Template talk:ArticleHistory/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Discussion

Nice template. Could the dates be formatted (January 17, 2006) so that they display properly for users with this preference set? Also, could the amount of space it takes up on the talk page of the article be minimized? (by default, that is; I know that it supports the small parameter) Thanks. Mike Peel 18:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The dates are actually intended to be linked to the version of the article on that date, just like in the article history, see for example Hubble Space Telescope. I've changed the template so that the history is now hidden by default. Dr pda 20:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Could there be an option to add a line about the "Good Article" history of an article, as FA status automatically removes the article from GA status? —ExplorerCDT 06:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Dr pda 05:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Article milestones

This box is currently labeled "Article History", which I suppose has a slight potential to confuse users looking for the article's actual history. Since this box lists only the most notable events in the article's history, how about labeling it "Article milestones" instead? – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 08:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd ditto that. Also, could someone change the caps that appear throughout the template, like "Article History" (or "Article Milestones"), "Featured Article Candidate", "Peer Review", "Current Status", "Not Promoted" so that only the first word is capitalized? This is how we usually format section headings and templates in Wikipedia. And thanks for the good work and the great template idea! It's very handy :) Todor→Bozhinov 09:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't we also include AFD in it? --TeckWizTalk Contribs@ 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I changed that – Qxz 12:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed additions

This is a list to simplify the tracking of proposed additions

Template
  • Nomination for Foo (FOO)—Action and status
  • Listed as Foo (FOOL)—Status
Proposals
  • AFD nominations (AFD-AFDX, for multiple noms)—Actions only Done. Example: Talk:Megatokyo
  • DYK features (DYK)—Actions only Done. Example Talk:Charles Edward Magoon
  • Main Page apparitions (MP)—Actions only—Template does not currently support multiple MP features
    • How many articles have more than one main page appearance? Can you give some examples?
      • True, there are apparently none.
  • Featured topic (I know it's complicated, and I'm sorry about it) Done. Examples Talk:Saffron, Talk:History of saffron, Talk:Trade and usage of saffron.

FTC is now a valid action. The status is implemented differently because it is independent of the status of the article. If the FTC is successful, use ftname=(name of series), and additionally ftmain=yes for the main article in the series. I haven't implemented anything for Former FT, since there aren't any. Nor have implemented a status for for failed FTC, since the current instructions say to put {{FTCfailed}} only on the talk page of the main article, the failed FTC is recorded in the milestones, and the extra text in the template takes up quite a bit of space. I suppose if it turns out to be necessary we could add a ftfailed=yes option.

    • Featured topic: main or subarticle (FTM & FTS)—Status only
    • Former featured topic: main or subarticle (FFTM & FFTS)—Status only
    • Featured topic candidate: main or subarticle (FTCM & FTCS)—Action and status
    • Failed featured topic candidate: main or subarticle (FFTCM & FFTCS)—Status only (possibly action, but I don't think we have a process yet)

Circeus 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Featured list Done. Example Talk:List of United States House committees
    • Featured list candidate (FLC)—Action and status
    • Former featured list candidate(FFLC)—Status only
    • Featured list (FL)—Status only
    • Featured list removal candidate (FLR)—Action and status
    • Former featured List (FFL)—Status only
  • Good article nominee (GAN)—Status(it's available as an action, but not status...)
  • Collaboration (COLL)—Any collaboration. Link goes to the "former collaborations" page for that collaboration, or no link at all. "Date" is beginning and end dates.
    • This differs from all the other actions in not involving a review, so I don't think it belongs in the template. If it's a WikiProject Collaboration it's probably already included in their template. Dr pda 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Circeus 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding Featured list and portal to the current status and actions. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is enough such templates for portals for it to be useful.Circeus 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Possibly (I was just throwing it out there), but I would certainly be beneficial for featured lists. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed nomination/candidate statuses, by discussion lower on the page.Circeus 01:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Instructions now updated, and implemented features marked. Dr pda 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Given variance of preferences and desired options already expressed below by another user at Show/Hide_feature and then by me at Show/Hide there should be a line that gives the option to collapse or not. Possibly something of the form collapse = yes or no. TonyTheTiger 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As I state below, this should be optional since the purpose of having the templates is to make the it clear at a glance to the visitor that the article has a review history and some editors may prefer to have a preference for show instead of hide if the page does not have many other templates such as WP templates. An alternative might be to have it set to show if there are small number of other talk article templates and hide if there is a large number such as 5 or more. TonyTheTiger 15:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea and implementation

