Template talk:Article history/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Delisted Good articles

Just a minor point here, but it appears when you delist a good article the link in the template heading "Such and such was one of the ????? good articles, but it has been removed from the list" points to WP:Good Articles. When an article is listed the link in "Such and such has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria" links to the WP:GA subpage. Like I said a minor point but if it is easy or warranted it would be nice to link to the subpage in delisted articles. From my end it would simply make it easier to remove said delisted article from the page after a reassessment. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

For example see Talk:Elephant (delisted) and Talk: Spider (listed). AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

 Added request to to do list — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done GA topics will now be properly linked for delisted GAs (and also for failed GAs, which were broken too). Thanks. Maralia (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Slight majority in favour of the move, but more importantly the support arguments (as a whole) are far stronger than the oppose arguments. I'll give a more detailed summary if requested. Two notes, though: if any technical glitches and the like are not easily fixable, then I will move the template back; and there's no prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of Template:Article milestones as a title. Jenks24 (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

---

Template:ArticleHistory → Template:Article history – Shouldn't be at all controversial: CamelCase went out of fashion with the Modern skin, CRT televisions and Pogs. Long precedent for naming templates using standard conventions. An earlier, aborted move has resulted in all the old double redirects being cleared out as well, so it should be straightforward to carry out. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support move to readable name. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support Can't see a good reason for keeping it where it is. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support per ThirdMillenniumStandardPractise ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  nb: I'm also warm to {{article milestones}}, which is what it actually calls itself on talk pages. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support to make sense, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
• Support except I think the A in Article should be capital.PumpkinSky talk 19:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  doesn't matter; it's either. see franz Kafka, for example. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Seems a logical title Montanabw 21:42, 12 October 2012‎ (UTC)
• Oppose. Changing this would be a complete waste of time for no actual benefit, and nobody has cited a single policy that would support this change. This template is transcluded more than 31,700 times, of which the vast majority use "ArticleHistory", as has been done so for well over 5 years. That's long precedent. The "Article history" form is only used 21 times currently, [1], less than 1 in 1500. This proposed move would have the effect of making the transclusions more inconsistent, which would adversely affect me, as I am sure some of those "supporting" this are well aware. Also, User:Thumperward failed to note or link to previous discussions on the subject, which is a serious omission. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, no valid reason for move has been stated except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There is a redirect present so it is pointless. meshach (talk) 01:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gimmetoo, on technical reasons. It will break scripts and bots for no practical benefit. --Rschen7754 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • It will not break one single script nor bot of any sort. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • Are you sure of this? We have a prominent bot operator commenting above. --Rschen7754 20:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes. "Prominent" Gimme may be, but his understanding of how this will affect his bot is most certainly incorrect. In the extremely unlikely event of this causing any technical fallout, I will be more than happy to fix it myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gimmetoo and Rschen7754. It's pointless and doesn't seem like it's worth the hassle. –Mauer (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gimmetoo. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. –Fredddie™ 01:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Something a lot stronger than "fashion" would be required to warrant renaming a maintenance template. There is an existing system which works, and while consistency and uniform style are good, there is no reason to force changes to established procedures (a lot more changes than merely updating a doc page). Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Discoverability, consistency, elimination of undesirable legacy naming (which might encourage new template authors to erroneously think CamelCase is a good idea): this is, at present, the only high-profile template that I know of which has not been moved in this way. Now that I've provided a list of concrete advantages for a move, would those above posting zero-content opposition consider attempting to come up with adequate responses of their own? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
    • You had one "zero-content" opposition and the six supports you have don't have one reason why it should be changed. They just think there's no reason not to change it, which isn't a valid reason. –Mauer (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
      • "I think there is no reason to change it" is an extremely weak rationale. The change will not break anything: it will have several minor benefits. It seems like an awful lot of trouble to go to to actively oppose it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• support, no reason to use CamelCase for the primary name. for a redirect, no problem, but not for the primary name. Frietjes (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• The page should not have been moved without discussion because a cursory look at the page log would show that this move is controversial. However I think the time has come to move this template to the slightly clearer and easier to read {{Article history}}. I would be equally happy with {{Article milestones}} as well. CamelCase is a thing of the past and makes the template seem slightly more technical and less accessible. I don't believe there will be any problems caused by this move, but the proponent has already offered to sort out any glitches. Thus I support. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed restoration

