Template talk:Film/Archive 2007

Link needed
When a class or importance are entered, the link to the class or importance scale is gone. It would be more user friendly to link the display (Stub, NA, B, etc) to the appropriate scale. Hoverfish 16:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Done! Cbrown1023 16:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Collapsable tables
I converted the 'editing guidelines' and 'more information about this article' to collapsible tables, which fixes the issue with the show/hide buttons having to be clicked twice. In addition, I fixed the display errors in the 'more information about this article' section. Could an administrator please update the film template with these changes? The changes are located at User:PhantomS/sandbox2, and a sample of the new film template vs. the old can be seen at User:PhantomS/sample. By the way, in order to fix the 'more information about this article' section, most of the code for that section needed to be relocated to Film More Information; therefore, that template probably also needs full protection. --PhantomS 07:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about the technical details. Does this concern the Upgrading instructions that appear when class=stub? If so, let's first get some WP Films consensus before changing over. If not, please, go ahead. Hoverfish Talk 08:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, these fixes do not change any of the instructions. For the most part, they are only operational and display fixes. First, the show/hide buttons were fixed, in order for them to work correctly for the collapsible boxes at the bottom of the template (Note: editing guidelines is always included at the bottom, while 'more information about this article' shows up only if the attention, old-peer-review, peer-review, or past-collaboration variables have been set). If you look at the former behavior of these boxes, the behavior of the show/hide button is that it first starts with hide, which when clicked displays show. It's only when clicking for a second time that the content of the box is actually shown, which seems counterintuitive. The other change is that 'more information' displays correctly, at least as far as the code had intended it to be shown. The problem with that box is that there were missing symbols for one part and extra for another, which resulted in 'collaboration of the week' and 'attention' being displayed in the collapsible box, while peer review and old-peer-review would display outside of it.


 * As for the editing guidelines text, it is still located at WikiProject_Films/Template_Message, which, incidentally, has never been protected. --PhantomS 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a side note, the show/hide buttons only work correctly in the old film template if there is a certain additional number of collapsible boxes on the page. Therefore, since my sample has two boxes on one page, they should work correctly. However, if you check the behavior of the buttons on a regular article's talk page, they will function as I described previously. --PhantomS 14:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, got it. Please, disregard my previous statement. The work you did is really state of the art. Hoverfish Talk 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Cbrown1023 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Something's gone wrong
A recent change has messed up the formatting ! -- Beardo 16:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It takes a while. It was already reverted. It has to run through all the pages before it gets fixed. Hence, why it is locked. Shane (talk/contrib) 16:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It was wrong on the template page when I noted - corrected about 5 minutes after I tagged. -- Beardo 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies to everyone for not checking my edit thoroughly. I was trying to eliminate a case where an extra newline could creep in and cause extra spacing, but failed to test it. Apparently MediaWiki doesn't like the {| table start syntax to appear on anything but the beginning of an edit line (except for possibly includeonly or noinclude tags), regardless of whether there is anything that actually ends up evaluating to non-empty tags before that. Oddly enough, the case that I thought was producing extra spacing (Talk:Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace) isn't any more, so my perception of a problem might have been a job queue lag with another template that I had fixed (properly).


 * Again, my apologies for borking up the template. — TKD::Talk 02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Film dispute over existence of importance scale
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiki-newbie (talk • contribs) 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I really would like to explore the option of removing the importance scale from the template. It is too POV, and I have encountered    edit warring over how a film should be rated with no actual criteria in place to do so neutrally.  As Wiki-newbie shows, I tried to initiate some dialogue about it, but the excuse, "It's kind of useful to some people," seemed sufficient to others.  What will it take to initiate a movement to remove the importance scale? —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Small alteration to your banner
As some of you may know, there's been some discussion regarding the number of WikiProject banners on article talk pages. There are three projects underway that attempt to "reduce the clutter". The first, of course, is the "small" option - see Small option for more info. The second is WikiProjectBanners, which hides all banners in a one-line box. As has been discussed on that template's talk page, that option has the disadvantage of hiding WikiProject banners, which defeats one of the purposes - to recruit new members. The third option is WikiProjectBannerShell, which addresses that issue by reducing each banner to one line (with the option to view the full banner).

