issues, I will try to check back here several times over the next couple of hours, but in case I get tied up, please use a {{editprotected}} for any necessary changes (or if it is urgent, drop a message at WP:AN).
Nice work on fixing the template's issues, Bellhalla! Now I know who to go to for other parser related problems! Will the Assessment instructions or template documentation need to be updated to reflect these changes? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
No problems seen so far. A most excellent update with the infobox toy included. --Brad (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
The "needs-infobox" option for {{Ship infobox request}} was already in there, though undocumented; I merely updated it to include the option for {{Newinfobox|type=ship}} as well.
I've brought the documentation up-to-date now. In thinking about it, we should probably protect the following subtemplates:
Though not necessarily directly transcluded anywhere, they are in use on the same 27,000+ pages.
Also, I'm happy to take a look at any-parser related problems. Let me know and I can take a look. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
 – Sub-templates protected! -Kralizec! (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue

When using a banner shell and |needs-infobox=yes the request doesn't drop outside the banner shell but rather crowds underneath the ship template not collapsed. --Brad (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way of working around that that I can see. I'll update the documentation to point that out. — Bellhalla (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The current text displayed on the banner reads:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

I suggest a change to the text so that editors can be directed to the banner instructions if they have questions:

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.

--Brad (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the addition of the wording, but do you mean for it to be in bold or were you just highlighting the change? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Just highlighting the change for clarity. --Brad (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Issue with Cat, image etc

I've figured out a problem I've been seeing on cats, images and templates and likely other non article related pages. When an editor puts down {{WPSHIPS}} as opposed to {{WikiProject Ships}}, the assessment doesn't clear from the unassessed category. Visually the template appears correct with the class and importance filled in but something isn't recognizing the all caps version of the template. --Brad (talk) 08:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It should work exactly the same because it just redirects to this template. Can you give an example? Martin 16:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

MetaBanner

Sitting in the sandbox now is a proposed implementation of this template using {{WPBannerMeta}}. The appearance of the template will be very similar to your current one. It would however, make yours more standardised to other projects' banners, make it easier to maintain and add functionality, and hopefully sort out some of the niggles that have been reported on this page.

There are some examples of both templates in Template:WikiProject Ships/testcases so that you can compare. I invite your comments! Martin 16:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace the template by the copy in the sandbox. Thank you. Martin 18:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Now wait a minute. Which version are we supposed to be looking at? There are a lot of testcases on that page that were generated for a previous edit request. Also, does the MetaBanner version retain the auto-assessments currently built in to this template? — Bellhalla (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It also looks like, if I'm understanding what I'm looking at, that one would have to explicitly specify "category=no" in the banner. If that's the case, I'd say forget about making this change. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
And, again, if I understand what I'm seeing, the "nested" option is broken by this suggested change. I've disabled the edit request pending further investigation and consensus. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bellhalla. Finally I got a response from someone :) Let me address your concerns.

  1. The version you should be looking at is Template:WikiProject Ships/sandbox.
  2. On Template:WikiProject Ships/testcases are examples of both the current template and the sandbox version. They are clearly marked as such. (I didn't change this.)
  3. The category=no is a feature of the BannerMeta that allows examples to be shown without adding inappropriate categories to a page. Thus it is not necessary to use this in normal usage.
  4. The nested feature is certainly not broken. Due to improvements to the template it is no longer necessary to specify nested=yes. If the banner is put inside a banner shell it will automatically collapse! I have put a shell on the testcases in order to demonstrate.

