Template talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 1

Relevant discussions for this banner

 * 14 Apr 2017: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 27
 * 31 Dec 2017: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 36
 * 24 Jan 2018: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red/Archive 38
 * 22 May 2018: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

help sought with WIR-129?
Hi. I'm trying to add WIR-129 to the talk page of Draft:REDress Project but it's not showing the edit-a-thon details? Help? Moira Paul (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The draft namespace was ignored, which is now fixed. Thanks for reporting the issue. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Name of template
There has been a consensus over many years that templates should have a name which makes their purpose clear. WIR doesn't cut it, and no one outside the project is likely to know what it stands for. Today I boldly renamed to Template:WikiProject Women in Red, which is the standard name for project banners, but was reverted by &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because this template, until very recently, has been converted to use the Metabanner, which it was never designed to be, and is part of an entire series of templates. Renaming it breaks the naming convention, and makes things more obscure. Women in Red doesn't track importance and classes, like other Wikiprojects, and so should not be made to look like it does. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it tracks importance and classes, this is a WikiProject banner, like all the others in Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment. I think it would be better if it followed the standard naming scheme for these templates, and in the past you have been supportive of standardisation efforts. I am less concerned about the wrappers, but if 's suggestion is implemented they won't be needed anyway. Now if you don't like the name Template:WikiProject Women in Red then do you have any alternative suggestion, because as I pointed out WIR is not clear to anyone outside the project, and we like to keep template names as clear as possible. I will take this to WP:RM if necessary, but hopefully we can reach agreement. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm against this one been renamed, for the reasons outlined above. It is not a standard WikiProject banner, and was never meant to be. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Single template
Has there been any discussion somewhere on using a single, customizable template instead of hundreds of hyphenated ones? E.g., vs.   czar  04:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Marking which edit-a-thon things have been part of is one of the goals of here. I suppose something like could work too, but there's no real issue with this way either. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also could be used to generate categories for each event, so participants wouldn't have to manually add items to "New or upgraded articles" and DYK lists on each event page. The sections could pull from the categories to autopopulate via User:JL-Bot/Project content. czar  23:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that's already done / could be done under the current system. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen individual cats for each event. Yes, it's possible, but editing hundreds of templates makes it less feasible to maintain. czar  02:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's really not that complicated. If you want to setup WP:RECOG for say WIR-35, then all you need to do is put WIR-35, per WP:RECOG. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:42, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that a single template would be much simpler to use and would avoid having to make a new wrapper for every new event taking place. I'll have a tinker in the sandbox to see what can be done ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I've started making Module:Women in Red events and will add some code in the sandbox shortly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Proof of concept:  produces the following:


 * which is the same as


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not involve LUA here. It's nearly impossible for mortals to maintain, and this template needs to be accessible. The current system works, and it works well. There's no need to mess with it. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The module is just used to hold the database of meetups, and is extremely easy to maintain. This is how you add an event. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Categories
I think it would be more helpful if the pages from different namespaces had their own categories, instead of being lumped together in Category:All WikiProject Women in Red pages. For example we could use Category:Draft-Class Women in Red pages for all the draft articles, which would make them easier to find/track. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * A version which classifies by namespace is now in the sandbox. The classification is hidden when used on article talk pages, to match current appearance. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The sandbox was deployed and then reverted and then restored again by Headbomb. The new version improves on the horrible sorting method that was used before. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverted, we don't need the banner bloat, nor the visual clutter the 'assessments' brings on talk pages. The point is to have a category that contains all pages of interest to WIR, nor assessments categories in which this project never participated in. This is a tracking category, not an X-class articles a la Category:Physics articles by quality type of category. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel you are opposing every suggested improvement now. I posted here on 5 November with this proposal; it would have been helpful if you could comment earlier instead of just reverting when all the work has been done. I'm going to try and bring some more editors into these discussions, so we can make some progress. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do have a life outside of Wikipedia, you know. And the core issue here is that this isn't a standard WikiProject banner, and should not be converted into one because it was never meant to be one. That's the reason why this used tmbox before, and had I known the conversion to Metabanner would have led to bringing the rest of that template along, I would have reverted that back then to nip things in the bud. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:17, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a WikiProject banner! Its main function is (1) to track articles of interest to the WikiProject, with a secondary purpose (2) to promote the WikiProject. This is exactly what every other project banner is for. Sure, you had some "bespoke" code in there, but so do a lot of other project banners. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

More than one event?
Does it ever happen that an article is a focus of more than one event? Currently this cannot be handled by the template ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Tracked by using two templates if that's the case. It's in theory possible, but I'm not aware of any such cases. Which shouldn't be interpreted as proof positive those don't exist. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it happens sometimes - I just add two banners, eg Talk:Manar Fayyad and, today, Talk:Bongiwe Dhlomo-Mautloa. I'd like to find a black classicist or folklorist from Africa this month to get a triple! Pam  D  17:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

"...before making changes"
"The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes." What has "AGF" and "new editors" to do with "before making changes"? Making changes to an article has nothing to do with AGF, newbies, ... and should be encouraged, not discouraged. The way we comment on these edits by newbies should be checked, but the template text now is not really about this. Can "before making changes" please be removed from the template? Fram (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)