Template talk:WikiProjectBanners/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →


Contents

Scope of this template (Or - Same problem, new form)

I'm concerned about the proliferation of wikiproject and wikiportal related templates. Consider Talk:Asperger syndrome (I don't mean to single it out as being particularly worse than others, but it was the first one I found) It has "This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine." So in fact, now we not only have to worry about the project templates themselves, but all of the *daughter* templates they are generating too. Each wikiproject could have potentially dozens of these things. It's the same clutter problem as with the wikiproject templates, only tenfold.

My first preference would be to add these to the list of speedy deletion criteria, and shoot all the ones that already exist. But - although I honestly cannot see how those templates are in any way beneficial and believe that they only serve to clutter talk pages - I suspect that there would be some people who object to this. Therefore, I think it should be made clear that the scope of this template includes these templates. Raul654 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

  • That should really be folded into the WikiProject medicine banner. {{WPMILHIST}} by Kiril is where I learned it from. Maybe we need a WikiProject:WikiProject banners, to co-ordinate the banners and keep an eye on it all. Although that could lead to a this banner falls within the scope of WikiProject:WikiProject banners in the middle of every WikiProject banner. :) Hiding Talk webcomic warrior 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Hrm, merge them into their parent templates -- that's an even better solution... Raul654 20:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree (merge to parent templates). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Doesn't the template have to go to TFD? I would vote merge. Hilarious comments by the way Hiding, so true. Quadzilla99 20:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
        • No, TFD is not required unless you want to completely remove a file. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If a project maintains a portal, I would have thought it natural that any portal info, like selected article indicators, would be part of the project template. If this isn't stated in a guideline somewhere, it should be. Gimmetrow 21:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Promoting is not the same as commercial advertisement