Now the reason I'm bringing this up is because adopting this third option requires a small alteration of a WikiProject's banner - to add the "nested=yes" parameter. I'd like to determine consensus within this project around the change and see if we can move forward with it. I've put together a sample of your banner with the new option coded in (code is here). As you can see, there would be no change to the banner if the "nested" parameter isn't there. If it *is* there, the banner would be part of the "within the scope of the following projects..." box.

To fully work right, a second change would have to be made to Upgrading needed - the example page above shows how a stub article would look.

Projects that have already implemented this option include: WP:MILHIST, WP:LGBT, WP:ALBUM, WP:India, WP:AVIATION, and WP:CCM.

Thoughts? Concerns? Would going ahead with the alteration be okay? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this is needed. Go for it I say... Shane (talk/contrib) 18:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this should be. I've never felt the banners constituted any clutter problem in film article talk pages. Anyway if this HAS to be, I am at least against the very top hide/show. It would be good if this was always on show and the boxes under it are visible and can be expanded. I also think the default should be on "show", in all of them, so if anybody doesn't like them, or feels somehow cluttered by them, he/she can collapse them. Hoverfish Talk 23:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Another practical consideration, is that the class assessment will not be directly visible and our work will slow down, plus many mistakes or class overratings will go easier unnoticed. Think that in films we have over 21000 articles to keep in check. Hoverfish Talk 23:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning the stub to start class issue, usually when an article falls under multiple WikiProjects is when it is a B class or higher, so the template will usually not appear once it's beyond a start class. Very few articles that I've seen have actually had multiple projects claiming a stub article. The continuous show feature would be good as described by Hoverfish, as it is imperative that we continue to point out the project and have the instructions shown for the upgrading template. --Nehrams2020 23:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would go with small (I'm a non member but I've edited the template in the past iirc). Also, I would think that this project is fairly well contained, it will have overlap with other projects but not hugely so? Or am I mistaken? --kingboyk 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I too have never felt the banners constituted any clutter problem in film article talk pages. It is a talk page so it really doesn't matter. As long as it coordinated effectively which is the goal and looks more or less decent it isn't a problem. However I do feel it important that some level of standardization is met across projects ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦  "I've been expecting you" 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A couple replies / comments: First, you can still show the project rating in the one liner, if you want. Take a look at Talk:Timothy R. McVeigh (not the bomber) as an example.
 * When it comes to clutter, there are many examples of how it looks. Buffy the Vampire Slayer springs to mind, but almost any FA article has multiple banners.  As a film example, take a look at Talk:P.S. Your Cat Is Dead.
 * My sense from other discussions has been that the clutter issue comes in to play when there are several banners. If there are several banners, then the aim is to minimize them so they can all be seen, but not take over the page.  Therefore, having the default be "show" would defeat the purpose.
 * I'm not sure what the overlap is between WikiProjects. But since yours is one of the top 10 when it comes to number of articles with your banner, I suspect there's a lot of overlap.  I've been through some 4,000 WP:LGBT articles, and yours &mdash; and WP:WPBIO &mdash; are the ones I ran in to most. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have overlap mainly with country projects, WP:LGBT, and some WP:Novels, Plays and Musicals (but here there is a -good or not- tendency to split the film usually). Like in the "Your Cat Is Dead" example above, in most cases the Talk page contains no or very few comments. It is only in more developed articles that there are discussions. As I see in "small", this option is intended for developed articles of considerable traffic. Yet most of our films are stubs and the upgrading info showing clearly at the top has been a very good and helpful development, so I would also say that it is imperative for our project's needs that this box remains out of the collapsed boxes. I also support the example given in "Timothy R. McVeigh", for the collapsed version. The is not a good option for film articles. The  may be an option, provided A. the very top hide-show is by default on show (or omitted), B. the upgrading box is out of the collapsible boxes and C. the class can be seen in parenthesis. (Note: The importance field is debated and generally seen as POV, so it's not so important to show it in the collapsed box.) Hoverfish Talk 08:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hoverfish! I see no problem with B and C above.  For B, WPBio has a similar situation with their "Biography of Living People" box, though that's almost a legal requirement.  My concern is with "A", since having the template default to "show" defeats the purpose of the shell. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  14:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you got me right. The example you gave us at Template talk:WikiProjectBannerShell/Example Film (Nested, with class) has it by default on show, that's what I meant. One can see: "This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:" followed by one-line boxes ("WikiProject Films (Rated stub-Class)", "Wikiproject Novels (Rated class-B)", etc). Does this defeat your purpose or did you think I meant all the WP's should be on "show"? I have notified some of our most active members to comment here, but apart from Nehrams and Blofeld I don't see any comments yet. Most are very busy lately and two are on wiki-break. Give us a couple of days and proceed, as far as I am concerned. Will you propose a vote as for which version will be implemented? Hoverfish Talk 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! I see what you mean!  Yes, the default is to have it showing the one-line summaries for each project.  What you have in that summary is up to y'all - all the projects that have implemented it have shown their project name, of course, linked to the project.  Most have their assessment rating.  Australia has sub-projects, so that shows in their summary.  But it's entirely up to y'all. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nested with class and importance is my preference. — WiseKwai 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two changes requested
Per the discussion directly above this one, please make the following two changes:


