Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 11

To 1= or not to 1=?
While explicitly naming 1 is not required, it has been widely adopted for this template and the docs still prominently feature it. Since WP:PIQA conversions began a few days ago, I've noticed that two bots, User:Cewbot and User:Qwerfjkl (bot), are implementing competing formats, the former with and the latter without naming the parameter. Should we aim for consistency in this regard? If so, what is the preferred format? Yes, I realize that this is a completely comsetic question. Regards, IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 14:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make any difference. The times when it would make a difference are:
 * when the presence or absence of leading and trailing whitespace is significant
 * when the parameter value contains an equals sign that is outside of template transclusions
 * Of these, (1) doesn't normally apply when the template has a Lua core, as this one does; and (2) won't apply to WPBS because there are no situations when the parameter content has anything outside template transclusions. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If there is no difference, it seems to me that the bots should not be "correcting" this particular syntax. In particular, edits like this, where "fixing" 1 is the only change, are unnecessary and are just clogging our watchlists.— TAnthonyTalk 15:24, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This seems to have been raised at User_talk:Qwerfjkl. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't get worried about it either way, but I guess without the 1= is slightly tidier &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can eliminate 1 if there is a consensus. I will follow User:Qwerfjkl (bot)'s practice and not to add "1=". Also the discussion about whether to choose between blp and living seems to be expired. There seems to be no consensus? Kanashimi (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Kanashimi (talk) 02:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree this doesn't really matter, but if both of these bots are doing it without, is there any benfit of getting WP:RATER to go without too? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The 1 has kind of bugged me for a while since most templates don't request it. Support not using it.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Prehaps also noteworthy: AWB actively adds 1 unprompted. IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 00:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Late the conversation, but FYI, that only happens if you run AWB with "apply general fixes" enabled (which a lot of users do). But you can turn that off if you didn't want it to be applied automatically.  The genfixes setting is not always desirable.  Depends on the use case.   Butler Blog   (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Now are real watchlist-cloggers. I'm going to call WP:COSMETICBOT on that. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There must be a way to avoid edits like this @Qwerfjkl &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:52, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MSGJ, it's because the page was edited before the bot, so it no longer had anything to do, leading it to make a cosmetic edit. This shouldn't happen much. — Qwerfjkl  talk  07:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So you need to build in some detection to check that the page actually needs editing. Otherwise this kind of thing will happen a lot. If you look at the history of Talk:Troon railway station (1839-1892), the bot already edited the page on the same day, so why is it revisiting the same page? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * MSGJ, I was running the job twice (once for testing purposes, the other as a regular bot run). These jobs overlapped, causing duplicate errors like this. notified me of this at WP:BOTN so I killed the other job. This error should no longer occur. —  Qwerfjkl  talk  16:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
 * — Qwerfjkl  talk  16:08, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect
Having a problem with the article -izzle, which is a soft redirect. Tried tagging it as a redirect but this is not working. The banner shell said (incorrectly) that it was a redirect without a class parameter, but adding one has not removed it from Category:Unassessed articles. How do we tag it as a redirect. and remove it from this category? Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Martin? — Qwerfjkl  talk  19:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We now have the ability to detect soft redirects in Module:Pagetype so I was planning to use that to automatically rate such pages as Redirect-class. I assume that would solve this problem. (But why did you say that banner shell incorrectly detected it as a redirect?) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Two problems here:
 * The Rater tool does not allow me to set the class=Redirect in the banner shell. Is it missing metadata?
 * Setting class=Redirect did not remove it from Category:Unassessed articles when set manually, so automatically rating it won't work without changing the banner shell.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  09:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I assumed point 1 was intentional because Redirect detection was automatic, but point 2 seems like an issue. It seems odd to me use of the text This redirect has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. I thought "redirect" was the assessment? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the template is using Module:Pagetype for some of its logic, but not the part where it actually sets the class. I will try and sort this shortly &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

