Template talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Archive 1

Archive 1

Overhall

The following changes have been made to the template:

• Replaced deprecated HTML tags with CSS
• Added whitespace inside ParserFunctions to make them easier to read and understand. This will not affect the template's output.
• Only show assessment ratings if it is on the talk page of an article. Other assessment classes may show depending on the type of talk page. (Template for templates, Cat for categories)
• Assessment classes can no be in lowercase
• Can now assess an article as a disambiguation page using class=Dab
• Included {{check talk}} which will give a warning if the template is not placed on a talk page.
• Switch from {{SERVER}}{{localurl}} to {{fullurl}}
• If an article has not been assessed, then it will show that it needs assessment
• Places only articles into Category:WikiProject Anime and manga articles along with one of the assessment categories.
• Places templates into Category:WikiProject Anime and manga templates
• Places categories into Category:WikiProject Anime and manga categories
• Places everything else into Category:Non-article anime and manga pages
• Moved AMCOTW notice into template instead of the todo page.
• Removed unnecessary <tr></tr> tags which were duplicating by wikitable markup

--TheFarix (Talk) 22:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

This is kinda funny, because I just got finished editing {{WikiProject DIGI}} to take up less space and be more useful. I'll have to go back and add some of those things too, like the check talk. I also made a little "Quick help" section when you click on show, using an idea I had when I saw the "Other pages of interest:" line from this template. -- Ned Scott 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Also gotta see what WP:DIGI wants to do with the whole article assessment thing. -- Ned Scott 23:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the other things I saw done with WikiProject boxes was to include the associated CotW nomination in as well. Even if it will help streamline the number of banners at the top of a talk page, I'm not sure that is entirely sure it is a good idea. --TheFarix (Talk) 03:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we need all those articles in Category:WikiProject Anime and manga articles? It's a really big category now and I see no need for it. If I want to find an anime series I used the anime series category, if I want to see a manga character then I use the character category. What's the use of an all encapsulating category? Isn't that why we split Category:Anime up? --Squilibob 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Anime and manga articles is a WikiProject category, not an article category. It's not meant to find articles, but to list articles within our project's scope, etc. -- Ned Scott 11:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Template name

Could someone make some template pages with shorter names that redirect to this one? I know it's not necessary, but it wouldn't hurt (it's quicker to type, takes up less space on talk pages, and someone who doesn't know the template name would be more likely to find something that redirects here.) I was thinking something like: Template:WP Anime and manga, Template:WPAnime, and Template:WPManga. 24.126.199.129 18:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they already have. {{anime}} and {{manga}}. -- Ned Scott 19:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh wow. How did I miss that? Thanks. 24.126.199.129 09:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Instructions

I have added Instructions on how to assess articles if the class= parameter is omitted. --Squilibob 16:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and take these out now. With most of the article assessed, it isn't needed any longer. --Farix (Talk) 00:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It could still be useful to have around. *shrugs*. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's okay, not many users were taking notice of it anyway. Duane and I still do the majority of the assessments. --Squilibob 10:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Simple change in wording

Do to a dispute over on WP:ANI about whether the words "is part of" in a WP Template was a declaration of "ownership" on part of the WikiProject, I've decided to alter the wording here to "is within the scope of" which is a more neutral phrase. --TheFarix (Talk) 17:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Bring back the to-do list.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the tempalte before the huge portal link was added. I think the to/do list was the most useful thing about this template. I also liked linking to some of the instruction pages dealing with anime and manga topics. i.e disucssion pages or the WP:MOS-JA. (I find the article rating system to be too artibrary to be on any real use.) Why was that removed? The info is so hard to find now because it's buried at the bottom of the main project page. [1] --Kunzite 01:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Smaller

I think we can make it even smaller without hurting anything. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 08:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Japanese chars for Bleach taskforce

I have unilaterally changed the characters for bankai into kurosaki - might be somewhat non-neutral and not overall representative of Bleach, but I feel they are well-recognizable characters even for non-Japanese-speaking fans. The reason is that IMO we shouldn't display any symbol of the swastika unless it is relevant, important or required. None of these apply to this case. I realize that it's not just a Nazi symbol, but there's no reason to use it, well, for no apparent reason. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no particular objections to the switch away from bankai, and indeed half-expected this would happen eventually. To explain myself, I chose the bankai kanji because I needed a quick logo and they are quite recognizable to fans. This is for a variety of reasons, such as the relatively simple shapes, bankai itself being a major plot element, the incorporation graphically as Ichigo's sword guard (which ensures that the meaning will have to be explained even in the English editions), etc. Indeed, their inclusion of the swastika probably makes them all the more memorable to English speakers.

However, I don't think Kurosaki makes a useful substitute, since even though it's the main character's last name there is no reason a casual fan would know what it means. How about we go with the far more obvious choice, and what I probably should have used in the first place, 死神? --tjstrf talk 19:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

List class

Lists need ratings. Making all lists as a grouped "unrated" class just defeats the point of article assessment. I remember this being brought up once on WikiProject Lists, about encouraging WikiProjects to rate their lists instead of using a "list-class". There really isn't a reason we wouldn't want to rate lists. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion of the the "list-class" even after a couple of editors brought it up. Still this class is more for lists—such as the List of anime conventions and would normally be given "class=NA"—instead of articles arranged in lists, like a List of XYZ characters. --Farix (Talk) 01:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any discussion either, but regardless it's a good point that the guy brought up. While I can see the point in using it for things like List of anime conventions, I think there's going to be a bit of confusion on when not to use list-class. -- Ned Scott 04:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Portal

I thought it was decided that we were only going to have a text link to the Portal on this WikiProject notice. Is the portal that important that it has to take up as much space as it does? --Squilibob 10:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the face being used is identical to the one that's already on the left by default anyway, so it's rather redundant. As another comment, why was the banner made to use "X-work-group=yes" rather than the previous switchable taskforce field? It makes the code longer and more difficult to type. --tjstrf talk 16:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing it was incase more than one taskforce applied, but I doubt that will be much of a problem for us. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I don't think it was worth making that change just so that the one Dragon Ball Z convention can be properly tagged. Besides, if it ever came up, couldn't that be dealt with by adding a "taskforce2="? --tjstrf talk 05:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Request edit

{{edit protected}}

God, I hate that the template has been protected when the template is under active development do to some new functionality. And I don't like having to go though an administrator to make simple changes. Anywho

Change:

{{WikiProject Anime and manga/B list | B1={{{B1|{{{b1}}}}}} | B2={{{B2|{{{b2}}}}}} | B3={{{B3|{{{b3}}}}}} | B4={{{B4|{{{b4}}}}}} | B5={{{B5|{{{b5}}}}}} | B6={{{B6|{{{b6}}}}}} }}