Whatever we do, it's really starting to bother me that people are trying to make the argument that banners are "evil advertisements". Promoting a collaborative editing space should never be seen as evil by default. Obviously, due to many WikiProjects not being useful, many banners don't end up helping things, but people are confusing the concepts here. It's so easy for people to manipulate how people view this situation by throwing such a hated word as advertisement into the mix. The misconception is getting a little disturbing. If you want to say that most WikiProject banners shouldn't be around I'll not only agree with you, I'll help you take them down and get rid of them (I've reformatted and removed tons of project banners in the past). Even if it really has become the minority for there to be good WikiProjects, please don't be so ridiculous as to make the argument that it's a bad thing to promote editing related efforts and tools on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 02:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll cut and paste my comments from above as Ned obviously must have missed them, also using quote marks when interpreting people (no one said "evil advertisements" that I can see, maybe I missed it even if they did don't pretend one extremist on the subjext represents everybody) serves to discredit your opponenents by making them appear as something different that they are. Please don't resort to tricks and deliberate misinterpretation, thanks. Here's what I said above to another editor:
So your view, in rose-colored glasses, is probably something like, "they convey very important information to the reader about a group or project that is dedicated to improving the type of articles in question." How is that not advertising? because it's something good? Advertising isn't defined by value judgements, an ad by coca-cola and the public ad campaigns in the 1980's for AIDS awareness are still both called advertising. What you're saying is that these are good things and therefore should be given billboard like status on every talk page. Which, of course is an entirely different argument. Your argument should be something like, "Yeah it's advertising but the product/idea is so good that the advertising space is well deserved and merited." Quadzilla99 14:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In addition I'm not sure advertisement is such a hated word like you imply, especially considering how many people own their own business or would like to, and that most people probably understand it's necessary to almost any successful business. However what the banners do, even if no money is exchanging hands, is what is commonly considered advertising even if it doesn't fit the technical definition because no one is being paid to do it. Quadzilla99 14:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? I agree with you that you can call them advertisements, and I've even called them that myself, but the context that many people are using is equivocating it to something like commercial advertisement (or maybe you didn't see the topic header). Where do you get off calling my message resorting to tricks and deliberate misinterpretation when I specifically comment on people thinking of them as bad, not just that they're being called ads. You're trying to argue with me on something I don't even disagree with you on.. -- Ned Scott 03:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll make it simpler. Your distinction is entirely a value judgement and I haven't seen many people say they hate wikiprojects. The projects serve a good cause but they're templates are what are commonly known as advertising (even if they don't fit the strict dictionary definition) and putting them prominently on talk pages (which are designed for talking) has been disapproved of by many editors, even people like myself who really like wikiprojects. Also no one that I can see brought up the term commercial until you did, even if maybe one person did, is that really worth starting a whole new header? Just to point out some minor clarification? Basically you don't like the banner, your TFD failed, and you're going to comment on your disapproval all over this talk page in a hundred different ways. That's fine just don't go around trying to create new issues over and over again. Quadzilla99 23:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Ned please stop deleting my comments from this talk page thanks. Quadzilla99 02:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It's perfectly OK to remove other's comments if they are inappropriate and/ or personal attacks, and yours are both.
My TfD didn't fail at all as something such as one of Kirill's alternatives is now being shown as having a strong consensus. I indicated that was an acceptable outcome in the nomination itself.
Yes, this is simply how I've seen the situation, but I think it's fairly obvious from the TfD that some people do have a great amount of frustration and anger over this.
If used correctly then advertising on the talk page leads directly to significant article improvement. One of the major elements of a WikiProject is a centralized talk page for common elements relating to a group of articles.
This issue needs clarification, as people are clearly getting the wrong idea about if it's ok to promote, rather than what should be promoted and what should not be promoted. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that tagging an inactive talk page because it's inactive can be a good idea so people can find active discussion for what they are seeking. If you have a hundred articles on individual rocks, but want to discuss elements that can relate to more than one article, or no one is active on the current talk page, then a project banner helps people to talk about the articles. -- Ned Scott 03:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with our previous run-ins and it's an ad hominem fallacy to imply they do. I really like the template and you really don't. That is going to put us in conflict as you really seem to want to get rid of it and have spoken out against it on the TFD and here repeatedly. Believe or not I actually really love this template and don't like the small option. If you perceive that I am getting upset or heated with you it's because I like this template and will make forceful arguments in favor of it. As for the actual issue if you want to take a quick glance over WikiProject National Basketball Association I am very active over there but talk pages don't need endless banners for those projects. Besides simple curiosity will lead people to click the Banners, for me it's a simple and perfect solution. Quadzilla99 04:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why else you would be acting so hostile to me, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Saying that this is simply "I don't like the template" is false. Since this is pretty much the same message as your e-mail to me, I'll also just include my e-mail response as well (I was hoping on getting back on topic, but I don't take kindly to such false accusations).
I hope it isn't personal, but again the only thing I hate is how sloppy this template is. I am not trying to defend pointless banners, I'm trying to stop pointless WikiProjects from existing and removing banners that are not needed (or not needed everywhere). It's unfortunate that the number of good banner uses is now the minority, but I seek to protect that minority by preventing them from being lumped into this frustrated response of a template. I can give you examples if you want, but I've nominated many WikiProjects for deletion, tried to discourage some from being started, and helped others get off on the right track. I am interested in real solutions, not sloppy fixes.
Raul654 is specifically putting a spin on this concept of ads to aid in creating a bad image for WikiProject banners. I was hoping to clarify that good use of promotion (that was actually useful and yielded in article improvement) was perfectly fine and should not be shunned. You might want to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_templates#Talk_page_templates_considered_harmful, especially the example I gave to Ideogram via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:WikiProject_DIGI which is a template I've had a big hand in shaping.