living vs blp
Is everyone okay with migrating all uses of the living parameter to blp? At the moment living is an alias for blp, but there are some articles that are using both, and the bots could tidy these up. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:47, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No objections, though noting I believe WP:RATER uses living. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As long as AWB doesn't remove them all a la https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suzanne_Deutsch_de_la_Meurthe&diff=prev&oldid=1207780075 :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * True. We have not had a response to our request at AWB yet &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @MSGJ: Per Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser, did you (or anyone else) file a Phabricator task for the AWB developers? GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't, and have never used Phabricator before., please could you handle that? Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Would there be any WP:COSMETIC concerns here?  Sdkb  talk 21:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would hope this not be the only change, but if it could be done as part of PIQA then probably better to standardise. What we don't want is yes and no which has happened &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * No objection then. Cheers,  Sdkb  talk 22:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I just modified the documentation slightly (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:WikiProject_banner_shell/doc&diff=prev&oldid=1209824156) to clarify this parameter should be used for all biographical articles, not just for living people. Please reword it if my change isn't clear. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't follow, @Kj cheetham. Is the idea that it should be used for non-living people? Or for non-person biographical articles of animals? The parameter is about WP:Biographies of living persons, which kinda spells out its scope in its title.  Sdkb  talk 19:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point about animals! It should be blp=yes for bios of living people, blp=no for bios of dead people. Effectively if the article is tagged with WikiProject Biography and doesn't have the blp/living parameter set it ends up in Category:Biography articles without living parameter. I think it needs to be worded clearer than I put it... -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, the ability to use it but set it to "no" was what I was missing. I took a stab at clarifying. Thanks,  Sdkb  talk 19:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Your wording is definitely clearer. I noticed you changed the TemplateData too to make it required - I wasn't sure about that because it's not required for all articles, and I don't know what impacts that change would have. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the default is "no", and the parameter is marked as required and missing, I assume that's fine? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * My brain is asleep today haha; self-reverted the TemplateData part.  Sdkb  talk 21:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just need some more coffee. :-) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

If I am understanding correctly, all or most of the living/blp parameters should have been transferred into the banner shell by now. Would it be worth setting up a tracking category to find which ones have not been? Then we can look at removing those parameters from WikiProject Biography &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Set index articles
I tried to rate a WP:WikiProject Military history article as a set index article in the WikiProject banner shell. Category:SIA-Class military history articles does exist, but it inexplicably defined it as a list-class article. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  20:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Martin. — Qwerfjkl  talk  22:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * SIA is non-standard so cannot be used in the banner shell. Yes it's an alias to "List" on the standard scale. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay then. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  00:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Possible bug?
What's gone wrong with Talk:Abu Bakr Rabee Ibn Ahmad Al-Akhawyni Bokhari still having WikiProjects saying they are Unassessed when stub is in the banner shell? Is the length of the article title an issue at all? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Kj cheetham, fixed, there was a stray  which presumably messed up the pattern matching. —  Qwerfjkl  talk  19:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! Thank you. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

living/blp on categories
Should no/no be removed on category talks only, since there are no categorization changes whether or not they're used? I've seen them on a small-ish # of very old WP Years+WP Biography categories.

Presumably, yes & yes should be kept even on categories, since the category is then added to ? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Tom.Reding: If you remove those parameters from a talk page with WP Biography, then the talk page will appear on Category:Biography articles without living parameter until the parameter is readded. GoingBatty (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)


 * that's true on article talks, but not for category talks. no seem to be useless on cats, so I've started removing them while doing more significant changes.  ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Tom.Reding: Thank you for setting me straight. GoingBatty (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Use of Template:Banner holder
Module:Banner shell is currently calling Template:Banner holder. I'm not overly keen on a module calling a template, but in this case the module overrides most of the default functions of Banner holder. So I'm wondering if this template could be bypassed and its functionality merged into the module? Ping @Izno who was involved in some 2022 changes &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Banner holder is intended to be 1) a generalization for WPBS, which you reimplemented in this module despite using the general name, and 2) a holder for tmboxes that aren't WikiProject banners. I don't see an issue merging it into the module, but it would be prudent to separate out the WikiProject-specific parts into their own part of the module and then call the holder function, which should be a public API. And given the name of the module, that function should probably be the "main" function, with the WikiProject specific portions in some . Izno (talk) 17:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay let's merge it into the module. I don't think the name of the module and its functions are particularly important, but no opposition to your ideas. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Started in sandbox. Lots more work and testing needed yet &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:55, 18 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Coding finished and I'm fairly happy with it. Further testing still to do. @Izno: would you mind checking the stylesheets because I'm not very knowledgeable on that aspect? I assume I can merge Template:Banner holder/styles.css and Template:WikiProject banner shell/styles.css into Module:Banner shell/styles.css? Are there any further improvements possible, for example the hard-coded styles on L-37 and L-200? I don't understand your comments at Module:Banner shell/styles.css but can any improvements be made here? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't get any response from Izno, but it passed all my tests so ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

One issue I've just noticed. It no longer makes the small banners large when inside the shell - (see Template:Banner holder/doc). This is supposed to be done by Module:Banner shell/styles.css but not sure why it's not working now &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Module:Message box/tmbox.css isn't being changed back to 100%, it seems. –  11:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Could it be the order of the definitions? Before it was  and now it's the other way round  . Perhaps the overriding definition needs to come later? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:19, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's probably what's causing it. In any case, you could always just throw in a few s :V –   14:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I switched the order in the sandbox and that seems to have fixed it. This is why I asked Izno to check! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Spacing change?
Is it just me, or does this template suddenly have a lot less space between the contents and the border? jlwoodwa (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably related to the above. I have switched the order of the definitions. Please confirm (after a purge) if that is looking normal again? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Add tracking categories
@MSGJ Can you help add some tracking categories of WPBS? If we already have such tracking categories, please let me know, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Disambiguation pages or redirect pages are assigned classes.
 * 2) Contains incorrect attribute values, e.g. living=no}.


