Template talk:WikiProject Germany

Downsize the flag and the Rating-Field
Thanks ! Lear 21 12:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit broke the WP 1.0 assesment for Munich
It now puts articles in Category:Stub-Class_Munich_articles rather than Category:Stub-class_Munich_articles.

Looks like it should be that way, but we need o do something about it somewhere. Agathoclea 11:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think only the Munich articles were so affected. It would not be easy to change the code for this banner to use different capitalisation just for Munich articles, so it would be a lot easier if the Munich banner were to be changed and the Munich categories renamed via WP:CFDS. - 52 Pickup 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No need for process, I'll fix the categories by hand. Kusma (talk) 12:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Kusma (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * All working now - I just set the assessment bot to re-populate Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Munich articles by quality statistics and it all looks good. - 52 Pickup 14:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

unref seems broken
see Talk:German_Christmas_traditions. I just reinstated Category:Unreferenced Germany articles as I thaught its deletion was the problem. Agathoclea 16:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed now. I must have left out that field during the upgrade in April. Sorry about that. - 52 Pickup 10:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible content shows as default
The template is incorporated in the WikiProjectBanner on Talk:North Sea. When the shell is opened the "Additional information" shows even though the "show" anchor is still displayed. This must be an error. This should be hidden as default and only show when the "hidden" anchor is clicked. __meco 21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the problem with respect to this particular article by changing to WikiProjectBannerShell, however, I'm sure the problem still exists where WikiProjectBanner is applied and still needs attention. __meco 22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All templates that use this "additional information" pop-out section behave this way (eg. WPMILHIST, upon which this section was based). It is an annoying problem, and I'm still not sure how to fix it. - 52 Pickup 11:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

CfD affecting this template
see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 1. Agathoclea 08:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The changes suggested over at this CFD can be easily done, but we just need to clarify just what is desired. So far, this template has two image request fields: imageneeded and mapneeded. Another can be added, or the relevant categories can be changed, or both. Suggestions? - 52 Pickup 20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My main proposal is to separate requests for photographs of locations from other image requests. When a category contains more than 200 articles someone searching for requests that they can address becomes more difficult.


 * One suggestion is to allow parameters to the field imageneeded. If the article is of a location then imageneeded=place would add the article to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany otherwise it would add the article to Category:Germany articles needing images.


 * Another possibility is to have sub categories based on those under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs (e.g. arts, people, technology) but I think too many sub-categories with only one or two articles in would also not be very easy viewing. Maybe a variation would be to allow different subjects and put the article in the existing reqphoto categories as well as the German category.Traveler100 06:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The level of detail in these banners should probably be kept as simple as possible, particularly because banners tend to not get updated all that often. The big issue that I see here is that many of the location articles where images have been requested probably are photo requests, so we need to separate them somehow in the simplest possible way. There are two ways to do this: either as you propose (imageneeded=place), or by introducing a new field that specifies that the article is of a location (eg. place=yes) then if both imageneeded and place are "yes", then the article would then be placed in the photo-request category instead of the image-request category.


 * This second option may seem the more complicated, but it has its benefits. WP Germany already has a subproject for German locations and so it might be worth tagging all locations anyway - so this would solve both problems at once. To perform this tagging, some sort of bot should (hopefully) be able to do the job.


