Template talk:WikiProject Canada/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Parameters

I didn't like how I couldn't mention that an article was FA-class and List-class at the same time. So, I made a third grouping: type=Article, type=List, type=Template, or type=Cat. If you don't add one of these types on a page, it will not show a type, but it will still put the page in Category:WikiProject Canada articles. If you add type=list or type=template, it will put it in Category:WikiProject Canada lists or Category:WikiProject Canada templates and not in the articles category. --Arctic Gnome 02:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a list of possible parameters and switches (eventually as a "Usage" paragraph in the noinclude section of the template, such as in {{Vancouverproject}})? --69.19.14.25 05:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

That'd take some work. I'll work on it some other time. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 07:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Arctic Gnome 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wierd categories

Can someone who knows about templates help me out with this. I added the option of adding cangov=Yes to the template, and the template looks fine after it's added. However, when I try to put the articles into the right category (for example Category:WikiProject Canada templates) the lable at the bottom of the talk page has the right category, be it article, template, or whatever. But when I actualy go to the category pages, the page is just placed in the general Category:WikiProject Canada rather than in the right type.

What in the template is making the category tag on the page not match up with what category it is put in? Look at Talk:Prime Minister of Canada. The page thinks that it is in Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, but it is realy in the general Category:WikiProject Government of Canada. Thanks. --Arctic Gnome 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For the first part, I really don't see your problem. Can you list another example? Because for Talk:Prime Minister of Canada, the page IS supposed to be in Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles according to this part of the code:

<includeonly>[[Category:WikiProject Government of Canada {{ #switch: {{{type|}}} | List | list = lists | Dab | dab = disambiguation page | Template | template = templates | NA | na = pages | Article | article = articles |#default = articles}}]]</includeonly>

Where Prime Minister of Canada is an article, so the code {{ #switch: {{{type}}} | automatically substituted its category to Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 22:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is supposed to be in Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles, and at the bottom of the talk page it says that it is in that category. However, when I go to the category it isn't there, but it is in the general Category:WikiProject Government of Canada, even though that category isn't listed on the talk page. I've refreshed my browser and empied by cache, so it isn't just my computer. Something very odd is going on. --Arctic Gnome 23:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Prime Minister of Canada is definetly listed in Category:WikiProject Government of Canada articles. Have you tried to reboot? AQu01rius (User &#149; Talk) 23:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The reboot didn't do it, but changing the talk page and then changing it back does. It tooks like my computer doesn't notice that a page has changed categories until I edit the template on the talk page for a second time after changing the master template here. I've been changing the capitalisation and changing it back, and that solves the problem. This is very wierd. I just added {{PAGENAME}} to the template so that they all won't be listed under "T", and I'm having the same problem; I have to edit the talk page a second time after changing the master template here before my computer notices the difference. Anyway, thanks for your help. --Arctic Gnome 00:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Type variable

This template has a variable "type", which allows the item to be labeled a temple/list/category. But it doesn't work if its assessed NA-class. See Talk:Lieutenant Governors of Nova Scotia for it working, and Template talk:St. John's landmarks for it not working. Any ideas? - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

• I saw that myself. I can't figure out what's wrong, and we may have to find an expert on templates. For now you can make it categorise templates properly by putting the "na" in lower case. However, this will mark the impartance as being unclassified, so you'll have to mark it as na as well. So, in full it would be WikiProject Canada|class=na|importance=na|type=template. --Arctic Gnome 19:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Order of provinces

Putting them west-to-east seems a bit arbitrary. I originally had them arranged according to their order of precedence, which is the only "official" order. Putting them in any other order seems to be WP:OR. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, haven't realize the logic, thanks (although geography isn't OR, it's just a point of view). --Qyd (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll switch it back. West to east is probably a more common system, but it seems to me that we should go with the official one. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada}}

Should {{WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada}} be included as a sub-project here? or woudl it be part of the Government of Canada WikiProject? --Qyd (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

There are going to be several hundred articles in that topic, so I think it deserves its own wikiproject. I'll add that functionality to the template. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Territories sub-projects

Considering the low population in the Territories, I suppose it makes better sense to have just one wikiproject to cover all three territories. I directed the banner switches to Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian Territories. --Qyd 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Should cities automaticly be added to provinces?

I'm going to be adding city projects to this template, and I was wondering whether people think that adding an article to a city project should automatically add it to that city's province's project as well. The same goes for wikiproject Canadian football; if we add it to this template, should articles added to the Canadian football project automatically be also added to the Canadian sports project? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty would be the Ottawa Wikiproject, which covers articles related to areas of the National Capital Region in two different provinces. Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'm going to let provinces and citied be added separately. Some items might be important locally but not of any interest to a province-wide project. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Problem with the template

I don't know how to fix this problem, but featured lists for Education in Canada (and perhaps other wikiprojects) aren't sorted into a project-specific category like their FA counterparts. GreenJoe 18:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1.0 assessment project does not recognized FL as an assessment category. Anything in WP:CANADA tagged as being FL will show up as such on the template, but will be categorized with the FAs. The only FL for the education project, List of Athabasca University people, will show up as an FA when the table is next updated. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

rating

Shouldn't each sub-project have a separate assessment of quality and importance? The overall quality may be higher than the quality in relation to a specific task force's purview, and the importance is definitely different. 70.55.88.176 (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Military History wikiproject

Someone should add a switch for military history

milhist=yes

And link it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force

70.55.88.176 (talk) 07:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Expanding the template

I'd like to make a few proposals. First, I agree with the anon above that we need to have separate ratings for each sub-project, since the relevance within a specific project is much different from the subject's global relevance. I haven't thought about how to do this yet.

Second, we need a few new parameters:

• history=yes for articles related to Canadian history
• military=yes for articles related to the Canadian military
• biography=yes for articles related to Canadian individuals
• organization=yes for articles related to Canadian businesses, non-profits, NGOs, charities etc.
• redirect=yes to manage the many redirects to articles about Canadian subjects, instead of lumping them in with other sub-projects

Each would require a WikiProject to manage the articles within its scope. We could also have conditional tests for certain combinations (such as history=yes and military=yes providing a link to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force.

As usual, comments are most welcome. Mindmatrix 23:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember once seeing a project that had different importance ratings for each sub-project but do not recall which (WP India, perhaps) and it may be a good idea. It is still possible to rank the importance of things by simply their Canada-wide scale and then see the more important ones for each sub project but using separate sub-project importance scales would allow more breadth of scale within a sub-project. I guess that I'm a little concerned that adding sub-project importance scales will simply add another non-creative task. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As per my comments on the noticeboard, anotehr switch for aboriginal/indigenous would help out, although {{NorthAmNative}} already exists....as with the Geog switch, though, the Hist switch would be redundant with WPHistory, no? Or is tehre someway to combine WP/Workgroups by using these switches? Also worth noting that a geography or history articlde that might be high ratign in Canada wouldn't have a high rating in "regular" Geog/Hist WPs....not necessarily anyway, alhtough "high" etc should be reckoned on lcoal relevance, not whether someone in Arkansas or Ougadougou had heard of whomever/wherever (some here might remember the snotty comments about Dawson Creek's FA status...because they hadn't heard of the place or didn't think it was important...but who were they??.).Skookum1 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that the benefits of adding separate importance assessments to each project isn't worth the complexity that it would create. Even though different projects will view the importance of an article differently than WikiProject Canada, the existing importance ratings can still be useful for them by treating them as being shifted down one level, effectively giving the subprojects three levels of importance assessment. Articles like History of British Columbia or Gordon Campbell might be top- and high-importance respectively to the BC project while only being rated as high- or mid-importance respectively in the Canada project. Nevertheless, the BC project can still take advantage of these shifted-down rankings; a high-importance article is a priority for subprojects. Whenever I've been rating articles on behalf of a subproject, I haven't found the need for more than three levels of importance assessments. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Aside: Some projects have parameters for B-level articles rating whether they meet specific criteria (refs, MOS style, etc.). We should investigate this also. Mindmatrix 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to myself, there's already a class=redirect parameter setting, which may obviate the need for a separate "redirect=yes" parameter. Mindmatrix 17:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The Military History Canadian task force covers current military as well. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sub-sub-projects

I am in favour of this unified banner/assessment for Canada-related projects. I wonder (and have not decided) how far down we should drill. The addition of WikiProject Canadian football is what leads me to consider this. Of course, Canadian football, Grey Cup, and such would be part of WPCanada but are articles about certain rules, certain players, etc., really part of WikiProject Canada? Because a sport is invented and mostly played in Canada does that mean all the articles about that sport are Canada-related? Should just articles that share WPCFL and WPCanada have merged banners and others of pure football interest have only WPCFL? Looking for thoughts. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The merged template should only be used for projects which are entirely within the scope of WPCanada, so if WPCFL is not, I'll undo the merger soon before too many articles get tagged. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that articles like Three-minute warning (football) or Ricky Williams are within the scope of WPCFL but not WPCanada. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiprojects and departments of provinces

This is a sandbox showing a version of the template helping out a province wiki - sub - project. ... ie Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods WikiprojectUser:CBM/Sandbox2 and the results are here... User:CBM/Sandbox and the explanation here.... explanation If this coding does work it means every province can have a workgroup identical to the Canadian nation wikiproject, which will mean sports articles, community articles can be worked on both at a local and national level!!! With just using the existing template!!! Saskatchewan has quite a few sports enthusiasts, I know, but with the Vancouver Olympics coming up, perhaps the wikiprojects out there (Vancouver or BC) would like a department on sports set up at a local level with assessments in this manner as well. SriMesh | talk 04:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

At a cursory glance, the code looks all right to me and the test page puts the articles in the proper categories. If there aren't any objections, I recommend testing it out. --Jh12 (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Code at {{WikiProject Canada}} is to be replaced with User:CBM/Sandbox2 - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jh12 (talk • contribs)

Done. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 16:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

• I just realized we goofed ever so slightly. Instead of putting everything into "-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles" to match the class assessments, we put everything into "-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles". The categories have to match for the Editorial Team bot to count the importance categories. See the Project statistics.

