The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Okay. This discussion has come to an end. Concensus was to transfer the data along with changing in the below ways. Further discussion, comments and problems should be done below. Thank you.  Dylanlip  (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This template needs to be changed to the code found at {{WP VG}}, as per the consensus here. But first I propose some changes:

1. The needs-infobox and attention parameters should be changed from the task force hooks that they are using to the built in parameters, which would save 539 bytes and would only change the size of the pictures slightly.
2. Some of the task force parameter abbreviations should be discussed. Most are fine, but I think there should be some uniformity to all of them. (i.e. Starcraft to StarCraft), and possibly change all of the parameters to the full name of the task force, so the abbrieviation does not have to be looked up every time to see how that particular task force was named.

MrKIA11 (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to #1 - Larger and more clear images are better for illustrating a notice. Also, using our own parameters would allow us to customize it when need be.

Opposition to #2 - Adding the full name of every task force into the parameters would be counterintuitive to #1, which aims at saving bytes .

Those are my two oppositons. Simply transfer the code and get done with it. I got a large project that I'm needing to start. Consensus was already reached for simple transferral. Stop delaying the transfer by making us go through more consensus.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Achieving consensus now is to prevent problems later. Please wait until more people are able to weigh in on this issue. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to the first item, but I agree that the full task force names should be used. Yes it will increase the byte size, but I believe it will be more user friendly to those unfamiliar with wiki code and templates. Templates lose value when only a select number know how to use them. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

(haven't looked at the meta code) is it possible to use both the full names and an abbreviation? –xeno (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case I think the full names are better. –xeno (talk) 16:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying you'd rather have SuperSmashBrothers= as a parameter insted of SSB=? That's plain ridiculous. It's a waste of space, and it's even WORSE for newer members. Besides, newer members don't get involved in this sort of thing. And plus, part of my project includes replacing the old code that still stays in the Task Force pages. That's actually helping the newer members. If you're talking about the name that shows up when displayed, that's already in full. Look at the template. The only thing abbreviated is the parameter, because longer parameters = larger size template takes up = wasted bytes.  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How is worse for newer members? They don't have to find out the abbrieviation. It's always the same as the task force name. Plus you picked the longest one, I'm guessing on purpose. And bytes are not an issue. Usability comes before size worries. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You never answered my first question. Do you support the change of parameter from SSB= to SuperSmashBrothers=? Also, do you think abbreviations are bad for new members, even though new members don't go near this sort of thing?  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying everything twice, I'm going to continue this below. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment.

• • I find the task force parameters kind of misleading, where it says taskforce=yes as opposed to the current tf=taskforce parameter.
  • We don't have a formal B-Class (or A-Class in that matter) assessment scheme, so I don't know if having the b1, b2, etc. parameters are necessary. just having a B parameter would be I think OK.
  • I don't object to keeping this one, but note that WP:VG/C is inactive, so I don't know if having the cleanup or cleanupreq parameters are really needed. That is, unless that page gets revived again like GCOTW was.
• Just some thoughts on. MuZemike 17:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The benefit of using {{WPBannerMeta}} is that all of this is easily changed. I agree with not needing the B-class checklist, and if we ever created a formal B-class process, we could add it back easily. The same thing with cleanup; it is unnecessary now, but if it ever is revived, it is easy to add back. As far as the taskforces go, I vote for the new way. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Another point to bring up is that the code is now setup to change importance to priority. I'm indifferent on this, except that it might be odd when there are multiple project templates on a talk page, some of which use importance, and ours that uses priority. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

@ Muze, I believe the reason for the new taskforce treatment is a particular page may fall under more than one task force. –xeno (talk) 17:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the current template supports multiple (I think someone mentioned up to three) task forces, using tf, tf2, and tf3 paramaters. I suppose my question is that are we gaining or losing any functionality from going to the new way of designating task forces besides bringing the max up to five? MuZemike 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the new way makes them more prominent, which could help improve their lack of activity. Other than that, I don't see any article needing more than two task forces looking over it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC))

Exactly. Task forces can now display logos, will show up seperatly to give more prominence to each one, and can be completely customized.(Using task force parameters to make up notices/alerts) Also, the current template supports three taskforces. The new one supports an unlimited number.(Thanks to the tf hook)  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The new format gains the ability to have as many tasks forces as needed, no limit, and each one has it's own line, unlike before, which was is supported by tf1, tf2, and t3. We also have the ability to have the pages categorized by task force, which I think would be a good idea, as it makes it easier for the task forces to see all the pages that fall under their scope. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is something I fully agree with you on. Everything has been settled and consensus has been reached for everything except for the naming problem. Parameters are not meant to have the full name used. Do you ever see cleanreq= written as CleanupRequest=? Or old-GCOTW= as ArchivedGamingCollaborationoftheWeek=? Shortening the parameters makes everything simpler. This includes task forces.  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't explicitly say it, I thought I made it clear, I support SuperSmashBrothers. It is bad to assume what new members are going to do. Someone might be interested in a task force, and feel like making sure all the pages are tagged with the parameter. It's impossible to know what individuals are going to be interested in doing. Those individual parameters are not the same as the 22 task forces that IMO should have some consistency to their parameters. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Dylanlip- I mean this in as polite a way as possible, but I think you're confusing shorter more compact coding for simplistic user friendliness. While many VG members are in favor of the new format, very few are actually adept at template syntax and may not be sure what details the change actually entails. We can take some time to get this sorted out right this one time instead of tweaking as we go. You won't have to do all the template changes yourself either; we can help with it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 03:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC))