Promoting / advertising is not evil or good by default, but people are starting to behave like it is, and I was hoping to have a discussion to clarify that. I'm sorry that I've been a bit short with you, but people continue to make the false assumptions about my motivations no matter how many times I specifically state them. I'm sorry that you do not believe me about my motivations, but you're just acting like an asshole on the template talk page, and all of your comments are just accusations that are false, rather than discussing the topic.
Again, this all seems rather pointless since most seem fine with alternatives and improvements to the template, and people are becoming more active about addressing the core issues. We could have cleaned up the talk pages just as much as we have now, have something you love just as much as this one, but with half the work (updating all those talk pages, avoiding confusion with people who were early adopters of the template). For some reason we didn't go down that path, maybe because many of us (myself included) tend to take a fighting stance on discussions in Wikipedia instead of being a bit more open minded (again, myself included). I doubt I helped "calm" the situation (looking back on it now), but my intentions were pure and had sound reasoning behind my logic. -- Ned Scott 05:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Promoting / advertising is not evil or good by default - incorrect. Every wikiproject tag added to every talk page article detracts from the usefulness of that talk page by cluttering it. As Ideogram has noted, this is a textbook tragedy of the commons scenario. Therefore, steps to mitigate the damage caused by advertising (like this template) and to regulate it (like my above proposal wherein they would be prohibited except on articles that wikirproject had already improved) are essential. Raul654 05:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why you take such an extreme view on this. No, not every Banner is like that. Like I tried to point out on Wikipedia talk:Talk page templates to Ideogram:
"Here's an example of a banner that I've had a big hand in, {{WikiProject DIGI}}. Yes, it's a WikiProject for... Digimon.. But put your fears to rest, the goals of this project is to actually reduce things like fancruft and the hundreds of articles about these mostly non-notable little guys. The banner does a few things, one is that it has a second banner explaining the current mass-merging effort going on in hundreds of articles. Editors are seeing a lot of changes happen and who knows what they'll think of it, jumping to conclusions and getting into revert wars. Adding a notice helps people to understand what's going on and how they can be involved in the discussion. That alone has been a world of help in our merging efforts. Also take note that it's pretty small compared to most banners, using the show button for all those little extras that most banners have at the main level. Clicking show revolves direct links to important guidelines that many of these fly-by-night fan editors won't normally take the time to find themselves. I'd like to know what you think about this template and it's uses. The talk pages this is seen on are pretty clean and free of banner clutter. At most a page will have two banners total (not including that sub-banner), even when sharing an article with another project. These are the kinds of situations I want to defend, and are the kinds of situations I'm not sure everyone is considering. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)"
The fact that tags have been placed on inactive talk pages has actually been a huge help to us, since it's unlikely to get a response on one of the hundreds of talk pages WP:DIGI covers. One of the ways I really see WikiProjects helping is with articles that are not watched often and don't get a lot of traffic on, thanks to centralized discussion. Centralized discussion also helps apply logic from one article to others, without having to have the discussion on each and every talk page. These are directly talk page activities.
Most projects don't do it right, I get that, but saying all of them are that way is wrong. -- Ned Scott 05:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
And I actually welcome some form of banner regulation (even to the point of getting a banner approved first). I don't think your criteria would be good, but some type might be. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The projects are a resource for an editor who actually wants to improve an article, and having at least a link to that resource seems somewhat helpful. It only really needs to be a link, however - a one-line bar form, or even just a link in the first section of the talk page, might work. Perhaps the full blown template might only be on articles the project has actually improved, or at least considers "high" importance? (Yes, I know the loophole there...) Many talk pages of minor articles have a single edit - to add a project template. Gimmetrow 06:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
That would be reasonable to me. I like the idea of making the entire banner nothing more than one line with a show button (or just a link to a welcome page, or "project tools" page). I said before that it would be far more efficient than putting a template inside a template.
Stronger and easier to find/use guidelines would make a world of difference. For example, even if an article can fall under one's scope, a lot of WikiProjects don't know that it would be better to just let an existing project take care of it so that they can take care of articles with no WikiProject. A great many WikiProjects have lost sight of why they put articles under one's scope. For example, article assessments with multiple WikiProjects is just down right stupid. Why are we doing the same thing twice, three times, or even four? The whole point behind WP:1.0's work-via-WikiProject idea was to be efficient and to cover a lot of ground. Remember, we have no guidelines for this, so it's hard to fault the WikiProjects for doing something they didn't know they shouldn't be doing. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
The original tragedy of the commons involved farmers taking their cows to graze in a publicly-owned field. The field didn't belong to any one of them, but to all of them, so they didn't really care if they over-grazed their cattle there. Soon enough, the field became trashed, from over-grazing. All the grass died or was eaten, and no more grass would go there. The farmers then had to find somewhere else to graze their cattle.
The reason I mention this is that it directly relates to your question. The template you just described has *a LOT* of functionality hidden. So anyone loading talk pages sporting that template will have to load a bunch of wikiproject-related cruft that 99.9% of them don't care about. So, 1 person in 1000 benefits, whereas the other 999 experience longer loading times for no good reason. This is NOT a good thing. This is a very, very bad thing.
But that's not the worst of it. What happens when, like the farmers in the parable, everybody starts doing this? I know we already have at least one bot running around tagging tons of articles with wikiproject tags. So tell me - what happens when we have 30 or 40 on a talk page? Yes, as you said, those talk pages are empty - FOR NOW. They are not likely to remain that way.