 * 1) On this template, a change to the beginning of the table.  The diff can be seen here.
 * 2) On the sub-template Upgrading_needed, a similar change to the beginning of the table.  The diff can be seen here.

Thanks much! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Done - Harryboyles 06:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection
Is there any particular reason cascading protection has been enabled for this template? Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With cascading protection, even the usage is unable to be edited. Can this be fixed please? Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * editprotected I don't know why User:King of Hearts made the protection cascading; you should ask him/her for the reason. In the meantime, if the documentation needs to be edited, feel free to make another editprotected request. CMummert · talk 14:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo-stub class request
To avoid having the stub upgrading instructions appear in non-film articles (film awards, film terminology, etc), please enable an additional class parameter, "NF stub". It should still display as class stub and still assign the usual stub category to the page. Only the upgrading instructions shouldn't display if class=NF stub is given. Hoverfish Talk 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Decent idea, but I don't like the sound of messing with the class parameters. Just add a non-film=yes parameter and some logic. See my work at WPBiography or WPBeatles for how parameters can be combined in logic to get the desired result. --kingboyk 16:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is what I initially asked for and was told that this class option is simpler. I depend on the opinion of those who trust themselves with parameters and conditionals. One way or the other, it's time to find a solution, as interest is building up in film awards and festivals and it would be good to start putting some order. Hoverfish Talk 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

needs infobox (and other)
I was wondering if there has been discussion regarding the "needs infobox" template being included in this main template, I thought all the other ones could be added also (needs synopsis, needs graphic etc). Peter 08:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Editing guidelines
The guidelines box is too large and generally not helpful. The template should either have a "displayeditguidelines=yes" option, or not display the guidelines when either "small=yes" is used or the rating is start or higher. Gimmetrow 07:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

One change request
As per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines discussion, need to implement this change:


 * Cast section

shoule be changed to:


 * Include cast and crew information.

Thanks. 82.20.5.71 10:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find where on the template the code you want to replace is. Where on the template or its usage page is the incorrect code? --ais523 10:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i discovered it was on the sub-template "upgrading needed", which i can edit myself. cheers. 82.20.5.71 10:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Add WikiProject banners category
editprotected Please change the last line of the page from:

to:

Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 18:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason this can't go on the /doc subpage. Also, shouldn't this template be sorted in the category? Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A) If it's put on the doc page, both the doc and the banner show up in the category. Not a major problem, but there you go.
 * B) It can be, but most of the banners don't seem to be. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Much thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested change
Editing Guidelines ( Editing Guidelines ) --> Editing Guidelines ( Editing Guidelines )