 * Unfortunately, this only solves the problem with regards to locations and not to anything else - except for maps, which is already taken care of. Specifying a range of possible values for imageneeded may be the answer here, but I am certain that the field will not be correctly used by most users and, as you said, too many subcategories will only lead to trouble. - 52 Pickup 14:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Mapneeded should be out of commission due to the infobox shortly. My idea would be to separate the imagerequests by state, which in most cases could be done by a bot (photocat=Bavaria). Agathoclea 17:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There'll still be a (limited) use for mapneeded - such as for regions (eg. Bavarian Forest). So, given all of the above suggestions, what shall we do with imageneeded? What are the thoughts of the editor who started the CFD? - 52 Pickup 13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * i left a message requesting input, but the editor has been off-line since 8/11 Agathoclea 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 17. I have relisted the 1 November discussion to allow more time for the details to be worked out. When an agreement is reached, please note it at the CFD, so that it may be properly closed. Thank you, Black Falcon (Talk) 05:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Proposal. imageneeded be removed from the template and reqphoto|in=Germany be inserted into all article talk pages that did contain this. If the article is of a geographical location then it should be placed in a sub-category of the state(Länder) it is in otherwise it is listed directly in Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany.Traveler100 (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The relisted CfD is now overdue for closure. Do people here want to agree a solution, or should it be left to the CfD closer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Photorequest image
I recently had a query about the lack of an icon depicting the need for a photo. I got no particular view either way as I think most punters will come via the category rather than look at the talkpage and say - oh it needs a picture. I just wanted to mention it while changes are underfoot. Agathoclea 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Canon EOS Rebel.svg|60px|left]]Something like this should do the job. - 52 Pickup 13:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * certainly. Agathoclea 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:Germany articles needing images
Per this CFD discussion, Category:Germany articles needing images and Category:Germany articles needing maps were merged to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Germany and Category:Wikipedia requested maps in Germany, respectively. However, interested editors are encouraged to investigate the possibility and utility of alternate categorisation schemes, such as proposed at Template talk:WikiProject Germany. – Black Falcon (Talk) 20:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not displaying 5-point B-check for GA articles
editprotected The 5 point-check for B class does not need to be displayed for GA-class articles,

This can be changed by modifying the "more information about this article" section, changing this:

...

To this:

...

The only change here is the addition of GA to the list of classes. - 52 Pickup  (deal) 19:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Kusma (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops. I missed that there were two instances of this "FA|A|GA|NA|List|..." switch. There is a second one just under these comment lines:
 * The GA needs to be added there, too. 52 Pickup  (deal) 20:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Done again, hope it's fine now. Kusma (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, works fine now. Thanks. - 52 Pickup  (deal) 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, works fine now. Thanks. - 52 Pickup  (deal) 06:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

FL class
FL class seems not to categorize properly: see Talk:List of Germany international footballers Agathoclea (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor change
editprotected Could the noinclude section at the bottom be changed from:

Usage
to

{{documentation|1=Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Project banner|content=

Usage
}}

Thanks, -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Update
In the sandbox there is an update to this template using WPBannerMeta. Are there any concerns about implementing it? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Please let me know if there are any problems with it. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Class = B broken?
Assessment class=B seems to be broken. Class = C works, class = A works, but class = B yields "???". --Boson (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed now (although B becomes C unless the B-class criteria are met). See Template:WikiProject Germany/class. I think User:Happy-melon is a good person to ask about how the template works these days. Kusma (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding Hamburg task force assessment code
editprotected Please add the code for the assessment of Hamburg task force articles. The code has been copied (and modified) from the other task forces and tested through the Template:WikiProject Germany/sandbox in my userspace. |TF_5_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany/Hamburg task force |TF_5_NAME = Hamburg task force |TF_5_NESTED = Hamburg |TF_5_IMAGE = Coat of arms of Hamburg.svg |TF_5_MAIN_CAT = Hamburg task force articles |TF_5_QUALITY = yes |TF_5_ASSESSMENT_CAT= Hamburg articles |tf 5 importance= Thank you. Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * tf 5=
 * PS: Documentation will be updated after implementation. Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

✅ —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Mainz
Please change the old coat of arms to the newer one. Thanks. — PsY.cHo, 20:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. —Кузьма討論 07:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

