Template talk:WikiProject Fishes

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Fishes This template is part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life.FishesWikipedia:WikiProject FishesTemplate:WikiProject FishesFishes

Should we modify this so it adds articles to Category:WikiProject Fishes? --Lethargy 03:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - but think probably not - we'd just end up with too many pages in that category for it to be any use - suggest you ask at the fish project page maybe.HappyVR 15:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the template based on requests on the project talk page to be consistent with other WikiProjects. GregManninLB (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The template is throwing in a couple of extra "}}" characters after the box. I took a stab at trying to figure out where the bug was, but gave up after a couple of unsuccessful attempts. Neil916 (Talk) 16:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too gave up and asked for help. And the winner is ... Edokter with this edit. Thanks! Neil916 had the right idea, too. GregManninLB (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the extra braces, so I cheated :D. The banner now uses {{WPBannerMeta}}, which simplifies the code significantly (from this end at least, don't even think about looking at WPBM's code!). I think I managed to retain all of the functionality you've got in the banner, although it's pretty much maxed-out what WPBM can do (kudos to you Fish people for actually using all the features your banner has to offer!). One breaking change that is unavoidable with the conversion: pages are now categorised into eg Category:Template-Class Fishes articles rather than Category:Template-Class Fishes pages. I've created the new categories, but I haven't deleted the old ones. I hope this isn't a problem for you. Any other problems, let me know: this is by far the most complicated WPBannerMeta conversion I've done, so I've probably screwed up somewhere; I'm be on hand to solve any problems. Happy editing! Happy‑melon 16:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The importantce argument does not work, see Talk:Fish and Talk:Shark, both should be in Top category but neither is, nor is the importance argument displayed as text in the template. My template coding skills is near to non-existance so I do not know how to fix it. --Stefan ^talk 04:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you didn't use it - my mistake. I've restored it to the template: for future reference, it consisted of changing |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = to |IMPORTANCE_SCALE = yes :D. Happy‑melon 08:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not used since fish project have not done any classification yet, but importance is good for finding which pages should be worked on, i.e. Top Stub, Top Start and so on. It is not needed but good to have. Thanks for fixing it. --Stefan ^talk 01:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, maybe I understand what you mean,

Fishes articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		4	9	7			20
GA	2	4	33	119		1	159
B	2	37	85	200		8	332
C	4	57	256	934		25	1,276
Start		21	561	4,399		62	5,043
Stub		3	377	17,879		2,151	20,410
List		5	24	159	18	19	225
Category					3,595		3,595
Disambig					345		345
File					155		155
Portal					52		52
Project					41		41
Redirect			12	402	918		1,332
Template					8,194		8,194
NA					4		4
Other					12		12
Assessed	8	131	1,357	24,099	13,334	2,266	41,195
Total	8	131	1,357	24,099	13,334	2,266	41,195
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 154,093			Ω = 5.66

