Template talk:Film/Archive 2009

Edit request
Can someone please update the template with the code in Template:Film/sandbox? This is a minor change to remove some obsolete coding pertaining the old and now unused needs infobox parameter. PC78 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

✅.  Black Kite  21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Subcategorising the cleanup categories
Following my recent experiences with the four cleanup parameters, it has come to my attention that the categories they populate are absolutely chock-full. There are currently more than 16,000 articles tagged as needing an image—that's a gargantuan number likely to scare off anyone who might otherwise be willing to help—and the others are little better. I would therefore like to suggest that we have the banner break these down by task force; this will result in a series of more bite-sized categories which could then hopefully be tackled by editors interested in those areas. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was actually already mulling something similar, along with a similar auto-categorization for each of the B-class parameters which could be lacking in any article, also broken down by task force. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I added this code to the Korean task force in the sandbox, just as a quick demo:

Not sure if there's a more elegant solution, but it seems to work OK. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The more elegant solution probably would be to muck about in the task forces sub-template. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert the most recent set of edits immediately, please
An admin involved in an edit war should not be using their access to highly-used templates as a bludgeon to force their opinion of how the template should be implemented, especially without any consultation on this talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I agree that these edits were highly inappropriate, I think the changes themselves are essentially good. Have you seen what the uncollapsed template looks like when it's set to display in small? :) PC78 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - I see nothing when uncollapsed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Girolamo invited me to change the template. I consider his accusations here to be a personal attack. Gimmetrow 20:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I invited you to make it functional if an error existed, and I still expected that any edits to a high-visibility template would be vetted first before being implemented. I'm genuinely sorry if there was a misunderstanding with regard to that, but I also don't see how your edits are germane to the problem - are you then going to turn on the "small=yes" parameter for every banner so that they can conform to your preferred JS-off browsing style? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For clarity: the changes made cause the visible notes that are added by the needs-infobox, needs-synopsis, needs-cast and needs-image parameters, to be suppressed when the parameter yes is set. They also hide the entire B-Class checklist section under the same circumstances. The latter change in particular is in my opinion very counterproductive, as it leaves editors with no explanation whatsoever as to why setting B results in an output of "C-Class", or how to rectify that situation. Happy‑melon 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Giro, now that the edits have been reverted, try looking at a Start-Class article which is set to small and fully uncollapsed - it's about three screens long! There are certainly things we should suppress here, though as Happy-melon says there are other things that should stay. PC78 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that Steve has been working along the right path. (As per WT:FILMC.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
Please update this template with the code in Template:Film/sandbox (or this diff); this introduces a number of changes—most of them cosmetic—with the general intention of making the banner more streamlined and less of an eyesore for those who don't use javascript. These changes have been discussed, and notice of this edit request served, at WT:FILMC, where there has been no objection (and hopefully I'm not jumping the gun here).As this change will help facilitate a rather trivial but nasty dispute, it would be desirable to do it sooner rather than later. PC78 (talk) 12:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Happy‑melon 12:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please update this template with the code in Template:Film/sandbox (or this revision); primarily this is to add a message regarding the project's current questionnaire (which will be removed again two weeks from now), also to remove a message regarding future films which I inserted in the last edit but which has been deemed unnecessary, plus a few other minor tweaks and bits of cleanup. Discussion pertaining the addition of the questionnaire message can be found here. PC78 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed enhancements
I've been busy tinkering in the sandbox... :)
 * I've coded the extra categorization for the needs-x and B-Class-x parameters that was discussed above. Preliminary tests seem OK, but feel free to check over the new coding in Film/sandbox and Film/Task force categories/sandbox. See Template talk:Film/sandbox for a working example.
 * Not quite certain what is being proposed here. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This. :) PC78 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * At present the needs-x parameters will accept any value, so for example  will in fact tag an article as needing an infobox. If there is no objection I would like to change this so that they only accept "yes".