Can the task forces be associated with two parameters as is done on Template:MILHIST? —Ost (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No. {{WPBannerMeta}} doesn't support it, AFAIK. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

At the end of the template, please change:

 {{#if:{{{tf|}}}{{{peer-review|}}}{{{old-peer-review|}}}{{{or magazine|}}}|[[Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}} 

to

 {{#if:{{{tf|}}}{{{peer-review|}}}{{{old-peer-review|}}}{{{magazine|}}}|[[Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters|{{NAMESPACE}} {{PAGENAME}}]]}} 

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Y Done. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Current Code Discussion

← It's been a while and no one else has really chimed in about the two issues above. Consensus seems to be that the full task force names are better, and its leaning towards using the built-in paramaters rather than a tf-hook hack for the first issue. Have we gotten the list of task force pages yet? Anything else stopping us from implementing this? Standing by to editprotected... –xeno (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Video games banners using deprecated parameters is being populated with the pages using deprecated parameters. This will require us to keep a small part of code for the new template until that category is emptied, at which time the code can be removed. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no one really commented on the 1st change except for me and some other guy who said he was indifferent to it. I don't find that leaning towards the built-in-parameters. My argument still stands that the hook allows for a more prominent displaying of the notices, along with the ability to customize, and the ability to place the notices wherever we need them. If the image is not prominntly displayed, an editor could skip over it without a second thought. It's useful to do it this way.  Dylanlip  (talk) 16:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

How is it not prominent? With the template fully expanded with every parameter, of course it is just another small line, but in a real article, there will normally be 2-5 lines (class, importance, task forces, and notices) and it will be easily noticeable. Also, why would we need to customize it? And even if we ever did need to customize it, we can change it back to the task force hook at any time. It just isn't worth the extra code right now. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. K.I.S.S. &c. –xeno (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Quick question, what is the difference between the two parameters we're looking at right now? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

For the needs-infobox & attention? None. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

My main concern is usability. So if the names are the same, the only differences are icon size and a bit or extra code.

On one side, a larger icon size would make the items more prominent. However, the size difference is almost negligible, and other icons would draw attention to them just as easily. On the other side, the full task force names do bloat the template more and trimming code here and there certainly wouldn't hurt. But talk pages rarely have enough templates on them to max out the transclusion limits, so template size isn't that big an issue.

To be honest, I don't think the pros and cons carry much weight one way or the other. Are there any other factors to consider? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC))

The fact of the matter is, if someone is going to do a major cleanup effort on an article, they are going to trawl through the categories, not by some random-chance of seeing a slightly bigger "needs-infobox" or "attention" icon. Simplicity in our template by using built-in parameters is a greater net benefit. –xeno (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Request

{{editprotected}}

The description of the request can be found below. The request is for the code in {{WP VG}} to replace the code used by {{WikiProject Video games}}, in an effort to get the template to use {{WPBannerMeta}}. Full consensus for the transfer was formed here. The need to transfer is very urgent, as it is needed to start a large, 5-month spanning project that will involve fixing 20,000+ articles/pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanlip (talk • contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

What's the rush? –xeno (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

If you would look at the template you just added, it specifically states to request edits that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus, neither of which apply. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• If we replace the code (it actually needs to be histmerged) won't we lose the ability to track down the task force tagged articles easily? We should generate those lists first. –xeno (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll put in a bot request unless yours can handle it xeno. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Yea, that's beyond my limited expertise. –xeno (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter. I'm still going through all of the articles. No point in making a bot if someone is willing to do the work themself. And the rush is to get it done quickly. I have the next 3 days free, so if it can be done quickly, I can quickly begin the project.  Dylanlip  (talk) 21:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a request here. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary I just said. There's no point in making a bot if there's a person willing to perform the task, as humans are more reliable than bots, and that I can personally check every article for problems, glitches, changes of class, etc. Bots can not do this.  Dylanlip  (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems that the Bot request has been Rejected. Now onto the real issue of resolving the naming problem and getting an admin.  Dylanlip  (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't rejected, just answered in a way that at least I did not think of. Let's keep the task force naming discussion in the above section though to make it easier. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a bot is less reliable than a human. It's noble that you want to sort through all these articles, but it should not be necessary to manually convert data from one template to another. I understand wanting to fill in and update information in the new template, but this can be done in parallel with the bot. A one-shot bot conversion will get the template in place more quickly and get users familiar sooner than a manual approach. —Ost (talk) 15:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the idea of my project running parallel to the bot makes a lot of sense. The bot could initially replace the code, then I could check each instance for errors, change of class, importance, task forces, etc. I misunderstood before; I thought that the bot would completely replace my job, but this idea helped me understand that. Thanks!  Dylanlip  (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot has Y Done all of the grunt work, feel free to do the stuff that requires human attention at your convenience =) –xeno (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I found something odd. When they transferred over the template, they forgot to replace all instances of Template:WP VG with Template:WikiProject Video games in the Task force hook parameters, which caused the remaining 23 or so task forces and alerts to work only on {{WP VG}}, but not this one. Simply replace the instances of WP VG with WikiProject Video games to solve the problem.  Dylanlip  (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Good eye - Fixed. –xeno (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merge complete