Finally, there is an easy way to know the history of the article and to get to the exact article that was nominated for GA or FA status. Thanks a lot for the template. Remember 15:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"the exact article that was nominated for GA or FA status."
Actually, most of the time, you get the one that was promoted. And only if you,re luvky enough that the implementer did the work to find the versions.Circeus 18:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
If you mean for finding the dates/oldids to give to the template, go to the talk page history, look for for the date {{featured}}, {{facfailed}}, GA, {{oldpeerreview},} etc was added, then go to the article page history and find the last version before that date and time. (Easy, but tedious). Hopefully Gimmebot will be doing most of the job of converting to this template, in which case the easy way is to wait :). Dr pda 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The oldid should be the one when the article was promoted, as many articles/lists get chnaged as a result of discussion during their nominaton. In this case, the bot should pick when {{FL}}, {{FA}} etc. first apear. Tompw (talk) 11:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The bot is maintaining the FAC process. For future FACs, the oldid will correspond to the version of the article when the FAC director closes the FAC discussion. When the ArticleHistory template is added to other articles with old FAC pages, the oldid will correspond to the version on the date of the last comment on the FAC/PR/FARC discussion page. Gimmetrow 13:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's harder than it looks, say, for articles promoted a year or two ago, and whose talk page has been repeatedly archived. Not mo mention the hundred of edit generated by first-page featuring. Of course, date-based history makes this soooo simpler...when the page has not been archived. That's the reason I make my archiving via cut-and-paste.Circeus 20:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Impressive work. --kingboyk 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous tag

On both Talk:Peter Pevensie and Talk:Lord Voldemort there currently appears to be some sort of /tr> appearing. Anybody know where this is in the markup and if we can remove it? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Show/Hide feature

Can we remove that, or at least make it optional? In this case, I think it's actually useful to instantly show the content of the template, and it's not taking up alot of space anyways. It's compact, useful information that shouldn't be hidden, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 14:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Issue with maindate

When you have the main page date in the code, but empty (like | maindate=), the template shows that the article appeared on the Main Page today. When you remove that field completely, it goes away. I've never noticed this behavior with other templates when the field is left blank.--NMajdan•talk 19:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone forgot to make the field blank by default... *goes to investigate* Circeus 20:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It's been fixed already. Circeus 20:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't seem to be fixed quite yet. Gimmetrow 20:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it now. Dr pda 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

BP and RBP

Could it be made so they don't have an awkward looking empty link? I have made two templates with these and it looks tacky to see Brilliant prose in the template. The Placebo Effect 22:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It also has problems with current FAR (see Talk:Baseball The Placebo Effect 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment on issues with the template

Wow, there's been a lot of activity here since yesterday! Great job by Circeus on making the instructions look nice. Unfortunately they are not quite correct after some of the changes I made yesterday, which I had hoped to document properly today, but will now not have time to do until tomorrow. Just quickly

  • FAC and FAR nomination capability has been removed from the template, per discussions at my talk. Use of the existing nomination templates has advantages for usability, plus there's less confusion about which dates/oldid's would be referred to.
  • Maindate showing today's date if left blank: that should be a quick fix, I'll do it when I add some more of the requested features.
  • BP - Raul654 has said that the original BP nomination date is not relevant, just whether the article was kept or demoted at the Refreshing of Brilliant Prose (which was basically a vote on whether to keep or reject each "Brilliant Prose" article shortly after the switch to the current nomination system for Featured Articles). This process closed on 19 January 2004 (which can be used for the actionXdate), and the discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Archive/Refreshing_brilliant_prose_-_Science or similar, (which can be used for actionXlink). See Talk:DNA for an example.
  • Incidentally, User:Feature Historian is very useful for finding dates articles were promoted/demoted. The dates articles were added to the logs of FAC/FAR provide the definitive dates for the end of these processes, however this action is usually accompanied by updating the talk page templates. It's a matter of choice which ones you want to trawl through.
  • Show/hide feature: default was made hide after a request by another editor concerned about talk page space. One of the advantages of the template is that it does reduce the clutter in 'hidden' mode. Some articles have lots of actions, and there the template does take up quite a bit of space (see Talk:Sesame Street).

Dr pda 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • FAC/FAR: I agree the template should not handle the nomination feature. I just noticed that FAR, FAC and GAR are only pertinent to be added once their result are known: until the article is actually promoted, it's status doesn't change... I'll edit my table ASAP. "FAR", "FAC" and "GAR" statuses should default to FA, GA or any other preceding status (in the case of FAC).
  • BP: Maybe then it's irrelevant to document it on the talk page here, since it's only useful for a finite set of articles... I'll put that not in the table to avoid clutter.
Circeus 01:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Features removed?