At the moment there's no link to the top of the page as opposed to a particular subpage. It wouldn't be very redundant and certainly wouldn't hurt at all. I'd add it myself but the page is protected for good reason. Atropos 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Icon
As everyone can see, the icon for the template has been deleted. I've found an clapper board icon Image:Mplayer.svg that is license free so I'm going to ask for that to be put on the template as a temporary measure (better than red text everywhere), whilst a debate about a permanent replacement takes place. - X201 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * changed requested file to Image:Film reel.svg as suggested on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films. - X201 19:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Admin, As explained above, please substitute Image:Film reel.svg in place of the dead image Image:Transparent film reel and film.png - X201 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. - auburn pilot   talk  22:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Complete banner overhaul/rewrite
Hey! I've been wanting to comprehensively rewrite the banner since we started to take on task forces, in order to integrate several features into it, make automatic categorizations for certain areas and problems, and allow for task force assessment tables. I took both the original template code for this banner and the code from the WPMILHIST banner (since they seem to always be at the vanguard for project development), and I've synthesized a composite banner that retains most of the style and feel of the current one while having a more powerful structure "under the hood".

I'm still doing some minor testing at the template sandbox, and need to tweak some bits, but I think it's at the point where I'd like to open it up for review and comments. So if you guys want to take at look at User:Girolamo Savonarola/banner, I'd be most grateful! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 21:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"Bot" request
Would it be possible to add the "|auto=" parameter to the template? It calls the template. Thanks! SkierRMH 06:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have it commented out on my proposed revised banner (see above section); there's no reason why it couldn't be de-commented and implemented. Let me see what I can do... Girolamo Savonarola 06:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

ADMIN: Requested changes for new template version
I seem to have forgotten to categorize the Future-Class articles. Please amend this template as I've already changed the working model, per this diff. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 04:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Also - this diff from my page should also account for the proper categorization of articles with no Importance parameter. Girolamo Savonarola 04:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Future really shouldn't be a class, as being "future" or not isn't an indication of article quality. It still might be a useful parameter simply for organizational reasons, but in that case it should just be an extra option, like "In_production=yes". -- Ned Scott 04:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a project class, and has no bearing on assessment statistics. It only exists so as to separate out articles which have no way of possibly being complete. I'm loathe to singlehandedly dispose of it, but if you'd like to broach the matter for project discussion, that's fine by me. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 07:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, in that case I have no objections. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox tag has broken
Hi, Since the new banner has been in place the infobox tag seems to have changed function. There were two methods to tag a page as needing a infobox using needs film infobox or setting the "needs infobox" tag in the banner. Before the update setting "needs infobox" = yes simply placed the tag into the page. This adds the artice to the category Category:Articles_that_need_a_film_infobox.

The new banner adds the artice to a new category called Category:Film articles needing infoboxes and so there are now two lists to check. Please can you either restore the original functionality or add it to the Category:Articles that need a film infobox instead. RWardy 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This banner now renders the "needs infobox" parameter directly into the Additional Information section of the tag as well as creating the category. The new category name is merely in accord with the standard syntax now predominantly found at Category:Articles needing an infobox. Therefore there is no longer a need for a separate needs film infobox template. Girolamo Savonarola 22:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have posted a message on the film infobox project talk page to have the needs film infobox template changed accordingly. For now the project page has two grids for films. Thanks for info. RWardy 06:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already been changing over the templates by hand, so I don't think there's much need to change anything with the old one. Only 389 old ones to be changed; it'll probably be done by tomorrow. Girolamo Savonarola 07:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Category:-importance film articles
editprotected With over 3400 members, it is now #2 in Wanted categories. -- Prove It (talk) 16:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This obviously needs fixing. The code for importance is not allowing for situations where "importance" has not been assigned and it should. This is fairly urgent fix. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  09:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I've corrected it via a mistake I found in a transcluded subpage. Might take a little time for the cache to bring it to zero, but I am not seeing any instances on the Talk pages anymore. Girolamo Savonarola 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This category is still being populated, because people sometimes use unrecognized importance classes. The fix is simple; this:


 * needs to be changed to this:


 * which will make the code work properly. --Derlay 22:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Smacking my forehead. Thanks for picking that out - I've been chasing my tail for days now! :) Girolamo Savonarola 22:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Neil   ム  17:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Task force importance
Please replace all instances of WPMILHIST in the template with Film. This will call the Template:Film/Task force categories subpage instead of the Template:WPMILHIST/Task force categories one, which should resolve the task force parameter to now include task force importance categories, thus allowing task force assessment to also do importance. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 02:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of WikiProjectFilm
I have just replaced all occurrences of the redirected template WikiProjectFilm there were only 20 and the last use was created in June. Any objections if I place deprecated on the old template? RWardy 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have done this with FilmWikiProject as well. This was on 44 pages. Was used in August, but only a couple of occurrences. RWardy 20:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why deprecate and wait for someone else to delete it? Just place it on TfD and be done with it! :) Girolamo Savonarola 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or redirect. -- Ned Scott 03:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it originally was a redirect. Girolamo Savonarola 03:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

War films task force and minor redundancy tweak for infobox needed parameter
Please incorporate edits identical to this diff. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 03:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the war task force stuff but not the needs-infobox new parameter because the "or" didn't work. — M ETS 501 (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for error-checking that then! Back to the drawing board... Girolamo Savonarola 17:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Still a few bugs in the system
Here are problems I've found as I've tried to apply the template recently: I'm not sure how to fix these problems. — WiseKwai 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Category:NA-importance film articles is red-linked, but Category:Non-article film pages is populated.
 * Category:Cat-Class film articles is red-linked, but there is Category:Film category pages, which is populated
 * Category:List-Class film articles is not populated.
 * Category:WikiProject Films templates is not populated.


 * The NA, Cat, and Templates all have new categories, as noted above. You should be able to find this at the end of the template code. The new categories were created because none of these are explicit assessment classes, rather they are namespaces and exclusions (NA can't be NA-Class article). This is also identical to the WPMILHIST template and cat organization, which I have shamelessly ripped off. I'm perplexed myself by the problem with the List category, though. Also, I'm not quite certain I fully understand your first bullet - NA-importance vs Non-article? Not quite the same thing; Non-article categorization has no correlation to importance assessments. Girolamo Savonarola 15:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess I'm confused myself about NA-importance. I thought there was a function that could be applied that would override the importance field for things like categories and templates. I must be mistaken. Sorry. The red links bug me, but I don't know how to fix them nor do I even understand what their function is. — WiseKwai 08:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Task force importance parameter
editprotected

Please incorporate edits identical to this diff into the banner. This should fix missing code that will allow task forces to be assessed by importance. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola 03:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This template is used a lot, and the job queue is still rather high. I'm going to leave this editprotected request open for a while, one, to make sure there aren't any bugs in the new code (that means a quick sandbox test), and two, so if anyone else has any changes that they would like to make, they can suggest them below. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As you like. I anticipate that there will be several more addenda in the coming weeks. Girolamo Savonarola 03:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there an update on this code? Does it work? --MZMcBride 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Been on vacation; will probably be free Mon or Tues. Girolamo Savonarola 05:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Neil   ム  17:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

New task force and change war films icon
editprotected

Please incorporate changes identical to this diff to implement. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 22:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. - auburn pilot   talk  02:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

