Usage

Standard usage:

{{PCP|class=|importance=|PCP=|rate=}}

Required parameters
class	Set to `FA`, `A`, `GA`, `B`, `Start` or `Stub` to rate the article on the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment scale. For templates or other non-article pages, set `class=NA`.
importance	Set to `Top`, `High`, `Mid`, or `Low` to rate the article's importance within CVG articles.
PCP	Set to `FA`, `A`, `GA`, `B`, `Start` or `Stub` to rate the article on the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment scale. For templates or other non-article pages, set `class=NA`.
rate	Add in one of the following groups - Dire, Poor, Average, Above-average or Exemplary. These fields represent the grouping of the article at WP:PCP/L.
Optional parameters
selected	Set to `yes` if the article is a former selected article of the Portal:Pokémon.
dyk	Set to `yes` if the article is a former feature in the Did You Know...? section of Portal:Pokémon.
pic	Set to `yes` if the article is a former featured picture in the Featured Picture section of Portal:Pokémon.
focus	Set to `yes` if the article is one of the current focuses of WP:PCP.
oldfocus	Set to `yes` if the article is one of the previous focuses of WP:PCP.
complete	Set to `yes` if the article has reached the desired quality of all articles by PCP.

Discussion

Focus picture

I wanted to ask what the deal is with the little bird that's displayed when the focus parameter is set to yes. You can see it on Crawdaunt's talk page. I think it would be better and smoother if instead of adding another row of information to the template, it instead started, "This article is one the current focuses of the Pokémon Collaborative Project, which aims..." Is there any easy way to do this? --Brandon Dilbeck 23:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the silly picture. --Brandon Dilbeck 03:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New to do list

i found this template, {{to do}}, and decided it would make a great addition to all of our pokemon articles. There is added functionality that allows users to create a box on any page but display a specific article's to-do list. This can allow for more coordinated work between focus articles when their to-do list might be split up among the article's talk page, the project, and the portal. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that template's needed, it can be added on its own to articles that require its use. No need to group it in here and clutter the template and the talk pages it's placed on. Right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, ΖαππερΝαππερ decided to be bold and add {{to do}} anyhow. I respect his initiative; however, I have reverted that change for now. Many articles do not have the subpage that the {{to do}} template requires, in which case only an empty to-do list is displayed. Furthermore, the {{to do}} template is intended as a resource for all article editors, not only those in WikiProject Pokémon.

The addition of {{to do}} also broke support for {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, for which I assumed you wished to continue support, as your template has implemented, though not documented, the nested parameter. I have also removed a newline that caused similar errors within the shell.

Please contact me via my talk page if you have a problem with any of these changes. Thanks! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 01:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i really didn't see any adverse affects on the talk pages, i tweaked usage so that if the to-do list wasn't being implemented yet, it was only a couple lines long, just enough to let people know it was an option - so i don't get the "clutter" argument. to respond to Madman, while many articles did not have the subpage created yet, it was added onto the main template to encourage people to do so - the blank page was intentional. secondly, how does my adding {{to-do}} to this template say that to-do can only be used WP:POKE? the complaint i'm most concerned with is that i broke support for another template, however wouldn't it have just been better to adjust the code? if support was broken because of inaccurate documentation that could have been fixed, rather than now breaking the pages that do utilize to-do. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 15:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blank page may have been intentional, but it was useless to regular editors of the articles. If the regular article editors wanted to make a TODO list, they would have created one already; there was no need to force the issue. Moreover, WikiProjects generally have their own TODO lists, specific in nature, and unnecessary for individual editors to peruse. The problem with {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} was that {{to-do}} does not support the nested parameter and you left it outside of your WikiProject's banner; thus, when templates were nested within the shell, the TODO list "stuck out", disrupting the formatting of the shell.

{{to do}} has been removed thrice now. The articles that use it generally already have it on the talk page, and the redundancy is counterproductive. Those that don't use it have no need for the empty list that it displays. So, the point is, as a WikiProject, you can have your own TODO list; no need to assume responsibility for every article that displays your banner.

Thanks, — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the thing is, many articles are grouped together rather than viewed as a single article by the project, so a single article rarely has a regular editor (there are of course exceptions). it often times takes a person to specifically go to the project and say Pokemon X has these problems, and then as a group we try to fix it (this is how things went on in the past... with the merger going on, the project is a little more discombobulated).

you say there was no need to force the issue, but when you have 500+ articles within the scope of a project, centralized discussion becomes necessary. by forcing to-do, it would encourage people to add things to the to-do list rather than listing them on both the talk page and the project page. and then having someone have to update the portal's To-do list as well. i think {{to-do}} is a great idea and it could streamline discussions so nicely. Take a look at how it has been implemented at the project and the portal. but if to-do doesn't get forced onto each page, there's no way to guarantee that the rest of the infrastructure will continue to function properly. also, this way people who are unfamiliar with the project or the portal, but familiar with to-do, can essentially broadcast problems they see with the article to these extra avenues.

the problem with breaking the template seems easily fixed, why not just add nested functionality to to-do? then if the parent template (in this case, this template) gets called with nested=yes, to-do can be be called with nested=yes in the transclusion.

as for how often it's been removed, Disavian removed it back at the end of April with no explanation. since i knew he wasn't an active member within the project i readded it, hoping perhaps he would shed some light on the reason why he removed it (i realize in retrospect i should have left a msg on his talk page, i forgot). it was removed again in May by Matt, and this time i contacted the person, their reasoning was that the current implementation broke when using the small version. a simple fix by calling to-do's small parameter and Matt was happy. the simple fact of removal hardly says anything more than people who are unfamiliar with how a project is being run feel it unneccessary to consider that project's needs before altering content. the original reason for removal (breaking formatting) is fixable and the alternative of dictating how the project should be run is stepping on some toes.

I also wasn't aware of any articles where to-do was being trancluded twice. that can be fixed by just removing the explicit tranclusion, give me the list and i'll do it myself - i agree 100% that redundancy is counterproductive. the articles that currently aren't utilizing to-do aren't all blank because they "don't need" it. moreso, they just haven't been utilized yet. the wikiproject is merely trying to encourage improvement of the articles by giving them a to-do list, which is a fundamental goal of wikipedia.

in short, all your qualms are fixable or seem to be trying to say how the project should run itself. i'm sorry this was long, but i hope you can understand better where i'm coming from. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]