To:

{{WikiProject Anime and manga/B list | B1={{{B1|{{{b1}}}}}} | B2={{{B2|{{{b2}}}}}} | B3={{{B3|{{{b3}}}}}} | B4={{{B4|{{{b4}}}}}} | B5={{{B5|{{{b5}}}}}} | B6={{{B6|{{{b6}}}}}} | sort={{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}} }}

--Farix (Talk) 00:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have requested the protecting admin to drop the protection to semi, as there is a few changes still to be done, which are under discussion. G.A.S 04:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ping me when you're done so I can put it back up. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't think full protection is warranted. The template doesn't have a significant history of vandalism, and the few times it was vandalized, it was quickly dealt with. Full protection cuts the template off from its developers/maintainers and it ultimately causes more headaches then it prevents. --Farix (Talk) 12:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Future changes still being discussed include:

• Adding an importance parameter. For use in assessing importance for cleanup. (Ready for implimentation)
• Adding a "needs TLC" parameter. For use in identifying major cleanup projects. (Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Cleanup task force).
• Other changes has not yet been discussed, but are likely.

G.A.S 12:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on the importance parameter and setting up the required categories. You may also want to look at my mockup and see what other switches you think is appropriate to include. --Farix (Talk) 12:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of the cleanup parameters are redundant ( to ) as anything tagged with anything from here will be listed – in time – here. The "Needs TLC" (or whatever) parameter is to provide a single worklist for the cleanup taskforce. We still need to decide on a name for it.

Only templates listed inherently on the talk page, such as {{newinfobox}}, {{reqimageother}}, add infobox or image requests may need to be embedded, with the appropriate categories. G.A.S 12:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: change Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga#Article assessment → Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment once the latter page has been finalised. G.A.S 13:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a very unwieldy list and unlikely to be update without a bot. It is also very intimidating. --Farix (Talk) 13:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But that is just that - it is auto updated from time to time, meaning we pick up the actual maintenance tags on the articles. The new version will include importance and quality as well to help prioritise, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Cleanup listing for an example. G.A.S 15:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) Can you add the following parameters please:

• "needs-TLC", like "attention" in {{Physics}} (Is there a better icon?)
• "needs-image", per your mockup
• "needs-infobox", per your mockup
• "It has been suggested that this page be merged with one or more pages." per your mockup; showing below "needs-TLC". (For those cases where we find articles with 57 sub-articles)

Please add a description field to "needs-TLC" and "merge", to allow us to add specific details, see {{copyedit}} for an example.

These should populate appropriate categories.

Thank you, G.A.S 06:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done Added attention, merge, split, needs-infobox, and needs-image as implemented in the mockup. It's better to mention specifics details on the talk page instead of trying to hack it into the template. needs-TLC just comes off as really bad, but the point is to draw attention to articles which needs serious work. --Farix (Talk) 13:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, while it would probably be better to mention details, we will likely start using these parameters when we are reassessing the 8000 odd articles in our scope; so mentioning it on the talk page may take too much time. Comments in the banner will serve the same purpose. (Mind if I update the documentation accordingly?) G.A.S 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already added the new params to the documentation. But if you think something needs to be clarified, go ahead. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit. Should the parameter not add the talk page to an appropriate category? Currently it just activates the icon and message. G.A.S 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It use too, but the category was deleted for remaining empty. --Farix (Talk) 17:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure whether the parameter is needed though, this kind of discussions have a way of finding attention at WT:ANIME. G.A.S 17:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Still, so long as the code is present in the template, it should be documented. Now is the consideration of if the cleanup categories should include {{hiddencat}}. --Farix (Talk) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not in article space, so it is not a major issue. Category:Articles to be merged is hidden, so it may be better to follow suit. G.A.S 17:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested redirect

Could we get a redirect from {{WikiProject Anime and Manga}} to this template? The reason I habitually use {{anime}} instead of the proper form, forcing others to clean up after me, is I can never remember the wonky capitalization. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For that matter, a redirect from {{Wikiproject Anime and manga}} would likely be a good idea too (and just so you know, {{WikiProject anime and manga}} and {{Wikiproject anime and manga}} are both valid redirects[2]). —Dinoguy1000 18:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to note this, but I made them a few days ago when I saw this thread. Redirects are cheap :) -- Ned Scott 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance

We're bothering with the importance field? I guess I don't object to that.. but.. meh.. -- Ned Scott 12:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please continue this discussion here (in order to avoid fragmented discussions)? Comments will be appreciated. IMHO, this was mainly added to help prioritise the cleanup efforts of WP:ANIME/CLEANUP. (See WP:ANIME/CLEANUP/LIST for the current backlog. G.A.S 13:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible optimization

Would changing the following code break anything?

    | Talk = {{
      #switch: {{ lc:{{WikiProject Anime and manga/B check | class={{{class}}} | B1={{{B1|{{{b1}}}}}} | B2={{{B2|{{{b2}}}}}} | B3={{{B3|{{{b3}}}}}} | B4={{{B4|{{{b4}}}}}} | B5={{{B5|{{{b5}}}}}} | B6={{{B6|{{{b6}}}}}} }} }}
      | fa          = [[Category:FA-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | fl          = [[Category:FL-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | a           = [[Category:A-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | ga          = [[Category:GA-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | b           = [[Category:B-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | c           = [[Category:C-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | start       = [[Category:Start-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | stub        = [[Category:Stub-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | list        = [[Category:List-Class anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | disambig
      | dab | na    = [[Category:Non-article anime and manga pages|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | #default    = [[Category:Unassessed anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
    }}{{
      #switch: {{ lc:{{{class}}} }}
      | disambig
      | dab | na    = [[Category:NA-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      | #default    = {{
        #switch: {{ lc:{{{importance}}} }}
        | top       = [[Category:Top-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
        | high      = [[Category:High-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
        | mid       = [[Category:Mid-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
        | low       = [[Category:Low-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
        | na        = [[Category:NA-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
        | #default  = [[Category:Unknown-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]
      }}

to

    | Talk = [[Category:{{
      #switch: {{ lc:{{WikiProject Anime and manga/B check | class={{{class}}} | B1={{{B1|{{{b1}}}}}} | B2={{{B2|{{{b2}}}}}} | B3={{{B3|{{{b3}}}}}} | B4={{{B4|{{{b4}}}}}} | B5={{{B5|{{{b5}}}}}} | B6={{{B6|{{{b6}}}}}} }} }}
      | fa          = FA-Class
      | fl          = FL-Class
      | a           = A-Class
      | ga          = GA-Class
      | b           = B-Class
      | c           = C-Class
      | start       = Start-Class
      | stub        = Stub-Class
      | list        = List-Class
      | disambig
      | dab | na    = Non-article
      | #default    = Unassessed
    }} anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]][[Category:{{
      #switch: {{ lc:{{{class}}} }}
      | disambig
      | dab | na    = NA
      | #default    = {{
        #switch: {{ lc:{{{importance}}} }}
        | top       = Top
        | high      = High
        | mid       = Mid
        | low       = Low
        | na        = NA
        | #default  = Unknown
      }}-importance anime and manga articles|{{{listas|{{PAGENAME}}}}}]]