Towards the bottom of the template, the following change needs to be made:
Old:

}}{{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|| {{#switch:{{{importance}}}
 |Top |top=[[Category:Top-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |High |high=[[Category:High-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Mid |mid=[[Category:Mid-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Low |low=[[Category:Low-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |#default=[[Category:Unknown-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}}}

New:

}}{{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|| {{#switch:{{{importance}}}
 |Top |top=[[Category:Top-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |High |high=[[Category:High-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Mid |mid=[[Category:Mid-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Low |low=[[Category:Low-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |#default=[[Category:Unknown-importance Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}}}

Many many thanks, --Jh12 (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Recent changes placed an extra blank line below the banner, looks bad inside {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}, can someone figure that out and fix? thanks. --Qyd (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another extra enter key per Talk:Westmount, Quebec. Thanks for spotting these; they get lost in the code sometimes. At the bottom of the template, please change:

Old:

}}}}
}}}}
</includeonly><noinclude>{{pp-semi-template|small=yes}}

New:

}}}}}}}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{pp-semi-template|small=yes}}

Thanks a bunch for the help, --Jh12 (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Should be good now. --- RockMFR 19:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Bug

Any idea why the FA Class link in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Canada-related articles by quality statistics leads to the empty SK category instead of the Canada one? --Qyd (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure; I'll check it out and also request additional assistance. --Jh12 (talk) 03:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks like WP 1.0 bot depends on the subcats of Category:Canada-related articles by quality to determine which categories are the "by quality" categories for the project. Until a few minutes ago, Category:FA-Class Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles was in that category when it shouldn't have been, and the bot was apparently picking that up and using it as the category for the table. It seems to be fixed now. Anomie⚔ 11:42, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't double-checked the code, but this was almost certainly the problem. The bot assumes there is only one category per quality rating inside Category:Canada-related articles by quality. In order to get articles to count both as Canada-related FAs and as SK FAs, you need to make sure the articles are put into Category:FA-Class Canada-related articles and Category:FA-Class Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles. I think Anomie has fixed this now. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the help. I wanted to wait until the bot went through both projects. Everything looks good now. --Jh12 (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

subproject assessments

This needs importance options for the subprojects. As it is, I keep seeing "low" for things that look like they should be high or top importance for some of the subprojects. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New version

I'm working on an updated version of this template using {{WPBannerMeta}} in the /sandbox. Any comments/suggestions welcome. In particular, I'd like to know whether all the quality classes (e.g. Template, Category, Redirect, etc.) should be used for all the subprojects as well? At the moment a lot of these categories don't exist. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The new version is finished and ready to be implemented. As I didn't get an answer to my question I have decided that, of the extra classes, Template and Category seem to be well used so I have supported them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't inspected the changes yet, but I just noticed a small quirk in a recent edit. I added community=yes to Talk:Black's Corners, Ontario, but it doesn't show up in the banner, nor do any of the categories show up. Yes, I checked the spelling. Mindmatrix 14:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's a bigger quirk. All the community-related categories are empty; see, for example Category:Start-Class Canadian communities articles. Mindmatrix 14:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point! Temporary insanity on my part, I think. Should be fixed now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix - the categories are now being (slowly) populated again. Mindmatrix 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As this project doesn't use taskforce-specific importance ratings, it's probably pointless to display the importance on every taskforce. Shall I do something about that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

We've had discussions about implementing sub-project ratings for quite some time, but nobody was willing to do the work for it. It'd be nice to have. (Coincidentally, I've had a related discussion about this at Talk:Lethbridge#Importance rating in banner.) You can suppress their display for now, though I'd like to see an importance rating show up somewhere in the banner. Mindmatrix 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the main one will still be there. It's just the repeated statements in the taskforces that could go. Of course, as soon as you add specific importance ratings, they will all go into the Unknown categories for each subproject ... unless you do something clever like WP:MEDICINE has done, whereby the general importance is used if a specific one is not defined. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what's your take on the quality classes which this project uses? Due to the way the banner works, every subproject needs to use the same ones. I've used Category and Template for the moment - this can be changed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to Redirect, Portal, Project etc., I recently added them from a request at WP:CWNB, and then updated a few banners accordingly. It'd be nice to filter out some pages from the main quality categories, but we don't necessarily need all of them. I'd certainly like to see the "redirect" class retained, as we have thousands of such "articles"; as long as the others are filtered out of the main classes, I don't much care how they're handled. Mindmatrix 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that for each additional class, 25 categories have to be created. (One main one and one for each of 24 subprojects!) At the moment it is placing redirects in NA-Class. Do you want want to create the Redirect-Class XXX articles categories? Another thing: I notice that a lot of the categories are classified as NA-Class rather than Category-Class. If you wish, we can force these into Category-Class, by adjusting the namespace detection in Template:WikiProject Canada/class. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll bring some of these questions to WP:CWNB. Regarding your last point: the "Category-Class" hierarchy was just created in late May for the Canada WikiProject, so we had been using a quality rating of "class=NA" for anything that was not an article. We'll go through the list and update accordingly, but it'd be handy to have a temporary filter for that until we've sorted things out. Looking at that code, it seems like a straighforward change. Oh heck, I decided to change it myself... Mindmatrix 15:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see all the classes supported; makes internal organisation, especially improvement drives, easier. I'm gnoming through the unknown- and NA cats to clean them up, and am using the classes--they default to NA now so no worries there, and will automagically (re)populate the appropriate cats if/when we enable the classes. //roux   22:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit needed

{{editprotected}} This bit:

{{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|| {{#switch:{{{importance}}}
 |Top |top=[[Category:Top-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |High |high=[[Category:High-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Mid |mid=[[Category:Mid-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Low |low=[[Category:Low-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |#default=[[Category:Unknown-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}}}

Needs a new importance switch added to it, like so:

{{#ifeq:{{{class|}}}|NA|| {{#switch:{{{importance}}}
 |Top |top=[[Category:Top-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |High |high=[[Category:High-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Mid |mid=[[Category:Mid-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |Low |low=[[Category:Low-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |#default=[[Category:Unknown-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
 |na |na=[[Category:NA-importance Canada-related articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
}}}}

Because right now all Category Talk pages of Canadian categories are showing up as 'unknown' importance, which makes cleaning out the cat a little difficult :) TIA. //roux   22:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind waiting a little bit? I'm working on a new version in the sandbox (see section above) which will sort out all these problems. I'll try and finish it within a day. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Category:Unknown-importance Canada-related articles is emptying now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I went through the category in the past few days to update the banner on all category talk pages appearing there, since most of them had incorrect banners anyway. Mindmatrix 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ontario

Can someone change the image back to the old one? The current image for WikiProject Ontario is impossible to discern, so has no use whatsoever in indicating what the project it is supposed to represent is. There's a slightly recognizable Canadian flag next to a red blob. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've changed it. But maybe File:Flag of Ontario.svg would be even clearer? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure, at the resolution these things are displayed at, the Ontario flag, Manitoba flag, and the old Red Ensign flag of Canada all look the same, because the crest in the centre of the field is not readily discernible. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods

Based on Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Saskatchewan_Communities_&_Neighbourhoods-related_articles_by_quality_log#June_5.2C_2009, the updated metabanner appears to have removed Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods, a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan. Is there some way the subproject can be restored? --Jh12 (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I missed that, as it wasn't mentioned in the documentation. Please check now, the categories should be repopulating again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It populated the quality categories, but not the importance. I think it's missing the line for importance that reads " |tf 5 importance=" i.e.

 |TF_5_QUALITY         = yes
 |tf 5 importance={{{importance|}}}
 |TF_5_ASSESSMENT_CAT  = Saskatchewan Communities & Neighbourhoods-related articles

--Jh12 (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, silly me copied the syntax from Canadian football which doesn't use importance!  Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the quick help --Jh12 (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Canadian football

I just recently noticed that Canadian football had been re-added to this banner. It had been decided above that, though a sub-project of Canadian sport, since not all Canadian football articles are Canada-related, it was not suitable for inclusion in this joint banner. Obviously some are and have both WPCFL and WPCANADA banners but it would be confusing to use this banner for Canada-related Canadian football articles and WPCFL for non-Canada related Canadian football articles. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I used the documentation when I designed the new version of the template and it hadn't been removed from there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It can of course be removed, if desired, but I would have thought there might be an advantage for those articles which were within the scope of both projects? Of course, {{WPCFL}} needs to be retained for articles not related to Canada. Thoughts? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it is needlessly confusing to have two templates for the project and have to follow a flowchart to determine which one to use. I think it would lead to many errors in use and needless effort in clean-up time. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll remove it. Shall we add a tracking category so we can find any articles using it? Just in case any get lost. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't really think many use it. Is there any easy way to see if any articles are currently tagged with it? If not, don't bother. It will eventually be found. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Task Force for city of Kawartha Lakes

{{editprotected|Template:WikiProject_Canada}}

|tf 4={{{kawartha-lakes|}}}
 |TF_4_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Kawartha Lakes
 |TF_4_NAME            = Kawartha Lakes task force
 |TF_4_NESTED          = Kawartha Lakes
 |TF_4_IMAGE           = Kawartha_Lakes_flag.svg
 |TF_4_TEXT            = This {{pagetype|{{{class|}}}}} is also supported
by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Kawartha Lakes|Kawartha Lakes task force]].
 |TF_4_QUALITY         = yes
 |tf 4 importance={{{importance|}}}
 |TF_4_ASSESSMENT_CAT  = Kawartha Lakes articles

I am creating a task force for the topics regarding the city of Kawartha Lakes and everything it contains within (As it has a rich history with a lot of coverage by many publications), which will be about 100 articles or so by the end. I was wondering if I could have code added to the template in order to organize them by adding kawartha-lakes = yes into the template on talk pages? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 00:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you add the required code to the /sandbox version and then raise an {{editprotected}}. There is a space for a new taskforce in tf_4. You should be able to work out the syntax by looking at the other taskforces. Let me know if I can help. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I put it there, filled it our in comparison to the others, but am having one small problem: What I put in the 'Text' parameter is coming out also as the link. Instead of linking to WP:WikiProject Canada/Kawartha Lakes (Which is what I specified in the 'Link' parameter), it links to WP:the Kawartha Lakes task force. Other than that I think its fine. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the fixes. I've honestly never tackled this area of wikipedia before so forgive me for being lost. Since the page is protected, where do I put the {{editprotected}}? On this talk page, or on the sandbox's talk pages? (I'm going to assume above this discussion here) - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Seem to be having a tiny problem with this... It does everything right, except that it isn't placing articles into the "Kawartha Lakes articles" category (Only into the importance and class categories). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You need to create lots of categories. Have a look at Template:WikiProject Canada/sandbox for a list of some which need creating. Can you clarify your "problem"? Do you want every tagged article placed in Category:Kawartha Lakes articles as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much. The articles place themselves into the 'x importance Kawartha Lakes articles' or 'x class Kawartha Lakes articles', but not into 'Kawartha Lakes Articles'. I've created most of the categories using existing examples, but I'm not sure how to get the articles into a category (Short of going back through every single article and adding the category links to the bottom of the talk pages), but what I want in the end is a category that lists every article (on one page) that has the 'kawartha-lakes=yes' tag - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added this to the banner for you. (But I note that this category also needs creating...) No, you shouldn't add the categories manually, but using the template parameters as you did here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Logo for Wikiproject NEwfoundland & Labrador

I've created an SVG flag map, can someone edit it in? Link: File:NewfoundlandandLabradorFlagmap.svg () Connormah (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 03:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Project Logo

I've also created a SVG for the icon used in the template, it can be found here. Connormah (talk) 00:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks good,  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible ?

Is it possible when people pick This article is also supported by WikiProject Canadian music. that the new portal appears??? Portal:Music of Canada ............Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 Sure — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tks you are the man!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I smell a barn star soon

Sorry to bug you But could you change the picture to ===> File:Tower-wireless-can.png Here..just since the flag is already used for the main Canada portal..and since we seem to have our own image i guess..sorry all my fault .. i was hasty in my decision!!! ....Buzzzsherman (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done.... Again thank you for all your help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Cities

See also the straw polls at: WT:Montreal, WT:Toronto, WT:Vancouver, and WT:Ottawa.

