Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:01, 29 January 2009

Template:WikiProject Film is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories. Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

Film Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm Template This template does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the WikiProject Film template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Archives

no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Bug in the template

When pages are tagged as either Disambig-Class, Category-Class, Template-Class or NA-Class, the banner links to the following categories:

• Category:Disambig-Class film articles
• Category:Cat-Class film articles
• Category:Template-Class film articles
• Category:NA-Class film articles

none of which exist! (Except the latter, which is a redirect.) The correct categories are:

• Category:Film disambiguation pages
• Category:Film category pages
• Category:Film template pages
• Category:Non-article film pages

Is there a way to resolve this, short of renaming the categories or creating redirects for all? PC78 (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Well-spotted! While I'm not terribly in a rush to resolve this, I'd be happy to address it when I next play with the template. In the meantime, perhaps redirecting is the simplest solution. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess (and I may just create the redirects now). I'm not to keen on the idea of renaming the categories; I despair at the widespread usage of complete misnomers like "Category-Class articles"! PC78 (talk) 21:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just a stopgap for the meantime. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a similar problem with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category}}; see its usage in Category:Template-Class Indian cinema articles. PC78 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In a related glitch, categories tagged with the banner (class = cat, importance = NA) are being put into Category:Unassessed film articles. — TAnthony 07:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason for that to happen. I think it's just a cache-delay issue from an edit which went wrong and was reverted. PC78 (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, nearly 24 hours later and the category was still full ... it appears that the template only accepts "NA" in the "importance" parameter, and not "na" lowercase. I've changed them all using AWB, but this should probably be fixed in the template for the future. — TAnthony 03:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that there is no importance parameter anymore? We deprecated it when the core parameter was instituted. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did not know that, but it's obviously still in use on many article talk pages, and in this case was mis-categorizing. I suppose, then, it won't be an issue in the future. — TAnthony 04:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you direct me to some examples? I'd love to see what you're talking about. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure ... random example Category talk:Films directed by Raymond Bernard was appearing in Category:Unassessed film articles until I just changed importance=na to importance=NA; I think there were nearly 200 similar categories with the same issue that I "fixed" today with AWB. Assuming no one will add the importance=na parameter in the future, the problem shouldn't recur, but revert my change at the category I noted and see what I mean. ;) — TAnthony 05:20, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's nothing to do with the importance; that's your edit updating the cache. It was unassessed because of the aforementioned bug which has since been fixed - but the cache just hasn't caught up yet. If you make a null edit to any of those unassessed categories, it will do the same thing. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Future-class tracking

{{editprotected}}

Please make changes identical to this diff. These new lines will allow the Future films department more efficiently track films with upcoming releases and allow them to be quickly found when they are no longer Future-class and need to be re-classified. (This has been a on-going concern since the 1.0 bot logs can't track Future-class articles.) All changes have been drafted and tested rigorously on the template sandbox. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This has caused an error: see Talk:Doomsday (film) and Talk:Choke (film). It says, Expression error: Unrecognised punctuation character "{", and it's coming from the template. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! That didn't happen before. I believe it's coming from the following line: {{#ifexpr:{{{futyear}}}={{CURRENTYEAR}}|{{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}|{{#ifexpr:{{Film/NumberedMonth|{{{futmonth|}}}}}<{{CURRENTMONTH}}|]}}}}}}, but I don't know why... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Revert for now - I am working on a fix, but I'm encountering different errors with that, so I can't say how long this will take to resolve. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that happen with the ifexpr parserfunc when one of the parameters is empty without a default. basically, the empty parameter returns {{{1}}} or equivalent, which ifexpr sees as a string - that causes it to throw an error, and that mucks up code later in the template. you can probably fix it by addint a default to futyear: {{#ifexpr:{{{futyear}}} becomes {{#ifexpr:{{{futyear|}}}

Reverted. Grrr... --MZMcBride (talk) 04:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying a whole new code structure at User:Girolamo Savonarola/sub, but that's creating different errors for me - now it doesn't like any of the futyear parameters I've been throwing at it! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried changing the {{{futyear}}} to {{{futyear|}}}, and it didn't seem to help. What I'm really confused about, though, is why it spits out ifexpr:2008>2008 on the template sandbox when I try it on there with a futyear parameter set to 2008 - the code's conditional statements should never reach the ifexpr function if the futyear is equal to the CURRENTYEAR magic word. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

you were missing opening brackets ({{) on your second ifexpr. see if the fix I made solves it. I also added 0 default for the ifexpr statements (which makes the template assume that everything is in the future). you might want to tweak that. --Ludwigs2 05:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

arg... scratch that - something more serious is amiss. let me work through the code from your outline. --Ludwigs2 05:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

ok, looks like you were missing the final closing brackets as well. test that now and see if it works the way you expect. where is your test page, by the way, so I can look myself if something is still going wrong? --Ludwigs2 05:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotect}} Success! - Okay, try this diff. Ludwig, turns out the missing brackets were inside, not at the end. I've been testing at Template:Template sandbox, and after putting both User:Girolamo Savonarola/sub and an integrated version at User:Girolamo Savonarola/banner to the test there in a handful of different configurations, I'm fairly happy. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Eggggsaladent (which means even better than egg salad). glad I could be of assistance. --Ludwigs2 05:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm still a bit puzzled, though - why do I want those parameters to default to 0? I took that out, because it didn't seem to make a difference upon testing, but if that would make a difference, where would I see it? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think there may be a bug in the code. So far as I can tell, all non Future-Class articles are being added to category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles. PC78 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

ah, I see the problem. the following snippet (near the bottom of the FutureClass section):

{{#if:{{{futmonth|}}} or {{{futyear|}}} |] }}

should actually read:

{{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}{{{futyear|}}} |] }}

the current code will always return true, since it will equal 'or' even when futmonth and futyear are empty. can someone edit in this change?--Ludwigs2 20:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwigs, is it at all possible to have this feature sort articles by {{PAGENAME}}? PC78 (talk) 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorting is done that way by default, unless it's overridden by a "default sort". Anyway, the requested edit is  Done. Hersfold 19:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... see Category:Films to be released in December 2008 (for example) where everythign is getting sorted under T. PC78 (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean; it's because this template always goes on talk pages, so everything gets sorted by 'Talk' under T. so you're right, the change would be this (God bless RegExp...):

{{editprotected}}

{{#ifeq:{{Film/Class|{{{class|}}}}}|Future
	|{{#if:{{{futyear|}}}
		|{{#ifeq:{{{futyear|}}}|{{CURRENTYEAR}}
			|{{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}
				|{{#ifeq:{{Film/Month|{{{futmonth|}}}}}|
					|] ]
					|{{#ifexpr:{{Film/NumberedMonth|{{{futmonth}}}}}>={{CURRENTMONTH}}
						|]
						|]
						}}
					}}
				|]
				}}
			|{{#ifexpr:{{{futyear}}}>{{CURRENTYEAR}}
				|{{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}
					|{{#ifeq:{{Film/Month|{{{futmonth|}}}}}|
						|] ]
						|]
						}}
					|]
					}}
				|]
				}}
			}}
		|]
		}}
	|{{#if:{{{futmonth|}}}{{{futyear|}}}
		|]
		}}
	}}

someone want to check for whatever inevitable dumb error I made before we ask to have it edited in? --Ludwigs2 22:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

eh, I looked it over myself and it seems solid. I'll add the editprotected tag. --Ludwigs2 02:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Server should re-index soon. I tried WP:NULL editing one successfully. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

American task force

{{editprotected}}

As per this diff. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

 Done لennavecia 21:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Chinese task force icon change

{{editprotected}}

As per this diff. Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. - auburnpilot talk 03:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

C-class?

Will C-class ever be implemented into this template? Gary King (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish it would as I have seen so many film articles that are certain C rather than just Start. I suspect another discussion will need to be started at the main project page first, to argue again for the Film project accepting C class, as it was rejected earlier. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that it was discussed at some point. Gary King (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Auto parameter?

The documentation for this template lists an "auto" parameter for automatic assessments, but it doesn't seem to do anything, nor can I see any code for this in the template. Am I missing something? PC78 (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! That's an old reference to our automation support. However, I believe it was removed during one of the overhauls, so I have removed it in kind from the documentation. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone please update the template with the code in Template:Film/sandbox? This is a minor change to remove some obsolete coding pertaining the old and now unused |needs infobox= parameter. PC78 (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Black Kite 21:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Subcategorising the cleanup categories

Following my recent experiences with the four cleanup parameters, it has come to my attention that the categories they populate are absolutely chock-full. There are currently more than 16,000 articles tagged as needing an image—that's a gargantuan number likely to scare off anyone who might otherwise be willing to help—and the others are little better. I would therefore like to suggest that we have the banner break these down by task force; this will result in a series of more bite-sized categories which could then hopefully be tackled by editors interested in those areas. Thoughts? PC78 (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I was actually already mulling something similar, along with a similar auto-categorization for each of the B-class parameters which could be lacking in any article, also broken down by task force. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I added this code to the Korean task force in the sandbox, just as a quick demo:

Not sure if there's a more elegant solution, but it seems to work OK. PC78 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The more elegant solution probably would be to muck about in the task forces sub-template. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Revert the most recent set of edits immediately, please

{{editprotected}} An admin involved in an edit war should not be using their access to highly-used templates as a bludgeon to force their opinion of how the template should be implemented, especially without any consultation on this talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that these edits were highly inappropriate, I think the changes themselves are essentially good. Have you seen what the uncollapsed template looks like when it's set to display in small? :) PC78 (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I see nothing when uncollapsed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Girolamo invited me to change the template. I consider his accusations here to be a personal attack. Gimmetrow 20:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I invited you to make it functional if an error existed, and I still expected that any edits to a high-visibility template would be vetted first before being implemented. I'm genuinely sorry if there was a misunderstanding with regard to that, but I also don't see how your edits are germane to the problem - are you then going to turn on the "small=yes" parameter for every banner so that they can conform to your preferred JS-off browsing style? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

For clarity: the changes made cause the visible notes that are added by the |needs-infobox=, |needs-synopsis=, |needs-cast= and |needs-image= parameters, to be suppressed when the parameter |small=yes is set. They also hide the entire B-Class checklist section under the same circumstances. The latter change in particular is in my opinion very counterproductive, as it leaves editors with no explanation whatsoever as to why setting |class=B results in an output of "C-Class", or how to rectify that situation. Happy‑melon 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Giro, now that the edits have been reverted, try looking at a Start-Class article which is set to small and fully uncollapsed - it's about three screens long! There are certainly things we should suppress here, though as Happy-melon says there are other things that should stay. PC78 (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that Steve has been working along the right path. (As per WT:FILMC.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

It is requested that an edit be made to the template-protected template at Template:WikiProject Film. (edit · history · last · links · sandbox · edit sandbox · sandbox history · sandbox last edit · sandbox diff · test cases · transclusion count · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, so that an editor unfamiliar with the subject matter could complete the requested edit immediately. Edit requests to template-protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus. If the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template. Consider making changes first to the template's sandbox and test them thoroughly here before submitting an edit request. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request. When the request has been completed or denied, please add the |answered=yes parameter to deactivate the template.

Please update this template with the code in Template:Film/sandbox (or

• Template-Class film pages
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages template-protected edit requests