If not, it would make the code at least look a lot neater, and remove a bit of otherwise unnecessary redundancy. —Dinoguy1000 17:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Other then I hates it and find it more confusing? --Farix (Talk) 18:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh... really? Personally, it seems clearer to me, but whatever... ;) —Dinoguy1000 19:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I only gave a reason, I didn't say that it was a good one. ;) --Farix (Talk) 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not really sure if WP:ILIKEIT would apply to this type of change... <.< >.> —Dinoguy1000 21:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Doc update

Can we get a documentation update with the B check list info already? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

B checklist

Can the template be modified to show the B class checklist always, or at least for C articles, so editors can see if it is has been evaluated against the B list and what its lacking if it has? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done Unfortunately, a admin has fully protected the check template (unnecessarily in my opinion). So I can't update it so the B-class checklist can override the C in class field. --Farix (Talk) 20:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Unprotected. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with the knee-jerk reactions of fully protecting templates when there is little to no history of vandalism. I think that templates should only receive full protection once a long history of repeated vandalism has been established. Semi-protection works out a whole lot better and less disruptive if you want to protect high-use templates from the Zodiac vandal. --Farix (Talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you're preaching to the choir here, because I agree. "High-risk" templates are only high risk when they are transcluded tens of thousands of times, or in sensitive pages. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Much appreciated :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the B-class checklist will be evaluated whether the class field is set to either B or C. --Farix (Talk) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Another request: Can the template be set up to assess articles as B class if B1...B6 is set=yes, regardless of |class=? G.A.S 05:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Another request: Can the template be set up so that that when none of B1-B6 flags have been set (that is, are absent) that the text "This article has been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria" be changed to read "This article has not been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria" -- that is, add "not"? Since, after all, if no one's added the flags, the article has, in fact, not been reviewed. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Second that one! Its right confusing to see it say it has been when I know it hasn't. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I recommend adding "yet" as well, as in, it should be reviewed:)—"This article has not been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria yet"

IMHO, the following sounds better and would be far simpler/more compact to implement: "This article has not yet been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria". Thoughts? —Dinoguy1000 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That is even better;) now if only someone can update the template. (And frankly, I would say, if b1...b6 is no, the article should be rated start class) G.A.S 17:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

• Summary of requests as at 28 August 2008:—G.A.S 06:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If B1-B6 has not been completed, the description should read "This article has not yet been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria"  Done

    This does not seem to work yet, refer to almost any article in Category:Anime and manga articles with incomplete B-Class checklists, and I have tried to purge the cache (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Setsuna%20Sakurazaki&action=purge), can you please follow up?

    Looking at the banner, it's because in the call to {{WikiProject Anime and manga/B list}}, the parameters are unpiped (e.g. |B1 = {{{B1|{{{b1}}}}}}). This means that if B_n is undefined, then instead of nothing, which the switch relies on, the text "{{{b_n}}}" would get passed. This doesn't mean anything for the important parts of the template, but does mean that the text "not yet" will never get displayed. Fixing this involves inserting a pipe after the second parameter (e.g. |B1 = {{{B1|{{{b1|}}}}}}), which should not affect current functionality in any way. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

    I just fixed this, hopefully everything is working correctly now. —Dinoguy1000 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  • If B1-B6 = n, then the article should be start (only if this is very easy to implement, otherwise not required)  Not done
  • |bwg=yes which means the same as |biography-work-group=yes, it is quite tedious writing "biography-work-group" out for each of the voice actor stubs.  Done

Since there've been no further comments, I went ahead and did the first and third requests. I did not, however, implement the second one because it would have been far too difficult to do and would have resulted in ridiculously complicated code (unless I don't know about some feature of wikimarkup here). —Dinoguy1000 21:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Do not worry about the second one, its much easier just to access an article as "start" in the first place, and much faster. G.A.S 04:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Actually, though, after giving it lots and lots of thought at work (like I need to use my brain for anything else there ;) ), I came up with a very simple method for doing this. The code for it follows, and barring any objections, I'll replace the current contents of {{WikiProject Anime and manga/B check}} with it tomorrow or Monday (note that I wrote it as I was typing, though, so there may be a bug or two lurking in there somewhere... do you see any potential problems, Farix?).

Code

{{
 #switch: {{uc:{{{class}}}}} | B | C =<!-- passes B-class test -->{{
    #switch: {{
      #expr: {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B1}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | 0 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B2}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | 0 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B3}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | 0 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B4}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | 0 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B5}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | 0 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B6}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | 0 }}
      }} | 0 = Start <!-- fails everything: Start-class --> | 6 = B <!-- passes everything: B-Class --> | C <!-- otherwise, C-Class -->
    }}
  | {{{class}}} <!-- not B- or C-Class: ignore the whole loop -->
}}

This code is actually slightly more compact than the current code (especially if you take out some of the whitespace), and looks as clean as it is (IMHO). --User:Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 03:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I tried to implement this, but got bad results (evidently, the code ends up calling for {{START-Class td}}, which doesn't exist), I'll look into this and see if there's any way around it. Also, why is it necessary to make sure |class= is either B or C? B check should never get called unless that is the case, and therefore the check should be unnecessary. —Dinoguy1000 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

All right, I fixed the issue (a matter of figuring out that there is a {{Start-Class td}} template) and re-applied the new code. You can see an example article at Talk:ARCAM Private Army. Sorry for the screwup before this... -_-;; —Dinoguy1000 17:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

B-Class criteria checklist for B-Class articles

I suggest displaying the B-class criteria ONLY if an article is set to C. If any B-class criteria is failed, the article should be set to C or lower anyways.

• Suggested change to the template
• Suggested change to the documentation

-- Goodraise (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The change you made also hide the criteria for articles set to B, regardless of whether they had been verified as actually being B or not, which is not good. Also, I think showing the checklist for other classes is fine if someone has done a checklist for it, as it means it has been evaluated and found lacking in enough areas to still be Start rather than C, per the assessment guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm also against this change, and personally would like to see the checklist displayed for Start-Class as well, since the checklist is able to automatically reassess an article as Start-Class if everything is failed. —Dinoguy1000 16:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am against the change as well; but disagree on showing it on all start class articles (Too much admin, we have nearly 4000 start class articles). Is it possible to show it only on start class articles where at least one ofb1...b6=n/y instead? G.A.S^talk 20:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible.