 * Even better - if it can be case-insensitive and also treat "y" as identical to "yes". Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Should be easy enough. PC78 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the banner currently displays the B-Class checklist for GA-Class articles. Is there any need for this?
 * Yes - in the event that an article fails a routine GAR, the lack of a filled B-checklist will force it be assessed down to Start. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then by the same token shouldn't the checklist be displayed for A, FL and FA-Class articles as well? PC78 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see your point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For the purposes of clarity and consistancy (and if there is no objection) I would like to rename the following categories:
 * Category:Wikipedia requested film images → Category:Film articles needing an image
 * Category:Film articles without infoboxes → Category:Film articles needing an infobox
 * Category:Films that need a synopsis → Category:Film articles needing a synopsis
 * Category:Articles that need a cast section → Category:Film articles needing a cast section
 * Category:Film disambiguation pages → Category:Disambig-Class film pages
 * Category:Film template pages → Category:Template-Class film pages
 * Category:Film category pages → Category:Category-Class film pages
 * Category:Non-article film pages → Category:NA-Class film pages
 * I have no issues with the need categories, but I find the class ones actually worse than what exists - which are more accurate, elegant, and clear descriptors, IMHO. (Semi-related note - I'm hoping to phase out and deprecate the NA class entirely.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Worse how? This is pretty standard naming elsewhere, and it ties the categories to the class used in the banner (which is how they are populated). Category:Film template pages is ambiguous with Category:Film templates, for instance. This will also facilitate subcategorization by task force, which is currently a bit of a mess. PC78 (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then I recommend recatting templates to . These aren't technically classes, they are page types. Classes are a subtype of the article type. E.g., they aren't category-class pages, they are category pages! (Or more accurately, categories.) This scheme also follows a standard, since it was inherited from the MilHist template code. I don't see how germane it is to task forces, since it is trivial to make the changes to have them categorize in this manner for non-article tags. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The two template categories are fundamentally different. Categorization via a Template-Class assessment applies to Template talk pages and does not offer the possibility of subcategorization by type. On the other hand, templates are added to directly and can be subcategorized as needed. I don't think that mixing the two would be a particuarly good idea.
 * While they don't have anything to do with article assessment, these are nontheless classes, i.e. Category-Class, "This page has been rated as Category-Class" etc. Regarding the task forces, the banner currently categorizes them as Category:Category-Class foo articles etc. (see Film/Task force categories) and most of the resulting categories are redlinked. This is an area I would like to tidy up. It also ties in with this issue I raised a while ago, which is something else I'd like to get fixed. From what I've seen of the MILHIST banner, it does quite a few things contrary to the "norm" elsewhere. ;) PC78 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's arguable that any of the non-article pages should really have tags, save for the auto-categorization by the namespace. They don't appear in the 1.0 logs at all, since they aren't considered standard. (This was a major reason why I implemented Future-class tracking - we're otherwise blind as to what is happening with non-standard classes.) They're non-standard for a reason: they weren't designed for assessment to begin with and were often created willy-nilly by editors eager to tag every little thing down to articles which did not even exist yet (Needed-Class). Many projects ignore them wholesale, and beyond the present auto-categorization which creates jargon-less, succinct, and clear category names - the same motivation which I presume motivated your other category name change proposals - I don't really see what benefit such changes would affect. (You'll have to refresh my memory wrt the template bug, since I can't make sense of it anymore from the archives.) As for the difference between the template categories, my mistake - my haste led to not recognizing that one covered Talk: and another Main. In any case, we should probably solicit further opinion, since I'm dubious either of us will be convinced by the other at this point. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In a broader sense I actually agree with you over the use of the non-standard classes; I scrapped the lot of them (except for NA-Class) at WP:KOREA and were you to suggest doing likewise here then you would have my support. :) But I don't agree with your assessment that many projects ignore them; on the contrary, NA-Class is essentially one of the standard grades, while Category-Class and Template-Class are also quite common (see, and , the same standard I'm trying to push here, though I stop short of refering to them as "articles"). Actually, if we were to refer to them as "articles" we could at least tie them in with existing subcategories (e.g.  which exist via other projects anyway.
