mic_none

Module talk:Banner shell Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Module_talk:Banner_shell

Could request parameters be ignored & tracked on detected redirects?

[edit]

Perhaps in Category:WikiProject request parameters on redirects for followup, so they don't pollute their respective request cats like Category:Wikipedia requested images? Parameters include |needs-image=, |needs-infobox=, |needs-attention=, |pref-photo=, |pref-photo-2=, |person-photo=, |needs-PD-image=, |screenshot=, |screenshots=, and many other variants.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support but make it more wider. Any non-article or draft should be included. There is no reason why categories, dab pages or templates (for example) need these also. Gonnym (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even better   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vital article

[edit]

How did we end up with vital articles WikiProject as the header here? Moxy🍁 23:27, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this what you're looking for: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 May 17#Template:Vital article? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 01:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dame... I participated in that discussion..... can't believe the promotion of this one WikiProject above all other was the result of that discussion. I've been wondering why there's been such a decline in WikiProject participation over the past year or so..... I now see why = Illusory superiority.Moxy🍁 02:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary class ratings

[edit]

This template currently places the talk pages of drafts, redirects and disambiguation pages with class ratings in the shell into Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter. This typically occurs when rated articles are changed to drafts or redirects, and the class ratings are not removed. It would be helpful to have these instances be placed into their own maintenance category, like Category:WikiProject banners with unnecessary class ratings, where they can be more efficiently fixed with AWB or a bot. Thanks.— TAnthonyTalk 16:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same thing. The bot should remove the class from all instances in that category. The fact that doesn't is just an error. Gonnym (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this something that's being addressed? The category in consistently full of hundreds of redirects.— TAnthonyTalk 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked once or twice for it to be fixed, but nothing was done as far as I can tell. Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one discussion I found Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 12#December update. Gonnym (talk) 16:55, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Kanashimi to this. Gonnym (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This category seems to be getting cleaned up, and I'm not sure which pages have what problem. Would it be possible to pinpoint which pages have problems and leave them unfixed? Kanashimi (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I went through and fixed over 1000 pages lol. I can revert as many as you need, but there are two items currently in there: Talk:Bob Humphreys (American football) and Talk:Principal Doctrines. Thanks! — TAnthonyTalk 01:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi any page you see in this category has a class rating and they shouldn't. Gonnym (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit skeptical about the use of tidying these up. A redundant class parameter does not cause any problems, it just gets ignored. So what is the actual benefit of removing these? We have had some issues caused by this task. Quite often an article which is redirected gets reverted shortly after. If the class parameter is removed in the meantime, then that article becomes unassessed, which adds to the backlog. So please tell me why we are doing this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:58, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, but if we think removing the unnecessary parameters causes more issues than it's worth, then there's no need to track it with a maintenance category that will just get bigger and bigger, forever. Thirty-one more items have populated the category since yesterday, and I believe the previously mentioned 1000+ only took about a week to accumulate.— TAnthonyTalk 15:20, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would add, I believe the primary function of Category:WikiProject banners with redundant class parameter was to catch instances of class ratings in individual WP banners that were redundant of the rating in the shell. It's sort of weird that redirects with unnecessary ratings are placed in this category as well.— TAnthonyTalk 15:27, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot isn't instantaneous. At best it runs once a day, usually longer. If the page gets reverted then reverting the talk page is exactly one click. Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't explained the benefit to removing these parameters. I sort of get it for the ratings in individual banner because it encourages people to use the template correctly. But can we stop tracking the redundant parameters in the banner shell? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redundant class tracking for this template in the sandbox. It will still be checked in project banners — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:33, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent assessments in the PageAssessments extension

[edit]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T395124

Now that we have project-independent quality assessments, should the banner shell call mw:Extension:PageAssessments in the same manner as all the individual banners? Module:WikiProject banner calls the following function: 

page_assessment(project, class, importance)

which is defined as: 

local page_assessment = function(project, class, importance) -- add PageAssessments parser function
	local assessment = table.concat({project, class or '', importance or ''},'|')
	frame:preprocess('{{#assessment:' .. assessment .. '}}')
end

Should the shell also have something similar, albeit with project hardcoded to 'Project-independent assessment' and importance as ''? Currently, parsing the database requires API users to specify a project to get a class assessment, which is troublesome. See for instance this API call requesting the class of the article Apple. Programmatic access to article class first requires deciding which of the projects to use and then using that project's class, even though the article's class is specified at Talk:Apple in the banner shell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:31, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in doing this, if it would be useful. "Project-independent assessment" seems a bit long. What happens if we just leave the project blank? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just tested this and if the project is left blank the assessment is just ignored. Would it be worth asking for this to be changed? Or shall we just use "PIQA" in place of the project? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We get 128 characters so I'm opposed to use of an acronym. I think it’s ambiguous for future users of the API over spelling it out, and including "quality" might be a misnomer if we start using the importance parameter or if we roll vital articles into the system. Leaving it blank might be an even better option if the folks working on phab:T395124 implement special handling for this use case. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this to the sandbox if you would like to check it is working — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:32, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to work just fine in the API. Looks like you do a fair bit of maintenance on this module, so I'll leave it up to you on whether you want to go ahead with this implementation or wait to see what they do with phab:T395124. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be waiting years/decades for that to happen! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:43, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting quality ratings