Why do the city projects have linkages onto this template? It does not support city importance ratings. Either it should support city importance ratings, or the functionality should be disabled until city importance ratings are added. This makes a hash of city importance ratings. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove the Montreal/Vancouver/Ottawa/Toronto ratings from this template. They are incompatible with these projects, since it now adds an importance rating that is incompatible with the importance scalings of the city wikiprojects, and if a city banner already occurs, would send an article into TWO different importance settings in the city importance categories. None of the city wikiprojects were consulted on this addition to screw up local importance ratings.

76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Before proceeding I will ask Arctic.gnome to come and comment here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why, the version that now exists is an imperialistic imposition of importance ratings onto the city wikiprojects that was added without consultation with those projects, and does not conform to their own importance standards, and fouls up importance by putting articles into two different importance ratings for the same WikiProject (the city based one), definitely a very screwed up way to rate importances for city-related articles. WikiProject Canada is not the parent wikiproject to the city wikiprojects. It is only a related wikiproject. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. But Wikipedia is not going to self-destruct if we don't fix this within a certain deadline. So let's just chill and wait to hear from the gnome. He/she might be able to clarify why it was added in the first place. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Then can Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa have the importance parameters changed?

Change

|tf 1 importance={{{importance|}}}
|tf 2 importance={{{importance|}}}
|tf 3 importance={{{importance|}}}
|tf 4 importance={{{importance|}}}

to

|tf 1 importance={{{toronto-importance|{{{Toronto-importance|}}}}}}
|tf 2 importance={{{montreal-importance|{{{Montreal-importance|}}}}}}
|tf 3 importance={{{vancouver-importance|{{{Vancouver-importance|}}}}}}
|tf 4 importance={{{ottawa-importance|{{{gatineau-importance|{{{Ottawa-importance|{{{Gatineau-importance|}}}}}}}}}}}}

That way the imperialistic manner of imposition of importances don't occur, since "importance" will not categorize the city wikiprojects, they will remain with unknown-importance. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Complete removal of the importance parameter should also work... then they end up being unrated, IIRC. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 11:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• The problem with this is that WP CANADA is now going to grow immensely. While WPTOR may want to tag every U of T alumni, are they really all relevant to WP CANADA? I think this should probably have been discussed with both the Canada project and the Cities projects before it was done. –xeno^talk 12:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  I've pointed all the projects here, to centralize discussion. –xeno^talk 13:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• First of all, if anyone is using the word "imperialistic" to describe the addition of a second option for categorization in something you work on as a hobby, then I think you may want to re-examine your priorities in life or take a wikibreak. Maybe I shouldn't have been bold enough to unilaterally add the option, but calling the addition of the parameter an imperialistic move is taking exaggeration to silly proportions.

Xeno, because WP:CANADA includes biographies, I think that most or all U of T alumni would be relevant. I think the only problem here is the importance parameter, as pointed out by the anon. Yes, WP:CANADA is a giant project (though smaller than WP:AUSTRALIA), but I think it's useful to allow the cities to be sorted by the Canada template for three reasons:

1. It shares the work given that there is going to be so much overlap;
2. It ensures that articles are fully covered: Toronto musicians should be in both the Toronto project and the Canada music project, Montreal sports teams should be in both the Montreal project and the Canada sports project;
3. Things in the city projects are going to follow the Canadian style guide, so I think it's useful to have them all linked to WP:CANADA.

User:76.66.192.73, I agree that it might be prudent to have separate importance parameters for cites, though I personally think that it isn't necessary. I think that four importance levels is more than is actually needed, so my recommendation is to make city articles be the only top-importance and make everything use the other three levels. Nevertheless, if city projects want to use their own importance scales, it is doable in the way you describe above. But I would suggest two amendments:

1. Make it default to WP:CANADA's importance if there is no city importance; we don't need someone going around adding a second importance parameter when an article is clearly going to be low-importance to every project. This would look something like the following if my understanding of conditional statements is right:

   |tf 1 importance= {{#if:{{{toronto-importance}}}|{{{toronto-importance}}}|{{#if:{{{Toronto-importance}}}}}}|{{{Toronto-importance}}}|{{{importance}}}}}}}

2. I would also like to be able to see a list of which articles have more than one importance assigned to them, so I would recommend adding to the bottom of the template something like this:

   {{#if:{{{toronto-importance}}}|[[Category:Canada articles with multiple importance ratings]]}} {{#if:{{{Toronto-importance}}}|[[Category:Canada articles with multiple importance ratings]]}}

--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think separate importance is required. Union Station (Toronto) is considered of Top importance to Toronto - is it really top importance for Canada? Probably not. Forcing cities to compromise and accept only what is deemed top importance Country-wide isn't ideal... –xeno^talk 14:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I question whether it's even top importance to Toronto, but I agree that a merged importance scale would be more difficult for a city project than for a province project. If the current importance-ratings are useful for the city project, we can use the anon's extra importance parameters, but I would strongly recommend that we also use the amendments I mentioned above. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Union Station is probably a good candidate for Top-importance Toronto (but I agree that Tor needs to re-examine the Top-importance members and affirm them.)

I think it's best to leave the Cities to set their own importance, otherwise there will just be bad blood over this template merger. If it is to inherit the Canada importance rating, it should probably be put into a segregated category suchlike [(Low-importance Toronto articles (inherited)]. –xeno^talk 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we'll leave the importances separate; I would much rather the wikipedians in the city projects be happy to work alongside WP:CANADA than be resentful of it. On your second point, did you mean the segregated category should be instead of or in addition to the regular categories? I think that all low-importance Toronto articles should go in the central low-importance Toronto category so that they show up on Toronto's WP:1.0 table. I do think there should additionally be a category for articles with inherited importance, but I don't think that that category needs to be split up into levels. I think that one category suchlike "Toronto articles with inherited importance" would be enough. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes - that sounds reasonable (probably better, now that I think of it) - one category to track articles which Toronto inherited the importance from Canada so it can be reviewed if desired. Agree that separate categories for each would be overkill, but it should use a sortkey to separate by importance so the Cities projects can quickly see which Top and High were inherited. –xeno^talk 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless you are planning a merge of all these templates, inheriting importance is not going to be possible for the reasons given by 76.66 above. Pages with two different Canadian banners are going to have contradictory importances: for example Union Station (Toronto) will be in Category:Top-importance Toronto articles and Category:Low-importance Toronto articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, by "sortkey", do you mean that in the inherited-importance catigory, articles would be sorted alphabetically by {{{impartance}}}? If so, I guess that would be helpful. It sounds like we are generally in agreement, so now we just have to see if User:76.66.192.73 will accept these concessions from the imperialist cabal. MSGJ, If we set it up the way that Xeno and I are saying, then there is no need to have both banners on any one page. Whenever people wanted an article to be in a city project along with another WPCANADA project, they could use the merged template, with or without the city importance parameter. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like "Top-importance" would be sorted under "1" then alphabetaically, "High-importance" sorted under 2, etc. Similar to as discused here.

Indeed, I think having just the one banner is the eventual plan - if the cities are ok with that. One potential future issue is if Cities want to have task forces, it starts to get very complicated. –xeno^talk 17:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Merging all the separate wikiproject banners might be a good idea in the future, but it needs thorough discussion with all the projects involved, some of who might object. In the meantime we have this clash that was reported above. I think the inherited importance needs to be removed now, and if at some time in the future the banners are merged and all duplicates removed then it could be added again. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to be removed right away because there currently are no duplicate importance ratings; User:76.66.192.73's worry was hypothetical. Currently, the only articles that use the city parameter are the two articles I merged while testing it. The rest have separate templates (or only one template). If we set up a city importance parameter that defaults to the country importance, as Xeno and I were saying, then city templates could be merged with or replaced by the WPCANADA template at any rate without ever seeing an article with duplicate ratings. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it is the heights of hubris to do this without even a thought of asking whether the city projects should want a merged template in the first place, and imperialistic to use the "country" based importance rating, again without even asking the city wikiprojects, and extremely patronizing to think the country importance ratings are even appropriate for a city based rating scheme. Further, there's already been discussion at WPMONTREAL that was opposed to a unified template, but that wasn't taken into account either. This entire implementation process is patronizing and imperialistic from the very start. It should be reverted until each city project gives its assent to such a flag being implemented. And any city project that does not give such assent should not be listed.

And I fail to see why the city templates should be merged, why would every single city article need to be tagged with a WPCANADA banner? WPUSA doesn't tag every state or local/city article, neither does WPUK on WPENGLAND or WPENGLAND/WPUK on local areas.

Unified importance rankings are a definite no-no, since virtually every city article would end up with a low importance, and that's just useless to a city project. It discourages collaboration by giving false impression of importance for any city article, and makes people think city articles are useless or their projects are not worth anything. There would be no indication of what city articles should be worked on, they would be virtually all "low".

Further, this totally ignores the local portals. The cities have portals that are linked to from their project banners. This totally removes those in the case of a merger. Other non-imperialistic joint banners list the local portals for the TF being flagged on, but the WPCANADA banner does not. Hell, this ALREADY ignores the provincial portals! Is Portal:Canada the only portal that should exist or something?

76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We've already agreed that it should not use merged importance rankings for cities, so that's a red herring argument.

The Canada template does not ignore the local portals. The Canada Music project has their portal listed on the template whenever music=yes is selected (see the template on Talk:The Tragically Hip for an example. Any other project that wanted to show off their portal could have it do the same, so again, that is not a reason to avoid a merged template.

The main reasons why it would be useful to allow the merged option is that most or all articles in the city projects are going to be relevant to another project, such as Canada Sports or Canada Communities. Having a merged template makes it so there are more people that will tag new articles and work on existing articles. Someone going around tagging Montreal athletes with sports=yes will hopefully add on montreal=yes while he's doing it. Splitting the load is almost always better for a collaborative project. Furthermore, there are elements of the Canadian style guide and the the Canada project standards that are going to be relevant to articles in the city projects, so they are within the Canada project's scope, even if the city project claims ownership of them. I think the only reason why only WPAustralia has gotten around to adding all of their city articles is that someone there took initiative. Articles in the city projects should be added to the Canada project eventually, so why not do so in a standardized way? The Canada template can have all of the functionality of the existing templates while also being more efficient.

That said, polling the projects would be a good idea, although the poll question should mention that if the templates merged, the city projects would retain their own importance rankings and their own portal links, which the past discussions on the Montreal project did not take into account. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As long as it is never implemented that when by default, importance is inherited (until a separate rating is instituted). Inheritance of importance is bad in the case of cities, since it by default almost always will rate the article low. If an editor or reader were to check out the talk page to see if it is important, they would see the "low" rating, and think it would not be important to the city. It would be better if it were listed as "unknown-importance" by default for each city project, since it would not mislead users of Wikipedia as to the importance of the topic. As it was originally implemented, and your suggestion of a default rating as the Canada rating, it was always bad.

It would be even better if assessments were totally left off the city flags. If you flag a city, it would not class quality or importance. Leave it to the city banner for quality and importance. As you noted before on the project talk pages, each city banner has its own special flags of operation.

As for "cross-tagging" the template doesn't do that now. Ottawa doesn't activate Ontario, Quebec and Communities flags, Vancouver doesn't activate the BC flag.

With portals, only the Canada portal and Canadian music portal are implemented. None of the others are. Each of the task force settings should have a settable portal, that displays on the task force line of the banner box.