 * Regarding the template bug, the problem was that (for example) "Category-Class" was linking to "Category:Category-Class film articles" (at that time a red link) instead of the actual category, i.e. "Category:Film category pages". The quick fix then was to set up a few category redirects, but it should be fixable within the banner itself. PC78 (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to rename Category:Non-article film pages, wouldn't it be better to go for Category:NA-Class film articles rather than Category:NA-Class film pages? If you take a look at Category:NA-Class articles, you'll see that most of the NA-Class ones end in articles. Similarily with the other proposed renames. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Took me a while to find where you'd put this comment!) This issue has really been resolved; I dropped the idea of renaming per Girolamo's opposition, and am no longer interested in pursuing it. But no, I detest using the semantically incorrect "articles" with regard to non-article categories, and would greatly prefer it if WPBannerMeta did not do this either (which is indeed the reason why so many categories now follow this convention). PC78 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the above? PC78 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While I'm thinking about it, I've also been considering how the banner handles the core articles, i.e. maybe have the banner subcategorize them by quality and task force, or perhaps treat them as Top-importance articles for the sake of the assessment bot (which is how WP:BIOGRAPHY do it). Any thoughts? PC78 (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I must admit I like keeping the statistics tables relatively "clean", though. Subdividing by class and task force (separately, I presume?) isn't a bad idea, though. Turning on a single importance level without otherwise having a functional importance parameter, however, may be asking for trouble - ie, editors adding the core parameter to their favorite articles because they don't know how else to get a Top assessment and have little awareness of what Core actually exists for or how it functions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair comment I guess on my latter suggestion. Actualy, on reflection I was thinking the subdivision by class and task force might be overkill! Primarily it's the Stub-Class core articles that I'm concerned about and would like to raise a greater awareness of. I was thinking of maybe just tracking those as "Core articles needing expansion" or something. But I'm fine doing it either way. Should be easy to set up. PC78 (talk) 12:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Next update
I've prepared a number of changes to the banner in the sandbox, and rigorous testing has revealed no issues; I am therefore ready to implement them in the next update to the banner, which should be this weekend as the notice for the questionnaire will need removing. Most of these changes have been mentioned above, but to give a summary: Comments welcome. :) PC78 (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per talk at WT:FILMC, added support for "needs-plot" parameter as a replacement for "needs-synopsis".
 * So long as the old parameter is still supported for the moment (at least until full deprecation occurs, presumably via bot). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly! PC78 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All "yes", "no", "pass", "fail" and "current" values are now case insensetive; banner also accepts "y" and "n".
 * Categorisation of articles by failed B-Class criteria; also subcategorisation by task force.
 * Subcategorisation of articles needing an image/infobox/plot summary/cast section by task force.
 * Subcategorisation of core articles by quality for tracking by the assessment bot.
 * Subcategorisation of core articles by task force.
 * Added a parameter to disable categorisation, for limited usage on test pages such as this.
 * Remeved "peer-review" parameter which is no longer used or needed.
 * I wouldn't do this - the parameter displays past peer reviews for the record and interest of editors. Deleting the parameter would further obscure these from public view. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. The parameter was used only for open peer reviews, and since we don't do these in house anymore it isn't being used. Archived reviews use the "old-peer-review" parameter, which remains untouched. PC78 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - you are correct. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed "nested" parameter which is now obsolete.
 * Does the shell template now do this automatically? Hadn't heard. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, all banners now do this. You can thank Happy Melon. PC78 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Miscelleneous bug fixes and several new tests for incorrect banner usage.
 * Can you be more specific? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bah! Yes, but gimme a few minutes... PC78 (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, to expand a little on "Miscelleneous bug fixes and several new tests"...
 * Extra checks for "incorrectly tagged"...
 * An article assessment (Stub, Start, etc.) outside the talk namespace
 * A Template-Class assessment in the talk namespace
 * A Category-Class assessment outside the category talk namespace
 * If both "needs-synopsis" and "needs-plot" are used together (will not display in banner)
 * NA-Class assessments in the template or category namespace