Code

|start=<tr>{{{{ ucfirst:{{ lc:{{{class}}} }} }}-Class td}}</td><td>This article has been '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment|rated]]''' as '''{{ ucfirst:{{ lc:{{{class}}} }} }}-Class''' on the [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|assessment scale]].{{
   #switch: {{
      #expr: {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B1}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B2}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B3}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B4}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B5}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B6}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }}
      }} | -54 = <!-- nothing --> | {{WikiProject Anime and manga/B list | B1={{{B1|{{{b1|}}}}}} | B2={{{B2|{{{b2|}}}}}} | B3={{{B3|{{{b3|}}}}}} | B4={{{B4|{{{b4|}}}}}} | B5={{{B5|{{{b5|}}}}}} | B6={{{B6|{{{b6|}}}}}} | sort={{ #if: {{{listas|}}} | {{{listas}}} | {{PAGENAME}} }} }} <!-- otherwise, show it -->
}}</td></tr>
    | stub           = <tr>{{{{ ucfirst:{{ lc:{{{class}}} }} }}-Class td}}</td><td>This article has been '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment|rated]]''' as '''{{ ucfirst:{{ lc:{{{class}}} }} }}-Class''' on the [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment|assessment scale]].</td></tr>

Just a bit of copy-and-pasteing... -- Goodraise (talk) 00:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

While we're at it... I suggest changing {{WikiProject Anime and manga/B check}} to:

Code

{{
 #switch: {{uc:{{{class}}}}} | B | C =<!-- passes B-class test -->{{
    #switch: {{
      #expr: {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B1}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B2}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B3}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B4}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B5}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }} + {{
        #switch: {{uc:{{{B6}}}}} | YES | Y | TRUE | T | PASS | P = 1 | NO | N | FALSE | F | FAIL = 0 | -9 }}
      }} | -45 = Start | -36 = Start | -27 = Start | -18 = Start | -9 = Start | 0 = Start <!-- passes nothing: Start-class --> | 6 = B <!-- passes everything: B-Class --> | C <!-- otherwise, C-Class -->
    }}
  | {{{class}}} <!-- not B- or C-Class: ignore the whole loop -->
}}<noinclude>
{{intricate}}
{{Documentation, template}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

This way articles that have at leaste one of the b1...6=n and none =y would be down-rated to Start instead of C. (At the moment only those with all of b1...6=n are down-rated to Start.) -- Goodraise (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have yet to see a case where this would be required... and in most cases the C-class (auto-)assessment is actually correct. G.A.S^talk 10:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, when I first implemented auto-assessing down to Start-class, this is actually how the template behaved, and G.A.S specifically requested it to be changed (which I wholeheartedly agreed to after carefully thinking about it). And I would like to point out that if any of B1–B6 are set to "yes", "true", etc., the article will be assessed as C- (or B-)class, so there is should be no point in making it display for Start-class articles in those cases (along that line of thought, I just realized it probably wouldn't hurt for the template to also be able to reassess articles that are manually rated Start-class, and therefore, if any of B1–B6 are defined, the checklist should be displayed (per G.A.S's question above)... thoughts?). —Dinoguy1000 17:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The original modification (per my comment which Dimoguy1000 referred to above), rated 6x blank=start; I believe Goodraise's code would rate 6x blank=C, but 1x No + 5 blanks=start.

On the second part, I think that would be OK.

Regards, G.A.S^talk 21:06, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct, that's what the second code piece does. The first piece of code, by the way, does exaclty what you requested in the comment I replied it to. It just doesn't look too pretty, as it was meant as a proof of concept, rather than an elegant way of doing it. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go ahead and update the template to be able to reassess Start-class articles as well (and hope that I don't break it (again -_-;; ) in the process). —Dinoguy1000 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as of this revison, it only up-assesses Start-Class to B-Class, but never to C-Class. It also displays the B-List for every Start-Class article, including those with all B1-6 unset. (Though I don't find the usefullnes in that, I don't understand the harm G.A.S sees in it either.) -- Goodraise (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The 4520 members of Category:Anime and manga articles with incomplete B-Class checklists. (Start class) Pages like Talk:"Wooden Sword" Ryu, which have not been rated yet, should really not display the checklist. Category:Automatically reassessed anime and manga articles is working correctly though. G.A.S^talk 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This would be because I started on the changes prematurely - I didn't have sufficient time to fully think through my changes and fully test and debug them, but I didn't realize this until I'd already committed my first change (I suppose, then, I should have just reverted and left it until today). That being said, after I get this straightened out, I'm going to create /sandbox and /testcases subpages (something that really should have been done some time ago) for testing new features before they get deployed and break a third of the banner transclusions (as fun as it is to do that... ^_^ ). —Dinoguy1000 16:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed the B-Class checklist displaying on Start-Class articles that don't have any of the checklist params defined, and the associated category is now emptying out (down to 3476 articles ATM). I'll get a couple more WP:CATSCAN links in Category:Automatically reassessed anime and manga articles in a second so I can track down testcases for Start-Class reassessment as I fix the issue of them only reassessing to B-Class. Strike that, it would require more edits to the banner, implementing more categories - something I'm *not* about to do. —Dinoguy1000 16:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it should all be fixed now. Feel free to bash me some more if there's still a problem I overlooked, though. =) —Dinoguy1000 17:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! It works much better now. G.A.S^talk 11:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I would like to point out, though, that the sandbox version isn't completely ready yet... The banner needs to be modified to allow testing on the sandbox page (I think a large portion of that can be managed via the insertion of one or two |Templates in the right places, though I'd appreciate feedback/help.. on the sandbox copy ATM, of course ;) ), the B list subtemplate still needs to be copied to Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/B list/sandbox (I already did that with B check) and the sandbox copy modified to use them, and after that I have a couple of immediate projects in mind (one is just documentation-related, to aid editing and testing). —Dinoguy1000 19:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Non-article anime and manga pages

This category is currently full of random types of pages (Esp after this discussion). Can we split up the categories appropriately add appropriate subcategories? (See Template:Grading scheme/doc/see also for the naming convention).

category:Non-article anime and manga pages
|- category:Disambig-class Anime and manga articles
|- category:Redirect-class Anime and manga articles (Very interesting that there is also a "merge-class")
\- category:Image-class Anime and manga articles