Were cities to implement COTWs, would it even be possible for WPBANNERMETA to display them for taskforce lines?

76.66.192.73 (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to make it default to the WPCANADA importance, but I would highly recommend it, if only to reduce the amount of tagging work that city projects have to do. There will probably be a lot of people who tag articles that are low-importance to every project with only importance=low|montreal=yes and ignore the city importance, just like how now there are plenty of articles tagged with only the Canada template and ignore the city template or vise versa. The proposal that Xeno and I discussed would put all articles with an inherited importance in categories named something like Category:Montreal articles with inherited importance, and that category would have its articles sorted by importance, so that anyone could double-check that article were inheriting the right importance and could fix any problems they see.

I don't think it would be a good idea to have the city templates also on the page to assess importance, because then we would be back where we started with people only adding, for example, Canada Sports or Montreal and not both. The whole point of merging is to make sure that articles are added to all relevant projects.

I agree that it should show the portal beside the task force line. I'll ask the people at the meta template about that feature.

I don't think that any cross-tagging is needed other than between the Canada and city projects. The Canada project is kind of a catch-all for everything that follows general Canadian style guides, whereas the province projects have their own specifically defined scope that may not include some of the minutia in city projects.

If any of the city templates wanted to add a COTW feature, I guess that could be added to the bottom of this template outside of the meta template. Could you show me an example of a template that has the kind of COTW setup you were thinking of?

--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I would be highly against using a WPCANADA default importance, since it would almost always be low and usually would be wrong. It would give the impression that nothing to do with cities is of any importance, which is by definition wrong, since the city projects are only concerned with their cities. Not only project members, but other editors and readers also look at the talk page importance ratings.

If the advantage of using "WPCANADA" template is to enable multiple tagging, then the only reason to have the city projects on this template is to automatically activate the associated province project tags as well. There is lots of disadvantages to using WPCANADA template were this not the case. It'd just be easier to tag with separate banners, like the US or UK or France do, then you could know that "importance" meant importance to a specific project, instead of hunting through enormous template documentation pages to find arcane switches that need to be set.

Just leave the city banners to assess quality and importance, remove the rating system entirely from the WPCANADA banner in the case of the cities, then there would be no conflict. The only thing remaining would be a tag that indicates that a city wikiproject also supports the article.

These massive multiproject banners just increase barrier to access for rating things, since they start looking like some legalese contract with fine print you have to read to find anything you would need to set.

76.66.192.73 (talk) 04:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I get your worry that default importance ratings would make the city's importance ratings too low. I think that the inherited-importance category would be enough for people to keep an eye on those cases, but I agree that there are also some advantages to making the unassessed ones list as unassessed. We'll wait until after Easter to see if the regular participants in those projects have anything to say. I have the opposite view on large multi-project banners. I think that having several wikiprojects working together encourages ratings rather than discourages them. You give the example of WikiProject United States; it only has 6,000 articles, a third of which are unassessed, so I think that it's a good example of how having a bunch of separate banners slows the tagging process. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but should WPUSA have millions of articles, or only thousands?

I still see no reason why you would want a wrong importance rating rather than being unassessed, atleast being unassessed means it is not wrong. To me, being wrong is highly disadvantageous, while being unrated, is being unrated. If being wrong is the alternative to being unrated, then being unrated is much more desirable, since being wrong, is being wrong.

As for people watching it, that's why the unrated category exists, so that project members can go through unrated articles and assess them, as they will. If it's inherited, you've just made one category expand into five, for no advantage, and much detriment.

65.94.253.16 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I do think WPUSA should have millions of articles. There are some parts of the style guide that will be relevant for all of their articles, so I think a top-level catchall project is useful, whether set up using the standard WP:1.0 setup or some other structure like Alaney2k's idea. I understand your reasoning for wanting to keep unassessed articles as unassessed, so barring any comments from other users in the projects, we'll keep the importance scales completely separate. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Alaney2k's proposal

Pardon me, but is this not backwards of how this should be implemented? If it should be implemented at all? Why should we put all sorts of options into the Canada banner, when we should be just adding them to the local or topical banners? The local banners should store the info as to what other banners an article should link into. Ottawa knows it is in Ontario and in Canada. Why can it not just include those banners? If anything I see more local, regional or topical project banners happening but there should never be more than one Canada-level banner. On another note, what is wrong with multiple banners? And it seems to be overstating the importance of an local article, for example a 'roads' article, to put a Canada banner at the top. I appreciate -linking- everything together under Canada, but this should be done by adding categories to local project banners, should it not? If we were to have a Canada-wide inclusion, I'd rather that we have some sort of Canadian banner template that the local project banner expands upon, not one massive Canada banner with all sorts of options. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I definitely see the advantages of putting the most specific project as the base. I guess the main reasons that it's set up like this is that that is how the meta-template for WikiProject Banners is set up. It assumes a top-level project that links to more specific WikiProjects and to task forces. If we set it up the other way around, and wanted to keep a standardized look, we would have to update every single project's banner every time one of them wanted to change something. Also, we would have to have a lot of fights about which banner would be the core one. Should the Ottawa Senators use the Canada Sports banner as the base or the Ottawa City banner? Should an MP from Manitoba use the Manitoba banner or the Canadian Politician banner as the base? We could, of course, keep all banners separate, but my compulsive wikignoming makes me like templates that give all our WikiProject tags a standardized look and order and makes sure that articles aren't ignored by only having a city template when it should also have Canada Music or Canada Sports template. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To take your example, the Canada-wide banner would have to have a flag to set the sports first and the city second. Whereas if you went the other way around, the local banner could set it. I have no problem with variation. In fact, I think that there is not much benefit for putting a Canada tag on an article that is very localized, for example a local street. I would rather the first banner be the city. If it is Canada at the top, then it kind of means that Canada-wide editors will grade it, which seems an unnecessary addition. Possibly just default importance to low, if that is allowed. I'd rather just categorize it, so it could be found from the Canada wikiproject. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to default the rating to low? If it hasn't been assessed yet, just leave it be, otherwise, why even have a low rating... it would be the same as leaving it unassessed, so you could just delete the low rating. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Suppress geography=yes where community=yes exists

Is it possible not to add to WikiProject Geography of Canada when WikiProject Canadian Communities exists? Per [1]. This will save at least 6450 edits... –xeno^talk 12:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

At first I was opposed, but I'm now warming up to the idea. If we make it impossible to have community=yes and geography=yes, we may as well do the same with the geography/roads pairing and the ppap/cangov pairing. I guess the main problem is for articles on geographically large but culturally homogeneous areas that discuss both physical geography and social geography of the area, such as Nunavik. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We would probably need an override. And this might not even be a good idea. If not, let me know and I'll still run that reversal task. –xeno^talk 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think ideally we would remove geography=yes from the offending articles, but I have no idea how much effort it takes to set up and run the bot. 6000 edits sounds like a lot, so it might be easiest to just have blanket suppression for article in both projects as per your original comment. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking over some of these pages, I think we really will have to take off the geography parameter on pages that have the community one, though it will be a lot of edits. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm bumping this topic to keep it from being archived because I still need to deal with it.

Edit request from The-Pope, 14 April 2010

{{editprotected}} User:DASHBot is generating lists of unreferenced BLPs daily. This is done by either detecting the use of a project template - ie all articles that have this WikiProject Canada template, that are also tagged with the Unreferenced BLP template are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada/Unreferenced BLPs. Subprojects, however, that share the WP Canada template with parameter switches, such as Canadian Music (music=yes), need to have their articles category populated - not just the by importance/quality ones - see cats such as Category:Kawartha_Lakes_articles, compared to Category:WikiProject Canadian music articles. This is achieved by the use of the |TF_2_MAIN_CAT = WikiProject Canadian music articles code. Please add this code for the Canadian music taskforce, as the uBLP tracking is currently not [Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian music/Unreferenced BLPs|working]], and won't work until this is added. Feel free to add it to any other heavily BLP related areas that you may want to get an automated list from. See User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates for the lists, and please add any more subprojects that aren't listed, and then get referencing! Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Toronto-importance parameter didn't work

I tried to use this WPCANADA banner on the article for Blue Peter (band) today:
{{WikiProject Canada|music=yes|class=Stub|importance=low|Toronto=yes|Toronto-importance=low}}
but instead of noting that the article was "supported by WikiProject Toronto (Low importance)", the banner showed "WikiProject Toronto (Unassessed-importance)". Can anybody fix this, or advise why it wouldn't work? PKT(alk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Haha, it's because Toronto was spelled as "Tornoto" in the template. Now fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I just updated the banners to {{WikiProject Canada|class=start|importance=low|music=yes|toronto=yes|on=yes|listas=Blue Peter (band)}} but now it indicates an (Unassessed-importance) for the TO:Project? Argolin (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

and I removed the {{Canada-band-stub}} from the main article Blue Peter (band). Argolin (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Assessment for the city parameters?

It seems that someone has changed something (maybe in the namespace? do they have a separate namespace?) regarding the city projects. We now have:

• WikiProject Toronto. (Unassessed-importance)
• WikiProject Montreal. (Unassessed-importance)
• WikiProject Vancouver. (Unassessed-importance)
• WikiProject Ottawa. (Unassessed-importance)

It seems the provincial projects are unaffected: Template:WikiProject Canada

See: Category talk:Musicians from Toronto

I added the {{WikiProject Canada|class=Cat|importance=NA|music=yes|toronto=yes|on=yes|type=Category}} and now this talk page seems plain wrong. Somebody in the know please help!!! Argolin (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The city projects use a different importance scale than the Canada project. You can specify their importance ratings with the parameter toronto-importance= —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhhh! When did that come into effect? Actually that doesn't matter now. How can I keep current with updates regarding what parameters to use and when? Thanks Arctic Gnome! You're really not that frosty are you?:) Argolin (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The city importance rankings were added a few days after the cities were. The template doesn't get new parameters all that often, but if you miss a change to it, it's not a big deal. The template will still work fine with all of the existing parameters like music=yes. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks AG, but something has changed. See Talk:The Evaporators. I did the edit 10 April 2010. I'm positive that the (Unassessed-importance) for the city was not there when I appled the banner in early April. I would have asked back then. As a rough guess, I must have added about 100 such {{WikiProject Canada|music=yes}, with the province and city. It is only happening now? Help... Argolin (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

If the city tag showed up but the unassessed-importance tag didn't, then I guess you added those during the brief time after the city parameters were added but before the city importance parameters were. The template still works, it's just that the city doesn't have an importance ranking right now. We'll have to go around and assess those, just like we'll have to do with the other unassessed articles. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. From what I remember now, I had a blitz of Canadian music articles adding the template for a few days. I stopped 'cause I had questions to resolve. Argolin (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Quebec=yes image

Unrelated comment ....we should switch the Quebec flag for there wikiproject to -->File:QC-flag-contour.png like the rest!!Moxy (talk) 22:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Template banner page locked: looking to add Category:WikiProject banners

Can the key master unlock the Template banner page and add Category:WikiProject banners? Argolin (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not without the gatekeeper. I wonder why this category isn't included by virtue of using WPBannerMeta? –xeno^talk 23:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is a very good question. I think I'm a Categorist: meta:Association of Categorist Wikipedians Argolin (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The template is automatically put in Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment which is a subcategory of Category:WikiProject banners. The latter is therefore only for non-WPBM banners. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

 Not done per MSGJ. –xeno^talk 14:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Request at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop

{{editprotected}} I followed up a request to make some images at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, which I assume where for this template.