Why is the FAC,FAR not used anymore? All that needs to happen is when it is docummented on the template change result to "current" and not put article id in. It removes the need for an additional template and the process for working FAC/FAR could be changed to reflect this. The Placebo Effect 02:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons - it creates that many more states for gimmebot to consider, and this template is far more complicated than the FAC/FAR template. Raul654 03:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, consider that the template duplication is stirctly temporary (and it,s not too often that both articlehistory and {{fac}} will be present...Circeus 05:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

date for BP and RBP

WHat do we put for the dates of BP and RBP if we can't fin it. I doubt anyone wants to see the error message for the date.The Placebo Effect 15:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What page? Talk:Byzantine_Empire seems ok, except for giving today's date. Gimmetrow 15:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it should show todays date, that is just wrong,would it be too hard to fix that? Also, is it O.K. if use the last exceptiable date on the FAC or Peer Review page for the ending date? The Placebo Effect 15:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
The precise ending date is not critical. For older pages, the bot currently records the date of last comment on the FAC/PR page. For all RBP entries, you can use 19 January 2004. If you don't know the date for BP, you could use the same date for it. Gimmetrow 15:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, all BP articles were reviewed in the RBP stage. I wonder if the BP stage should even be mentioned. Gimmetrow 02:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
SInce oly RBP is on the table above, thats the only one ive been using. The Placebo Effect 02:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, that's good. The template still has some code for BP that should probably be removed. Gimmetrow 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Main page ID

Would it be possible to make it so it can link to the version shown on the main page? The Placebo Effect`

It does. Click on "today's featured article". Raul654 02:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Or are you asking for the ID of the article itself, so that one can see exactly what it looked like at the end of the day? --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Exactly The Placebo Effect 18:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a good idea, but any oldid from the day an article appears on the mainpage would be likely to be blanked or vandalized. There is no easy way to guarantee the oldid version doesn't have vandalism. (Any other version could too, but it's a lot more likely an article is vandalized on the main page date, than on the date it is promoted to FA.)Gimmetrow 18:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So take the id from right before it appears on the main page, or the one right after. Would that work? --Spangineerws (háblame) 14:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tool i could use

Is their are tool that I could enter a date and it would take me to that spot on the article's revision list? The Placebo Effect 19:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The history? ;-)the format for any history selection is /index.php?title=Foobar&offset=yyyymmddhhmmss&action=history where 20070123125820 is January 23, 2007, 12:58::20. Just make sure to select a date AFTER the revision you want.Circeus 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
A bot is going to generate ArticleHistory templates for any article nominated for FAC. You could just wait for the bot. Gimmetrow 21:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Would it be able to doo all the stuff i did on Talk:Wikipedia? not all of that stuff was listed in the talk page The Placebo Effect 01:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
No, the bot will generally not add things that were not on the talk page. In a few cases, I have added templates just before the bot ran so they would be swept in. Gimmetrow 03:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So if I enter an ID, it will give me the next possible article before or after it? The Placebo Effect 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
It's a history page listing, just with a specific start location. It will list edit versions prior to the date code. So if you have a history page with offset=20070123125820, the first edit listed will be prior to that date, and so will correspond to the version that existed at the instant of the offset time. This is what the bot does, in fact. If a FAC discussion is closed on a certain date, it queries the history page with an offset corresponding to that date, and grabs the oldid value of the first entry. Gimmetrow 03:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've written a script which I think is more what you're looking for. This searches through the talk page history and extracts the revisions where the edit summary said something relevant to the {{ArticleHistory}} template (e.g. featured or facfailed or review etc). It also provides a link to click on to get the oldid corresponding to that date, plus an option to manually enter a date and get an oldid. More instructions at User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js. To use, add {{subst:js|User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js}} to your monobook.js. --Dr pda 03:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed BRP

Ive been listind these as FFAC, is that ok. (By the way thanks for the tool). The Placebo Effect 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would treat these as former FAs (FFA). If a former FA becomes GA, I don't think we've resolved whether it should have status FFA or status GA. Gimmetrow 19:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There is some debate about Brilliant Prose articles at Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia former featured articles

Articles whose talk pages use this template, such as DNA, which also have bounced in and out of FA status, remain listed on the Category:Wikipedia former featured articles indefinitely. While technically true tat DNA was, at one time, an FFA, this tempalte side-effect strikes me as not desireable since that category functions as an intake for articles that might be worthy of renewed FA efforts. Am I being too narrow in my view of what FFA means? -- 199.33.32.40 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly - I track that category to make sure we're not missing anything at WP:FFA, where articles like DNA are listed at the bottom, so I make use of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the anon - at the very least, it is misleading to call them former featured articles. Raul654 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the category so it now only appears if currentstatus=FFA. This means that if a former FA subsequently undergoes some other process, eg fails a subsequent FAC, it should remain at currentstatus=FFA in order to stay in Category:Wikipedia former featured articles. The one case where this might be inconvenient is a former FA which is now a GA, so I've added a new currentstatus, FFA/GA, which puts the article in both the former FA and GA categories.
(Also, per the comments in the previous section, note that if an article which failed Refreshing Brilliant Prose and has not subsequently been renominated is given currentstatus=FFA it will also appear in Category:Wikipedia former featured articles. One could perhaps argue that it is not necessary to apply the ArticleHistory template in these cases) Dr pda 15:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'm following - doublechecking. Right now, there are 335 articles in Category:Wikipedia former featured articles and 333 FFAs, which includes the 12 re-promoted FAs listed at the bottom of the page. One of the extras is coming from "Wikipedia:Templates used for featured content", and I've got to go through and find the other discrepancy. If I'm understanding correctly, you're saying that once the bot goes through again (?), it will remove the re-promoted FFAs from the cat (since they are currently FAs), so I should expect 333 minus the 12 repromoted FFAs to show up in the category? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
hmmmm ... <grumble> ... further discrepancy. The 333 includes two Projects that aren't in the category, so I've got to find out why the numbers don't jive. They did last time I checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I deleted all of the lists and moved my work here to keep better track of work needed.