PC78 (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bug fixes and such...
 * NA-Class, Template-Class, Category-Class and Disambig-Class all link to the correct categories and not category redirects (I mentioned this above)
 * Banner displayes "Category-Class" and not "Cat-Class"
 * "needs-image/infobox/plot/cast" and "core" parameters will only accept "yes" or "y" (currently they will accept anything)
 * Will mark as "incorrectly tagged" any article with a review that doesn't use one of the corresponding parameters (currently this doesn't work)


 * Possible issues: while there's no reason why anyone should double-tag for plot and synopsis, odd tagging such as this does sometimes occur. However, the banner shouldn't "penalize" an editor for doing so. Double-tagging other parameters has no ill-effect; why should this do so?
 * Also, I would not make the needs tags so that they are strictly for "yes" or "y" (case-insensitive, of course). Rather, I'd make them inclusive of everything but "no" or "n", because there is a good probability that some of the yeses may be mistyped (as "eys" or the like, when editors tag quickly). Currently, we default that any value turns on the parameter. Making this so strict, while ultimately desirable, may be a bad thing in the short run. Perhaps this needs to sort in three ways: "yes"/"y" gets the tag, "no"/"n" doesn't (and maybe should also give a hidden category so that we can delete the entire parameter from that talk page), and anything else goes to the "incorrectly tagged" category. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see the double tagging as a problem; ultimately it shouldn't happen at all, but the banner will pick up any errors and the sooner we can get a bot on it the better, then we can remove the old code and be done with it.
 * As for the "yes"/"y" thing, you seemed OK with it above. ;) I don't foresee mistyped parameters being such a huge problem so personally I would rather chance it, mark them as "incorrectly tagged" and deal with them now. I'll add a tracking category for them.PC78 (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * On reflection I'm probably being a bit hasty. I have ammended the four "needs" parameters as you suggest, with a view to making them more strict at a later date. I don't think we need to be overly concerned with redundant "no"/"n" values, though, not at this point anyway. Assuming that's everything then I think we're good to go. :) PC78 (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

editprotected Please update the template with the code in Film/sandbox (this revision). This will also require the following edits to protected subtemplates: Please also give the newly created Film/Core the same level of protection as this template. Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Replace Film/Class with Film/Class/sandbox (this revision)
 * Replace Film/Task force categories with Film/Task force categories/sandbox (this revision)


 * OK, I have made the requested changes and fully protected the new sub-page. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please update the following: Apparently I can't spell "grammar" (Oh, the irony!) and this mistake has caused 25 categories to be misspelt. Thanks in advance! PC78 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Film with Film/sandbox
 * Film/Core with Film/Core/sandbox
 * Film/Task force categories with Film/Task force categories/sandbox
 * ✅, note please update the Film/Core/sandbox to get rid of the /sandbox links - as I removed them when I updated the real copy. The  Helpful  One
 * Ah, cheers. I forgot they were still there. PC78 (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