• 
  British Columbia
• 
  Alberta
• 
  Saskatchewan
• 
  Manitoba
• 
  Ontario
• 
  Quebec
• 
  Newfoundland and Labrador
• 
  New Brunswick
• 
  Prince Edward Island
• 
  Nova Scotia
• 
  Vote stub

Can someone update these icons?--Svgalbertian (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Is there a map contour for the flag of Canada, Nunavut, NWT, or Yukon? 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • There is already one for Canada. As for the Territories I am trying to get a map of the same detail as the provinces. There is already a request at the French map lab for the maps. If there is a demand for them, I could make them with less detailed maps in the interim.--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • commons:Flag maps of Canada - I've created a gallery for easy access. (perhaps it should be a category?) 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok Commons:Category:Flag-maps of Canada 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: the shape of a few of these icons, e.g. Alberta and Saskatchewan, look different to the existing icons. Can someone confirm that this is intentional? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
  • It depends on how to do the map projection. The maps I used are equirectangular projections. The United States flag maps use the same equirectangular maps as I did. Neither technique should be considered right or wrong. However I do have a slight issue with current Alberta/Saskatchewan maps. They appear to be taken from a larger map of Canada and are distorted; for example the 49th parallel should be symmetric in the map of Saskatchewan.--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I think the old shapes are fine, since they seem to be the normal way it is done, atleast whenever I see the shape of a province, the rectangular shapes look odd. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 updated. Thanks for creating those. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

PEI

The PEI task force looks weird, looking at the top of this page where the totality of all TFs are activated, it's listed as "Prince Edward" instead of "Prince Edward Island". 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional switch forms

{{editprotected}} I suggest that we add the normal Canadian abbreviations, and the full province/territory names as well, as alternate parameters to activate TF switches.

• BC: {{{bc|{{{british-columbia|}}}}}}
• Alberta: {{{ab|{{{alta|{{{alberta|}}}}}}}}}
• Saskatchewan: {{{sk|{{{sask|{{{saskatchewan|}}}}}}}}}
• Manitoba: {{{mb|{{{man|{{{manitoba|}}}}}}}}}
• Ontario: {{{on|{{{ont|{{{ontario|}}}}}}}}}
• Quebec: {{{qc|{{{que|{{{quebec|{{{pq|}}}}}}}}}}}}
• New Brunswick: {{{nb|{{{new-brunswick|}}}}}}
• Nova Scotia: {{{ns|{{{nova-scotia|}}}}}}
• Prince Edward Island: {{{pe|{{{pei|{{{prince-edward-island|}}}}}}}}}
• Newfoundland and Labrador: {{{nl|{{{nfld|{{{newfoundland|{{{newfoundland-and-labrador|}}}}}}}}}}}}
• Nunavut: {{{nu|{{{nunavut|}}}}}}
• Northwest Territories: {{{nt|{{{nwt|{{{northwest-territories|}}}}}}}}}
• Yukon Territory: {{{yt|{{{yk|{{{yu|{{{yukon|{{{yukon-territory|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}

1. PQ is an old two letter postal abbreviation for Quebec, and also found frequently in use in Quebec
2. YT/YK/YU all find usage
3. Newfoundland is the old name for "Newfoundland and Labrador"
4. Yukon Territory is also used as Yukon
5. I'm sure many Canadians are more familiar with the longer abbreviations over the short two letter postal symbols, especially for places like NWT and PEI
6. The full names of the province/territory should be available

70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that editors will need to come and check the documentation anyway before using the template, I'm not sure that there is much advantage to this suggestion. They are unlikely to be able to guess the correct parameters to use, so why not keep things simple and use one parameter for each? Anyway, let's see what others think. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If they are familiar enough with the WikiProjects to know that they used a combined banner for the provinces/territories and the country, I'd think it'd be easy to assume they should not need to look up the specific code for each province if they need to activate it. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 21:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes (subproject portals)

Lots has changed recently..this is good!!...I do wonder though if the music portal gets to override the Canada portal...should the provinces not do this aswell or see both!! ...We have portals/projects for all 10 ps and 3 ts....I was the one that got/asked for the music portal to appear!..but now that i look at the code i think it would be proper to link to the provinces too if possible....Someone like Dalton McGuinty you should see the Ontario portal not Canada one..its clearly an Ontario WP topic.....!!! A great example of a music conflict would be Bryan Adams see Talk:Bryan Adams. You will notice that the Music portal is seen ..this is great as hes famous for his music, however hes a member of the Order of British Columbia and Canada. So yes its the Music project that watches over the article i guess.... but should we not see the B.C portal aswell..so they have as much of a chance to acquire new project members and advertise there portal?...This type of thing might be to much for the template in coding or may be too much info in template at once .....anyways just my to cents ...not pushing for any changes..Moxy (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The /taskforces hook does have a PORTAL parameter to add a separate portal to each taskforce. See {{WPFOOD}} for an example in practice. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Omg that would be great to see all the ones that apply....looks like i have to make portals for the projects that dont have ones :) ....i have work to do!!..i take it this will/should be implemented ..as its only fair to all the WP portals ..The portals that should be linked are here --> Portal:Canada/Related portals...should i work on doing this ..or will someone better at it try??..Moxy (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The territories switch will need to have several different portals linked to... 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Added some more portals ... how does it look? I haven't done the territories yet because I wasn't sure the best way. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Omg your great ..I see alot of people around a barn!! ....As for territories up to you you clearly are doing a great job here!!..I will make portals for those other active projects..but this will take time!! ..i will post here as i go!!..Moxy (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The portals look great, well done! —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Was thinking for the territories {{Portal box}}..this should make it smaller and condensed...Moxy (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried it but it was far too large. Now I've separated the three and included the respective portals. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

portal additions

As per what i said above i will post new portals here --First is Portal:History of Canada {{Portal|History of Canada|Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg}} = File:Canadian Coat of Arms Shield.svg

...Moxy (talk) 07:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You realy are fast at all this :) next one cover 3 projects since 2 are is inactive (but could come back) WikiProject Governments of Canada - WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada - WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada.. Only need to list it once for the 3 they are right after each other {{Portal|Canadian politics|Can-vote-stub.svg}} File:Can-vote-stub.svg Portal:Canadian politics.......This are the 2 main ones i felt had to be done will do the rest in time.....Moxy (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with everyone's assertion that those projects are dead. The standardization rules that they give for articles in their scope are still applicable, and their assessment tables are still useful as navigation tools. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Added — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok here one more ---> Portal:Geography of Canada --> File:Canada flag map.svg.........Moxy (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK one more again ..dame that Moxy :) --> Sport in Canada -->File:313px-CanadaSoccer.png..........Moxy (talk) 23:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

New parameter needs-photo=yes?

Is there any way we (in the Canadian music group) can specifically identify what bands/musicians need a picture? I've been religious in my attempt at getting pic's, adding it to the {{WPBiography}} when necessary. I believe the musician-work-group has too many to deal with. Can it be applied project wide or just for the music=yes group? Thanks again. Argolin (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I think a needs photo parameter would be useful, a lot of projects have it already. We may as well have it apply to all of the wikiprojects in the template; even if one project rarely uses them, there is no harm in having an extra category for requested photos sitting around. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't mean to poke and prod, but any idea when it'll be done. I'm assuming you'll use the parameter needs-photo=yes and needs-photo=no (like other projects). Thanks. Argolin (talk) 07:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you put your proposed code in the /sandbox. You should find all the information about the correct syntax in the "alerts and notes" section of Template:WPBannerMeta/doc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Martin, with the greatest respect, please do not tell me what to do. Did you check the sandbox before posting your "suggestion"? It's already there. Can I suggest you update the documentation on the banner. Please start with the type= parameter. It is allowable and recoginsed by the wiki software. Explain the working of the type parameter with the class parameter. Which overrides the other? You do not need to post a reply, just update the documentation. Argolin (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My post seemed to offend you; I cannot imagine why. There seems to be no |needs-photo= parameter in Template:WikiProject Canada/sandbox so I'm not quite sure where you've put it. And I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by a "type" parameter. Can you elaborate? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There use to be a type parameter before the assessment tool sorted lists and non-mainspaces pages with the class parameter. As far as I know, very few projects use the type parameter anymore, and I don't think this one does given that it uses the class parameter for non-articles. As for the photo parameter, Argolin, Martin is right in that you did not add the photo parameter to the sandbox; the last edit to the sandbox was by me on April 6. Nevertheless, it would be straightforward to add it, so don't worry about the sandbox. If no one does it by Sunday when I have time to putter with the template, I'll add it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said I added it or anything. I said it was already there. Martin, yes, my post was rather abrasive. I am not familiar enough with templates (or sandboxes) to go in and start mucking about. A five minute change for Arctic Gnome could easily suck up more than an hour for me. Being new to the project I have to rely on what others are telling me. I had a less than useful exchange with xeno for a bot request. It wasn't even his bot that I wanted run. He clearly didn't read my post. I'm trying to do maintenance on the Categories for the music group (as of this moment there are 98 of them). Originally, I wanted ??? (three question marks) assigned TEMPORARILY. Why: To separate the categories between ones I've already looked at and all the new ones that are coming, I wanted to use ???. This Canada template no longer accepts anything other than Top/High/Mid/Low. Anything and everything else you try goes into the NA bucket. I guess I have to choose low now. Hurray for Arctic.gnome!!! You agree that Categories are not articles. I hope you don't mind, but now I know where to get advice on non-mainspaces pages. Some users out there may want to read WP:PROJCATS. The section name is "Non-article and maintenance categories". Argolin (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything with class=category (or any other non-content page) by default has importance=NA. It is possible to override the default and give it an importance, but I advise against it. What is it about the music category pages that you need to "look at"? Are you just putting the categories into super-categories or are you doing something else with them? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's start at Category:Canadian music. Until the other day (when I was looking for a template), I didn't realise there was a Category:Canadian music templates. It seemed important enough so I added it directly to Category:Canadian music. Further investigation led me to Category:Canadian pop singers templates. Prior to 03:46, 6 May 2010 it was not assigned to our project. At 03:46, 6 May 2010 I added {{WikiProject Canada|class=template|importance=NA|music=yes}} to the Talk/discussion page and linked it to Category:Canadian music templates. Also, I added {{Wikipedia parent category}} {{template category}} etc... I have other examples if you like. Argolin (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question in a nutshell. I'm looking at the structure of the Category:Canadian music category tree (adding links to other cats and adding information to the cat page). Argolin (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out this link: Recent changes to "Canadian music articles". My user id is all over it; the usual contributors are myself, Moxy, and Bearcat. Argolin (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to make the needs-photo parameter work with one project at a time, but I'll need to do some more work to make it work when there is more than one subproject, so don't start using it yet. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed your code. In future I'd be happy to check code in the sandbox before it is deployed on such a high visibility template ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that seems to work. I had used the sandbox first, for for some reason it wouldn't show the categories on that page, so I couldn't do a proper test there. When I tried testing it in my userspace, I got a warning saying that the template was in the wrong namespace, so I wasn't sure where I could go to test the categories. I figured testing it here would be safe given that no pages actually use the needs-photo parameter yet. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Testing in your userspace would work, as long as you ignore the warning box. Otherwise a talk page in your userspace wouldn't trigger the warning. By the way, the code I put in will only trigger the category for the first taskforce that is tagged as "yes". We can make this more robust if you wish. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice if pages could be in both the music-needs-photo and city-needs-photo categories. Can your switch parameter be changed from "or" to "and/or"? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Artic Gnome, would you like my help in setting up new categories? I like what the {{WPBiography}} people have done: Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of musicians. I asked for the new parameter, so I thought I should offer to help where I can. Argolin (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just seen this. The switch cannot be improved I'm afraid. It was a quick fix but not a very robust one. If you really need separate categories for each task force, then the {{WPBio}} approach will be needed. Let me know if you need any help with this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably not a big enough deal that we'd need to complicate the template. Most places with the tag will be city sites, which are only relevant to one city. We'd just have to figure out which project should take precedence when a page is tagged as needing a photo for a city and a musician. I'd vote city. As for setting up the categories, what needs to be done? I guess the photo categories should be put in the assessment category of their project and be given some template to link it to stuff. Is there anything else? —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My two cents. I think the sub projects (ie music=yes, geography, etc) should be given priority. If a city needs a photograph, can't they add their separate template? Argolin (talk) 01:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

