Template talk:WPMILHIST

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:WPMILHIST is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
MILHIST This non-article page is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
NA Non-article pages do not require a rating on the quality scale.
Military history
WikiProject
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guide
 → Essays
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Assessment department talk
 → New! Tag & Assess '08 talk
Contest department talk
Logistics department talk
Outreach department talk
 → Stress hotline talk
Review department talk
New! Special projects department talk
Showcase
 → Featured picture gallery
Portals talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] change image size for small size?

I noticed at Talk:Rwandan Genocide that the images on this template don't appear to change to 25 px when the small=yes parameter is used. See Template:Africa noticeboard for an example. The template markup used here is pretty... esoteric... so I was hoping someone else could implement the modification. Thanks, BanyanTree 20:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would we want to shrink the images, though? There's not going to be any practical gain in size—when the box is that small, the line-wrapping of the text controls the box size far more than a few extra pixels on the image; and 45px is (or was, the last time I checked) the standard size for images in "userbox"-sized templates, in any case. The reduced recognizability of images at 25px versus 45px isn't worth it, in my opinion. Kirill Lokshin 20:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why the project templates I looked at appeared to have adopted 25px as a standard for small versions. The only clear benefit would be standardization across templates on an article. The class letter, e.g. "B", would stay the same size, if I'm reading the markup correctly, while the map image is, frankly, pretty much indecipherable even at 45px, unless you already know what you're looking at, so I don't really see an issue of recognizability. It's not a big deal and I'm happy to let things settle while people get used to the the small parameter. - BanyanTree 21:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I suppose standardization is a decent enough reason (although the standard size should be 30px, not 25px, at least according to Wikipedia:Talk page templates). In any case, I've changed the template to shrink the images in small mode; as far as I can tell, it makes absolutely no difference in terms of how large the size of the box is (and photographs at that size look like grayscale blobs, for the most part). Kirill Lokshin 21:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. The class letters look good, along with the simpler emblems, but I previewed the task forces at World War II and you're completely right about the tank looking like a smudge. My personal opinion is that the images are secondary to the the text and wikilinks, so I'm not that fussed about how they look, but I imagine that some editors would disagree. Thanks for testing this out. - BanyanTree 21:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GIF too small, not clear?

As a retired NCO, I found this tiny GIF to be too small and undistinctive to clarify the basic idea of military history. It appears to represent only one half of a usual military map, and not clearly. The opponent should be clearly represented by red arrows, along the axis of advance; the defender by blue lines, similar to battlefield maps at Gettysburgh, perhaps one of the most studied battles in military history. Even that represents a counter-attack, but then, the symbol right now is tough even for imagery specialists to make heads or tails of. If it were made bigger and clearer, the basic graphic might suffice, with appropriate changes. I had to look at it several times to even figure out what the artist was trying to convey. Hate to be critical, but this graphic loses more in clarity than it brings in decorative value.Joe 00:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not, broadly speaking, intended to actually mean anything, though; its role is merely that of a more-or-less recognizable icon (by which I mean, again, an icon that can be associated with the project, rather than an icon that actually represents some real concept), and in that it's been quite successful. Changing it, at this point, would be quite inadvisable; while it may be possible to construct a more "accurate" or "realistic" map, we'd gain nothing in terms of symbolism—to the uninitiated, it'd still be nothing more than a small bunch of arrows, since we can't increase the size—and lose the recognition value of the existing icon, which has been in use for more than a year. Kirill Lokshin 00:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-class progress

The template says "this article meets all the following criteria for b-class status". When I first saw this, I thought that meant that all the criteria below that statement were met by the article. This should be reworded to "these are the criteria for b-class status", probably with a key explaining the completion tags. Karl Dickman talk 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed it to read "This article has been checked against the following criteria..." and added some explanatory text to each label that should clarify what exactly is being indicated. Kirill Lokshin 06:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Just a minor point: when a criterion isn't met the checklist shows something like this: Reference and citation:criterion not met. Maybe we should drop the emphasis on not, this sounds a bit like we're admonishing the editors of the article and being generally critical of their work. Otherwise, I anticipate some unpleasant reactions. --Raoulduke47 17:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, done. Kirill Lokshin 17:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox parameter