Are there any other concerns? Martin 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry I missed your other question. I have just now added support for the auto parameter. I didn't do it orginally because the documentation didn't mention it and I didn't notice it in the code. Martin 21:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any apparent changes from visual appearances. The only thing I would be concerned about is the B Class criteria where an article can be rated start but just underneath the importance rating is a huge B. The first thing that crossed my mind was that somehow the article had a dual rating of some sort. It's rather confusing to see Start and B at the same time. I really don't see where there is any improvement except perhaps on the back side functionality. I would consider the |auto= parameter as obsolete now that we've assessed the huge backlogs of the original article tagging run over a year ago. --Brad (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right, there aren't many differences. Maybe the pictures are a little bigger. I see what you mean about the B-class checklist, but I think you could argue it the other way. If it is rated "B-class", you need the checklist to be noticeable otherwise someone could get very confused about why it is only displaying "C-class". Like your current banner (I think) it will only display
  • if the class is C or B
  • if the class is Start and at least one of the criteria has been specified
Therefore it doesn't get in the way when it's not necessary! If you think it's a problem I could put in a request to make it a bit smaller. I'll remove the auto parameter now. Martin 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I still disagree about displaying a B when the article is rated another class that is lower. All somebody has to do at present is drop down the additional info list to see what is going on. The B-Class criteria is fairly simple to understand. The removal of the |nested=yes requirement is an excellent idea. --Brad (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The current testcases page was set up to demonstrate specific changes made to the banner template in November 2008. So a lot of the wording doesn't make sense in this respect. The auto assessment of which I was speaking is when {{WPSHIPS}} is placed on the talk page in the Category, File, Template, or Wikipedia namespaces (I may be forgetting one of the Namespaces off the top of my head), it automatically assesses the article into the appropriate class (i.e. on a category page, the equivalent of "class=cat") and importance ("NA" for most of these). Does the MetaBanner version accomplish this? From looking at the examples (all located on a page in the "Wikipedia" namespace), I would guess not.

Also, in the current banner, when the "class" parameter is manually specified as "Start", "C", or "B", the template will, based on the particular items marked in the B-Class checklist, assign the appropriate rating (i.e. if "class=Start" is specified and all 5 B-Class items are checked, the template will display a "B" assessment). Does the MetaBanner version do this as well? I also have to agree with Brad that what appears as a dual rating is confusing.

I don't mean to denigrate your efforts, Martin, but this MetaBanner implementation seems to be a solution in search of a problem. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Having read all this, the phrase "don't fix what's not broken" comes to mind ... --Kralizec! (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll take these points one at a time. First the simple ones:
  • I misunderstood "auto-assessment". (There is a parameter auto which is sometimes used by a bot to automatically assess stub-class articles.) The template assesses the class in the following way. Personally I think this is the best possible method.
    • If the class if specified then it will use that.
    • If it is not specified then it will use namespace detection to guess the appropriate class.
  • The importance is chosen in a similar way. (The mask is here if anyone is interested.)
  • Now about the B-class, I'm starting to agree with you. The "B" is a little too prominent at the moment. What about if there was a B and a magnifying glass together (a bit like but I can't find one with a B)? If anyone sees a suitable image, please let me know!
    • There are 6 B-class criteria now. Your banner only uses five.
    • The class is only affected if class=B is specified. If the 6 criteria are met then it displays B-class. Otherwise it shows C-class.
  • Now about the "don't fix what's not broken" comments. The whole idea of these meta templates is to prevent duplication of work. It doesn't make sense for every project to spend time building and maintaining their own banner, when all the work has been done before. And things change constantly, like the B-class criteria for example. New templates replace old depreciated ones. Unless a banner is occasionally, it will get left behind. Now in your case, the argument is valid because you obviously know and understand your project banner and know exactly what you need for your project. So I hope you can see the advantages, but if you decide not to convert, I'm not going to push it anymore! But in a couple of years, when someone new to the project wants to add some functionality to the template and maybe some of you are not around, it would be pretty difficult ... Also it helps to share ideas. We can work together to improve this B-class checklist and you'll be helping a lot of other projects too. Anyway the choice is yours. Martin 10:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Because there is a lot of crossover in coverage and participation with WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Ships has adopted the same five B-Class criteria as that project. We also have a higher standard for an assignment of C-Class. If MetaBanner enforces a standard different than the consensus assessment guidelines adopted by this project, then this is yet another strike against its adoption. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

anybody have any idea what {{WP Ships USS instances}} is?