This is a followup to Template_talk:Article_history#Requested_move to rectify errors. User:Thumperward presented a "move request" as non-conttrovsial after user:Thmperward had unilaterally moved the template despite prior move requests. In the process of the "discussion", user:Thmperward said "it [the move] will not break one single script nor bot of any sort". It has. User:Thmperward promised "In the extremely unlikely event of this causing any technical fallout, I will be more than happy to fix it myself." Persuant to User_talk:Thumperward#AH_problems, User:Thmperward refuses to fix the issue in the only way feasible to him - by restoring the template to the name it had for years. The "reasons" given for the move included "Discoverability, consistency, elimination of undesirable legacy naming (which might encourage new template authors to erroneously think CamelCase is a good idea): this is, at present, the only high-profile template that I know of which has not been moved in this way." The move has resulted in creating inconsistency in the user of this template. To the extent the CamelCase style is involved, moving this template made it no longer consistent with other CamCase styled templates, including especially a talk page template strongly connected with this one. For these reasons and others, the template should be restored to the form it had for years. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

please see Village pump (technical)#user:GimmeBot and template:article history. I am not a bot person, my understanding is that the bot has not properly handled the name "article history" during the years that is was a valid redirect, that should be fixed in the bot, help has been offered, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, burt user:Thumperward said "it will not break one single script nor bot of any sort". As such, there can be no problem. Or are you affirming that user:Thumperward was lying? If so, I will remind you of WP:CIV. Gimmetoo (talk) 13:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but we are talking about the time before the move. The bot should have handled the name of the redirect, no? - I am not saying anything about the other user and about you, only about the bot function. I hope the bot will understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, in October 2012, the redirect had a total of 21 transclusions (out of about 30,000 transclusions) and these were attributed to two editors: Thumperward who installed a couple in October, and another editor who had done the rest in February-April 2012. None of the 21 uses were installed before 2012. Gimmetoo (talk) 14:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Template:Article history → Template:ArticleHistory – This was moved to "article history" at the end of October 2012 (see above). That discussion should have ended in, at best, a "no consensus" and no move, and indeed, the "move" result was surprising, as some of the reasons for the move were factually incorrect. There are other templates using CamelCase, including the talk page template strongly associated with this one, as anyone who works with talk page templates would know. Furthermore, prior to the move, the template had been at ArticleHistory for about 5 years. I am the main editor affected by this move, as I run a bot that processes the ArticleHistory template. Haivng it at a consistent name is helpful to scripting, and indeed, prior to the October move, only about 21 out of 31,700 transclusions of the template used "article history". Even now, 32856 transclusions out of 32904 use "ArticleHistory", which is currently a redirect. The reasons given for the October move included "Discoverability, consistency, elimination of undesirable legacy naming (which might encourage new template authors to erroneously think CamelCase is a good idea): this is, at present, the only high-profile template that I know of which has not been moved in this way." Again, to the extent the CamelCase style is involved, moving this template made it no longer consistent with other CamCase styled templates. Therefore, for simplicity, consistency, and other reasons, I propose restoring the template to its original name. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose The bot coding can be tweaked and if there are other templates named with CamelCase, they can be renamed too. Redirects can easily be addressed by tasking a bot to fix them. The reasons for the current page name were well discussed in the last page move discussion, which came to a conclusion you didn't agree with. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - see former discussion. (If this should be moved again I would like to see "article milestones", as the talk pages say, replaced in all instances, a bot should be able to do that.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Article milestones, oppose reintroduction of CamelCase. I can only wonder why this issue bothers you so much. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose While animal cruelty laws do not apply to acts against deceased equines, they ought to.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Wehwalt and in my capacity as a member of WPEQ, I must vehemently oppose the continued mutilation of this particular now-skeletal equine corpse. Montanabw^(talk) 19:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Hell no, CamelCase is just so square, it shouldn't be used anymore and all templates still using it should be moved as well. I still believe "Page milestones", as proposed a while ago would be the best title for this template, but at least it shouldn't be in CamelCase. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Pardon my ignorance, but why is CamelCase deprecated? —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• The ussage of this template is 99.85% consistent as "ArticleHiistory", and no genuine argument has been presented supporting chanigng that practice which has a history of some five years. If such a long-term practice which is 99.85% consistentcy can be disregraded by IDONTLIKEIT, with no basis in policy, by a small number of people who are not affected, and that can disrupt editors who are affected, and who have done the work for years, then there is a problem. The original move was improoper as it was based on incorrect statements, and no policy was cited at any point. The users were wrong who claimed nothing would break with the change. The users who claimed they would fix any problem have, to date, done absolutely nothing to fix the problems; they have not contacted me in any way. Nor, of note, to my knowledge have they attempted to change the other main templates that are in the allegedly disallowed naming, which rather suggests that they are mainly interested in changing this template's name. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 106#user:GimmeBot and template:article history, second paragraph - there was an offer from 28bytes (talk · contribs). There are other offers too; and as that thread progressed, I got the distinct impression that it was not that they were refusing to help, but that you were turning down their offers. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

In the time since the move, did any of these people do anything to address or fix the issue? If so, please point it what and where. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you mean by "the issue". For any help or fix, your cooperation would have been needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Minor cleanup

I have made changes in the sandbox to correct three minor errors in code logic:

1. A switch statement about FAs mistakenly ties |action19link= to |action18=, resulting in returning the wrong link for the corresponding FAC.
2. A switch statement about FLs mistakenly ties |action18link= to |action19=, resulting in returning the wrong link for the corresponding FLC.
3. An error message about the WP:FAR process mistakenly refers to 'Featured article status' where it should say 'Featured article review'.