I think this should be sufficient for now, as it would leave project class pages in category:Non-article anime and manga pages G.A.S^talk 05:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I would support the category split, but I suppose I should also note that I've been in favor of it all along. Also, it should be pointed out that the category had 80-something members in it, even before the earlier discussion. —Dinoguy1000 19:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Post edited above. I presume that this is what you understood? G.A.S^talk 04:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really, though it certainly helps clarify your model and I don't have any problem with it myself. —Dinoguy1000 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I support splitting them into subcats. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I've been thinking about just going ahead and doing it for a long time. At the same time, I may rename Category:WikiProject Anime and manga categories and Category:WikiProject Anime and manga templates to conform to the naming scheme as well (only for a number of template- and maintenance-related reasons; let it be known (for the millionth time) that I personally hate the name "Template/Category-Class Anime and manga articles"). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Template squoogy

Looks like someone squoodged the template: Gundam work group is always showing up, even when the parameter is missing. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It got fixed. (unrelated note, I need to get back to work on all the improvements on the sandboxed copy =P ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」 21:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dinoguy1000

...I've also made substantial contributions to the anime and manga infobox and the WP:ANIME banner (and in the latter case, I am working on updating it to use {{WPBannerMeta}}). Dinoguy1000 17:38, 2 May 2009 (GMT+2)

I hope that updating {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} to use {{WPBannerMeta}} would involve updating {{WPBannerMeta}}, as the former template is far more advanced? G.A.S^talk 04:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait, WP:ANIME's banner is more advanced than WPBM? I'm pretty sure it's actually the other way around... I don't think our banner does anything currently that WPBM can't handle (it's just a matter of me looking carefully enough at what WPBM can do and trying to find some sample banners to look off of). Perhaps we should move this discussion elsewhere, though? =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 02:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. For instance {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}:

1. Picks up and assigns |class= from the namespace (except the main namespace).
2. Uses appropriate wording, e.g. "This is a project page and is not rated on the assessment scale.", not "This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the project's quality scale."
3. Does not show importance on non-article talk pages.
4. Adds: "automatically assessed" if the given quality rating ≠ the checklist's criteria
5. Adds: "not yet" if not yet checked against the B class criteria.
6. The brown box for the checklist is much more neat than the method used in the meta template.

It would be a mighty big task to merge these banners to retain all of the functionality. :-) G.A.S^talk 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

1. WPBM can also auto-assess based on namespace, if you use FULL_QUALITY_SCALE instead of QUALITY_SCALE. However, because of all the stuff we do with assessments, we need to use QUALITY_SCALE and a class mask. I think by now, it does pretty much everything our current banner does, as far as assessing pages is concerned.
2. The wording is one of several things that has kept me from trying to upgrade to WPBM until MSGJ finally started it for me. I may ask to see if there's anything that can be done about it.
3. I don't like forcing importance to display at all times, either; it's something else I'll ask about.
4. "automatically assessed" is the same as the above wording issue, but this may be something WPBM's maintainers would like to look at adding globally.
5. Same with "not yet".
6. I'm with you on the checklist box, something else I'll ask about.

A lot of the major stuff has been done; now it's just little details like these (and adding all the taskforces and other notes) that remain to be addressed. I also need to take a really close look at how the current banner categorizes, and how much of that WPBM will automatically handle for us (and then how to address the discrepancies). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from one of the developers:

1. As dino says, each project has complete control over how it handles all class inputs, via the custom mask.
2. At the moment the wording is "This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the project's quality scale." for all non-articles. It would be very easy to change this, and indeed we can if its gets support, but it seems like a minor detail.
3. All non-articles get NA-importance as default. I think this is good because all pages get an importance and so the total of the importance categories is the same as the total of the quality classes. It also allows non-articles to be given an importance if desired - it could be desirable for some projects to keep track of important images or templates ...
4. I don't think I'm understanding this one. "Automatically assessed" normally means when a bot assesses an article as Stub-Class based on a stub template on the article. This is supported with a parameter called auto, but I don't think you are talking about this.
5. Current wording is "This article has been checked against the following criteria" and individual criteria say "not yet checked" or whatever.
6. Ah, the brown box. I'm not sure I like the colour myself, but I can see some possible advantages of putting it on the same line as the quality class. On the other hand the shows clearly that it is related to B-class. I guess this is a personal preference. Again, this is not a "finished product" and we are always trying to improve it. The idea is that projects will come together instead of all reinventing the wheel, and we steal the best features from every banner :)

Hope this helps. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1. placeholder
2. If you feel like adding another handful of parameters, it would be nice if we could customise the text, but it's not that important. ;)
3. G.A.S's point is that our banner doesn't show the importance row on non-articles; I don't think the categorization would really be a problem for us.
4. If the banner changes the assessment (via the values in the checklist), the assessment text gets changed from "This article has been rated as X-Class on the assessment scale." to "This article has been automatically rated as X-Class on the assessment scale." (this can be seen in some of the test cases, e.g. Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/testcases#B-Class, B1–B6=y vs. Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/testcases#B-Class, B1–B6=n)
5. If the article is rated as C- or B-Class, but the checklist hasn't been touched, the checklist intro text gets changed from "This article has been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria:" to "This article has not yet been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria:" (once again, this can be seen on some of the testcases).
6. I won't argue that the color could probably be improved on, but it would be nice if we could keep the box itself where it currently is.

Hopefully, you're getting a few ideas for features to steal. =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1. placeholder
2. I will sandbox a version and propose it at Template talk:WPBM.
3. I agree that NA doesn't need displaying. Maybe you could propose it at Template talk:WPBM and see what others think.
4. Not sure about this. "Automatically" suggests to me that some bot has done it. I don't see a real advantage in changing this.
5. Already implemented by Happy-melon.
6. By all means bring a proposal to Template talk:WPBM. I would likely support if the color changed ;)

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll propose some changes after I've had some sleep; I'm not thinking too clearly right now (and I'm just waiting for it to get me in trouble too XD ). Cool beans on what's already done/what you're currently looking into; no problem on the "automatically" text - like I said, it's not *that* important (but then again, what if it changed "has been assessed" to "has been automatically reassessed"?). ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you think of the wording at Template:WPBannerMeta/qualityscale/sandbox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have only followed this discussion half-heartedly, but if the automatical reassessment causes any trouble at all, I'd suggest removing it, because right now it does little more than annoy me. It was once useful to prevent vanity B-class ratings, but since T&A2008 concluded that is no longer an issue. Goodraise 08:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, the auto-reassessment isn't any trouble at all, and has already been addressed in the custom class mask. ;) We were talking about how the banner tells you if the assessment has been changed, is all. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 09:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't followed this template that closely, but I don't think the switch to {{WPBannerMeta}}. For my understanding, we are going to lose many of the improvements made to {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. If we can't get a near 100% replacement of the current template's behavior, then we shouldn't switch to the meta-template. A switch should allow the project banner to progress, but instead a switch will cause the banner to regress in many areas.