There's an old saying - "No raindrop believes that he is responsible for the flood" I believe that saying is apt, in this case. No individual person on any wikiproject believes he is responsible for making talk pages useless, but that is EXACTLY what is happening. Raul654 06:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that none of the talk pages under the scope of WP:DIGI have this issue, and WP:DIGI has seen significant help because of those banners. I've taken the banner off of many voice actor talk pages, because they're voice actors and they're in tons of shows. You're saying that this is not stoppable, that it will only continue. We haven't even tried to stop this, so where do you get off saying that? I'm sorry this has become an issue on many talk pages, but there are also many other pages where this isn't an issue. Your solution, to "hide" the banners doesn't do anything to stop the problem, and many times makes more white space than alternative ideas, such as shared banners, task forces, or the small option. Many projects are being merged into parent projects left and right, while others are going to WP:MFD. All we need now is to make stronger guidelines to prevent bad projects from starting in the first place. Even Ideogram saw value in my example, yet you just ignore it and assume it's no better than the rest, with no evidence of that being so. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Except that none of the talk pages under the scope of WP:DIGI have this issue ... yet. On other other hand, virtually all of our heavily trafficked core articles are overbloated with tags from wikiprojects that have never done a thing to improve them, and the problem is spreading.
and WP:DIGI has seen significant help because of those banners. - just to reiterate two comments I made above that nobody has actually yet answered - (a) Wikiprojects are not an end unto themselves. Their purpose is to improve articles. (b) Is there any evidence that wikiprojects are improving articles? As judged by featured article production, the answer for all but a handful is no.
I've taken the banner off of many voice actor talk pages, because they're voice actors and they're in tons of shows. Ok, so you are removing them, while hundreds of other wikproject-pushers (plus at least one bot) are adding them. As time goes on, are we going to end up with a greater or fewer number of wikiproject tags?
You're saying that this [tagging of articles with wikiproject tags] is not stoppable, that it will only continue. - In the absence of rules prohibiting gratitious tagging, all evidence to date suggests this trend will continue unabated.
We haven't even tried to stop this, so where do you get off saying that? - As I said on the TFD, I welcome any attempt to turn back the clock on wikiprojects and get rid of the damn things en masse. But as Haikur said, I don't think this is has a realistic chance of success. The best we can do now is minimize the damage they do.
I'm sorry this has become an issue on many talk pages, but there are also many other pages where this isn't an issue. It's already an issue on all our core articles, and the problem is quickly spreading. So, it would be more precise to say that there are many pages on which this isn't a problem - yet.
Your solution, to "hide" the banners doesn't do anything to stop the problem - incorrect. The multi-project template is scalable to any number of wikiprojects on a talk page, and shortens the apparent loading time of a page. It's not a perfect solution (as I have indicated elsewhere on this talk page, I can think of at least two superior solutions - (a) create a rule requiring a wikiproject to improve an article substantially before tagging it, or (b) Make a multi-project template that displays only the name of the wikiproject. Both of these still have scalability issues, but they attack the problem more directly)
and many times makes more white space than alternative ideas, such as shared banners [WP:TASKFORCE|task forces]], or the small option. - This template (on firefox using the default font magnification) measures 599 by 51 pixels, for a total area of 30549 square pixels. For comparison, I went to today's featured article, and measured the WikiProject India (with small=yes). It occupies 229x152 pixels, for a total area of 34808 square pixels. I will presume this to be the average area for a wikiproject template. Therefore, even if a talk page has only one wikiproject template, this template still saves screen space. And the savings go up for each addition project on that talk page.
Many projects are being merged into parent projects left and right, while others are going to WP:MFD. - while at the same time, even greater numbers of wikiprojects are being created to replace them. Every day, we have more projects than we did yesterday. And there is, to date, no evidence that this trend will cease.
All we need now is to make stronger guidelines to prevent bad projects from starting in the first place. - I don't really know what you mean by "bad" wikiprojects. As I said above, I don't really see a downside to having inactive or specialized wikiprojects, as long as they are not being advertised. There is no shortage of space for wikiproject pages; there is a shortage of space on article talk pages. I will, however, support anything that reduces talk page clutter. Raul654 07:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wait a second, you are clearly missing the point in that many banners are not incorrectly added. I gave you an example of a banner that is being correctly used to counter your argument that it is always a problem, and in response you bring up some other template.. what? Talk:Ahmedabad is rather clutter free with only two banners, one project and one the ArticleHistory template, and with a TOC would take up less white space than this template (less scrolling to get to the discussions, nothing wasted). I hardly see that talk page as supporting your point at all. Even then, we can still make templates smaller, enforce strong guidelines if we have to, and yield better results than this sloppy solution. You seem to make the argument that there is a problem, guess what, we don't disagree on that. We disagree on how to handle the problem. I'm sorry for having a little more faith in Wikipedians (who haven't even been given a chance to reform their projects) than a jaded long time user such as yourself. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll just mention again that I usually browse without javascript, so this container template does absolutely nothing for me, rather it makes the talk pages worse. It also doesn't really help the load times for the 999. If we could get most of the templates down to a one-line bar form, with no javascript widgets, the 999 would benefit a lot. Doesn't take long to download a single link with some rating codes and a border. Gimmetrow 06:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I would support something similiar to Kirill's other template, sans the show button. That is, it has a pure-text listing of all wikiprojects that claim that article, with links to their project pages, displayed by default, and nothing else. It would be small, scalable, usable by non-java users, and significantly reduce load times for everyone. Raul654 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
A good banner shouldn't take up any more than a small discussion, which is hardly significant. I can, however, see the concerns for non-java users, which is why I can see linking to a whole other sub-page or just linking to the project as an acceptable alternative. Nothing but the title is over the top, though. I would see "one line" as perfectly acceptable. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Also, no, I don't think it's fair to blame the good banner because five bad banners were also added. If someone adds a good link in an article, and someone comes along and adds a bunch of bad ones, do you blame both editors for the condition for the article? -- Ned Scott 06:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
It would also gut the functionality of these templates, which I consider to be categorically unacceptable. (You do still remember that initial discussion you so conveniently archived away, yes?) Kirill Lokshin 13:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Option 14 would be acceptable to me anything larger than that would defeat the purpose of the template in my opinion. Quadzilla99 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