B-Class assessments
I believe that both WPBannerMeta and WPMILHIST force a C/Start-Class assessment where the article has been rated as B-Class but does not have the checklist criteria all marked as "yes". Is this something to consider implementing here as well? PC78 (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Certainly would be nice to further automate - would cut down on my regular maintenance work a little. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how it works; I'll have a proper look next time I feel like playing with the banner. :) PC78 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit request
Can someone please update the template with the code at Film/sandbox (or this revision)? This is to add a notice regarding the project's current coordinator elections (as discussed here and to be removed again once the election is done). Also to add to a few categories (something I missed in a previous request) and prevent Future-Class articles being tagged as core articles (which should never happen). PC78 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey you're getting good with these parser functions! Nice idea with the current time magic words. I used CURRENTTIMESTAMP instead as it seemed easier. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Task forces
While I'm tinkering with the banner in the sandbox (again!), are there any thoughts one way or another on having the task forces tucked away in a collapsible section? Would this be desirable (it would make banners with three or more task forces look less cluttered), or is it preferable to keep them where they are and not reduce their visibility? PC78 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What about collapsing the task forces if there are more than two task forces assigned to an article? That's when it seems like the template starts to look a little overloaded. — Erik (talk • contrib) 20:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Two or even three are not uncommon - can it be beyond three? Part of the reason why we moved the task forces to an uncollapsible section was to garner them a higher profile instead of burying them; I'd like to see this continue, and it is pretty standard across banners for matured projects with several dozen task forces. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Template name
On Friday evening I moved this project banner to, to match with the increasingly-standardised convention of Template:WikiProject PROJECT for WikiProject banners. I was subsequently asked to revert this move, which I have done, so it is now appropriate to discuss the proposal. The "WikiProject PROJECT" convention is by far the most common amongst project banners, and makes the nature of the template instantly recognisable in watchlists, recentchanges and in the template list on edit pages. All the arguments from this old proposal apply equally well to individual banners such as this one. And the change is, ultimately, rather inconsequential except to those for whom it would be a benefit. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 12:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. This is an unnecessary and inconsequential change which doesn't buy anyone anything. Those of us who actually use and track the template are already familiar with the current name, so there is no benefit to us. I believe you said that around two thirds of banners use the "WikiProject PROJECT" convention, but one third is not an inconsequential number, and while a single standard for all banners might ultimately be a good thing, there is no existing guideline to mandate this change. I see no reason to change things here and now merely to safisify what is at best a de facto convention. PC78 (talk) 13:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't fully see how this fits with your comment "Had you made the suggestion of a change I would most likely have been supportive..." but that's by-the-by. I agree, in fact, that this change is neither important nor absolutely necessary; but I don't agree that that should be considered a reason not to do it.  The arguments put forth in that COUNCIL proposal are valid and do present tangible benefits; the move is not without benefits as you shggest. If "a single standard for all banners might ultimately be a good idea", why oppose a move towards such a standard? Happy‑melon 14:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see the "tangible benefits" that you see; regarding the linked proposal, "Ease of tagging" is a moot point because WikiProject Films already exists as a redirect, "Coding bots" is reliant on all banners being renamed, and I don't think it would be appropriate to reuse "Film" elsewhere as this would affect thousands of page histories. Were the template to be renamed as part of a wider movement then that would be one thing, but to randomly single it out for no specific reason is another; it comes across as change for the sake of change. And yes, as I have said elsewhere I would have probably have been more supportive of this change had it been proposed earlier, but things are as they are and so my enthusiasm is rather more tepid. I'm sorry if that seems a little childish or petty, but it's just the way I'm wired. That said I am still open to the idea if you can sell it to me, but I will need a more convincing argument than what has so far been presented. PC78 (talk) 15:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it does, but as I said, no matter. While I agree that "ease of tagging" is of less relevance here, the issue of how the template's name is rendered on watchlists and the list of included templates is still of note, and it is undeniable that Template:WikiProject Films is more intuitively identifiable to an outsider as the banner for WikiProject Films than the somewhat mysterious  (although certainly not nearly as incomprehensible as some). On the other hand, improvement in bot coding is certainly not dependent on all banners being renamed (although since that process would still require renaming this banner, you haven't really answered my question about why you would apparently only support this individual move if other banners are being renamed); I know that scripts I personally run would be improved in efficiency if this change was made.  