I personally think our category naming scheme is far better and more accurate than {{WPBannerMeta}}'s default scheme and would outright oppose any alteration in our scheme. Category redirects are no substitute and don't work like article or template redirects.

"This is a [page] and is not rated on the assessment scale" is mandatory. You should call something for what it is instead of what it is not. "This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the project's quality scale" is extremely clumsy wording.

Forced importance in non-article space should be avoided. It is clumsy and entirely unnecessary. But this is already being addressed. I am very much an advocate for compactness and doing only what is necessary. Therefore, if something doesn't need to be displayed, it shouldn't. Likewise with categorization, since the talk page is already categorized based on its name space, then putting it in the NA-importance cat is redundant and unnecessary. If other projects want to do this, that's fine. But it shouldn't be forced upon all projects. --Farix (Talk) 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

My feeling exactly. The purpose of {{WPBannerMeta}} is to allow the instant updating of all banners, of which most are not maintained (e.g. adding c-class involved manually editing hundreds of banners at the time). {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}, on the other hand, is maintained, new functionality is often added, and we are usually on top of new requirements for the banner. G.A.S^talk 04:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I know I've been the main one working on this update (other than MSGJ, who set it up initially and has offered additional help throughout), but I really have to agree with Farix's and G.A.S's sentiments here. That's not to say I won't continue working on the sandbox, though - I'm interested in seeing just how close I can get with WPBM. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's just fun to see how close one can get to the original (Forgive the hacks and the bad coding). ^_^ G.A.S^talk 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't waste any more time on it since we will be forced to accept too many unwanted behaviors and the banner will regress in other areas. Especially given that {{WPBannerMeta}}'s other developers aren't taking too kindly about meeting our requirements, such as not forcing the display and categorization of the independence scale outside of article space. --Farix (Talk) 22:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

On other thing I've noticed. {{WPBannerMeta}}'s implementation of |listas= is very much broken. That's because it uses the {{DEFAULTSORT}} and can be overridden by other banners on the talk page. This is entirely undesirable as |listas= should not be affected by other project banners nor should it have an affect on other project banners in return. Our implementation, while a bit messy, actually works. --Farix (Talk) 01:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out to Martin and the other {{WPBannerMeta}} developers that their mass conventions of hundreds of WP templates to {{WPBannerMeta}} and forcing projects to use a specific category naming scheme creates a fait accompli. ArbCom has already ruled against fait accompli once in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2. To avoid this and comply with the ArbCom ruling, projects should be allowed to choose their categorization naming scheme. Also, project that had their categories renamed as part of the convention to {{WPBannerMeta}} should be undone until the changes are discussed. --Farix (Talk) 03:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Steady on. Who is "forcing" projects to do anything? You'll notice that there's been no attempt to "force" WPBM on this template, or any other, only a pleasant discussion between knowledgeable editors. Simply converting banners is not an attempt to "create a fait accompli"; is it so hard to believe that we're only attempting to improve the appearance and reliability of WikiProject banners on Wikipedia? If a project raises legitimate objections then we're very keen to hear them, especially if (as in this case) they raise ideas for how we can improve WPBM and hence benefit all WikiProjects. Even if projects raise only groundless objections, they are the ones who have ultimately the most to do with their banner and so, provided they have project members who are willing and able to maintain and develop it themselves, it would be wrong, pointless and impossible for us to "force" anything on them. WPBM is about bringing the experience and skill of those coders and designers to all projects, benefiting most those projects which are smaller, less active, less likely to have appropriately-skilled editors, and yes, whose banners we have converted often without discussion. In very few of those cases have we received anything but thanks. So by all means raise objections, bugs, feature requests, suggestions for improvement. We want to hear them, we want your ideas: that's what WPBM is all about, whether or not 'your' project uses 'our' banner. But please don't project one personal opinion onto 1259 WikiProjects, two million pages and god-knows how many editors. Happy‑melon 22:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Scary, a comment from Happy-melon without one of his trademark smilies... o_O 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 02:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that fait accompli was deliberately created, but that it was created nonetheless. Most fait accompli situations are usually created out of good faith. Most of the project banners have already been converted to {{WPBannerMeta}}. During that process, all of the project's that used a different category naming schemes then that used by {{WPBannerMeta}} were changed/renamed because {{WPBannerMeta}} did not have an overriding featured. Now that there are only a couple of projects banners left to be converted and still uses an different category naming scheme, it is being used as a reason not to include the category override feature into the meta-template. Had other projects complained about this earlier, then I'm sure that overriding the default categories would have been added to the meta-template. This is why it is now a fait accompli situation. If any of the remaining projects convert their banners to {{WPBannerMeta}}, they will be forced to accept {{WPBannerMeta}}'s category scheme regardless of if there is another scheme already in place. This is the situation {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} finds itself in. --Farix (Talk) 11:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"If other projects complained about this earlier...", I hope I'm mistaking you, but this sounds to me like you're assuming that 'the other projects' feel the same way as you, but decided to keep quiet for whatever reason. I don't think there's any evidence that that was the case; rather, we haven't heard many objections because not many projects object. It would be a fait acompli situation if the remaining projects were, as a consequence of the widespread conversion, now being forced towards converting themselves, but as I've said, that's simply not the case. If any of the remaining projects convert their banners to {{WPBannerMeta}}, they will indeed need to accept {{WPBannerMeta}}'s category scheme. To use "force" in that sentence, however, is entirely incorrect: far from being forced, it's something the project brings upon itself. I won't deny that we're strongly promoting WPBM as a universal tool for WikiProject banners. To jump from "promoting" to "forcing" is a logical step that is, IMO, unsupportable. Happy‑melon 12:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If any of the remaining projects convert their banners to {{WPBannerMeta}}, they will indeed need to accept {{WPBannerMeta}}'s category scheme. That's the problem. If the remaining WikiProjects like to use {{WPBannerMeta}} to make upkeep of their banners simpler, they will be forced to use {{WPBannerMeta}}'s category scheme even if they don't want that scheme and prefer another. WikiProjects shouldn't have to be forced to accept {{WPBannerMeta}}'s default scheme if they want to use the rest of {{WPBannerMeta}}'s features.