It's redlinked on a current FAC; I googled it and found it on many pages... I suspect it is being transcluded, but no longer exists.. ? Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 11:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It was a creation by a vandal, the template is included as part of {{USS}}, but is not created. When the page was created by a vandal, it showed up in all pages with USS on it. A purge of the cache should get rid of it, regards. Woody (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
When Template:Ship is invoked with the prefix "USS", the aforementioned template is transcluded. It and several other templates intended to remain redlinks were added in order to figure out usage of Template:Ship with certain prefixes. Since the user that was working on that project has, as far as I know completed his work, the snippet of code that generates these redlinks can be eliminated.
What Woody is referring to is that some enterprising vandal actually created one of the redlinked templates, wreaking the intended havoc wherever {{Ship}} was used. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've put in an {{editprotected}} request at {{Ship}} to eliminate this. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

New template classes

I noticed the powers that be have come up with a whole new slew of classes for project banners. The most recent looks like this:

 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigFilePortalProjectRedirectTemplateNA???
303981,9014,92610,73818,1858,481339,65711,972283773016714,2873,952806 

Are we interested in utilizing these? If so, is our banner setup for this? The redirect class would be useful anyway. --Brad (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I like the "Project" class, too. I see no disadvantage to using any of them. As of right now, the banner is not set up to use them, but I'm thinking it would be a relatively straightforward implementation. If the consensus is to implement them, I'll be happy to work up the necessary changes to the banner. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess we have enough consensus now? I would also like to see this issue taken care of. Another nitpick would be the links to our rating scales. Using Talk:List of United States Navy ships: W-Z as an example, the links to the ships project quality scale and importance scale should all point to the ships project pages. Currently three out of the four links there are correct; just the class description has one link wrong. --Brad (talk) 22:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you should take the opportunity to convert to {{WPBannerMeta}} for the reasons mentioned above. We are now in a position to support the 5-point B-class checklist, which was the main concern earlier. Martinmsgj 22:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the sandbox version be changed to the 5-point B-class checklist so that everyone can see what it looks like? -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That would be helpful, thanks. Martinmsgj 23:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
As I recall, the B-Class checklist was not the only problem with the Meta Banner implementation. There was the auto assessment setup that looks at the namespace, as well as custom C-Class assessments. Why are you pushing so hard for this, Martin? — Bellhalla (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Only because I can see you duplicating all this work when it's been done before. You obviously enjoy template programming which is great, but there are probably lots of places you could help out more effectively. Martinmsgj 12:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
How I choose spend my wikitime is my own damn business, thank you very much. But, I'll offer you the same advice: there are probably lots of places you could help out more effectively than trying to convince us that some one-size-fits-all template should replace the current template. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll reply on your talk page, as this has little to do with this particular template any more. Martinmsgj 07:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit request for updates to banner template

{{editprotected}}

Please replace Template:WikiProject Ships with this version of Template:WikiProject Ships/sandbox. When updated, the diff should match this diff of the changes to the sandbox. These changes were tested on Template:WikiProject Ships/testcases.(See updated request below.)

What this update accomplishes:

  • Adds an instruction line as requested here
  • Adds support for the Redirect, Portal, and Project classes and assignments into the corresponding new categories, per this discussion
  • Minor tweak: Converts all [[Image:ImageName]] to [[File:ImageName]]

Note: Until Template:WikiProject Ships/Importance is updated (there is an active edit request), Redirect-Class pages won't auto-assess. Although I've tested this pretty thoroughly, please report any problems with the update or unexpected results with the banner template. Many thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 07:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If I might make one suggestion. It looks slightly odd when it says "rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale". It might be better to have "This article has been rated as ..." or at least make the "r" a capital "R". Martinmsgj 12:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please replace Template:WikiProject Ships with this version of Template:WikiProject Ships/sandbox. When updated, the diff should match this diff of the changes to the sandbox. These changes were tested on Template:WikiProject Ships/testcases.