new task force and commenting out
Requested edits identical to this diff to add in parameters for the Filmmaking task force, and a commenting out to fix a category class planned for a future toolset. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 00:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry! More still...
"Just when I thought I was out..." Requested diff. Lowercase category names (needed for compatability with a cat set shared with another WikiProject), and additional "needs-infobox" parameter which is functionally identical to existing "needs infobox" one. (Done since all other parameters have no spaces; this new one will be the standard, but the old code will still work in the meantime.) Many many thanks again for your time and patience! Girolamo Savonarola 04:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Protected edit request fulfilled.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This change has now added all articles tagged with |needs infobox=no to the list of articles that need an infobox. It needs to check for the existance of either tag (needs infobox and needs-infobox) before adding it to the category as follows: RWardy 16:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look into this. My only objection is that parameters for banners should always be minimal,so none should have "=no" - if that is the case, then it shouldn't be part of the banner parameters for that particular page. In other words, a lack of the parameter should not add it to the cat, since the parameter - not its absence - is meant to alert editors. Girolamo Savonarola 13:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only problem with that is that it requires the person adding the benner to know all the parameters. I would rather be alerted to a page that has an infobox and no parameter, than to never see the article listed because the tag was never added to the article. (PS, sorry for not signing previous post. Have done now :)) RWardy 16:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but the alternative will effectively tag 30k articles in an instant, since most banners don't have a parameter, since they do have the box. In any case, articles w/o a box are highly likely to be unassessed or stubs, so that is a better correlative to follow than articles w/o parameters. It would be massively less work to scrub through the list and delete the =no ones than to have to add the parameter to the vast majority of the articles in the project. And template style is generally to deprecate =no instances to non-existence. Girolamo Savonarola 16:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, thinking about it I will concede that one. Pages without a tag should not be in the category. RWardy 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Girolamo, can you let me know where the style guideline is to deprecate =no tags. If so I will go through articles removing them. Cheers. RWardy 22:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Girolamo. What do you think to this diff: User:RWardy/filmbanner. Basically I have changed it to this:



Let me know what you think. It also incorporates your change below. RWardy 20:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll need more time to check it out in depth, but I still remain unconvinced that talk page template text should be cluttered with disused parameters. Who is actually wasting their time adding extra text and why? Girolamo Savonarola 15:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * People don't add the extra text. It has accepted yes and no up until now so editors have just been changing the needs infobox=yes to no. Makes sense to me. Although I can see you point I don't see why we can't accept both as articles can currently be tagged in either way. I will try and get some stats on what articles are tagged i what way to see how much work it would be to remove those tagged with =no. Thanks for your time. RWardy 18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh? How exactly is "needs infobox=" being brought into the template, then? Currently, the template allows both "needs infobox" and "needs-infobox". My point is that the parameter itself should not be written by the tagging party unless they intend to add a "yes" to it. Much as you're not going to write out all of the task force parameters with "=no" on each side of them; if the article isn't relevant to the task force, the parameter will not be written into that talk page's tag. Girolamo Savonarola 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm referring more to the existing articles. Imagine an article has already been tagged with "needs infobox=yes". An editor comes along, adds the infobox as requested and then changes the =yes to =no. Its a straight forward assumption to make that to switch the tag off requires the =no option if like me you are a relatively new editor. As explained I haven't heard a consensus on removing tags rather then having an =no option. Can we not edit the template to accept both. I realise my example above currently requires =yes for it to work, but I'm sure with your expertise at editing templates it can be changed to just have the tag, but if it is set to no then do no tag the article with the category. I realise I'm not a very experienced editor and so my view may not carry much weight, but I'm just thinking from an inexperienced editors point of view when I say =no on a tag that currently says =yes makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RWardy (talk • contribs) 20:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Just for info there are 1450 articles tagged needing an infobox that already have them. I went through the other night and removed the ones that were tagged with =yes, so probably 95% of them have =no tags. RWardy 22:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally cleared the backlog. Would probably have been quicker to apply for a bot account but never mind. I'll keep an eye on it from now to see how many =no's appear in a week and then we can decide where to go from there if that sounds OK? Cheers. RWardy 20:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Change banner text
Please make edits equivalent to this diff. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 19:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. NCurse work 21:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Task force template and filmmaking topics
The task force template is now being added to several photography and filmmaking topics (ex: Talk:Aperture priority, Talk:Fill light). Its suggestions are currently appropriate only to actual films. What are the plans for updating this template? Thanks. -- Avocado 14:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. Girolamo Savonarola 14:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm not sure I see how that addresses the problem of film-only recommendations, but I'm sure you have a plan to deal with that.  =)  -- Avocado 15:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Stub advice box
editprotected