Many of my scripts rely on a function that determines whether or not a template is a wikiproject banner; the algorithm it uses checks as its first stage whether the template follows the "Template:WikiProject Foo" convention; then it expands any redirect and performs the same check again; only then does it search in Category:WikiProject banners and subcats to see if the template is listed there.  Similar functions to get the name of the parent wikiproject from a banner template or assessment category first check if a simple replacement by the 'standard' syntax locates a valid project page; the efficiency of these functions improves linearly with the number of banners that conform to the standard, they are not dependent on "all banners being renamed".
 * I also don't think it's fair to say that this banner was "randomly singled out for no specific reason": you are fully aware of what prompted this particular issue; the opportunity to expand most or all redirects to the banner without falling foul of WP:REDIR as a result of your bot request. That's an excellent idea, and one I fully support, but it does make it necessary to have this discussion now, before we use a bot to consolidate a naming convention that, while I agree is not a major problem, is nonetheless a less-than-optimal solution.  You say you would/could/might support a wider move towards standardisation in this area.  Why then do you wish to reinforce precisely the opposite situation on this individual template? <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style"color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Because looking at the bigger picture I can see how standardisation would be desirable, but when looking at individual templates on a one-by-one basis the need becomes far less apparent. I shall defer to your judgement with regard to bots and scripts, but the direct benefits this renaming will bring to the template, the project and its members remain somewhat elusive to me; if nothing else, Film is simpler and easier to type than WikiProject Films. I won't oppose something for the sake of opposing it (I'm not that childish and petty), but I would like to hear the opinions of other people before commenting further. PC78 (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose I prefer the brief name. For the number of pages I have added it to, it has saved so much time and limited the number of errors I make (I do make a lot!). In addition, I stumbled upon this discussion which appears relevant to the topic. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support after reviewing WikiProject Council/Banner standardisation. Advantages listed there make sense.  Typing WikiProject Films takes a little more effort, but it is more specific than Film, which could seemingly represent an article template that links to the broad strokes of cinema.  I originally hesitated because I have never seen an issue with using this template, but with the constant growth of film articles, I would not mind this coordination to benefit new page and random page patrols in tagging and assessing.  My only concern is the script being affected when Film redirects to WikiProject Films.  I'd like to see a bot rename all templates if this coordination goes through. — Erik (talk • contrib) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above arguments and AWG discussion Nehrams linked to. Especially since we're closer than we've ever been before to completely deprecating usage of all the redirects! Unless there was a bot user willing to replace these all (and why that would be worth it, I'm less than sure), I don't really see the advantage, especially when so many of the automated project tools are specifically designed with parameters to accommodate variant template names. Not against standardization per se, but I need to see why this needs to be done, and why now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This provided practical reasons for standardization. Do none of them seem that practical to you? — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support: The lack of consistency between these banner names is a major thorn in the side to editors like me who spend a lot of gnoming time ensuring that new articles are properly categorized and tagged. Why should we have to memorize your "special" little name for your "special" little template, instead of being able to depend on a standard naming convention? Furthermore, various tools (WP:AWB, WP:AALERTS, etc.) expect them at the standardized names. I think this is basically a pointless discussion, however. The standardized convention already exists, i.e. there is already a WP-wide consensus on this issue. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 22:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Last I checked there was no concensus for such a naming convention; on the contrary, opinion seems to be against it. You don't have to memorise anything - redirects exist for a reason. PC78 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Error messages
I was thinking it would be beneficial to have the banner display some explicit warnings if it has been tagged incorrectly. Here's what I've cooked up in the sandbox:

Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not just consider them alternate versions? Or put them in a cat, since the main ones likely to care are project members. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this feature would extend to all of the two dozen or so reasons that add an article to, as well as mis-typed parameters and such that can be easy to miss. Granted, we don't have a high influx of such articles, but it isn't always apparent why an article is added to the category, and a visible notice can help draw people's attention to these things. PC78 (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree - it's a maintenance issue and shouldn't be intrusive. Those of us who follow the hidden cat usually know what to look for. Creating a large error message gets in the way of the banner, is way too overt, and suggests that the problem is far larger than it truly is - which may scare users into turning off the banner entirely. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What if it was made less overt, by removing the colour and making it either more like the message I added to WikiProject Korea or having it in a collapsible section at the foot of the banner like WPBiography (example of the latter at Talk:Gerry Clark)? Or would you regard any such message as unnecessary? PC78 (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just remove the parameters, if they aren't used anymore and you want to get rid of them? —Ms2ger (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, one of these paramaters has already been removed and the other will be in the next edit, but people may still be using the old syntax so it would be prudent to track their usage. The categorisation will occur regardless, but I'm asking if it would be beneficial to have a visual notice in the banner as well. PC78 (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I've knocked this idea on the head. PC78 (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Next update (2)
OK, I've been busy working in the sandbox on a number of new features and changes for the banner. I still need to give everything a proper test to make sure it all works as intended, but I'll give an outline of what I've done so people can pick holes in it in the meantime. :)