What this update accomplishes:

  • Adds an instruction line as requested here
  • Adds support for the Redirect, Portal, and Project classes and assignments into the corresponding new categories, per this discussion
  • Minor tweak: Converts all [[Image:ImageName]] to [[File:ImageName]] to use the new namespace
  • Makes the class assignment in bold text in the sentence explaining the class rating
  • Restores the omitted phrase This article has been in the sentence explaining the importance rating
  • Internal project links for class and importance assessment scales

As before, if there are any problems with the update or unexpected results with the banner template, please note them here. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

 Done, Woody (talk) 15:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Issue

On each article at the importance rating, each tag is claiming there has been no importance assessment given when there actually is. If they were unassessed then all of them would be in the unassessed importance category which they're not. Leave it to me to find a problem. --Brad (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I can't see any errors. Can you give an example of a page where you think the template is not working? Martinmsgj 07:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Use Talk:List of United States Navy ships: W-Z as an example but this appears on every banner I've seen since the last change was made. --Brad (talk) 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 Fixed I think. Martinmsgj 22:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Looks ok; thanks. --Brad (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of importance ratings.

The ships project has decided to remove the importance ratings for the project. The consensus was gathered on our talk page. If no one reacts to this request within a week I will request help elsewhere. --Brad (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if there are any problems. Happy‑melon 20:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I see the database is slowly updating the change. Will see how things look in a few hours. --Brad (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

incomplete B-Class checklists

The ships project would likely benefit from having a category to track articles that have incomplete B-class checklists. Milhist has Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists which indicates that incomplete checklists are tracked by the project banner. Of course I've no idea how to implement the tracking but if there are no objections I will seek to get this done. --Brad (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're interested I can try and adapt the code I wrote for {{Film}} for this banner. PC78 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
WPAVIATION has something similar in Template:WPAVIATION/bchecklistcats -- WOSlinker (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
I know it's been discussed before, but I think you should also reconsider using {{WPBannerMeta}}. It can handle everything you need here and would simplify the code here immensely. PC78 (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome to try. We have a sandbox and test case template for experiments. Maybe looking at the milhist template code would help. --Brad (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
MILHIST does not use {{WPBannerMeta}}. Brad, you should ping Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs) regarding the tracking, since he is the person who usually handles the issues and coding of {{WPMILHIST}}. -MBK004 19:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not rocket science. :) The code I've added to your sandbox will do the job. PC78 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes

We now have Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists and I've added the sandbox template to Talk:USCGC Seneca (WMEC-906) and Talk:ARA Santa Fe (S-21). Things seem to be working fine; I've done some various tests with the B-class checklist. Would like others to experiment with things as well. After that we should be able to make the change permanent. --Brad (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made some more changes in your sandbox to tidy things up a bit.
  • I've simplified the boilerplate that is displayed on pages lacking the checklist so it takes up less space (this is something they did recently at {{WPMILHIST}}); compare banners at Talk:USCGC Seneca (WMEC-906).
People like me who assess all the time use the short |B1=|B2=|B3=|B4=|B5= list because we understand the meanings. I'm not sure if there is any benefit in removing the full instructions as those who aren't familiar with B-class assessments need all the info possible. I don't have any objections to the change though. --Brad (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Ther discussion at WP:MILHIST is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#Template:WPMILHIST, if you're interested. But it's your call, of course. PC78 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced, as those who wanted the shorter list are those who understand what all of the criteria mean. As far as Ships is concerned we don't have as many articles as Milhist. Whenever I come across an article that uses the full text I shorten it down anyway. --Brad (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me but as far as I'm aware that parameter is hardly ever used. --Brad (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Your current banner allows articles to be rated Portal-Class. I assume this is unintentional and undesirable?
Can't say. I don't believe that ships has any portals currently but in case we need it later on we might as well keep it. --Brad (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Not quite what I meant. Your banner currently rates portal pages as Portal-Class, just as templates are automatically rated as Template-Class and categories are Category-Class, etc. But while the banner prevents articles being rated as Template-Class, Category-Class, etc., articles can be rated Portal-Class. It looks like an oversight in the code at Template:WikiProject Ships/Class to me, but I just wanted to make sure. PC78 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
In that case no, articles should not be allowed to be rated as Portal class; only portals are portals. --Brad (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I would say to remove it. The parameter makes no sense to me when there are plenty of other templates that editors love to stick all over articles as it is. Since the parameter has no definition of use it could essentially be placed on every article under our project. They all need some sort of attention anyway. --Brad (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Is |nested=yes fully deprecated? If so, there is a bit of code that can be removed.
To my knowledge that parameter has been deprecated wiki-wide. No sense in keeping it. --Brad (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You'll also need the following categories for the B-Class checklist:
Assuming you want them, of course. PC78 (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see the point in having the extra categories. They won't hurt anything but I don't see any benefit either. I'd like to see more input here from other project members before any changes are made. I think waiting a week would be sufficient. --Brad (talk) 02:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
The categories are used to track articles which fail any of the B-Class criteria. {{WPMILHIST}}, {{WPAVIATION}} & {{Film}} all have them, and since you wanted to track incomplete checklists I figured you'd want them here too. But if not it will be easy to remove them. PC78 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
May as well activate the categories above. I don't see any use for them but they might be used in the future. --Brad (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
OK then, I've reverted the boilerplate message and acted on some of the other stuff mentioned above. One other thing you might want to consider is changing Image-Class to File-Class; if you look at File talk:Koka-ii.jpg (for example), the banner shows both "File" and "Image-Class", so this would be a change for the sake of consistancy. It won't be a big deal to change it over, but again it's your choice. Other than that I think you're good to go with the updates. I've also made a few changes to {{WikiProject Ships/Class}} and {{WikiProject Ships/YesNo}} in their respective sandboxes, so you should update those as well. Regards. PC78 (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Summary