I won't deny that we're strongly promoting WPBM as a universal tool for WikiProject banners. The only promotion I could find in my searches of other project banners have been to convince the remaining projects to accept the banner because "everyone else has already converted". The rest were converted without any prior consent of the projects involved, especially when their category scheme was changed as part of the conversion. Now they can't go back to their original category scheme without abandoning {{WPBannerMeta}} because the meta-template doesn't allow the category scheme to be overiden. And since {{WPBannerMeta}}'s scheme has been established as the "standard" because of the conversions, there is pressure for projects not to revert to their original schemes. That's very much a fait accompli.

I'm not sure why you are so resistant to increasing {{WPBannerMeta}}'s flexibility and allowing Wikiprojects to choose how their banners behave using the meta-template. Particularly were the assessment scheme is concerned. After all, Martin has already said that including the category override and the ability to override the text of the assessment ratings are trivial matters. --Farix (Talk) 13:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Again I see an overwhelming assumption - largely without evidence - that your personal perspective is self-evidently shared by the 'silent masses' behind the hundreds of WPBM banners. Why then has the spread of WPBM been so lacking in complaints? I am aware of perhaps four or five projects who have flat-out refused to contemplate conversion (several of which have since converted!), a handful which are for one reason or another fundamentally unsuited to the 'standard' setup (WPMaths, for instance), a handful waiting on upstream changes (WPBio, for instance, is on indefinite hold until the resolution of T18552), forty or so in the works, and... twelve hundred projects that are, to all appearances, 'happy customers'. Where is the repression? Who was this "pressure" directed against?? Where is the evidence that these changes were in any more than isolated cases considered a Bad Thing? I think you are calling foul in a game that was never actually played. Happy‑melon 16:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to point out the fact that the categorization scheme is largely a background issue here - ultimately, not many people really care much about the categories used internally by a project (even their own). As a result, it's really not much of a surprise no one seems to have complained about the change before now; they probably simply don't care. That being said, I've been contemplating for a while now starting work on an RfC about the category names, and if I ever go through with it, it would require spamming all the wikiprojects (and probably banner templates, too) with a notice, which would probably flush out any members who have an opinion but never bothered to voice it. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me the short answer is, the anime/manga project has rejected the use of WPBM and is fully within its rights to do so. The Films project has also continually rejected its use, also preferring the freedom and flexibility of having it as is. I'll also note that quite a few of those converted without issue were done without discussion either, because the banners were not watched that much so its likely many were never even noticed. No reason to keep beating the dead horse and derailing the remaining conversation, which is updating our own banner per ideas moved above.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've already stated I intend to continue working on a WPBM version of our banner in the sandbox - just to see how close I can get - and Happy-melon has repeatedly stated that there's no pressure to switch. He's also stated in the past that he actually agrees with my views on the category names, but at this point would resist any forced attempt to make changes to the main schema mainly on technical grounds. =D (and as for {{Film}}... maybe I should see about introducing some readability whitespace to its source; looking at solid blocks of code makes my head hurt ;P ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Dinoguy is correct: my personal opinion is that the schema, incorporating as it does "Template-Class Foo articles", uppercase C, "Top-importance Foo articles", lowercase i, "Unassessed Foo articles", no -Class; etc, is very sub-optimal. But changing it substantially now would require renaming over six thousand categories; that will never gain consensus, there are too many people who would oppose it as "makework", despite not needing to play any part in it themselves. We are considering a switch from "Image-Class Foo articles" to "File-Class Foo articles", which has similar, if smaller, technical considerations, mainly that the switch must be made for all projects simultaneously. Allowing multiple schemas is technically almost impossible; it's buried so deep in the code it would hugely bloat the template for other projects, unacceptably so. Happy‑melon 09:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it is impossible to change. But making such a claim because the work has already been done, and therefore too late to question or reverse it, is what fait accompli is about. I also don't buy that it is technically impossible to allow for alternate schemes in the meta-template nor that such an option will cause other project banners to be bloated. --Farix (Talk) 00:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect class

Seriously, I really hate this class. I honestly don't see the point of putting the project banner on articles that have been created or turned into redirects. --Farix (Talk) 01:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that the point is to know when they are not redirects anymore... (which can be determined busing AWB's list compare function) G.A.S^talk 05:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Change in |listas= behavior

With this T18552 fixed, I have changed how |listas= now behave. Up till now, if |listas= was set, that was how the talk page was sorted by the categories used by the banner. Whatever {{DEFAULTSORT}} was set to did not affect the banner's sortkey nor did the banners sortkey affect any other categories.

Now |listas= will still override the sortkey set by {{DEFAULTSORT}}, nor will it affect the sortkeys of other banners. However, if listas is not set, it may the affected by {{DEFAULTSORT}} or another banner that uses {{DEFAULTSORT}}.

Clear as mud? Ok let me use a couple of examples.

Example 1: {{WPBiography}} and {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} are on the same talk page. {{WPBiography}} has their |listas= set and {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} does not. But since since {{WPBiography}} uses {{DEFAULTSORT}}, their sortkey will affect {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. This benefits us in that we no longer have to go through the biography article and set the sortkey in our banner, we can let {{WPBiography}} do the work.

Example 2: {{WikiProject Pokémon}} and {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} are on the same "List of" talk page. But perhaps the Pokémon project doesn't want to strip "List of" off of the sortkey, which is common practice for anime and manga articles. {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} can still use |listas= and it will not affect the default or alternate sortkey used by {{WikiProject Pokémon}}. That is because {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} does not use {{DEFAULTSORT}} to set the sortkey inside the template

I'm not particularly comfortable with going full covert to {{DEFAULTSORT}}. Not only will it affect other templates, there is still the chance of {{DEFAULTSORT}} conflicts which just creates headaches all round. Especially when two projects want to sort the same article differently. --Farix (Talk) 23:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me; great work! =D 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 09:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

listas field problems

Anyone know why .hack//XXXX is listing properly under H and .hack//Link and .hack//Legend of the Twilight aren't? Both seem to be exactly the same to me.陣内_Jinnai 19:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

They all seem to be sorted appropriately. (importance, starts, stubs) —Farix (t | c) 19:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Was looking through categories...i think Shonen at the time and the latter with listed under "." and the former under "h".陣内_Jinnai 07:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

|listas= only affects the categorization of the talk page. It doesn't do anything with the article itself. You have to use DEFAULTSORT on the article. —Farix (t | c) 12:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Alright thanks.陣内_Jinnai 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! class/importance

Maybe change the code to assume same rating as WP:ANIME if not overwritten? --G.A.S (talk · contribs), 15:33, 24 November 2009

I think this is a great idea, and would have implemented it already if I had thought of it myself, but since I didn't, I do think we should probably wait until we've completely absorbed WP:YUGIOH's banners. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 15:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Book-Class