"WikiProject Banners"

If anyone is interested I have proposed "WikiProject Banners", a WikiProject to set standards for, and help projects with, WikiProject banners at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals.— miketm - Queen WikiProject - 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Breaks nested collapsed table

Using this template breaks nested collapsed tables. An example of this can be seen in Talk:Go (board game), where a template was modified to use a collapsed table to work around a problem with NavFrame. A general problem with nested collapsible tables, so it probably can't be fixed in this template. YooChung 08:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Another issue to be aware of

User:Kingboyk has reported a problem with this template and his AWB plugin. I've also noticed an issue with templates within templates using the pywiki library. I suspect many codes were written without considering nested templates in the actual wikitext. Gimmetrow 21:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Unless I'm reading it wrong (Kingboyk doesn't really say specifically what happens when pages with the banner are edited), this will just involve users putting some banners up outside the WikiProjectBanners template, at which point they would be likely to be moved inside the banner by other editors. It seems like a minor nuisance more than a problem. Am I misunderstanding the situation? Dekimasuよ! 01:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the pywiki situation, a template inside another template was not recognized, so a new one was added rather than the old one modified. Gimmetrow 02:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My plugin searches for templates using regular expressions, it doesn't actually parse the page like - say - Mediawiki does, so it doesn't matter to the plugin where exactly it finds a target template. So, rather than the pywiki problem I would anticipate only the problem Dekimasu describes. That was indeed what I was referring to - my plugin placing new templates outside the container or moving existing templates outside it. (The latter should only happen with WPBiography. My plugin always puts existing templates back where it found them, except {{WPBiography}} which it moves to the top if it has living=yes. The only other changes to page layout it does are putting {{talkheader}} (yuk) and {{skiptotoctalk}} to the top).
I'm hoping that version 2 of my plugin will recognise and create these container templates or, better still, that AWB will do it. On this note please see this thread: Template_talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Why_two.3F --kingboyk 13:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Self defeating? or is it just me?