If this diff could be incorporated as soon as possible, it would greatly alleviate some problems being faced as I'm moving the tags for the Filmmaking articles (now that the WikiProject has joined Films as a task force). The requested diff will place the stub advice within the project banner, both easing some confusion (as the stub advice needs rewriting anyway) and also making the talk pages of stubs significantly less crowded and ugly. Girolamo Savonarola 14:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Check whether I broke anything. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 18:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixing a miscategorization and adding a new task force
As per this diff. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola 13:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ Done - Nihiltres ( t .l ) 15:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disambig class articles
Hi Giro, Disambig class articles are being dropped in the Category: Unassessed film articles category. Is this correct. If not could you take a look please. Thanks. RWardy 12:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's my oversight - the same reason why List class was doing that for a while. I'll request the appropriate edits later today when I have more time to sit down and add the needed diff to the code. Thanks for alerting me! Girolamo Savonarola 14:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No Probs. Next project is to go through unassessed articles, so anything that can get that the cat down will be great! RWardy 15:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good. I've also labelled that as a top priority in the Coordinators' workspace. Girolamo Savonarola 19:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Requested diff to address above concern. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the banner put the talk pages in Category:Disambig-Class film articles rather than Category:Film disambiguation pages which doesn't exist? Tra (Talk) 23:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really; there is no "real" Disambig-Class, and the new category is a more logical title for it. We do the same on templates, and this solution is not unique to our project (cf WPMILHIST template). Girolamo Savonarola 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅, you'll need to create that category now as the job queue starts to fill it up. Tra (Talk) 23:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles
Just a thought, but would it be worth adding a comment into the source when a page gets tagged into Category: Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles. I know theres only 26 pages in there, but trying to work out which reason it has been tagged for can be quite time consuming. Something like in the source would help loads. Just a thought anyway. Let me know what you think. Cheers. RWardy 11:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point - I'll get on that this weekend. Girolamo Savonarola 13:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Category please
editprotected Would an admin please add Category:WikiProject Films templates to the page please - attempting to properly propagate the category. Thanks. SkierRMH 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Max S em(Han shot first!) 14:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists
Could for featured lists be added to the list of classes in this template? – Ilse@ 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll have to forgive me, since I've been offline for many days, but I don't seem to recall FL-Class ever formally being recognized by the assessment schemata en masse. We only just recently implemented List-Class, but the question of FL-Class vs shoehorning FLs into FA-Class seems to be ongoing at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Southeast Asian task force
Please implement edits equivalent to this diff, in order to create necessary parameters for this new task force. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done! Keep up the good work!! SkierRMH (talk) 05:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Template is broken
The template appears to be broken, though I can't describe why or how exactly. Technically, I believe, it is messed up. — WiseKwai 19:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the recent database lock to revert MediaWiki software changes, it looks like a software upgrade was breaking most templates (see WP:VPT); this is also why I had temporarily and mistakenly rolled back your change/addition to this talk page, because the diff made it look as if you had introduced some odd "UNIQ" codes. — TKD:: Talk  19:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected request
Please add directly before: "This article is within the scope of..." in the Template. Thanks. Cirt (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC).
 * That template is explicitly for articles, not templates. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, see for example many other WikiProject templates, which give a link to the relevant associated portal in the WikiProject template. It helps to organize coordination between both the WikiProject and the Portal of the exact same topic.  Cirt (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC).


 * Here are some good examples of how this is used in conjunction with WikiProjects, and Portals, (both of which happen to be Featured portals.) -- WikiProject Religion, and WikiProject Psychology. Cirt (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC).


 * I added it; the discussion of whether they are appropriate in general should take place somewhere like the village pump. Please do not put editprotected templates at the top of talk pages; they should go immediately beside the request. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cat-Class film festivals articles instead of Category-Class
Hi, I've noticed that this template (I think this is template at fault) is forcing all the film festival categories into Cat-Class film festivals articles instead of Category-Class film festivals articles which would be the more common usage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)