Template talk:WikiProject College football

Broken links blow up IE7

{{editprotected}} Please make this edit to fix the broken links. That will fix the issue reported at Template talk:WPBannerMeta#Nesting again.... Thanks. Anomie ⚔ 00:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Happy-melon. Anomie ⚔ 11:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future-class, current-class, and migrating to Template:WPBannerMeta

I've been looking at incorporating future-class and current-class articles, to categorize/assess articles about future/current seasons and games. We could also incorporate Redirect-class, Project-class, and other article categories to get a better handle on the large and growing pile of non-article pages we have in this project.

I also noticed that the link in the banner was pointing to the general Wikipedia quality category rather than our project quality category. For example, a B-class article was pointing to Category:B-Class articles rather than Category:B-Class college football articles.

I was going to make the changes to Template:WikiProject College football to address these issues, but then I noticed Template:WPBannerMeta, can do it all. It's a template used for generating WikiProject banner templates, with some cool extra features built in. For example, you can tell it to use a six-item checklist for B-class assessments, tagging auto-assessed articles, and more.

I've done some testing in my sandbox and created an experimental version of the new banner template at Template:WikiProject College football/sandbox, with a test using the new banner with some features enabled at Template:WikiProject College football/testcases. Try it out and play around.

Any suggestions for getting the new template to work the same as the existing one are welcomed. Once we get it nailed down, I'd like to incorporate it. DeFaultRyan (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate to Template:WPBannerMeta

{{editprotected}} Please replace the template source with this. This will replace all of the specialized code with {{WPBannerMeta}} which has more support and more features. DeFaultRyan (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please bear in mind that Future- and Current-Class is not supported by default. If you really need these classes, please you will need to use a custom mask. Details here. Regards, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change, and the heads-up. Working on the class sub-template to support future, current, and whatever else was going to be the next order of business as soon as the root template got updated. Now I can go in and work on that part. DeFaultRyan (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add subst checks and ASSESSMENT_LINK parameters

{{editprotected}} Please add the following lines:

after "BANNER_NAME...":

|substcheck=<includeonly>{{subst:</includeonly><includeonly>substcheck}}</includeonly>

after "ASSESSMENT_CAT...":

|ASSESSMENT_LINK = Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment

Thanks. Should be nothing controversial here. Just addressing the nag warnings. De FaultRyan 20:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add reassessment flag as a NOTE, and add category

{{editprotected}} Please add the note from this version of the sandbox to the template (flags for reassessment). In addition, could you please add this template (via <noinclude> tags) to Category:WikiProject College football. Thanks. De FaultRyan 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although it did strike me that a green check mark might not be the best icon for an article whose assessment is probably wrong! Could you add the category to the includeonly section of the documentation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the place for the category. You might have a point about the icon. What about

(used in the B-checklist)? Perhaps you're aware of something even better? De FaultRyan 17:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it to

for you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request to pass through auto-assessment parameter

{{editprotected}} Going to have some bot-assissted assessment activity coming up. Would like to pass the auto-assessment parameter through to WPBM. Please apply this diff of the sandbox. Thanks. De FaultRyan 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. By the way I think I recognize some of the features of your template documentation. Maybe because you lifted it from WPAFC? ;) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and yes, I did lift it from WPAFC. If you're going to steal, steal from the best. ;) De FaultRyan 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project-specific: AFD class?

Here's a thought: what if we made a project class called "AFD" that would allow us to then place our project tag on the talk page of any AFD discussion (such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn) which would then allow us to have one-click access to Articles for Deletion Discussions (essentially an AfD Library) on all college football related issues. Ideas?--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Paulmcdonald, 23 September 2010

{{edit protected}} It would be very nice to have a couple more "categories" added if possible. One I have in mind is for "AFD Discussions" so we can quickly group and reference previous AFD topics of various articles of note. Another is a "user-page" or "development" category so that articles that we have in our userspaces can still relatively quickly be located for collaboration.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you discuss with the WikiProject what exact features are desired? Then could I ask you to put the code in the template's /sandbox version? (Although perhaps these changes could be achieved by adding custom classes to /class actually.) For technical help with the coding, please ask at WT:WPBM. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Importance" doesn't work

The template doesn't accept importance ratings, and at a glance I'm not clear where the functionality problem is. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The College football project doesn't rank the importance of articles within the projects. —Ute in DC (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion as to why we don't: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive 5#Article importance classifications. Basically, it created more work without improving the encyclopedia. —Ute in DC (talk) 20:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating importance

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Per discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Reinstating importance assessment and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Importance assessment -- any concerns?, importance assessment is being reinstated for WP:CFB. I believe all that is needed on the template is to add the parameter as such. I can then update the template documentation (not protected), create the categories, and start doing the importance assessments. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

One more thing, please. We would like to use a custom importance mask to enable the "Bottom-importance" category. Performing this edit will do what we need. Thanks! De FaultRyan 20:16, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please! DeFaultRyan just beat me to this request. cmadler (talk) 20:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]