Well I tried to update the banner and save you some trouble, but it's just way too horrible. So if you could update it so it handles the Category:Book-Class articles (per WT:WikiProject Anime and Manga#Book-class), that would be great. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Code is at {{WikiProject Anime and manga/sandbox}} and will require a further update to {{WikiProject Anime and manga/type check}} with the code at {{WikiProject Anime and manga/type check/sandbox}}. I've followed the conventions of the existing banner code, so books will automatically get a Book-Class rating and |class=book doesn't actually do anything, and the category is Category:WikiProject Anime and manga books. It all seems to work OK, but I'm not going to implement it myself because I'm not seeing much discussion about it at the project page. Regards. PC78 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Default portal image

Currently, there are two different portal images, depending on how the portal template is called. Which one would people prefer? I'm not watching this page, so it would be great if you could comment at Template talk:Portal#Case duplicates. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 17:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

{{Portal|Anime and manga}}
{{Portal|Anime and Manga}}

Bug

The columns don't line up on my browser. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be something that was introduced by one of the metabanner sub-templates. This is probably a good example of why we shouldn't be using them in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 15:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

new TF

Please add |visual-novels-task-force= so that "yes" outputs " This article is supported by the Visual novels task force".∞陣内Jinnai 00:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it probably should be piped to WP:VN's page instead, just as how {{film}}'s WP:WARFILMS link points to the page at WP:MILHIST (through a redirect). -- クラウド６６８ 00:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing white space.

I have added the missing white space to this template but am not sure I found it all. Would someone please check my work to see if I missed anything? – Allen4names 22:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Monthly merge categories

When merge=yes, this template does not put the article into the monthly merge categories. As a result, these pages are being missed by WikiProject Merge. Please fix. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The idea was for the Anime and Manga project to track outstanding or possible mergers, not for it to be a replacement for the normal 'Merge' templates... if required, I guess this can be done, but it might be a fairly complex change? G.A.S^talk 13:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I might be able to help. Can you show me a template doing what you want? Goodraise 13:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The articles themselves should have merge templates on them which will categorize the articles. The talk page doesn't need to be categorized, that happens along with the article merge. — Bility (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Most of them don't have the merge tags on them. Whether the merge is done, whether the tag was deleted, or whether it was never there in the first place is impossible to know, but it's a problem that needs to be fixed. Thus, lets put them in monthly categories so that they get listed even when they don't have the tags. Alternately, remove the merge option from this template, as it seems to be causing more problems than not. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I reactivated this template because the problems real and has not been addressed. The claim that the articles have the regular merge templates is flat-out false, so resolution to this is needed. What we have are pages in the merge backlog with no date, no discussion, and no indication of where to merge to.

Not done: You are autoconfirmed. The edit semi-protected is for non-autoconfirmed editors. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

color

i think this page need to change color.please add color label to change color by anyone--203.223.94.241 (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This template uses the standard color used by all WikiProject and talk page templates. There is no reason to change it. —Farix (t | c) 22:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Class mask and categorization discussion

Hello. A class mask for this template has been created and it can be found at Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/class. I've also started a centralized discussion regarding the class categorization, which can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Update the schemes for assessment?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't this template use WPBannerMeta?

Is there any specific reason this template doesn't use {{WPBannerMeta}}? WPBannerMeta will support a B class checklist and up to 15 workgroups (via hooks). Is there a specific feature that it doesn't support that is needed? Kaldari (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Have the issues brought up since the 2009 discussion been addressed? But the current code of the template is simple enough to follow along that I don't see a switch being produced. —Farix (t | c) 13:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

To some it up, WPBannerMeta forced certain behaviors and a category scheme that WikiProject Anime and manga did not want. While it would have been extremely trivial to update WPBannerMeta's code to allow WikiProject Anime and manga to use its existing behaviors and category scheme, there was a great deal of resistance to it because the mass conversion to WPBannerMeta created a fait accompli situation. —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Most of the issues brought up in that discussion appear to have either been resolved or were rather minor differences. Having standard conventions and sharing a single template makes it possible for people to write tools to support WikiProjects. When every project has its own conventions, it's very difficult to write tools that work for all of them. That's actually the reason I'm asking. Currently, WikiProject Anime and manga is one of the only WikiProjects that isn't supported by the PageAssessments extension (which is, in turn, used by several Tool Labs tools). It seems like it would be rather trivial to migrate this project to {{WPBannerMeta}}, unlike for example, {{WikiProject Military History}}, which would then make this project compatible with all the tools that use PageAssessments data (for example, CopyPatrol). Kaldari (talk) 05:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The main issue was the categorization scheme and behaviors, in that categorizes, redirects, files and project pages where given an "importance" assessment when they should have. Looking at {{WPBannerMeta}}'s documentation, it doesn't appear that those where ever addressed. And calling them "minor differences" is downplaying these problems is part of the fait accompli I had just mentioned. Until {{WPBannerMeta}} allows for the current behavior and categorizations of {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} to me maintain, a conversion is a non-starter. —Farix (t | c) 05:22, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix: In the discussion that you linked to, the main issue regarding importance was that {{WPBannerMeta}} always showed importance, which was changed at the request of WikiProject Anime and manga: "G.A.S's point is that our banner doesn't show the importance row on non-articles; I don't think the categorization would really be a problem for us." Whether or not there is an NA-importance category doesn't seem like it would actually matter that much. Why is it a problem if such a category exists? I agree that it might be unnecessary, but it hardly seems like a good reason to use a completely different template. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

AN NA-importance category isn't the only problem. The redirects, templates, categories, files, portal pages, and project pages all use a different naming scheme (the original schema in fact). It would be one thing if {{WPBannerMeta}} allowed for category overrides, but it doesn't and likely never will. These may seem minor issues to you, but they aren't and are among the reasons this template was never converted. —Farix (t | c) 20:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix: {{WPBannerMeta}} does allow category overrides via hooks. See for example {{Etymology section}} which completely overrides the class assessment system (including the categories) via the HOOK_ASSESS parameter. Kaldari (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix: Would there be any objection to migrating to {{WPBannerMeta}} if it keeps the existing category naming scheme? Migrating to {{WPBannerMeta}} would also fix Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Popular pages (which relies on parser functions in WPBannerMeta). Kaldari (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@TheFarix and Kaldari: Any update on this issue? I got a bug report that XTools wasn't showing the page assessments for some pages, and turns out were all part of this WikiProject — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal and TheFarix: I've added very basic PageAssessments support to this template. It now records assignment to WikiProject Anime and manga and the class, but it doesn't record importance (since this template doesn't use an importance mask) or information about task forces. Kaldari (talk) 02:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)