 * The main change is the implementation of "forced" assessments for Start and B-Class, something that is already fairly common elsewhere. Basically this means that whenever a Start or B-Class assessment is given in the banner, the template code checks the B-Class checklist and if necessary upgrades or downgrades the assessment accordingly. For example, typing  will result in:


 * Another feature common in other project banners is a warning notice if the banner is placed on a non-talk page. I have therefore added the following notice which will be displayed above the banner in such (rare and infrequent) cases:


 * This is something I've copied from WPMILHIST: if A-Class is set as "current" but the review does not yet exist, the banner creates a link to a preloaded review. Example (click on "Reviews"):


 * I've added a series of checks to the banner, primarily to track mistyped and obsolete parameters, but also to gather some data which may be of benefit to the project.


 * The four needs-X parameters will now only accept "yes" or "y", and the needs-synopsis parameter will be fully deprecated. These issues have both been dealt with so this shouldn't be a problem.


 * Other assorted minor changes. :) I'll elaborate more if necessary, but basically just some minor rewording here and there, changing a few icons and updating a few links. I've made some notes over at Template talk:Film/sandbox along with some side-by-side comparisons of the current and sandboxed banners.

Comments and crits welcome as always. :) PC78 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

No objections to any of the above, and extensive checks turned up no bugs. Please update the template with the code in Film/sandbox. This will also require the following edits to protected subtemplates: Please also give the newly created subtemplate Film/Checks the same level of protection as this template, and delete the following categories which will no longer be supported: Many thanks! PC78 (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Replace Film/Core with Film/Core/sandbox
 * Replace Film/Class with Film/Class/sandbox
 * Replace Film/Task force categories with Film/Task force categories/sandbox
 * Before I do this, can you confirm something. Your first example (class=B) doesn't result in a rating. Is that expected? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine; they did work before because the sandboxed template was using the sandboxed subtemplates, but I've fixed all subtemplate transclusions ahead of this request. The examples above should work again after the change is made. PC78 (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All ✅, I think. I'm popping out for a while, but if there are any issues I shall be around shortly to attend to them. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks as always! :) PC78 (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that you haven't entertained a WPBM conversion. I'm sure you've considered it and have your reasons, but there doesn't seem to be many (if any) of the features above which wouldn't work easily from the meta. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not that I'm against the idea, I just don't consider it worth the effort when we already have a banner that works just fine. Plus I find it nice having the extra freedom with regards to coding. PC78 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor update
Please update the following subtemplates: This is to add a tracking category for the currently unused auto parameter, and to remove support for some obscure and unused syntax for Category-Class assessments. Please also delete Category:Film banners using class=categories, which will no longer be required. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Film/Checks with Film/Checks/sandbox
 * Film/Class with Film/Class/sandbox
 * All ✅. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian films task force
Please implement this diff, currently contained within the sandbox. Adds support for this new task force; no major structural changes to the template otherwise. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That diff also removed a lot of code from the template. I don't suppose that was intentional? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It may have removed code from the sandbox version, but not the template version. I simply copied the template code into the sandbox and modified that. I see that PC78 made some recent sandbox edits prior, which may have been removed from the sandbox in effect by this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. "Implement this version" would have been clearer than "implement this diff" ... anyway ✅. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Please also update Film/Checks with Film/Checks/sandbox. Cheers! PC78 (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Will have to start declining all requests until you deal with the matter on your userpage ;) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please change the icon for the Christian films task force to File:Golden Cross Clapperboard.svg, per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Christian films task force? Cheers! PC78 (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style"color:darkorange">melon</b> 10:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request (2)
editprotected Please update Film with the code in Film/sandbox, and also Film/Checks with Film/Checks/sandbox. Per discussion at WT:FILMC, this will modify the A-Class parameter to place a greater emphasis on current reviews, and will also enable an auto parameter to facilitate the tracking of future tagging and assessment by bots. Please also delete which is now empty and will no longer be required. PC78 (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This is quite a complicated banner. have you considered using WPBannerMeta? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 05:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * PC78 will have to speak for himself, but as the other main contributor to the code, I think that we both feel that because of this we'd rather have the freedom and flexibility to create and retool the banner to our needs rather than constantly be submitting specialized functions to someone else for approval. This banner is rather sophisticated and complex, but it also is able to accomplish a great deal that other banners don't, and generally has been without problems. At the moment, in my opinion, the benefits of Meta are outweighed by the costs of joining it, as well as our project's needs, which are more than adequately met in the current situation. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see this template doing anything that the Meta can't, but ok. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 15:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Let me know if something inadvertently breaks, and I'll rv (and in the meantime, I'd work on possibly making the code more readable ;) ). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I managed to break something. :) Please update with the code in Film/sandbox again, which will resolve the issue. PC78 (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Think you've still got something wrong. How can the {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Template:Infobox Actor bit work if it's inside noinclude? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem! I think you have the wrong template. PC78 (talk) 11:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's me who's got the wrong template -- that's what I get for copying code from other templates during the small hours! Obviously it should be Template:Film and not Template:Infobox Actor. Can you check the "Checks" subtemplate as well? PC78 (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * After fixing it in what seemed to be the simplest way, the purpose of this strange construction dawned on me: so you can have exactly the same code on the sandbox as the live version. I suppose it's a reasonable idea, although the {{tl|pp-template}} is specifically set up to allow it to go on sandbox versions without causing an error (i.e. by populating Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates). So the only real effect then is the sandbox notice ... Anyway if you want it putting back, let me know. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not worth editing the template again just for that. It just seemed like a neat idea, because I often see the protected template being removed from sandboxed templates. PC78 (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Film Articles that need an image
can someone tell me where i can find a list of film articles that need an image?--Tim1357 (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Category:Film articles needing an image -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Update
editprotected Please update with the code at Film/sandbox. The icon for the Awards task force was deleted on Commons a few days ago and needs to be replaced. I've also made two other very minor tweaks. Thanks in advance! PC78 (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks.  Skomorokh   01:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Banner update
editprotected Please update the following templates with the code from their respective sandboxes:
 * Film/sandbox → Film
 * Film/Checks/sandbox → Film/Checks
 * Film/Class/sandbox → Film/Class
 * Film/Core/sandbox → Film/Core
 * Film/Task force categories/sandbox → Film/Task force categories

This is per recent discussions at WT:FILMC. Summary of changes:


 * Add support for C-Class assessments
 * Remove support for Future-Class assessments
 * Remove support for A-Class review nominations, and restrict A-Class assessments to articles which have already passed a review
 * Remove "needs-plot", "needs-cast" and "needs-prod" parameters

Thanks in advance. PC78 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. I figured this was an accidental typo, let me know if it's not. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 13:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good catch. Thanks! PC78 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)