True enough. If the city templates ever become depreciated like the province ones, we'll re-evaluate, but for now let's keep the music one first. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said you were giving the cities priority? Argolin (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I do think that the cities should have priority, but I also agreed with the argument that you just made against them being first. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. It doesn't matter about priority cause you're doing the hard work with the template. I noticed that it was functional a few days back. It's ok to use now? Argolin (talk) 05:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Artic gnome, I've assumed the new parameter is ok to use. So far as categories, they have to be linked to the individual projects. I've done this for the music project. I also added a blurb on the process of adding images (copied from WP:BIO). The template in the other Canadian requested photo cats was not relevant. Argolin (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifying Canadian English in the project template?

Would it be useful to embed the notice from {{Canadian English}} into the project template, to remind editors that all articles under the project should follow Canadian spelling and dialect? In the event there are actually articles which should be following a different national English, then this notice could be hidden with an option parameter. Dl2000 (talk) 02:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As you suggest in your email post, there may be several articles with the project template that due to the rules at WP:ENGVAR don't use Canadian English (articles like Frank Gehry, etc.). I would be hesitant to implement an across-the-board change, unless we first were able to identify all of those articles that would not follow Canadian spelling and dialect (not necessarily an easy task). I also think that having a separate template isn't such a bad idea -- it stands out in a way that additional text in the project template would not, and thus perhaps better catches the attention of those editors who in good faith want to correct "mispellings" like colour, defenceman, etc. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would just add that as a separate template, {{Canadian English}} does not get collapsed into {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, and thus the reminder to use Canadian English remains visible at all times in a way that it wouldn't (as far as I know) if it were incorporated into the project template. Just a thought. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• A question when using music=yes paranter for the project. I have found roughly one-third of the articles I encounter do not have the {WikiProject Canada}} banner or at least the music=yes parameter. My question:

1. Should I add the template

I really don't know now. I thought that since we are a Canadian project, it is understood that we use Canadian English. I am looking for a difinitive answer. Thanks Argolin (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have posted this question at Talk:Canadian English#Template usage and .7B.7BWikiProject Canada.7Cmusic.3Dyes.7C.7D.7D directing them here. Can't wait! Argolin (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be embedded, or at least it should be an optional parameter. Mostly because there are some articles relevant to WP:CANADA and to another country at the same time, and secondly because some talk pages are too cluttered already and I think we only need the Canadian English template on pages where it has been a problem. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

AG, I agree. There is a template out there. I'm just asking if I should use it in conjunction with the others that I add? Argolin (talk) 22:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the general policy is "if there has been a problem with people changing spellings, add the template; otherwise, don't clutter the talk page". —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects

I have been informed that arctic gnome is deleting banners on redirects. WPMONTREAL tags redirects. It is therefore highly disadvantageous to merge onto WPCANADA, since WPCANADA's practices would be in opposition to WPMONTREAL practices, and would just not be helpful, since it would be dictating terms on what can be tagged. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that any projects were purposely tagging redirects and I've stopped doing so until I figure out what the preferred policies are. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Lots of projects tag redirects. Why would "redirect-class" even exist if it weren't the case?

There was that big blowup a few months ago about a bot vandalizing other people's banners, when a WPBIO bot went around autodeleting non-WPBIO banners from redirects, and lots of other projects complaining that WPBIO was vandalizing their banners. (and these weren't even WPBIO articles or redirects... they were any old redirect)

65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Redirect-class doesn't actually exist in either the standard or the extended class setup, it defaults to NA-class if you use it. If there a project out there that shows redirect-class on their banner, they must have set it up as a custom option. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for coming to the discussion rather late, but can you Arctic Gnome setup the redirect as a class? WPMONTREAL seems to want it and I think it would be great to use at the Canadian music project. I'm not a big fan of the NA designation. Per Category:Redirect-Class articles there are 267 other projects using it. Argolin (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be useful too. Redirects should cover almost everything in the NA class, so if we sort those out we should be able to see what else is hiding in there. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The template now accepts redirect-class and all of the wikiproject have had categories created so that redirect-class will show up on their tables after the job queue and 1.0 bot go through them. I noticed that several projects are still missing assessment categories for books and project class, so I'm going to have to create those too when I next get a chance. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow fast! The music project has two. There must be more out there. Is it possible for the bot to add others or is that strictly a manual endevour? Argolin (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Artic gnome a big FYI: class=redir is accepted. I changed the Talk:Juno Awards of 1988 to class=redirect so it would display in the "Redirect" and not in the "NA" section for the stats page. Argolin (talk) 00:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Any pages that are tagged with class=redirect will be added to the table on their own as the job queue and 1.0 bot work their ways through the encyclopedia. Until then, you can force a page to show up on the category page by making a WP:null edit to the page with the template. Any pages that are not tagged with class=redirect will have to have the template added manually. A bot add the template do it, but tagging redirects is a pretty low priority, so you may not find someone who wants to set up their bot for it. It's interesting that it accepts "redir". I didn't tell it to do that, but I guess the meta-template knows that redir means redirect even though class=redirect is a custom add-on and not one of the core classes. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. At fist I thought adding a template could be tacked on to the bot request you've made. I see now they are two different animals. I'll add the template manually when and if I come across them which is not often. I thought you'd like to know about it's short form :) The juno redirect has been around for donkey's years. The three redirects are now a-ok at the music project. Can I do anything for you? Argolin (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No problem. My next goal in WP:CANADA is clearing the backlog of unassessed-quality articles, so if you ever have some free time, go ahead and assess a few of those. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NA-class

For your information there are a lot of pages tagged with |class=NA when they should be |class=category. For example Category talk:High schools in Quebec. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That's my fault. I turned off a feature that sorted pages with class=na outside of the main talk space according to namespace. I've now turned it back on, so the categories and templates with class=na should automatically be resorted as class=category and class=template once the job queue next goes through. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I've reassessed all the items in the music project to correct the newly assigned NA. I thought it was part of Artic gnome's curiosity to see what was hiding in the mysterious NA-class. This nebulous class is where I previously ran into problems. I discovered the usage of Type= parameter by looking at other items in the Canada project. I don't know all the ins/out but, why don't you leave it as is and have a bot go through and assign the class properly? At the very least correct all the items which are not category class (that being the top offender)? Argolin (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As it is now, all of the templates, categories, and files that are marked class=na will be sorted according to their namespace into the right group (there are about 800 of them). Mainspace pages will still be in the NA category until they are fixed to class=redirect, class=dab, or class=list, as appropriate. Having the templates, categories, and files say "class=na" does not do any harm as long as they're still being sorted right. Nevertheless, if we want to get a bot to fix them all, we can do so by telling the bot to (for example) go through everything in the class=template category and replace "class=na" with "class=template" while skipping all pages without that string of text. As for the old "type" parameter, it no longer has any effect, but it likewise does no harm by being there. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that your admission of "my fault" was a good thing: a eureka moment. As far as I know, there is no longer any ambiguity as to the classification of items in the music project. However, there is a harm in programming your way around it. It does a big disservice to the Canada project and to Wikipedia. Again, I started using the Type= parameter by looking elsewhere in the project unaware that the usage of this type parameter is in fact wrong. There is only 600-ish left (not 800) with the NA. I reassessed 50-ish music project + Portal:New France (which was criminal :) I had to leave the one other project as NA (I don't know!!). It's my belief that if a user has set something incorrectly, it's screaming for someone to look at and correct (not via a programming work-around; there are other issues to correct). As I posted in a previous thread, I am quite willing to work to fix these issues. Argolin (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If there are people out there willing to re-tag all of the class=na pages, then I'm happy to turn the feature back off. Before I put the job queue back to work, I'll give people a couple days to make any arguments for the status quo. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

We have two class=NA left that I don't know what to do with. Talk:Tillicum/List of potential Tillicum related topics exists but it's article page has been deleted? User:Mrjeremister/50th Battalion Canadian Expeditionary Forces looks like an article, reads like an article, but is it a sandbox page? Argolin (talk) 04:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of duplicate banner templates

Is there anyone out there that can provide a listing of mainspace items with dupliate Canada banners? I've come across this one today Talk:Hamlets of Saskatchewan (corected) and this one yesterday Talk:Alberta Federation of Labour. We have one in the music project Talk:Canadian rock. The first two articles were found as part of the class=Redirect and class=NA template enhancements. I'd like a bot to help, but I'd also like to hear from others. Argolin (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't think of a way that you can find pages using both, but you can find all of the pages using a banner using the "what links here" special page. You can find the 602 pages using the Saskatchewan template at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:SKCNproject. All of the random one's I've checked have been doubled-up, so we can start removing those. Once they are all gone, we can delete the original template. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

AG, my concern is that wiki is doubling the stats. It will if (for example differences exist between class/importance) the first instance of Wikiproject Canada includes the music project and the second includes the province projects.

For your Saskatchewan undertaking, are removing the extra banner template manually or with a bot? I went through the Toronto project and assigned any class=template to the Canada project (and multiple subs). I think a bot may be able to handle some of the other namespace items. Specifically image class (most in the TO project have the NA assigned lol!). You've used bots before? Argolin (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't started on the Saskatchewan template yet; it will probably be my next task after I get rid of the importance=NA lists. I've made some Bot requests before for assessments here, those people are very helpful. I've also used AutoWikiBrowser, which isn't exactly a bot, but it sets up repetitive edits for you so all you have to do is click "save" on every page. Unfortunately, I can't use that one right now because I don't have access to a Windows computer anymore. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I forgot all about the AWB. Argolin (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce text

Retrieved from archive.