Since the above discussion had gone stale, I've gone ahead and completed the merge, using the expanded task force names, and the built in parameters. I'm going to leave the template unprotected for the time being, in case any changes need to be made. Poke me when its ready to be protected. –xeno (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tweaks, MrKIA11. I've re-established the protection for now (forgot what day it was), so just throw up a edit-protected request or let me know if further changes are neded. –xeno (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

• In case anyone is curious, there are 8821 transclusions of {{Cvgproj}} and 1046 transclusions of {{Vgproj}}. Too many to change as there is no visible effect; however, if someone is already re-assessing those articles then it could be updated to {{WikiProject Video games}}. Nil on {{WPVG}}/{{WP VG}} at the moment. I've deleted all other redirects. –xeno (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  Opinion: Scrap WPVG and WP VG. I see no reason to add more redirects when the more semantic name is already in use on the majority of pages. --Izno (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  I agree. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  I've deleted {{WP VG}} but I'm going to leave {{WPVG}} up for now, because 1) it's been in place since 2006 and 2) it provides easy access to reach this template and talk page, even if it isn't used in transclusions. No prejudice to RFD if someone really wants it gone =] –xeno (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lost functionality?

It seems that linking directly to the peer review subpage is no longer available (it was before, yes?). Also, the ability to point an old-peer to a different location (as described here) is lost. Fixed at [1], still in place at Talk:Everybody's Golf (series) (formerly "Hot Shots Golf (series)"), Talk:Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), Talk:Sega Mega Drive. if you want to try to re-add the functionality. –xeno (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please re-add functionality lost described above by changing:

  |tf 3={{{old-peer|}}}   |TF_3_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive   |TF_3_NAME            = old-peer   |TF_3_IMAGE           = Cvg peerreview icon.png   |TF_3_TEXT            = This article has an '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive|archived]]''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review|VG peer review]] that may contain ideas for improvement.   |TF_3_MAIN_CAT        = Old requests for CVG peer review 

to

  |tf 3={{{old-peer|}}}   |TF_3_LINK            = Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/Archive   |TF_3_NAME            = old-peer   |TF_3_IMAGE           = Cvg peerreview icon.png   |TF_3_TEXT            = This article has an '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review/{{#ifeq:{{{old-peer}}}|yes|{{PAGENAME}}|{{{old-peer}}}}}|archived]]''' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Peer review|VG peer review]] that may contain ideas for improvement.   |TF_3_MAIN_CAT        = Old requests for CVG peer review 

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Y Done, thanks. –xeno (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm doesn't seem to have fixed things (see the three examples above I've now changed to "old-peer"). –xeno (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I inaccurately assumed how the template worked. Apparently no matter what is input for old-peer=input, it is defaulted to yes or no. I will continue to look for a fix, but in the meantime, that edit can be undone or not. No difference. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed This should do for now (added paramater "old-peer-location"). –xeno (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I changed the sandbox for a few fixes which include:

1. The "task forces" that weren't actually task forces (i.e. requests for screenshot and cover) are now considered notes.
2. The peer review parameters now use the peer review hook, and support the specification of a location, by only using one parameter.
3. The collaboration parameters now use the collaboration hook.

Not sure if all of these changes are unanimous, but some can be used and others not. And if anyone cares about size, it saves about 1,400 bytes. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. What changes will the bot need to make for #2? –xeno (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the reason they were used in the task force parameters was because {{WPBannerMeta}} only supports up to 5 notes/alerts. I've actually tried it before in {{WP VG}}, and it didn't show all the notes.  Dylanlip  (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we're only using 3? –xeno (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The bot will not have to make any changes for #2, the three pages that are effected can be changed back manually to old-peer=page name. As far as the notes go, there were originally 7, but since the peer and collaboration parameters were changed to their own hooks, there are now only 3. There is also a hook for additional notes if we prefer to go that route. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please copy the sandbox. Also, was the edit agreed on anywhere? It basically just made the task forces show up in the template header, but is the general consensus that we want that? MrKIA11 (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Done... I'll ping happy-melon if you haven't already. –xeno (talk)

Thanks for pinging me, Xeno. The sandbox edit included all the fixes I made, as best I can determine, just in a different order. Good work, MrKIA11! The only thing omitted was, as you say, the tfnested hooks which add the taskforce name to the collapsed display. If you decide you want them (and of course you don't have to, although the majority of projects do use them) just dig the code out of my version and add them on |HOOK_NESTED=. Nice template! Happy‑melon 14:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.