B-class checklist instructions
"This is available only for unrated articles and articles rated as "Stub-Class", "Start-Class", or "B-Class". See the assessment department for more details." Shouldn't the list read "C-Class", not B-class? Else I'm confused. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 06:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be C class and B class, I think. When I originally introduced this into the template, C-class didn't exist, and the point of this was to slowly fill and check the criteria until B-clas is reached (and then still display them). I'll try to figure out how to add "C" to the statement. —Кузьма討論 07:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Testing it, it seems to work as intended. I updated the documentation. —Кузьма討論 07:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I tested it as well, and now I see what you meant. I thought B-Class wouldn't work if the checklist hadn't been fulfilled (discussion "Class = B broken?" above) which I thought would be a cool feature, but perhaps it didn't sit well with others. I used your template as a boilerplate to update the Template:WikiProject Albums template with the checklist. I think it really will help keep C-class articles from getting bumped up too early. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You may wish to include the sixth criterion for B-class, see Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If people are willing to do the checks (for e.g. unexplained German terms and jargon) I wouldn't mind having this added. —Кузьма討論 12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Section for discussion of this (for Germany) added to WT:GER. —Кузьма討論 12:25, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * (sorry for being off-topic here; namely, not Germany related) Good suggestion, but I'm not sure if it would really be needed on an album-related article. I'm generalizing greatly here, but most album articles are written quite simply. There isn't anything too complex to discuss. I would bring it up at the WikiProject Albums talk page, but I'm pretty disheartened by the absolute lack of any activity over there (for any new discussion), and I'm pretty sure it would just grow stale. I had to literally drag in the admins from the #wikipedia IRC chat rooms to get anything done over there, and I may have to do it again for the new Category change request! –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * editprotected should work reasonably well. I generally clear it out once a day and there are a couple of other admins who patrol it as well. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I put in a request for it at Template_talk:WikiProject_Albums. May as well keep the template current, which is what I wanted in the first place! –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 18:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
Actually, I'm starting this conversation over again lol. I'm still confused. I just noticed that B-class checklists only appear when the template is at C-class or B-class, but not with stub or start classes. They B-class checklist will work... but if no one knows about it, then no one will know to use it until the article reaches C class. Which is fine. But shouldn't this be reflected in the documentation? I ask because I may just update documentation at albums anyway, just to clarify a bit. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 05:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think one can make it display on Start-class articles using . I think that is a good idea (but I don't have time to test it properly right now). On stubs, it doesn't seem to be possible, and we should update the documentation. —Кузьма討論 11:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Great, I'll test it out over on WikProject Albums as well. I'll try it out a little later in the day. –  Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Added Bavaria portal to correspond to Munich
I added the portal for Bavaria to correspond with Munich. Please implement. Kumioko (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Fascism Task Force
Shouldn't the code for the Fascism Task Force from WikiProject Politics be added here? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Heinrich Hellwege
Somehow I have messed up the second reference to this article. Unfortunately I was unable to remove the bold face print. Can someone please do that? Thank you for your help! Khnassmacher (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Could someone please adjust the banner so that Category:Automatically assessed Germany articles is not required? The category is emppty and there are no bots that populate articles with this parameter anymore and haven't in a couple years. Thanks! Kumioko (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:58, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

broken B-checklists
After fixing several broken B-checklists that used uppercase "B"-parameters instead of lowercase "b", I updated the template to allow "B1=" to "B5=" as well. A lot of reviewers copy the checklist structure from other project templates, where uppercase B is allowed - leading to wrong project banners (displaying C, while B is already assessed). Now both older variants and Bn are possible, the older variants have precedence as usual. GermanJoe (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I know of a lot that use B-Class-1 etc. and a lot that use b1 etc - and a good few that use both; but I don't know of any WikiProject banner templates that use B1 etc. Do you have examples? -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * MILHIST for example allows a lot of variants in their B-parameters (see Template:WikiProject MILHIST) - with WW I and II there is some significant overlap in scope between the 2 projects (but maybe that handling is not that widespread in other projects, not sure). I think that having this additional variant won't hurt in practise, cleaning it up got a bit annoying ;). GermanJoe (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The parameters for MILHIST are somewhat different from those of other WikiProjects - this is partly because it has never been brought into the group, the core around which the vast majority of WikiProject templates are built. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now. (Wrongly) assumed, that all projects use the meta structure - thanks for the background info, Redrose. GermanJoe (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced category and unref
Editors maintaining this template may be interested in this discussion on the WikiProject Trains template. Basically, the unreferenced categories are overpopulated with articles that are not entirely unreferenced. The consensus was to add a refimprove parameter to sort articles into Category:Rail transport articles needing additional references.

The easy solution is to create the appropriate category, perhaps Category:Germany articles needing additional references, add refimprove to this template and work on updating calls to this template as needed. Slambo (Speak) 18:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)