does not use it! Why not?? Will it be fixed next time the bot runs? --Stefan ^talk 01:04, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn, I'm not entirely sure why the bot isn't recognising the importance categories. How odd. Happy‑melon 10:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the importance categories did not exist when the boot ran last, it probably did not generate the columns??? We will see next time it runs. It does not have a A quality either probably since no fish page is tagged A yet. --Stefan ^talk 13:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This brings up a point about that grid... It's useful to have that grid to see what top-importance articles there are, and what B-class articles there are, but you can't use it to produce a list of top-imporance B-class articles. That makes it less useful. I remember stumbling across a WikiProject that had taken that grid a step further where you can specifically look at articles of a particular imporance and class, but I've been clicking on "random article" over and over for the past couple of days and can't find which project it was to see how they did it. Anybody know what I am talking about and how hard it would be to implement? I want to say they did it by combining categories, i.e. instead of adding an article to Category:Top Importance Fishes Articles and Category:A-Class Fishes Articles, it added it to one category, Category:Top Importance A-Class Fishes Articles based upon the information provided in the project banner box. Just a thought. Neil916 (Talk) 15:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:GEOLOGY, and instead of having 15 categories, they have closer to 70. I've also seen the bot compile a worklist which automatically collates all the information and sorts articles by importance, and then by class within each importance category, which obviates the need for such cross-categorisation. Personally I don't think that the extra level of detail available overcomes the increase in administration, code bloat in the templates, fragmentation of the article list, and proliferation of categories. But that's just my thoughts. Happy‑melon 20:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the one. Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Assessment. I recall being perplexed why there was a bot tagging a bunch of animal articles with the WP:GEOLOGY tag until I distinguished that they were tagging extinct animals. That's how I came across them in the first place. I do find their grid to be infinitely more helpful, though, at least for determining what articles could be a good place to jump in and improve. But looking at the gird in its present form, one can see that there is plenty of opportunity for improvement. But this is something that should be easy for a bot to create on a periodic basis as well. Or, heck, I could do it with an Excel spreadsheet, even.... Anybody know how to generate an unformatted list of the members of a category? Neil916 (Talk) 23:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it is done automatically by the bot??? See Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Fishes_articles_by_quality since importantce is not parsed yet it is not that fun yet, but see Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Shark_articles_by_quality for a small list that can be used to find e.g. top importance start pages. Not sure how well it works with pages with more than 400 pages though ... --Stefan ^talk 00:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK so after doing some checking the tables does not work across pages and have only max 400 on each page, so the category example above would work better and should be quite easy to add in the template? (although I have no idea how :-)) --Stefan ^talk 00:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the bot automatically generates this type of list for this WikiProject, at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Fishes_articles_by_quality/1, and you can use the "next" and "previous" buttons at the top and bottom of the page to select the next page. Neil916 (Talk) 07:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it is this code that adds the category
<includeonly>[[Category:All geology articles|{{PAGENAME}}]][[Category:{{ucfirst:{{lc:{{#ifeq: |{{{importance| }}}|Unknown|{{{importance}}}}}}}}}-importance {{ucfirst:{{lc:{{#ifeq: |{{{class| }}}|Unknown|{{{class}}}}}}}}}-Class Geology articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]<noinclude>
So we should probably add something like
<includeonly>[[Category:{{ucfirst:{{lc:{{#ifeq: |{{{importance| }}}|Unknown|{{{importance}}}}}}}}}-importance {{ucfirst:{{lc:{{#ifeq: |{{{class| }}}|Unknown|{{{class}}}}}}}}}-Class Fishes articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]<noinclude>
should we add that? Suggest someone with more template hacking experience does it, and how do we get the bot to wikilink the number to the new category like for the geology project? --Stefan ^talk 13:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, why is this necessary given that Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Fishes articles by quality/1 and the other six pages contain exactly the same information in a more compact, human-readable form? This strikes me as work for its own sake, and a lot of unnecessary categories to maintain. Happy‑melon 14:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is necessary, assessment is not necessary, wikipedia is not necessary, but by adding the above code above it will be much easier to find combinations of assessment and importance, which I thought was what we wanted. Once again, the link Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Fishes articles by quality/1 does not contain exactly that information, if all assessed pages was on that one page it would work, but try to show all Top class articles using that link! You will fail, you will only see 5 (as of current bot run), you need to go to the last page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Fishes articles by quality/7 to see the Top List, I do not know in which order the bot places the articles on the pages, but there will for sure be cases where different classes or importances are saved on different pages. So just for the record the list works only if it have all articles on one page, otherwise you only get a partial view. Maybe that is enough, maybe not, I do not care and will not take this any further, I'm just trying to help.

Secondly what is the extra maintainance, this category should never be used directly on a page, it should only be used using the assessment template so I can not understand how it becomes lot of unnecessary categories to maintain. --Stefan ^talk 00:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Could template be changed to use {{pagetype|{{{class|}}}}} as per the edit in the sandbox. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ruslik_Zero 16:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main image on this template is rather bland, and is overly wide compared to other project templates. I propose the image is changed as shown on the right, so the code

|IMAGE_LEFT          = Trachurus symmetricus baitball.jpg
 |IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL   = 50px
 |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE   = 100px

is replaced with:

|IMAGE_LEFT          = Georgia Aquarium - Giant Grouper edit.jpg
 |IMAGE_LEFT_SMALL   = 45px
 |IMAGE_LEFT_LARGE   = 90px

Thanks --Epipelagic (talk) 09:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The proposal immediately above has stood for several weeks without objection. Could the template be changed accordingly? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 sure — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

As part of a nearly-completed shift to distinguish requests for photos from requests for images in general, it is requested that this template be modified to place talk pages in "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories, rather than the old "Wikipedia requested photographs of..." categories. As such, please supplement all references to "photo(s) of..." and "photograph(s) of..." with "image(s) of..." in both the template and its documentation, while maintaining backwards compatibility for the old "photo" parameters. In particular, change "photograph or picture" to simply "image". Note that the "Wikipedia requested images of..." categories have already been created. Thank you! — s w p b ^T 18:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mock-up in sandbox. — s w p b ^T 14:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: per moratorium proposed at Category_talk:Wikipedia_requested_images_by_subject#Way_forward. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 00:45, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please change the lines:

|note 5={{{imageneeded|}}}
|NOTE_5_CAT         = Wikipedia requested photographs of fish

to read:

|note 5={{{needs-photo|{{{needs-image|{{{image-needed|{{{photo-needed|}}}}}}}}}}}}
|NOTE_5_CAT = Wikipedia requested images of fish‎

so that any of

|needs-image=yes
|needs-photo=yes
|image-needed=yes
|photo-needed=yes

populate the image request category, as other WikiProjects have moved from 'photograph' categories to 'image' categories. Nessie (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Enterprisey (talk!) 03:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Fishes. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The image request parameter(|imageneeded=) that is found in the parameter legend, does not work. However, the parameter |needs-image=yes functions as the image request parameter, even though it is not found in the parameter legend. JETH888 message me 15:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add a full stop after "WikiProject Tree of Life". 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - FlightTime (open channel) 23:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]