 * Hi Kanashimi
 * It should be impossible to assign classes to non-articles. Or rather, the template will just ignore those classes. Do you mean you want to find these incorrect parameters to remove? Wouldn't that be classes as a cosmetic edit, if the parameter is being ignored anyway?
 * Do you want me to track any values which are not valid as "yes" or "no"? That would be everything except yes, y, true, t, on, 1, no, n, false, f, off, 0. Yes that should be possible.
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * GoingBatty mentioned that for these type of articles, the robot needn't inherit the class. I think if there is a tracking category like this, the robot can just delete the class.
 * Yes, Ipigott mentioned that wrong parameter values could cause template errors. If there is such a tracking category, I think the robot can help to correct them.
 * Kanashimi (talk) 09:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thinking of tracking categories, is there one like Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells but just for articles (well article talk pages), i.e. not userspace or draftspace, etc. Would it be useful...? I'm thinking partly to see how much the PIQA bots have left to do in that area. Thanks. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Not yet, but would be simple enough to set up. Alternatively, shall we propose adding the banner shell to other namespaces too? That is kind of out of scope of PIQA, but it seems that it has been universally accepted in article space, so editors might expect to see them in other namespaces too &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Kj cheetham I created Category:Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

I notice that Talk:48th Brigade (United Kingdom) is tracked as not having a banner shell, but it does have a banner shell &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Invalid parameters
Code on Module:Banner shell/sandbox for tracking any invalid values of blp, living, blpo, activepol, collapsed or category and will place them in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Code deployed &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone else want to lend a hand at Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters and we can get these cleaned up &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've fixed about 70 of the 100-odd talk pages in the category, mostly those with either simple typos in the living/blp parameter values, or those where an Image requested tag was mistakenly in the banner shell. There's about 27 remaining, most of which are where the blp status is unknown or conflicting.  Harryboyles  09:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to let people know that Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters is now tracking invalid uses of the class parameter. Basically anything other than stub/start/c/b/ga/a/fa/fl will end up in this category (sorted under "Z") &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Conflicting ratings
A few suggestions to help process articles with conflicting quality ratings: I think these would resolve a lot of the conflicting ratings. Please suggest any more with rationale and example &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If the conflicting ratings comprise no more than a third of the total number of banners THEN use the majority rating
 * Rationale: the majority rating is more likely to be correct rather than an anomaly
 * Example:
 * If there is only one conflicting rating AND it comprises more than a third of the total number of banners AND it differs by no more than one grade THEN use the higher rating
 * Rationale: the higher rating is more likely to be more recent as articles tend to improve over time
 * Example:
 * Proposal changed from 25% to a third because that still represents a clear majority &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that some television season articles are in that category because they are marked incorrectly as a list (Talk:A Certain Scientific Railgun season 1). Not sure how many of those are there, but those are an easy fix. Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there an easy way to detect if an article is a list? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Television season articles are not lists as they should have sections detailing various aspects of them. If they look like a list that is just because they are at a start level. So any that are marked as a list are just wrong. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A GA, FA or A rating should override the others. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  22:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have fixed all GAs that do not have A-Class ratings. I am not sure how to deal with A-Class, as that seems project specific and not Wikipedia-wide to me. —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I still believe we should retire A-class from the project-wide scale. It has never been adopted by the project at large, and the tentative plans to set up a project-wide review process have not led anywhere &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This information shouldn't be removed by bot. I know the number of articles involved is very large but the rules of thumb you propose are highly error-prone. In many cases the minority rating will be the correct one because an editor re-rated the article (e.g. because its quality had improved) but only changed one banner (because they were a member of that WikiProject or because they forgot to change the others etc.). This is actually what happened in the example you give, where B-class was what should have been used in the banner: it was the most recent rating given by a human assessing the article's quality (though I've now re-appraised the article and in my opinion it's C-class).We still need to look at these on a case-by-case basis, but ideally we can group many articles into the same case: for instance, Talk:43rd People's Choice Awards, Talk:44th People's Choice Awards, Talk:46th People's Choice Awards will likely all have the same resolution, as might many other pages in some common awards category.The starting place may be to identify how contradictory "List"/non-list assessments should be resolved. My suspicion is that the "List" assessment will be correct in most cases, but note that sometimes the intention might be to rate the list's quality like MilHist does and so this information shouldn't be removed without discussion by the WikiProjects. — Bilorv ( talk ) 09:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand your points, but without some automation I do not see any realistic way of clearing these conflicts and implementing PIQA which is the strong will of the community. My proposals above were designed to be moderate and low-risk, but if you have better suggestions then I'm keen to hear them. The list/non-list issue is difficult because there are lots of articles which are partly list and partly prose, and it is not clear how to classify these. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to break Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings down by WikiProject and to invite people to fix this? It is only 120k articles overall, so if we get a hundred people from the active and semi-active WikiProjects to help out, it should be possible to deal with this backlog by hand (or Rater) in a few weeks. —Kusma (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a decent idea. We could either split up the category by using a sort key (so WikiProject Biography sorted under "B" for example), or we can create separate categories for any WikiProject that is interested in helping out (e.g. Category:WikiProject Biography articles with conflicting quality ratings) &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sort key only really works for articles that only belong to one WikiProject, so is perhaps not the best way to deal with articles with conflicting ratings (unless you want to sort by the odd one out). Categories should work better. —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll add categories according to the scheme suggested above. Once the category is created, it will start populating &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It might be better to just use category instersection tools (e.g. Petscan). — Qwerfjkl  talk  16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good idea! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 49621 for WPBio &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I prefer to start small: fixed all 18 from Category:Mainz task force articles. Off to the next WikiProject... —Kusma (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not the same as the category I was planning to make though. That is 49621 pages with conflicts which also have the WPBio template on them. My category would be just the WPBio templates which are causing the conflict, which would probably be much smaller ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter which of the project templates "causes the conflict"; from my experience in an hour of fixing rating conflicts today, the odd one out is correct a lot of the time (there were a lot of GAs with non-GA rating in the banner shell template). —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. — Qwerfjkl  talk  11:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can we tell how many of the 123k articles have a conflict only between Stub and Start? Nurg (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Not with the current tracking methods. All conflicts are lumped together in one category. Why do you ask? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * this might work if it doesn't timeout. Gonnym (talk) 10:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Martin, I asked because I wondered if they were (a) quite numerous (b) low-risk for an automated tool to deal with. Low-risk because Start would usually be the right class (my guess, and see WhatamIdoing's comment at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 10), and the harm would not be very great in cases where the tool got it wrong. If it's only 1% of the 123k, it's not worth bothering with, but if it was 10% or 20%, worth investigating further, preliminary to farming out the whole lot for WikiProjects to do manually (if we go that way). Nurg (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is a substantial amount. Just adding "WikiProject Biography articles" to Gonnym's petscan makes it not time out and yields 32663 WPBIO articles that have both stub and start ratings. Some of these might also have C-Class ratings but I guess a third of the total conflict is stub/start. —Kusma (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the subsequent comments from everyone. Maybe we could consider semi-automated responses for start/stub conflicts, perhaps with AWB set to 500 words or ORES or some trade-off between including most affected pages and reducing false results. Kusma's investigation confirms my suspicion that the odd-one-out rating is often the correct one. It'd be brilliant if we could do some Petscan links for major WikiProjects and enlist help to fix this. It should be stressed that this is not a technical change but a content assessment and that the editors are responsible for determining which rating is accurate. If that means we re-assess a good deal of articles from first principles then that's also work worth doing (I'm sure we also have hundreds of thousands of consistent but years-out-of-date class assessments).Can anyone look at the list situation—is it a substantial percentage of these pages? Is there information that needs to be kept in the non-list-class ratings? — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion per above, that we could perhaps all get behind? We can change 3000 to a different number. I am using byte count rather than word count because I don't know how to automatically count words. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * IF the PIQA rating is Start-class AND the conflicting ratings are Stub-class (or vice versa) and the size of the article is more than 3000 bytes THEN use Start-class
 * Rationale: an article of size 3kB+ is unlikely to be a stub
 * Example:


 * While I would prefer "500 words" or "ORES rating is better than Stub", I think this will probably work OK. I still think we should crowdsource all of the more complicated cases. —Kusma (talk) 11:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Articles using WikiProject banner shell with empty class parameter
Category:Articles using WikiProject banner shell with empty class parameter is now empty, and I don't think we need this tracking category anymore, as any article picked up by this should also be in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)