Lost up there somewhere in all the philosophical debate is the practical problem that, at least for those of us w/ oldish browsers/OS's & no $$ for upgrades, this template seems to make the problem worse, not better. It squeezes the banners into a narrow margin, but still displays the whole thing (the "show" button doesn't work for me at all), resulting in a multi-page illegible...thing at the top of the talk page. {{ArticleHistory}} doesn't seem to have the same problem. (BTW, in case it's not just me but some weirdness at the page, I encountered this at Talk:Igor Stravinsky.) I guess my equipment shortcomings put me in a minority at WP, but I don't think I should be screwed over because of it. —Turangalila (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A good point, and shows how this actually is just a sloppy way of dealing with the problem. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
See Template_talk:WikiProjectBanners#More_ugly.3F and Template_talk:WikiProjectBanners#The_good.2C_the_bad.2C_and_the_ugly above. ArticleHistory is a bit different because it was designed to replace a number of templates, rather than contain them unchanged. Kirill experimented with something in common.css and ended up with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. See it for instance at Talk:Aliens (film) or Talk:Jason White (football player). This requires supporting code in the project banner. Gimmetrow 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't like that version Gimme, if the user had the option of cascading the individual boxes to one like is currently done instead of displaying them they way they are on Alien it would be fine to me (when you click hide it only hides it—for me at least—until you leave and return to the page). But the versions featuring several tiers which can't be collapsed permanently is a bad idea, further worse is letting individual WikiProjects vote on it. Quadzilla99 01:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
?? They should be hidden by default. When you visit the page for the first time, it should be showing you "This article is within the scope..." and one line per project. Are you seeing something different? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing what you're seeing but the top line says hide and you have to hit that to hide the other lines every time you see go to the page. They should allow the user to make them hidden under a single collapseable banner permanently like the template below.
If I, and others, don't want to see them people should stop trying to force them on us. Quadzilla99 03:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The the user can decide whether they want to see the abbreviated or even full version. Quadzilla99 03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
And what version is displayed for users who do not have a choice? That's what the experiment was about. Gimmetrow 03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I'm not making myself clear, I'd like the option to have it appear as it does above, if there are several other options that would be fine with me. Also I'm extremely active at WP:NFL (three NFL articles I started and mainly wrote were made GA's this week alone) and WP:NBA so I'm not anti-WikiProject, but I think having WikiProjects vote on how banners should appear is a bad decision. Quadzilla99 04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure how voting fits in with this. Anyway, I pointed out WikiProjectShell to illustrate something that is or was being worked on to solve some issues mentioned in the original question. It's only used on something like 40 articles for testing, and there are or were technical issues to resolve. Gimmetrow 04:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This page:{{WikiProjectBannerShell}} seems to show that WikiProjects have made the decision to use this on talk pages involving their project related articles. They, quite frankly, are the last ones who should be deciding any of this. Quadzilla99 04:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(margin reset) 1) I see what you're saying about hiding and then having it stay hidden when you come back to the page - sort of like the "dismiss" that appears when there's a Wikipedia notice at the top of the page, right? 2) WikiProjectBannerShell is currently used on roughly 300 articles, with more every day. To my knowledge, the only technical issue I'm awared of is that {{BLP}} should probably show outside the main box, though {{Film}} has sort of gotten around the issue with {{Upgrading needed}}. {{WikiProjectBanners}} suffers from the same issue. 3) WikiProjects don't decide whether to use this template or WPBannerShell - any editor of an article decides when they make the change. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I missed a zero. There were some issues with the hide and show - maybe those are fixed. Anyway, editors decide things, not projects, and if a large group of editors want something, it's a bit difficult to define it away. That projects listed with that template are those that have added a certain bit of code to their template such that it works nicely with the Shell template. Gimmetrow 04:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm aware that it will be decided on each talk page what banner goes in there (see above I was involved in those discussions) but the project's suppoort listed on the banner page is misleading and ill-advised. Quadzilla99 04:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is "supported by" those projects in the technical sense (code in the template), not the political sense. Gimmetrow 04:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Not sure of that interpretation, all it says is "Supported by", it's really not necessary. Quadzilla99 04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see those are the projects who have the nested option. My bad. Quadzilla99 04:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Gotcha. In a sense, the project does have a say. Mostly because I made the change to about 2/3 of those banners, and for the most part didn't want to make a change to a project's banner without the project's blessing. You're probably right, though, I should probably take that list off and keep it in my userspace. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd still like the editor to have the ultimate option to make the template appear as above, if a user doesn't want the banners to appear they should have that option. Quadzilla99 04:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So is that possible? Can a cookie be set (or something) that sets the default css style? That sounds like coding that has to be done on the wiki software to me. - SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 04:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(reset margin) Most of this is either getting back into policy debate again or going over my head. It looks like WPBio & WPComposers don't have the right code for the option Gimmetrow suggested, which nixes most of the pages I visit...Anyway all it does on my machine is fix the margin problem. I'm leaning toward being bold and just removing the container & setting "small=yes" on the banners on the page in question for now. We'll see if I get reverted... —Turangalila (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can add the nested coding to WPComposers, if you'd like. WPBio's template is such a bear that I haven't attempted changing that one yet. I need and want to, just haven't gotten up the gumption :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I think, as kingboyk said elsewhere, that WP:BIO should be separate, because it performs several other functions (BLP and active politicians and photo requests). For biographies, WP-BIO should be the primary WP-tag, and everything else put in the next box down. I must say, the evolution of this into two different templates (one showing ratings in hidden mode, the other not) is very interesting. Carcharoth 16:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the template. The small=yes is a terrible solution, for the multitude of reasons already mentioned in previous discussions. It is true that this is an imperfect solution. The real solution would be to use fewer wikiproject templates, instead of spamming them around as 99.9% of the wikiprojects do. However, there has been exactly zero movement on the part of the wikiprojects to do this, so until they do, this template will have to suffice. Raul654 21:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've quasi-reverted (see hist) Raul's "restoration". (the page in question is Talk:Igor Stravinsky) From a brief look above it seems the "multitude of reasons" that small=yes is a "terrible solution" add up to: a) something about square pixels (in memory terms your restoration shortened the page a total of 15 bytes acc. to my watchlist); b) some don't like the small text (whereas the point of this template seems to be no text); and c) you don't like it. . The "small=yes" option:
  1. renders the TOC & discussion proper immediately visible on all browsers,
  2. preserves the info on the banners,
  3. doesn't leave the "version 0.5" banner off to the side like some weird orphan,
  4. has the incidental benefit of not being a gigantic "Go F--- Yourself" to editors & readers who don't have the time, knowhow, or cash to upgrade from otherwise adequate software to the state-of-the-art.
I know you're Mr. Wikipedia and I'm a lowly rookie shmoe, but per the edit history this template is your only contribution to the talkpage in question. I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't impose your klunky "solution" on discussions in which you apparently have no interest other than your anti-WikiProject crusade. —Turangalila (talk) 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Small option looks fine to me on that talk page. I do agree, though, that less WikiProject banners would be helpful. (I'm thinking BIO or the Composers could go, one or the other. I've also never been wild about National/Geographical WikiProjects with tagging people who were simply born there, etc). -- Ned Scott 02:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

