This template is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
I think only the Munich articles were so affected. It would not be easy to change the code for this banner to use different capitalisation just for Munich articles, so it would be a lot easier if the Munich banner were to be changed and the Munich categories renamed via WP:CFDS. - 52 Pickup12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The template is incorporated in the WikiProjectBanner on Talk:North Sea. When the shell is opened the "Additional information" shows even though the "show" anchor is still displayed. This must be an error. This should be hidden as default and only show when the "hidden" anchor is clicked. __meco21:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the problem with respect to this particular article by changing to WikiProjectBannerShell, however, I'm sure the problem still exists where WikiProjectBanner is applied and still needs attention. __meco22:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All templates that use this "additional information" pop-out section behave this way (eg. {{WPMILHIST}}, upon which this section was based). It is an annoying problem, and I'm still not sure how to fix it. - 52 Pickup11:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes suggested over at this CFD can be easily done, but we just need to clarify just what is desired. So far, this template has two image request fields: imageneeded and mapneeded. Another can be added, or the relevant categories can be changed, or both. Suggestions? - 52 Pickup20:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My main proposal is to separate requests for photographs of locations from other image requests. When a category contains more than 200 articles someone searching for requests that they can address becomes more difficult.
Another possibility is to have sub categories based on those under Category:Wikipedia requested photographs (e.g. arts, people, technology) but I think too many sub-categories with only one or two articles in would also not be very easy viewing. Maybe a variation would be to allow different subjects and put the article in the existing reqphoto categories as well as the German category.Traveler10006:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The level of detail in these banners should probably be kept as simple as possible, particularly because banners tend to not get updated all that often. The big issue that I see here is that many of the location articles where images have been requested probably are photo requests, so we need to separate them somehow in the simplest possible way. There are two ways to do this: either as you propose (imageneeded=place), or by introducing a new field that specifies that the article is of a location (eg. place=yes) then if both imageneeded and place are "yes", then the article would then be placed in the photo-request category instead of the image-request category.
This second option may seem the more complicated, but it has its benefits. WP Germany already has a subproject for German locations and so it might be worth tagging all locations anyway - so this would solve both problems at once. To perform this tagging, some sort of bot should (hopefully) be able to do the job.
Unfortunately, this only solves the problem with regards to locations and not to anything else - except for maps, which is already taken care of. Specifying a range of possible values for imageneeded may be the answer here, but I am certain that the field will not be correctly used by most users and, as you said, too many subcategories will only lead to trouble. - 52 Pickup14:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mapneeded should be out of commission due to the infobox shortly. My idea would be to separate the imagerequests by state, which in most cases could be done by a bot (photocat=Bavaria). Agathoclea17:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There'll still be a (limited) use for mapneeded - such as for regions (eg. Bavarian Forest). So, given all of the above suggestions, what shall we do with imageneeded? What are the thoughts of the editor who started the CFD? - 52 Pickup13:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I recently had a query about the lack of an icon depicting the need for a photo. I got no particular view either way as I think most punters will come via the category rather than look at the talkpage and say - oh it needs a picture. I just wanted to mention it while changes are underfoot. Agathoclea17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I missed that there were two instances of this "FA|A|GA|NA|List|..." switch. There is a second one just under these comment lines:
<!---------------------- End of section ----------------------> <!----------------"More information about this article" section ---------------------->
"This is available only for unrated articles and articles rated as "Stub-Class", "Start-Class", or "B-Class". See the assessment department for more details." Shouldn't the list read "C-Class", not B-class? Else I'm confused. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be C class and B class, I think. When I originally introduced this into the template, C-class didn't exist, and the point of this was to slowly fill and check the criteria until B-clas is reached (and then still display them). I'll try to figure out how to add "C" to the statement. —Кузьма討論07:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tested it as well, and now I see what you meant. I thought B-Class wouldn't work if the checklist hadn't been fulfilled (discussion "Class = B broken?" above) which I thought would be a cool feature, but perhaps it didn't sit well with others. I used your template as a boilerplate to update the Template:WikiProject Albums template with the checklist. I think it really will help keep C-class articles from getting bumped up too early. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies07:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. If people are willing to do the checks (for e.g. unexplained German terms and jargon) I wouldn't mind having this added. —Кузьма討論12:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(sorry for being off-topic here; namely, not Germany related) Good suggestion, but I'm not sure if it would really be needed on an album-related article. I'm generalizing greatly here, but most album articles are written quite simply. There isn't anything too complex to discuss. I would bring it up at the WikiProject Albums talk page, but I'm pretty disheartened by the absolute lack of any activity over there (for any new discussion), and I'm pretty sure it would just grow stale. I had to literally drag in the admins from the #wikipedia IRC chat rooms to get anything done over there, and I may have to do it again for the new Category change request! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies01:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm starting this conversation over again lol. I'm still confused. I just noticed that B-class checklists only appear when the template is at C-class or B-class, but not with stub or start classes. They B-class checklist will work... but if no one knows about it, then no one will know to use it until the article reaches C class. Which is fine. But shouldn't this be reflected in the documentation? I ask because I may just update documentation at {{albums}} anyway, just to clarify a bit. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies05:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think one can make it display on Start-class articles using |DISPLAY_ON_START=yes. I think that is a good idea (but I don't have time to test it properly right now). On stubs, it doesn't seem to be possible, and we should update the documentation. —Кузьма討論11:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll test it out over on WikProject Albums as well. I'll try it out a little later in the day. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies19:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I have messed up the second reference to this article. Unfortunately I was unable to remove the bold face print. Can someone please do that? Thank you for your help! Khnassmacher (talk) 05:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After fixing several broken B-checklists that used uppercase "B"-parameters instead of lowercase "b", I updated the template to allow "B1=" to "B5=" as well. A lot of reviewers copy the checklist structure from other project templates, where uppercase B is allowed - leading to wrong project banners (displaying C, while B is already assessed). Now both older variants and Bn are possible, the older variants have precedence as usual. GermanJoe (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GermanJoe: I know of a lot that use |B-Class-1= etc. and a lot that use |b1= etc - and a good few that use both; but I don't know of any WikiProject banner templates that use |B1= etc. Do you have examples? --Redrose64 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MILHIST for example allows a lot of variants in their B-parameters (see Template:WikiProject MILHIST) - with WW I and II there is some significant overlap in scope between the 2 projects (but maybe that handling is not that widespread in other projects, not sure). I think that having this additional variant won't hurt in practise, cleaning it up got a bit annoying ;). GermanJoe (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The parameters for MILHIST are somewhat different from those of other WikiProjects - this is partly because it has never been brought into the {{WPBannerMeta}} group, the core around which the vast majority of WikiProject templates are built. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please let me know if there are any problems with it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Done —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Old (1992–2008)
New (since 2008)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)