I think that, in order to provide the greatest utility, the "needs_infobox" parameter should show up by default on the template (i.e. no detail expansion required). Further, I think that there should be an optional parameter allowing an editor to specify the name of the infobox they believe should be used, to avoid asking users who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia to choose the correct one. --Eyrian 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, it's used mostly through the associated category; the display doesn't really matter. Given that (a) there's a strong push to have project banners be as small as possible and (b) there are plenty of hidden fields more important than the infobox one, I see no reason to make an exception for it.
As far as specifying the infobox, that's not a bad idea; I'll see if I can come up with something. Keep in mind that the displayed text already links to a fairly short list of possibilities, so it's not all that bad. Kirill Lokshin 17:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New map in SVG

Please replace Image:American Civil War map.png with Image:US Secession map 1865.svg -- an SVG equivalent with better color contrast. Please notify me when it's done. Thank you! – Tintazul msg 09:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 18:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question marks in SVG

Please change all the gif question marks to the available svg — Jack · talk · 01:37, Monday, 19 March 2007

Ok, done. Kirill Lokshin 01:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Cheers :) now if you could just change "Image:Samurai-shodo.png" to the svg format... — Jack · talk · 06:25, Wednesday, 21 March 2007
Y Done - Harryboyles 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] replaced Crystal 128 kdmconfig.png with Crystal 128 kuser.png

as the former is about to be deleted as a duplicate of the latter. I found it in 3 places and I believe I did it right. This was at the request of Commons admin Yonatan ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed at Talk:Frankish Empire

Could someone who knows this template look at the version at Talk:Frankish Empire; The Military History Project template doesn't seem to work well within a Multiple WikiProjects box. Thanks --SteveMcCluskey 13:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm? I don't see what the problem is; could you be a bit more specific? Kirill Lokshin 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kirill, the problem I had was that when I opened the box of templates, the WPMILHIST template always opened with a lot of commented text at the bottom of the display. Now I see that that commented text is part of this template (even though it normally displays as hidden). Apparently putting the template iside a box of templates changes that default. It's a less serious problem than it first appeared. SteveMcCluskey 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orange check PNG to SVG version

Could someone please update all instances of Image:Orange check.png within the template to use the new SVG version, Image:Orange check.svg? Many thanks! Kyra~(talk) 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} done. I think I got them all. CMummert · talk 01:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hey i been really busy with all my projects that im part of =) so im here to request some help. is it possable for anyone here to hook me up with a editable template that includes a rating scale? i dont need it done for me because if its done for me then i will never learn, i just need to know how to program it and ill work with it from there =) thanks for any help u guys/girls can offer User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 13:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

o yes and place it on my talk page please

WP:PROJGUIDE should have a good example to start from. Kirill Lokshin 14:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

=) thanks much for the link! now i can get started =) User:Maverick423 If It Looks Good Nuke It 14:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image replacement request

Please replace the image Image:Nuvola apps kcontrol.png with Image:Icon tools.png as it was marked as a duplicate on Wikimedia Commons. The image is protected there. Thanks. Siebrand 19:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 10:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please remove the duplicate line

{{editprotected}} The line "class – a rating of the article's quality; see the assessment department for more details." appears twice under the "General parameters" heading. Would someone please delete the extra line? Thanks, Black Falcon (Talk) 09:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The docs are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Project banner which isn't protected, so that admin assistance isn't needed to change the documentation. CMummert · talk 12:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
It's done now, in any case. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Whoops! I missed the small, italicised sentence at the top stating: Template documentation transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Project banner. Thank you for fixing it, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting problem?