How easy is it to use this template?

OK, I'm being lazy, but I just found Talk:David Hilbert - which has a mind-numbing number of talk page banners, most of which seem to be WikiProject banners. Is there an easy way to change from that to using this template, or does it have to wait for a bot or someone who knows what they are doing to come along? If the latter or a bot, then this template doesn't really solve the problem, as in most cases no-one will bother to change anything. Can a bot do any of this work? Carcharoth 16:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Not a bot; I'll go do that page for you as a sample. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Done. You can see how long it took to add banners and GA oldid by the time stamps. This one was quicker than most because 1) all pieces were identified on talk page, and 2) there was an edit summary on GA passing, which Dr pda's script could recognize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Brilliant. Thanks. The diffs here and here were very helpful. Now, let's see how long I take to mess up Talk:Kurt Gödel... :-) Carcharoth 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'll check when you're done; if you're planning on working in this area, Dr pda's article history script will be VERY helpful. Inquire at Dr pda (talk · contribs) or see my monobook. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
That wasn't too bad. But then it was only WikiProject templates, and nothing else. I'll have a look at the script sometime. I fear I need to limit myself to learning how AWB works first... Carcharoth 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Well done; one note of caution. If it's the bio of a living person, you have to make sure BLP is outside of banners. You can accomplish this in one of two ways: don't roll the Bio Project into the banner, or separately add {{blp}} outside the banner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the advice and help. Carcharoth 16:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I was initially scared off of Dr pda's script, and was digging the info up by hand. Once I loaded it, I found how brilliant and easy to use it was. One click, and you can find oldid on everything, and an idea of the articlehistory so you can look for missing pieces, as long as you realize there's a problem when editors didn't use edit summaries, or when talk pages were moved. If something is missing, sometimes you have to run the script on the talk page archive. Try it; you'll like it :-)) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be first time I've ever edited my js page. Anything I need to know before I do that? :-) I found the article history script on a subpage over at Dr pda's user page. Should I drop a courtesy note off to let the good doctor know I intend to use it? Carcharoth 17:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a techno-dummie and I did it; just go for it and see what happens—you won't break anything :-) You might want to let him know, just because he's such a nice fellow, but he can probably check his What Links Here to find out who's using it :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Banner discussion