The default text for the taskforce includes a link to the importance category. (See the three territories taskforces.) What do people think of that compared to the four cities which are bold and unlinked? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I prefer bolded text, if you add linkage to the category through the bolded text, it would combine both features. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the most relevant fact the name of the task force (which is emboldened on this version) rather than the assigned importance? The problem with using non-default text here is that the importance is not normalised. For example it is possible to to this:

Banner removed, because now it has been fixed.

It just prints whatever you type even if it's nonsense. The default text uses the normalised importance rating and it is not very easy or efficient to do this separately for every taskforce. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If we can show the importance ratings in the default text, then I see no reason for us to use our own. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've switched to the default text for the 4 subprojects which are using their own importance ratings. The reason the default is not used for all is that the same importance rating would be dupicated on every line. (See a discussion I had with User:Mindmatrix about this last year.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-related: I thought there is one Territory WikiProject. The Canada banner has one task force: Kawartha Lakes task force.??? Argolin (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is, but the icon and portal change depending on which parameter (nt, yt or nu) is used. So I thought it would be simpler to set them up as separately. Theoretically you shouldn't get more than one appearing at a time. The Kawartha Lakes was set up after this request. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 04:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not critising you, the banner, etc.. This is the place I come to view proper syntax and would expect to see all items on the banner template. I'm just trying to keep all the nomenclature straight: the main project is WPCanada, sub projects are music=yes, on=yes, riding=yes, etc (any assignment of "=" generally placed after the class= and importance= assignments). Taskforces can be responsible to a project or multiple projects. Argolin (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another 2 cents: I like the two letter assignments for prov/terr. It matches what Canada post uses (I always use qc (pq is English?); sometimes I forget that nf is wrong its nl). There is a treaty in place in that the 50+ States and 13 Canadian jurisdictions each have unique two digit assignments. Argolin (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on a system of "inherited importance" in the meta-template where task forces can inherit the overall importance if they are not assigned an individual importance. This is now deployed and there is a version in the sandbox (diff) which uses this feature. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:17, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of sub project templates

I have not yet seen any definitive statement regarding the non-use of any of Canada's sub project templates. Has there been an archived version? Anyway, most of Canada's sub projects do not provide an example of the proper usage of Canada's banner template. Examples are Wikipedia:WikiProject Toronto which claims parentage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian communities??? The offending template being {{WikiProject Toronto}}. Wikipedia:WikiProject Ottawa claims parentage of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities??? It's offending template is {{ottawaproject}}. Ottawa and Toronto are not alone. A plauge on all your houses.... lol. Argolin (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The city projects are much newer additions to the template. When we added sub-projects like government and the provinces we made an effort to get rid of the old templates. However, in the case of the city templates, some people prefer the old ones on some articles, and there are a couple cases where it works better (such as when a photo-needed tag is used for both Canadian music and the city). In almost all cases, however, the city and Canada templates can be merged to save space with no loss of content, so feel free to merge them wherever you see fit. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You might find it interesting that someone recently deleted {{WikiProject Toronto}} leaving a couple thousand articles without a Canada related banner. I fixed it to redirect to Canada but there may be others. --Kumioko (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This should not be done without consultation of the City WikiProjects. It's just another step on the path to the takeover by WPCANADA without asking the City WikiProjects. I don't see any notices at the city wikiprojects about this move. Aside from WPTORONTO assenting to getting rid of its Wikibanner, where is the notice that this action should be done? 76.66.202.72 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Was the original {{WikiProject Toronto}} deleted ?? We should realy talk about what happed here. Did someone just do this all by them self. Unlike the IP i am not assuming it was a WPCANADA thing (should apply good faith always).Moxy (talk) 21:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It was just done in the last month. I remember glancing at it at TFD but didnt know anything about it so I kept going. If I remember correctly the submitter said it was deprecated by WPCanada. I dont think it was a Canada thing or any malice intended I think it was a user who thought it wasnt needed. --Kumioko (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

How odd it was deleted and no bot to fix the now blanked template. Wow this was a fiasco ...lets see if we can find this TFD and i will contact the people involved to explain what has happened. I am sure noone was thinking that if it was deleted there would not be a replacement for it. Sounds like the nominator of the TFD was misleading people into thinking this was realy a copy of WPCAnada...as this is way wrong. Moxy (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto#Project banner. But I agree, all the pages should have been converted to the Canadian banner before deletion. 117Avenue (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So things have somewhat been solved ....see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto#Project banner as mentioned above by 117Avenue.Moxy (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is WPCANADA altering instructions for Vancouver and Montreal without contacting or consulting the WikiProjects involved, on WPVancouver and WPMontreal instruction pages? There is a poll at WPMontreal that clearly does not show anything like approval for anything like this change. There indeed shows a position that does not consent to the change. 76.66.202.72 (talk) 07:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have respond to the first of many of this posts i saw at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikiProject CanadaMoxy (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Canada Roads to be added pls

Could we add Portal:Canada Roads,,,,,,,,,,,,,Thank you :-) Moxy (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Canada Roads WikiProject

Just a heads up. This template in about a week can stop supporting that project. CRWP's banner has been recreated with additional functionality. I've made a bot request to update the tagging. Imzadi 1979 → 01:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question should we not leave the parameter in place in case editors see this template and are unaware of the other template and/or project. Just think you might get a few editors that will tag articles for your project since there tagging things anyways with this template and/or would not go about the effort of adding two templates. Could just keep track and change them over every now and then. Plus keeping the parameters in place will let editors know that you are here on Wiki (as they can see it listed on this template). Moxy (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No, actually, there's a couple problems with that.

1. The newly revised CRWP template uses the same nomenclature for assessment and importance categories as USRD and the HWY projects do for compatibility with a bot that runs daily. That bot creates and updates the table at WP:USRD/A/S and will be doing the same for CRWP. (The template used the same categories before, but the national-level ones were deleted and renamed when the banners were merged 3 years ago. The provincial-level categories are brand new.)
2. The CANADA banner doesn't feed the by-province assessment categories. If an editor only adds the CANADA banner, it will place the article in the wrong and to be deleted national categories for CRWP and not place it in the correct provincial category.
3. Why should the article's talk page say in two places that it's part of CRWP?
4. The thousands of highway articles in the US are dual or triple tagged now. They bear banners for USRD (tagged by state and type as needed), banners for the state-level projects and in some cases, city-level projects. Some even get tagged for the National Register of Historic Places or MILHIST. There's nothing wrong with two banners. There is something wrong when two banners are trying to do the same thing, i.e. tag for one project. Imzadi 1979 → 05:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with multiple banners saying the same thing. Theres not anything wrong with having multiple WikiProject Banners either. Look at the Barack Obama article. It has 19 banners and counting and there all valid. There are dozens of WikiProjects that have a topic or taskforce for biographies eventhough WPBiography is not added to a biographial article almost automatically. It helps in a number of other ways too but Im not going to dive down that rabbit hole at the moment. --Kumioko (talk) 05:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Question for you. If the CRWP-specific banner says that X article is B-Class, and the Canada-project banner says it's C-Class and a road, what is it to CRWP? The Obama article example is not the same. I'm not saying the Canada banner is coming off the CRWP articles. It's staying. However, we are not going to have two banners on the same page both claiming to tag the article as a part of one project. {{Canada Roads WikiProject}} is not going to say "Yes, this article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject when {{WikiProject Canada}} is trying to say the same thing. One project (CRWP), one banner. Two projects (CRWP, Canada) two banners. Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me clarify. The articles will be dual- or triple-tagged or whatever. WP:Canada can still tag the articles. CRWP is going to tag its articles for itself now. That way if CRWP says that this is a B-Class road article, it goes into the B-Class road category. The Canada banner just won't be able to say that this is C-Class, it's a road, and so put it also into the C-Class road category. That kind of duplication is bad. If Canada wants to assess something as C-Class, then put that into the C-Class Canada category, and leave the road assessments to CRWP's banner. Imzadi 1979 → 06:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is. Question for you. If the CRWP-specific banner says that X article is B-Class, and the Canada-project banner says it's C-Class and a road, what is it to CRWP? The Obama article example is not the same. I'm not saying the Canada banner is coming off the CRWP articles. It's staying. However, we are not going to have two banners on the same page both claiming to tag the article as a part of one project. {{Canada Road WikiProject}} is not going to say "Yes, this article is part of the Canada Roads WikiProject when {{WikiProject Canada}} is trying to say the same thing. One project (CRWP), one banner. Two projects (CRWP, Canada) two banners. Imzadi 1979 → 06:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Im not going to get into an edit war over this but there really isn't anything wrong with it. To give another example. WikiProject United States has articles tagged and some of them have the US, ACW or ARW task forces as well. 2 projects, 2 banners. Lots of articles have multiple banners relating to US stuff. Again, no big deal. I really don't have a dog in this fight if WPcanada does or doesn't want to have that in their project but they can if they want too. As for the assessment question the article could very well be a B class in one projects eyes and a Start or C class in the other. This happens all the time and its no big deal. Its no different than WPBiography having B class and US roads having Start because they apply a more stringent rule set for B class. And the Obama article is a prime example. There are at least 9 different banners relating to US projects (and theres a couple more that apply that aren't there). Under your logic these are redundant but they are all independent projects and each has the right to advertise their banner. And BTW CRWP doesn't own the articles so if another project wants to count them as a different class, in a different category, they can. And WPCanada's banner can support CRWP having its own assessment aside from the assessment in the Canada national template. Maybe instead of CRWP should change theirs to not reflect the roads Wikiproject. Maybe it should something like Canadian roads so its clearer that the 2 are seperate. --Kumioko (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

You've misunderstood me totally, 100%. Right now, {{WikiProject Canada}}, the banner for the national project, has a |roads=yes parameter. Because of that, the parent banner (Canada) controls the assessments for the child project (CRWP). They can't be assessed differently. That's why the split is being made. The problem is that some people are trying to keep the road parameter in the parent banner after the split, which is going to royally screw things up. The parent banner will still be on articles, but it should not attempt to say what the CRWP assessments are, which as long as that roads parameter stays put, it will. Imzadi 1979 → 06:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Canada banner could use a free spot in case a task force is created. As it is, everything is full IIRC. There is no harm in removing the road classification from the WP:CANADA banner, whatsoever. There is significant harm in not doing so; each article would be placed into two different categories which are supposed to represent the same lone topic - X-Class/Importance Canadian road articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The city wikiprojects didn't seem enthused by being added to this banner... you could free up more spaces by removing them. 65.93.12.43 (talk) 08:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: rather than removing the parameter from thousands of articles, you can just remove the support from the taskforce from this template. This will solve the problem, and will also make it easier to revert if the project members ever want to take a different approach in the future. There is no harm from leaving the |road=yes parameter in the code even if it doesn't do anything. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • As each article is converted over though, we're removing the deprecated parameter on each talk page. The two templates place the articles into two different assessment trees. By removing the parameter it also removes the articles from the old tree used by this banner, and we have a running total of what articles still need conversion. Once they're all converted, the parameter needs to be shut off completely, and the old assessment category tree deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 04:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

{{editrequest}}

• Remove road parameter and its associated coding; it is no longer in use. All articles have been converted over to the new template or removed from the project's scope. (Some articles were tagged that were not in the scope of the project.) This parameter is no longer in use. Imzadi 1979 → 02:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  Is this issue still being discussed somewhere at the bottom of this page? Would it be advisable to wait a few more days for consensus to develop? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  I have removed the assessment anyway, as everyone supports this much. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

  All done now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

suggestion: subtemplates to solve the lack of expansion space

I suggest that the banner be split up with switches calling up subbanners (like how WPCHINA works when Tibet=yes is entered, where a WPTIBET banner appears alongside the WPCHINA banner) to solve the problem mentioned at the CRWP splitup section

{{WPCANADA|community=yes}} {{WPCANSETTLEMENTS|...}}

• contains the communities switches. (Cities, Kawartha Lakes, Sask communities, Communities ...) The switches are entered per usual through WPCANADA, it activates the subbanner and is bannered there.