Could you please click on "show" at the banner placed at Talk:Berber Revolt? The large blue area is bothering and this is not the first case i've encountered. Do you have any idea about that problem? -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Which large blue area? I don't see anything broken on that page, but maybe I'm not looking where I should be. Kirill 15:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
(Note for future reference; more discussion on this at WT:MILHIST#Formatting problem?.) Kirill 15:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B-Class additional information

I've just noticed that this section is displayed even when an article is rated above B-Class. While it makes sense to show whether it's filled out or not, and how, when it's below B, having it there for higher rated articles seems a bit silly, hidden or otherwise. Every other part of the template relies on various switches to determine output, is there any chance one could be added for that section as well, such that it only shows up for Stub, Start, and perhaps still B class articles? -Bbik★ 17:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The code is here. Just replace the code that is currently in the template with this code. --Tim4christ17 talk 20:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Except there's no problem to fix; the section is already hidden for A-Class and FA-Class articles. The reason it's shown for GA-Class is because the project has had poor experiences with the GA process before, and thus tends to make its own checks even for GAs. Kirill 20:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
In that case, it should be clarified that it's as much a confirmation of GA as a B-Class rating guideline, so that people know to add the parameters to GA articles, too. Because leaving it there to stretch the template when it specifically says it's for B and under makes it contradictory. Besides, if that's left to imply the article should only be B or less, not GA, shouldn't the demoting go through WP:GA/R, rather than simply be removed? As far as I can see, that would make the section redundant anyhow. -Bbik★ 21:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a subtlety you're missing here: although GA and B are both scale levels, the former is controlled by the GA process while the latter is controlled by the project. In other words, an article could conceivably pass the GA criteria while failing the (project's) B-Class criteria; thus, having a "criteria for B-Class" field on a GA doesn't seem (to me) to be at all contradictory. Kirill 22:02, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Except that the project's quality scale doesn't agree with that. The only minor point that could possibly be argued to make B "higher" than GA is the very last one, the inclusion of images and infoboxes, which B definitely wants, and GA would only like.
Besides which, the differentiation between levels is already unclear enough, especially between projects, does it really need to be made even worse? And, while I realize that the rating given by one project doesn't necessarily apply to all projects, I thought GA and FA did, since they have the Wikipedia-wide assessment scale and process, and thus the need to go through GA review if a person/project decides it doesn't actually meet the criteria. -Bbik★ 07:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
There's actually a pretty convoluted backstory as far as GA is concerned. The GA level was originally not in the scale at all; it was inserted—over the objections of a number of projects—because some people wanted to keep track of them. Many of the more developed projects have very little respect for the GA process; attempting to make them accept it over their own judgment will simply lead to GAs being entirely removed from the assessment scale used by those projects.
(As far as specific differences: the main one is the first B-Class criterion rather than the last one. GA's citation requirements tend towards the lowest common denominator, and are, for the most part, weaker than the ones used by the project.) Kirill 16:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't realize that. Though I still think it adds unneeded confusion.
The citation parts, though, I had read as being the same thing; perhaps that's because of my (admittedly minimal) experience with GA and/or because that's how I work anyhow. Filling in a few blanks in a template and then just typing a few characters for future references is so easy, why not do it by default? -Bbik★ 18:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taskforce Logos

Is very hard to make out the Middle East taskforce logo. I suggest replacing it with Image:Middle East geographic.jpg. Also I've made a replacement SVG logo for the Napoleonic task force that also adds the French eagle. Could someone replace Image:PB Napoleon.png with Image:Shield Napoleon.svg. Finally the Italian flag can be replace if you so wish by Image:Shield Italy.svgCenty – reply• contribs – 15:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. Kirill 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidated WikiProject banners - expanding B-class assessment

(Sorry if this has already been discussed.) I noticed that when the consolidated banner {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}) is used, when "show"ing the WPMILHIST information, the B-class assessment comments show up. Is there a way to have only the task forces show-up, with a "more" for assessment information/checklist? — ERcheck (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Nested show/hide sections are an utter pain to work with, tend to be highly fragile depending on the browser used, and, in many cases, will all open at the same time anyways due to how the JavaScript is set up. It might be theoretically possible, in other words, but I don't really think it's a good idea. Kirill 22:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I agree. Not worth making a minor change that might break on different browsers. I guess I'm just used to the standalone look of the WPMILHIST banner. — ERcheck (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image changes

{{editprotected}} Please change all instances of Image:Armoiries France Ancien.png to the SVG version Image:France Ancient.svg. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill 03:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please change Image:Armoiries Grande-Bretagne 1800.png to Image:UK Arms 1837.svg. Sorry I had to ask twice. Thanks! -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 02:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Another one - Please change Image:PB USA CoA.png to Image:United States Arms.svg. -- I. Pankonin (t/c) 07:02, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill 00:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are we assessing lists?