These extremely specific scenarios are not covered in Template:Article history/testcases, so I made test cases in my userspace. They can be viewed here (I blanked the page after testing because reproducing scenario #3 requires creating an error). Anyone see a problem with these changes? Maralia (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Error: Invalid time

Throwing an error on Talk:History of feminism. I've tried adding more params, moving things around, searching history of this talk page, but no dice. Any ideas? czar · · 02:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It was an invisible character, specifically a left-to-right mark, immediately following the year; I have removed it. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I spent quite a lot of time trying to fix this one last night and failed, so well done! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciated, all czar · · 07:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you help fix an error at Talk:Deanna Merryman ? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt: It had |topic=arts instead of |topic=art. It needs to match one of the entries in the "keyword" column at Template:GA/Topic, which is very picky about spelling. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 16:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Article created

Is there a way to add Article created to the history using this template?

And if not, can that be added please?

Thanks very much for all who maintain this useful template, — Cirt (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This information is already available under 'Page information' in the sidebar. I don't really see why we need to clutter up the template (although there may be a good reason; it's just my opinion). Harryboyles 16:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. — Cirt (talk) 18:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Former featured articles

Don't you think that File:Featured article star - cross.svg seems a bit... ugly? What about replacing it with File:Cscr-featured-strike.svg? It is already used for former featured lists, but I don't think there's a need to use a different image for each case (in fact, featured articles and lists both use the same star) Cambalachero (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Question

I noticed that Talk:The Who has both {{GA}} and {{Article History}}. Should these two templates be combined? If so, what's the proper way to do it? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they should. In this case, I see that the information was actually already incorporated into articlehistory, in this edit. Looks like the editor just forgot to remove the standalone GA template; you could remove it now.

The information that he added was all found in the GA template (he used a slightly different oldid, but that's fairly inconsequential). Sometimes the oldid is not provided in the GA template (or in other process templates such as for PR); you can use a script at User talk:Dr pda/articlehistory.js to find an oldid for any timestamp. A quick explanation of the script is located on its talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Maralia (talk) 02:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

{{GA}} removed - thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

shortcut

Can someone add {{shortcut|T:AH}} to this page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, since {{AH}} is a totally different template. -- Ypnypn (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Considering this template's much wider use ([2] v. [3]), I'd be for suggesting a move for the current {{AH}} to something like {{Hijri and Julian years}} and adopting AH as a shortcut here. czar ♔ 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To do list has a lot of work needed.

The To-do list at the start of this talk page has a lot of work to do. Could someone do it?

Is/are there additional template(s) than {{edit protected}} to get the attention of template coders? — Lentower (talk) 03:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the intention is to rewrite the template in Lua at some stage, but who knows when someone will have the time. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lentower: I removed one of the three entries that you added today, because I cannot find a request on this page for allowing multiple ITN nominations (there is nothing with either "ITN" or "news" anywhere in title or text); I also fixed the other two because they were pointing to the wrong discussion. Please note that {{edit protected}} is not intended to get the attention of template coders - see WP:PER - it is used once the required change has been determined, tested and agreed. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

@Redrose64: et al

• Thanks for the pointer to WP:PER. — Lentower (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• What are the ways to ask editors with template coding skills, to give a particular template attention? — Lentower (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Quite possible that an article already has more than two {{In the news}} main page mentions. If you are going to add code, you should do so for the likely known cases. — Lentower (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Some people leave messages at Help talk:Template; some at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates; others at WP:VPT. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanx — Lentower (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Good topic / featured topic detection

This template can't seem to decide if this topic is a GT or FT. On Talk:2013 Atlantic hurricane season it's listed as an FT but on Talk:Tropical Storm Andrea (2013) it's listed as a GT. —Designate (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this was fixed. —Designate (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Why does the article have to be GA/FA related

I find this template really useful for condensing all of the AFD/Copy edit/peer review stuff, but what if the article hasn't got one of those GA/FA related current status'. Could we have a "basic" input to the current status, or when it's left blank not have an error message, because it would make it a far more applicable template. Jonjonjohny (talk) 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jonjonjohny: Where are you seeing error messages? --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry that was my own mistake there is no error message. Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 24 October 2014

I would like to change the image for FGAN articles from "unsupport" vote to "oppose" vote. That way, there is a separate icon for that from DGA's like there are separate icons for FFAC's and FFA's. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I think we would need a consensus for this first. This might be controversial, as I think most people associate GAs with "green plus", without realising that this also means "support vote". If we used an icon without a plus, it might confuse people. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Something I neglected to mention was how "Failed Good Article Nomination" icon produces ("oppose" symbol) while "Good Article" produces ("support" symbol) and "Delisted Good Article" produces ("unsupport" symbol). Figured the article status should correspond with the icons. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)