Template talk:Portal maintenance status

Template Parameters and Category Behavior
right now, the manual and nonstandard parameters are acting like switches, i.e. their existence will trigger the associated message, regardless of the value assigned to them. This means setting them to 'no' doesn't work as expected. I think we should change this behavior so that they will respect an explicit 'no', or perhaps only display the message when set to 'yes'. This would be more in line with how editors likely expect the template to behave.

Also, do we really need to DMC the non-standard and manual categories? We have around 1500 portals, which will mostly get tagged over the next few months, so I'm not convinced of the utility of dividing them by date. Also, their corresponding "all pages" categories don't exist right now. Do we really need another pair, or could we just let them populate the parent category as well? &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 00:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those parameters can now be declined with  or any of the other values listed at if declined. I previously had existence = on because that made coding the module easier, but that's no longer a concern since the module is now just embedding this template.
 * As for dated categories: don't we need them so that old/stale statuses can be reviewed? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Another flag to track
To add to our ever-growing collection: incomplete, used to mark portals that are under construction or missing sections. Basically it would be set for the portals on this list marked with not ready, and it would add them to (not hidden). I might add that in a bit, if I'm not busy. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 00:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, since it was fairly simple, I went ahead and added it. Feel free to tweak. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 00:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re, that's what the sandbox and testcases subpages are there for - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

as a heads-up, I plan on adding a note field for free-form notes. The intent for now is to mark portals that may have issues requiring attention (example: Portal:Wikiatlas. I'm not sure if we should eventually get around to implementing a subset of the WP:TC, but that's a conversation for later, I think. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 12:45, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * note sounds okay, I guess, but can't WP:TC templates just be used as-is? Since those cleanup messages are shown on articles, it should also be acceptable to show them on portals. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 14:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right on the cleanup templates, they should probably be visible anyway. I'm just wondering how we'd be able to track the portals tagged with them separately form article space. Maybe not a separate category for every type of cleanup issue, just "Portal pages with cleanup issues" would work. Maybe we would just tag them with the cleanup template, then we could just set yes in this template to track it separately. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 15:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We now have a notes field, which I've already used in several places. Figured it would be handy for cases not covered by existing flags. &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 20:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Code consolidation
Regarding my recent edit to the module to add the Featured portal detection code. I feel as though this could have been written better, perhaps by removing the duplication of the template search code. As of now, there are three functions that start by doing the same thing. Would it make sense to make a generic search function that accepts an argument for the type of template to search for, then return true for that search? If I knew Lua better, I'd work on it myself. Or perhaps it's not worth the trouble right now? &mdash; AfroThundr (u &middot; t &middot; c) 03:02, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the potential duplication is already avoided, as all three entry points uses the functions and . Further consolidation is possible, but may be more appropriate as a function in Module:Excerpt (that would return the wikitext of a template invocation for a given page and template name) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding a parameter that allows a manual maintainer to list themselves.
What do you think about adding a parameter, such as maintainer, to allow a manual maintainer(s) to list themselves as the maintainer?

I was thinking that it might be useful because:
 * It would allow those who want to make major changes to the portal to see who to contact about it first. At the moment you have to guess who that might be by edit diffs and the WikiProject Portal specific portal maintainers members list, but even then it may not be simple to work out who it is if the WikiProject goes inactive.
 * It may also be useful when we (the Project) want to check if the portal is still being manually maintained, as we could more quickly contact the listed maintainer.