Are we assessnig lists or just tag them as such? I.e. do we use class=list? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists should be assessed using the normal classes. I'm fairly sure there's a note to that effect somewhere on WP:MHA (and if there isn't, there should be). Kirill 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks; I did notice some projects just tag lists as "list quality/class".-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cold war

We could use a cold war task force for period classification.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been (briefly) discussed before, but likely nothing will happen until the fate of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cold War becomes clearer. Kirill 14:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hah. I saw that and honestly thought it was about some fighting between WikiProjects :) --kingboyk (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] auto=yes

What happened to it? No longer considered useful maybe and if so why not? --kingboyk (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

With the introduction of the B-Class checklist, the auto-assessed category was essentially subsumed into Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists; there's no real benefit from having two separate categories of articles that need their assessments checked. Kirill 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ooh. Neat. Thanks for the reply! --kingboyk (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please update a taskforce logo

{{Edit protected}} Could an admin please change Image:Vikingshipshortened.jpg to Image:Vikingshipshortened.png. The new version has a transparent background and so works better with the other logos. /Lokal_Profil 00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kirill 02:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update Image:Red x.png

{{editprotected}} Image:Red x.png, which the template uses when a criterion is failed, has been superceded by Image:Red x.svg and the image used should be updated. It Is Me Here (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kirill 03:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Task-forces

The template contains code for Ancient-Near-Eastern-task-force and USAF-task-force, which do not appear in the template documentation and don't seem consistent with the template. You may want to remove the Ancient-Near-Eastern-task-force and USAF-task-force code from the template. GregManninLB (talk) 01:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, these are actually alternate forms that have been used at one time or another but have been replaced with the documented forms. They're not meant to be removed, as that would break instances of the template. Kirill 02:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A better picture

{{editprotected}} The current picture on the project banner which is a map is good. But I suggest that a picture of tank, let's say Image:Centurion cfb borden 1.JPG, would perhaps make a more emphatic one. Megastar7 (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That would need to be discussed on the main Military history project talkpage. It is a very big change to do without consensus and discussion. Personally, I think the map encompasses more of what the Military history project is about, then a tank would. Woody (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. On a more practical level, a normal image of a tank would be virtually unrecognizable when shrunk to the size of the icon. Kirill (prof) 13:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Also don't forget branding. The map for me at least synonymous with the WikiProject when I see it. If it isn't broken, don't fix it. Centy – reply• contribs – 14:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A map denotes a number of things other than what this project is about. It can pertain to navigation, travel, or some global political affairs.
A tank, however, strongly symbolises military power and prestiege because of its usage and history. Megastar7 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, usage and history since 1916. A tank really strongly symbolises the wrong military power and prestige say when it's tagged to the Battle of Cannae. Centy – reply• contribs – 01:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Start scrambles banner?

Just been trying to put class=start on the banner on Talk:Sanfedismo and it goes haywire spewing all the options onto the page and talking about {{Node-count limit exceeded}}-. I'll leave it to someone else to sort out, who understands this stuff - I was only courtesy-tagging on behalf of the Italy Project. FlagSteward (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The same thing is happening on Talk:Robert Ballard Long, and by testing I found it was fine if I used class=stub instead of class=start. The other templates on the page work fine if {{WPMILHIST}} is removed, so it's some glitch in {{WPMILHIST}} or its sub-templates. Can anyone fix this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Not (necessarily) a problem on our side: somebody decided to drop the permitted node count down by a factor of 20, breaking all the sub-template transclusions. It's been fixed now, apparently. Kirill (prof) 00:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)