  1. Adding code to produce Category:Ships articles with incomplete B-Class checklists - Category:Ships articles needing attention to referencing and citation - Category:Ships articles needing attention to coverage and accuracy - Category:Ships articles needing attention to structure - Category:Ships articles needing attention to grammar - Category:Ships articles needing attention to supporting materials
  2. Improving layout of |small=yes and setting the "Portal" class to only allow Portals to have that rating. Also changing "Image" class to "File" class.
  3. Removing the parameters for |attention= and |nested=yes
--Brad (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Everything should be in order if you want to go ahead and request an edit to the banner and subtemplates. PC78 (talk) 13:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please copy the code from {{WikiProject Ships/sandbox}} ; {{WikiProject Ships/Class/sandbox}} ; {{WikiProject Ships/YesNo/sandbox}} to their respective templates @ {{WikiProject Ships}} ; {{WikiProject Ships/Class}} ; {{WikiProject Ships/YesNo}}

The new code will implement the changes noted in the summary above. There have been no objections to these changes throughout the period of discussion. Thanks. --Brad (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done Please let me know if there are any issues. — Kralizec! (talk) 04:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Do also let me know if there are any problems, as I will be taking this page off my watchlist. Category:Image-Class Ships articles is now empty and I have tagged it for deletion; per above images are now located in Category:File-Class Ships articles. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
All looks fine as far as I can see. Thanks for your help! --Brad (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-class?

See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Book-class. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion copied from WTShips

Since this is one of the bigger projects, and that several Wikipedia-Books are ships-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Ships people can oversee books like Tucker class destroyers much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts. I'm placing this here rather than on the template page since several taskforces would be concerned.

There's an article in this week Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there will be any objection to the new class. We can wait a few more days before going any further. --Brad (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Been 5 days now. Anyone against this? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Is there a deadline for this? --Brad (talk) 09:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Not really, but the quicker things are decided, the quicker we can work on getting things done and making sure they make sense. At least IMO. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok then. I don't see any reason why it cannot be implemented now. Will need someone to code it into our template, however. --Brad (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps User:Kirill Lokshin of the MILHIST project could give a hand here? I can to it with Metabanner-based banners, but this is a custom one. I'll give it a look though. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Implementation

{{editprotected}} I made a lame attempt at {{WikiProject Ships/sandbox}} for book class but of course it didn't work. I placed the sandbox template for a test on the book Derfflinger class battlecruisers so we can watch the madness. I will go now and find a capable body to implement book class properly. --Brad (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox now works. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking .. just a sec. — Ched :  ?  17:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Done. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you change: 

|book=[[Category:Book-Class Ships articles]]

to: 

|book=[[Category:Book-Class Ships articles|{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||2}}]]

the banner will sort the category alphabetically rather than sorting everything under B. PC78 (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, Woody (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem

{{editprotected}} Apparently the book class articles were moved to a new namespace. The new namespace is not recognized by the template and all of the book class articles have fallen into Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles. --Brad (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty sure that replacing 

 |book=[[Category:Book-Class Ships articles|{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}||2}}]]

with 

 |book=[[Category:Book-Class Ships articles]]

would fix it. You also would need to edit Template:WikiProject Ships/Class and replace 

|Wikipedia={{#ifeq:{{#titleparts:{{PAGENAME}}|1|1}}|Books|Book|Project}}

with 

|Wikipedia=Project
|Book=Book

Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, let me know if there are any problems. Regards, Woody (talk) 10:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Fail

The edit did not fix the trouble but only convoluted it. This is why we have sandbox templates so that things can be tested before implementation. I've asked PC78 to look at this problem and fix it correctly. --Brad (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be working? If not, can you point me to a page where it isn't? PC78 (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It appears to be a problem with template recognition. Book articles that are appearing in Category:Unassessed-Class Ships articles seem to be all using {{WikiProject Ships|class=book}} while two articles that are appearing correctly in Category:Book-Class Ships articles are using {{WP Ships|class=book}}. I haven't checked all instances of this problem but I believe that this is the issue. --Brad (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
It is working fine, it was simply a caching issue. The servers hadn't got round to dealing with the {{WP Ships}} redirect, it obviously dealt with the actual template first. I have now gone and purged each page individually so all is where it is meant to be now. Woody (talk) 09:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for cleaning up. Normally it doesn't take that long for the server to catch up with changes. --Brad (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

WPBannerMeta

Copying this conversation here from ships talk. --Brad (talk) 01:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of migrating {{WikiProject Ships}} to the new(ish) {{WPBannerMeta}}? WP Ships is one of the last projects not to have done so already, it seems. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at it "real soon now". If someone else wants to before I get to it, please sandbox it and have the project review so we only disrupt the servers majorly once. --J Clear (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This issue has been discussed at length on the banner talk page. Last main discussion was here. So far no one has come up with a good reason to make the change. Bellhalla and myself have invested a large amount of time in custom tuning our present banner; most recently about two weeks ago. I am still opposed to the change. --Brad (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I was going to ask what the real benefits to changing the banner were. After having read through the most recent discussion, I found none. Martin stated that the point of the meta banner was to save time by not making projects create their own banners. We already have one that works pretty well; where's the benefit in changing it? Parsecboy (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly. Until a compelling argument for change comes forward there is no reason to change. --Brad (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have spent some time looking this issue over. {{WPBannerMeta}} requires the 6 criteria B-Class checklist. We decided last year to stay with the 5 criteria checklist ala milhist when we implemented a B-Class checklist for this project. So if you pro-BannerMeta people want to change the ships template over, you're going to have to:
  1. Make BannerMeta function on a 5 criteria checklist.
  2. Get the project to agree on using a 6 criteria checklist.
Unless that can be done there is no reason for the change to be made. The other issues I have with it amount to layout and appearances. --Brad (talk) 09:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And I forgot to add that BannerMeta doesn't allow our customized C-Class criteria either. --Brad (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
And the final dagger is the fact that BannerMeta won't allow auto assessing of template and category name spaces among others. --Brad (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The irony of that is almost beyond comprehension, since those have to some of the easiest things to auto-assess! — Kralizec! (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I should stop carrying on about this but it's annoying when we keep getting pushed to change the banner. I wonder if Milhist gets this much pushing? Anyway, now that all of the reasons are laid out here I can just point to this in the future. --Brad (talk) 16:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The 5-point checklist is now supported by {{WPBannerMeta}}.
  • Any assessment classes that your project uses can easily be supported.
  • WPBannerMeta will automatically assess templates and categories (and portals, project pages and books as well).

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:WikiProject_Ships/Archive_1&oldid=1125413328"