[edit]

Hoping we can coordinate efforts to eliminate all conflicting ratings. We currently have this number left:

B C Start Stub List Total
965 2,682 12,698 7,984 863 25,192

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to classify these more narrowly so we know what rating they conflict with. For example we could have categories like Category:B-Class articles conflicting with project-independent quality rating C-Class — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:45, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be anything wrong with conflicting ratings - if an article is covering one topic well but another less well, then this is a perfectly reasonable reason for difference.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. We have switched to a common quality assessment scale which is independent of the project. Except for a very small number of projects which have opted out, which are not identified as conflicting, all projects should be using the same quality assessment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Code is now on sandbox. Demo below:

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:38, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, my only concern being the inconsistency in the capitalisation of "class" for the new category. All other cats use uppercase C. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 00:29, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to uppercase C, for consistency — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can use Petscan to filter the list by WikiProject to focus on topics that interest you. See this list for an example. Just change the "WikiProject Australia articles" cat to your project of choice. Unfortunately, I don't think Petscan can do a talk page cat & article cat comparison, but you can do that in the AWB list comparer tool. The-Pope (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New categories are still populating, but this is the table so far:

Local classTotal
BCStartStubList
PIQA
class		B2,7232,4261295,179
C2,5599,8382668912,752
Start5262,9239,38248913,320
Stub03339,83733010,500
List2761471271830
Total3,1126,04022,5729,92093742,581

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:43, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next steps

[edit]

I think that a lot of these articles will need reviewing by human, but there are some we could deal with more efficiently.

Firstly, I propose that all articles in Category:Stub-Class articles conflicting with Start-Class project-independent quality rating be resolved to Start-class. It is most likely that the article has grown beyond a stub but one of the projects is still rating as Stub-class. Does anyone disagree? I will put a request for a bot to remove the out of date rating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:57, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally sure. The first one I clicked on, Alruna, should indeed be a stub. A bot should either (a) check for stub tags or (b) just remove all ratings and invite humans to rate again. Another interesting thing is that Talk:Agogô shows that the Musical Instruments project uses |quality= instead of |class=, which seems to not work well with bots and Rater. —Kusma (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are overlooking the fact that humans have already looked at these and come up with conflicting ratings; Alruna is clearly a border case. Clearing the ratings would create more work than humans can take on. I would suggest that nobody cares about starts or stubs anyway, and that, as in the MilHist Project, the humans only be tasked with looking at articles machine-rated as B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liftwing rates Alruna as a stub. What if we use it to determine which of the start/stubs should be starts or stubs? I can easily create a bot that can do that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:25, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what Liftwing is, but I would be happy with a bot that uses ORES or some AI or whatever to make stub/start/C decisions. —Kusma (talk) 07:30, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Liftwing is the replacement for ORES. It can make stub/start/C decisions with a high degree of accuracy. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great! —Kusma (talk) 12:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this might be the best way to deal with these articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:12, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: would you need additional approval to run your bot on these pages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would need to file at WP:BRFA. The good news is that the Bot is ready to go, so approval should be straightforward. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:50, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have filed the required approval request. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: I have run off a Bot run - it hasn't updated anything - just running in a debug mode.
This is what the Bot thought
ram900@hawkeye7:~/Projects/Conflicts/Conflicts$ bin/Debug/net8.0/Conflicts -n=10 -v
14:16 17 June 2025 started
Entered: Stub-Class articles conflicting with Start-Class project-independent quality rating 
Page: 1972 US Open (tennis) - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Tennis|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|importance=low}}
}}
Page: 1976 Nigerian coup attempt - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Military history|African=y|Cold-War=y|b1=no|b2=no|b3=no|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Africa|importance=low|Nigeria=yes|Nigeria-importance=low}}
}}
Page: 1985 Zolochiv mid-air collision - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Soviet Union|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Ukraine|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Aviation|Accident-task-force=yes|Soviet=y}}
}}
Page: 1995 Shali cluster bomb attack - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Military history|b1=y|b2=n|b3=y|b4=y|b5=y|Russian=y|European=y|Post-Cold-War=y}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=low|mil=yes|hist=yes}}
}}
Page: 1997 Aisin fire - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Japan|importance=mid|pref-photo= Aichi}}
{{WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health|importance= low }}
}}
Page: 1997 Kamchatka earthquake - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=low|hist=yes|physgeo=yes}}
{{WikiProject Earthquakes|importance=low}}
}}
Page: 2004 Grozny raid - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Military history|Russian=yes<!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> 
|b1=no|b2=no|b3=no|b4=yes|b5=yes}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Mid|hist=yes}}
}}
Page: 2005 European Sevens Championship - Prediction: Stub
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|
{{WikiProject Rugby union|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Low|sports=yes}}
}}
Page: 2006 Duramed Futures Tour - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Golf|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Women's sport|importance=low|golf=yes}}
}}
Page: 2006 European Sevens Championship - Prediction: Start
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
{{WikiProject Rugby union|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Russia|importance=Low|sports=yes}}
}}
14:16 17 June 2025 done

It might be helpful if other people could comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AussieBot 2 to show their support or otherwise for this bot job — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]