{{WPPCANROVTERR|...}}

• contains the provinces and territories switches, also used per above.

It would involve more coding, with "#if" 's on param names, but would free up 12 spaces for prov/terr, and 7 spaces for communities/cities/neighbourhoods; This would make WPCANADA implement three banners instead of one (not greatly increasing the number of banners); and CWRP can still remain incorporated in the WPCANADA template caller as a subbanner.

65.95.14.34 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This would also allow a "orwp=yes" switch turn on "on=yes" as well as the ((CRWP|orwp=yes)) banner. "orwp" would turn on CRWP. Additionally, crwp-class and crwp-importance would be passed as ((CRWP|class=crwp-class|importance=crwp-importance|onrwp=yes))... 65.95.14.34 (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that's a big deal. The Ontario Roads project retired its separate banner in favor of using the CRWP banner. The CRWP banner actually does a lot more though. It can tag for the Trans-Canada Highway, as well as any combination of the provinces/territories. It can track if the article needs a map, a highway marker graphic (shield) or if the junction list in the article needs attention to meet MOS:RJL. It has an A-Class Review process feature as well. In the future, it will pass the articles' assessments not just into the appropriate categories by province/territory and nationally, but also into the categories for the WP:HWY parent project. The functions that this one template are serving can't be accommodated without major changes to the WP:CANADA banner, which is why there is a separate template. The parameters in use though in {{CRWP}} aren't compatible with the logic you're suggesting. It uses |province#= with an input of the two-letter abbreviation for up to 10 inputs and/or a |tch=yes to tag the article as part of the TCH. Imzadi 1979 → 09:08, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It would if all the CRWP parameters are passed through. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 09:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

At which point, you might as well just add the few extra characters to invoke the template directly. I don't see how this saves or simplifies anything. There isn't a lack of expansion space, actually. The current template is supporting 31 subprojects and taskforces. The banner template for WikiProject United States supports more than that in one sandboxed rendition. We got a version for the U.S. Roads WikiProject to support 62 for the 50 states, 3 types (Interstates, US Highways, old autotrails), 5 territories, the District of Columbia, and 3 county roads taskforces. It's all in how the template is coded and repeated the one taskforce hook subtemplate. Imzadi 1979 → 09:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You could say that about the current WPCANADA template anyways, as it's just complex instead of being separate templates. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 11:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is very complex. If you're confused by some part of it, then there are many editors who can explain the inner workings and how to isolate a specific function or action. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As Imzadi says, the current WPCANADA banner offers no advantage to those wikiprojects that have their own assessments, other than to reduce participation for those wikiprojects; as it just increases the amount of typing needed. 65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Both can be set up to take care of the same task, but one tends to organize everything more neatly. In the case of CRWP, it has many specific functions that would add needless complexity to the already-complex Canada banner. Most of the wikiprojects incorporated into the Canada banner only use class and importance. You're twisting what Imzadi said.

Having to type more doesn't discourage me from participating, it just adds another item on my veeeeeerrrrrryyyyyy long to-do list, which will inevitibly be forgotten and swept under the rug until the momentum is raised. You are suggesting we do more work (or are you willing to update one template to three on 66645 pages?[2]) in order to free up space where there is no actual restraint on space at the moment. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Canadian Film & Canadian Military

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Canadian cinema task force {{film|Canadian-task-force=yes}} is missing from the WPCANADA banner (this task force covers Canadian film)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force {{WPMILHIST|Canadian=yes}} is missing from the WPCANADA banner (this task force covers the Canadian military and Canadian military history. It is not restricted to history)

The WPJAPAN banner implements their joint taskforces {{WPJAPAN}} ( {{WPJAPAN|cinema=yes|milhist=yes}}

They should be added to the WPCANADA banner similarly.

65.95.14.34 (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good we should add this since we have room after the road project goes all alone. To bad for them but great news for you.Moxy (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You do know that there isn't a hard limitation on the number of taskforces or subprojects in the banner template? I mean, we've have banners programed using the standard metatemplate that had over 60 subprojects. Btw, I don't see why this is bad news for CRWP. The new banner does more for that project that this banner can do, and this banner is still on those talk pages anyway. Imzadi 1979 → 17:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

O i was under the assumption there was a limited amount of spaces sorry my bad (that what was said above)...As for the project separation and isolation is not a good thing..I personally dont care what the projects does. However see it as a very bad move that will led to less awareness of the project thus less participants in the isolated group. You have gone from having the project possible advertised on over 66,000 pages (as people could click on the template and see the project) to just 1,657 pages because it will be removed from this template, all because of assessments. Looks like assessments are more important to the project then collaboration with other projects within its scope, that will led to better articles. I think is to bad that this group is following the American example of WPs all over the place that has led to 1 in 3 of the American projects dieing. But i guess we can just merger this back when need be.Moxy (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The subproject is still "advertised" from the main WikiProject Canada pages. The WikiProject Canada banner is not coming off the article pages. In fact they are staying tagged and assessed for the provincial, city and national projects. I don't know of many people that go directly to the template page from a talk page, but I do know that most click the links to the project pages. If it's a link from the template page that's truly an issue, we can add a note in the documentation to keep that link in place. The project is not isolating itself, it's reclaiming its banner template because it lost functionality when the banner was merged three years ago. As for the US, I don't think that projects are dropping dead. Editing levels and interests wax and wane on Wikipedia to some degree. In some cases, some project should have been killed off. (A separate project just for counties? Can't each state project handle its counties better by collaborating through the national project on common issues and concerns?) Some of them just have too narrow of a scope. I've sent the remnants of a dead project for roads in the Golden Horseshoe off to the XfD processes. Would you believe it had a subproject for one municipality that was still born in 2006-07? When the scope is too narrow, the project isn't feasible, which is what the US is seeing with it's 60-70 "projects". Imzadi 1979 → 20:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I see your point.....I do think its best to leave the paramater in this template so people can see it. I understand the cats for this paramater has already been deleted (since the roads projects has a better cat name) . In my opinon its best to have it in both places so it can be seen by many....Taging articles is somthing newbies do and i am afraid that your project will be over looked when newbies tag articles with this project banner. There are literally thousands of pages that still need tagging (including WPCR). Is it not posible to simply covert to your tag when pages are tagged with WPC paramater for the roads project. What i see hapening is the project being overlooked when it comes to tagging. The portal i made for the project should help with people finding the project and led to people useing the tag, but would be best to have it all over. Again i dont realy care about the tags being separated as i belive assessments are not at all what people care about when reading wikipidia, but i think your projects choice is based on assments and not colaberation.Moxy (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I know of no other project that can be tagged by two separate banner templates. Alternate template names through redirects, yes, but not actual separate templates. All CRWP articles will have WP:CANADA banners on them, but why should both banners say "This article is supported by CRWP" and here's a link to the portal... in two places? WikiProjects collaborate through project talk pages and article talk pages and various different forums, not the banner. You forget one thing. an article like Prime minister of Canada won't have a CRWP tag on it or the Canada Roads portal link... likewise any article on a Canadian subject that isn't a road or road-related. That article's talk page won't do anything to improve the visibility of CRWP or its portal no matter if the banners were still merged together or not. If anything, the separate banner gives CRWP more "advertising space" on a talk page because the mention of CRWP isn't one line high and the portal graphic is bigger. Even when collapsed, the CRWP banner gets a full-height line instead of one word. I know what you're trying to say and what you're thinking, but I just don't think you're right. We're still collaborating together just as much as before. If anything, the re-tagging has popped articles up on people's watchlists and called attention to CRWP just enough to get them to say, "Hey! What's going on? It looks like they're active again!" Imzadi 1979 → 02:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you feel so strongly about this, Moxy, then just set the banner so it still lists the project, but doesn't attempt to place the articles into road-related assessment categories. (I would insist on that much so the CANADA banner doesn't place an article into Category:B-Class Canada road transport articles when the CRWP banner places it into Category:C-Class Canada road transport articles and Category:C-Class Alberta road transport articles. Such duplication would cause the article to be counted twice under the CRWP national assessment numbers and mess with statistics.) Imzadi 1979 → 02:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Judging from what happened to the addition of cities without actual support of the city wikiprojects... it doesn't seem like it matters if CRWP wants to be on WPCANADA or not, WPCANADA can just add it regardless of if they do not want it.

Judging by how the province wikiprojects became inactive after the banners got merged into WPCANADA banner, I would say that the merged template advertises nothing and dramatically reduces the participation at wikiprojects bannered under it, except WPCANADA itself.

65.95.14.34 (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, thanks to this discussion, the |road= parameter has not been completely removed. Only the assessments have been removed. A new editor could think they added an article to the project using the parameter, but unless/until they also add the CRWP template, it has not been assessed nor tracked by the project. So while I might have partially suggested it, I don't endorse or condone leaving the parameter active at all. It needs to be removed, period. Imzadi 1979 → 07:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes lets just remove it all together, this way there are no problems.Moxy (talk) 15:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}}

Please add parameters for :

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Canadian cinema task force {{film|Canadian-task-force=yes}} -- this task force covers Canadian film

{{WPCANADA|cinema=yes}} -- no assessments, just link to the task force

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force {{WPMILHIST|Canadian=yes}} -- this task force covers the Canadian military and Canadian military history. It is not restricted to history

{{WPCANADA|military=yes}} -- no assessments, just link to the task force

65.94.45.209 (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: I'm not sure if there is consensus for this change as the discussion above seemed to conclude in removing these parameters altogether. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

No above was for roads--this 2 are ok to addMoxy (talk) 16:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay in that case can someone specify the exact code to add? (Fill in the underneath.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

|tf 1={{{**PARAMETER**|}}}
 |TF_1_LINK          = 
 |TF_1_NAME          = 
 |TF_1_NESTED        = 
 |TF_1_IMAGE         = 
 |TF_1_TEXT          = 
 |TF_1_MAIN_CAT      = 

{{editprotected}}

|tf 1={{{cinema|}}}
 |TF_1_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Canadian cinema task force
 |TF_1_NAME          = Canadian cinema task force
 |TF_1_IMAGE         = Canadafilm.svg
 |TF_1_TEXT          = This page is supported by the joint [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Canadian cinema task force|Canadian film and cinema task force]]

|tf 1={{{military|}}}
 |TF_1_LINK          = Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force
 |TF_1_NAME          = Canadian military task force
 |TF_1_IMAGE         = Roundel of the Royal Canadian Air Force (1946-1965).svg
 |TF_1_TEXT          = This page is supported by the joint [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Canadian military history task force|Canadian military and military history task force]]

65.94.69.242 (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)