Your participation is requested for a discussion of the multiple project banner issue at WP:COUNCIL — here. Thanks -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Village Pump conversation concerning these temlplates

See here this concerns several aspects of the WikiProject templates and their implementation. Quadzilla99 00:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject banners and scopes

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject reform#The scope, regarding WikiProject scopes getting off track. I think a lot of stuff can be cleared up by better work load distribution and less redundant tagging, and the WikiProject scope is in the center of that. -- Ned Scott 00:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Template doesn't appear to work

I can't get this template to work on the page Talk:Canadian Shield. It accepts some templates but not others! (E.g. not wp-greenland). Is it me or the template? Verisimilus T 10:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it for you, you have to use numbering to indicate the different projects. See this diff [1] for what I did differently. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 13:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Template functionability and its design

Template's function:

  • counter overtagging, too many wikiprojects banners bothers some/many users to get to discussion contents.

of course, but I think there's something affected:

  • making Wikiprojects noticeable, so many more users(mostly newbies) who find these will join and help wikipedia articles.

The main cause of this in my opinion is that many wouldn't notice the [show] button to see banners, they also wouldn't read the unexpanded template instructions.

  • I propose one of these:
    • to color "show"
    • or to add a litle icon: --Andersmusician $ 03:16, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The [show] button is as big as any [edit] button. You really don't think people can read Click [show] for further details smack at the center? Doing anything special to draw attention from the rest of the talk page is what this template tries to avoid. If newbies want to edit articles, they will do it. I don't think knowing about WikiProjects will motivate them that much more, especially after no one responds to their post on an inactive WikiProject's talk page. –Pomte 03:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe instead of changing show, make the note next to it better. Instead of "Click [show] for further details" say "Click [show] to see ways you can help" or "..to see efforts to improve this article" or something that would be a little more encouraging. -- Ned Scott 03:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see how people aren't going to understand the current setup. It's pretty straightforward. Quadzilla99 10:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree to that, there is no reason to expect confusion from the current wording. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
well the main reson 'cuz I'm showing this is that we need members in some projects, specially southamerica.--Andersmusician $ 03:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
A more direct approach can work. If you see an account or an IP editing a lot of articles on South America, then invite them to the WikiProject on their user talk page. On tagging issues, you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject reform. –Pomte 03:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that would be a tedious work, thanks for this template's creation... People are more likely to follow their steps, not someone to tell them to do sth--Andersmusician $ 04:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag

{{Editprotected}} Please install the following at the top of the noinclude documentation (such as it is) section:

{{Mergeto|WikiProjectBannerShell|date=June 2007}}

Per WP:MERGE, merge debates happen at the target, not the source, so for discussion of this merge proposal, please see Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Merge. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

See here. There's no consensus on this, despite your strong opinions. Quadzilla99 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Discussion is taking place at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell#Merge – There's obviously still no consensus, and I may remove {{mergefrom}} from Template:WikiProjectBannerShell/doc within a few days -- someone can remove it earlier if they're feeling bold. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Class inclusion

{{edit protected}} Hey people! I think that we ought to have the class of an article included in the front end (i.e. collapsed) template. I know this has been suggested and shot down on account of there being different classes for different wikiprojects, but I think that's irrelevant. WikiProjects should be running cohesively to attempt to achieve a unison of the goal. If one considers an article to be a stub and another to be a Featured article, tehre's a problem with cohesivity. We should endeavour to note easily what grade an article is. He's my proposal of how it could be done visually. To actually incorporate this into the template is a different story, but what do you guys think, at a glance?

{{WPB|class=FA}}

Featured article FA

{{WPB|class=B}}

B

{{WPB|class=stub}}

Stub

Hope you like the idea and want to back it. --lincalinca 12:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the projects can have different grading schemes. So, if you want to see the article class, use {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}. — Shinhan < talk > 12:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying they shouldn't have different grading schemes. Differences in that respect, when it comes to compiling an encyclopedia, causes a schizm, which therefore causes dysfunction. --lincalinca 12:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing a template doesn't change reality. If you want to make all the projects use the same grade, you will need to achieve that first, then we can change the template. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} {{template doc}} 16@r 15:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 17:41, 21 October 2007 (UTC)