However, this has the propensity to get stale if not updated, but like the other options with this template, we can check every so often to see if they are still correct. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 09:31, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea. They could enter their username or profile URL and the template can wikilink it. We could make it accept multiple values as well, either with numbered parameters (maintainer1, maintainer2, etc.) or maybe comma separated. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 12:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is now implemented, allowing 4 manual maintainers (we only really need options for 4, as we only want the "main" maintainers to be listed). I have tested it already using the /sandbox and /testcases pages. One maintainer must be listed if the manual tag is used. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 17:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sweet. Just a nit: can we make maintainer a synonym of maintainer1? Might as well preempt the most common error scenario. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 21:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we can. Thinking of also removing the manual parameter now and only display the manual text when maintainer(s) have been listed. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 08:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ above. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 16:50, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We'll probably want to leave manual deprecated, but still present until we update any pages still using it. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 17:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And around in circles we go... (nice name, btw). It would appear we've found a use case for keeping manual alive. See the sidebar between myself and  in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals/General. I guess we'll un-deprecate it then. To clarify: maintainer and friends should still be required if manual is set. But they can also exist in its absence. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 13:03, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw the conversation, but was busy to respond. I support the idea suggested. I'll implement. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 13:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ You can now use maintainer when not using yes. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 20:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Type of problem
Would a parameter specifying type of problem be generally useful? Either as a single parameter with a few options, or a parameter per option taking yes/true. Display problems are fairly common, and it may be worth keeping track. These include: I try to fix them as I find them, but some I just can't figure out, or may require tools to be written. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The use of a banner or other images that extend beyond the box edges on a narrow page or on mobile view.
 * Hard to read colour combinations.
 * Mismatched box widths
 * Badly nested boxes
 * Text display in strange places
 * Probably others
 * Yeah, I just had to fix a particularly broken case of absolute positioning at Portal:Brussels earlier. I think in most cases, the note parameter would suffice for recording the details (perhaps we should have a tracking category for showing portals with notes), and we were talking of adding a broken flag somewhere in the ongoing portal assessment discussion (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals). This flag will populate a tracking category so that we can respond to the issues quickly. Used in conjunction with the note parameter, this would allow any responders to know immediately what the problem is. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 18:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A broken flag has been implemented. It can be used in conjunction with the note parameter to describe the issue in need of fixing. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 02:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . That looks like it should do the job. I will try it out next time I see an appropriate problem. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 14:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Your recent edit run adding yes to a bunch of portals also introduced an interesting error with the notes field. The use of $)$ (and probably as well) seems to break the transclusion in the WikiProject banner. I discovered this earlier, when I tried to use  in a note. In some cases the raw template wikitext is shown, in others, it disappears completely.  I don't suppose any of you would know how to sanitize (or otherwise properly handle) these characters? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 20:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually to use | you use !, but this won't work, as you say } causes problems. I am not sure how to handle the use of | and } in Lua, so leaving for . Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 20:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean sanitizing them when they appear in the note field in the template, so that the project banner can display it properly. Also, won't ! and ))be treated literally when it gets transcluded by the project banner anyway? The nested transclusion is where the problem is occurring; this template has no problems with the notes field. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 20:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From my tests, the use of ! in the note param causes the content of the redirect page to be shown. Leaving for as I only know a bit of Lua. Dreamy Jazz talk &#124; contribs 20:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

It is very likely due to the module is using a simplified pattern to match templates – basically it looks for  along with the template name and a , and then anything that isn't a  , and then   – because when it was written, this template's parameters were only taking a limited set of values, rather than free-form wikitext that might include templates like tl. It is fixable, the pattern just needs to be a bit more complicated. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had not noticed that. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , you can now use whatever templates you like in the notes or other parameters - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, nice work. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 11:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Broken?
Regarding this edit, and others like it, how is the portal broken exactly?  Imzadi 1979  →   20:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've been thinking we need more granular values for the broken flag. It's used to mark broken templates, layout issues, and the like. It's currently also being used to flag more "minor" issues like accessibility problems, or lack of a root article (which would be problematic for several of our automated templates that expect one to exist). what do you guys think about modifying this flag to accept a value, such as minor, to reflect that it's not actually "broken" but "needs attention"? — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 22:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My thought is that the portal in question, Portal:Michigan highways does have a root article, Michigan State Trunkline Highway System, but the portal has a custom intro that intentionally doesn't mirror the lead of the article by design. I had reverted an attempt, without consultation, to switch the portal to selectively transclude the lead because the current portal intro was carefully crafted to be more visually appealing. Also, I disagree with this notion that the lead of an article should be used as the intro for a portal. They don't directly copy the lead of an article for use as a TFA blurb, because they're different use cases. Selectively trancluding article leads is a lazy solution that doesn't account for the use cases involved. Please stop calling portals "broken" if they're doing something better.  Imzadi 1979  →   02:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * , See 's response. At the moment broken is what we have to keep track of that sort of issue. Having more options would allow more specific records. I may have missed one or two cases where the portal maintenance template is tagged for manual maintenance, a maintainer is specified, and a note explains how they are managed, or different. If so, my apologies, and either revert or let me know so I can revert. If not, please add these parameters so we can know which ones to assume are in competent hands, and not tag for such cases, then revert the parameters you find inappropriate. Selectively transcluding leads works very well for some articles. What proportion we don't know, but it is very useful for automated updates. So far my impression is that lead section transclusion works adequately to very well for most portals, and generally provides a more informative introduction than the original in cases where the portal has been changed to use a transcluded lead from the root article, so as a default method it is a good first approach.
 * , more options for the parameter value would be useful to me, as shown by the discussion above. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:15, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ you can now use minor for non-critical issues. It will populate a separate tracking category, and doesn't look as scary. Although, you may need to retag the accessibility flagged portals now... — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 04:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this will help. I will get onto it. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Date bug
When no date is set, the template puts the portal in (contrary to the WP:REDNOT guideline) - it should be testing for lack of date and putting it in  instead. Can someone fix it? Le Deluge (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a problem with the syntax we use with Dated maintenance category:


 * The prefix used for the dated categories (1st parameter) is also used as the category name if the date is empty. To override that, you can specify an alternate name to use in the (currently empty) 5th parameter. Setting this to the same name as the catch-all (4th parameter) results in a duplicate category being added. I tried setting it to empty, with no luck. I imagine this is happening with all three of our DMC invocations. As a template editor, would you be able to tweak DMC to allow for the 5th parameter to be null-suppressed? This would allow us to leave it blank (or perhaps it should be an explicit 'no'?) to suppress the prefix. The alternative would be to re-create the prefix categories as soft redirects. — AfroThundr (u · t · c) 00:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a soft redirect would be the easiest, since Dated maintenance category is very widely used beyond this template (over 1.2 million transclusions), and pages would only be in the undated category for a short time (until the date is added to the template by bot). - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Maintenance tags
There has been quite a bit of talk lately at MfD and elsewhere about readers potentially being confused when they visit a portal that needs an update or maintenance, but isn't tagged as such. We can of course add tags manually, but would it make sense to change this template so that a "This portal is under construction or undergoing maintenance" tag or similar appears if the |incomplete=yes is used? Waggers<small  style="color:#080">TALK  07:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Surprising categorization
I changed the status of Portal:Geophysics to maintained, and to my surprise this template added the page to two categories: an invisible one (Category:All manually maintained portal pages) and a visible one (Category:All manually maintained portal pages from May 2019, which I'll call AMMP19). There are a lot of things I find puzzling about this: RockMagnetist(talk) 16:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) There is only one category of this sort that does exist: Category:All manually maintained portal pages from June 2018 (which I'll call AMMP2018). So why aren't all the maintained pages in similar categories?
 * 2) AMMP2018 is in Category:Portals. There is also an empty Category:Manually maintained portal pages from May 2019 in Category:All manually maintained portal pages.
 * 3) Why are these maintenance categories visible?
 * 4) Why is someone trying to subdivide a very small number of portals (89 at present) into what would likely be a large number of categories?
 * I just made Category:All manually maintained portal pages from May 2019. It should no longer be visible. It's a monthly clean-up category. I don't have answers for the rest of the questions, though. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I decided to answer one of my questions by deleting Category:Manually maintained portal pages from May 2019, as it clearly duplicates the category you just created and is empty. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just updated the maintenance status of Portal:Viruses and found that I've now got redlinked categories "Manually maintained portal pages from February 2020" and "Portals with triaged subpages from February 2020" visible on the bottom of the portal. Is this a bug? It does not encourage one to update the status. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Automatic with maintainer?
What does it mean to have an automatic portal with a maintainer? RockMagnetist(talk) 16:59, 22 May 2019 (UTC)