Thats what Gimmetrow suggested and thats what iv'e been doing. I had them at first as FFAC, but in a sense, they were the old featured articles so I was labeling them FFA The Placebo Effect 17:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If everyone agrees, I'll add them to WP:FFA - I'm afraid to continue with the manual fixes above, because I'm not sure about changing the archives on the redirects - would like for someone else to look at the rest of the manual work to fix those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Better stated, if we all agree on the non-refreshed brilliant prose articles, I'd rather have Marskell add Alexander the Great, E. P. Wigner, Homer, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Mortimer Adler and Perseus to WP:FFA, as I might not get them in the correct category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There are proboubly more than that, I hadn't finished going through all the refreshing prose pages The Placebo Effect 01:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted my test page, so you shouldn't have any more problems with it. Raul654 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Marskell to add the newfound failed RBPs to the WP:FFA page (which means our tally will go up). I plan to ask Yomangani if he can help me sort out some moves that need admin intervention. I've corrected all double redirects. And I still need help in finding some missing FACs there. Placebo, would it be possible for you to list at the talk page of WP:FFA any new BRPs you find, so we can add them to WP:FFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Done. i didn't add the templates, but the list is there. The Placebo Effect 20:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I left you a question there - I'm confoozled. If all of those are former FAs - yikes. For example, how to handle Baseball - it's currently a featured article, at WP:FAR now - so would that mean it's been promoted, farc'd, promoted, and farc'd again? The template and bots will love that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
To interject, I'm assuming Sandy would like me to add to WP:FFA because I'm whitelisted and the bot (if working) will update the count. I've had too much wine to figure this out tonight, however. Explain to me like I'm a six-year old the sorting that needs doing on talk and I'll try to help tomorrow. Marskell 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Marskell, I'm whitelisted at FFA, so I can add them if needed - I asked you because I'm not that clear on which category to use for each. But I'm definitely confused where that whole big new list came from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I now understand the old RBP list, and I added the first bunch (above) - I'll wait on Placebo's new list until ArticleHistory templating catches up. As of now, the FFA category and list should be in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Could it be made on the template so that articles that failed the RBP but passed something else later count as FFA? The Placebo Effect 04:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Do you mean have an RBP/GA along with the FFA/GA ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I mean for article like alchemy that filed when the transition came, but then passed later. The Placebo Effect 14:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Limit?

Is the template still programmed to take a max of ten entries? Wikipedia is at seven, its current peer review will be eight, and it appears to be aiming for FAC, which would be nine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm positive if time came more could be added. Sesame Street has alot too. Its a good thing the GNAA still doesn't have their page because their is not enough room to list 18 AFDS. The Placebo Effect 03:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, adding a couple more might be nice. I just formatted it for Hollaback Girl, and it uses exactly ten right now, so if someone lists it at FAR (which wouldn't surprise me since the song sucks but many people don't understand what FA means), then it'll break the limit. ShadowHalo 11:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Beans ! (Three-month minimum lag between FAC and FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I've bumped up the limit to 15. Dr pda 22:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Order?

Newest on top? Or on bottom? Or does anyone care? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Should be newest on bottom. The bot will be putting new actions at the end of the template if the template already exists on the talk page. Gimmetrow 01:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
In date order, with oldest on top, newest on bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Wow - Y'all are quick! :) So if I read this talk page correctly, there's a bot that's going to automatically add this to any current FA?
By the way - GREAT work! This is awesome! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Correct, but right now many articles that need this template don't have it right no so if you are willing to help out you can use this tool to help find the ID's andhelp distribute the template on the appropriate articles. The Placebo Effect 01:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a bot is going to (eventually) add this template to any article that has gone through FAC. If you want to help out, you could also make sure that all the relevant templates are OK on the talk page of articles you work on. For instance, I've run across a few where a peer review was archived but the oldpeerreview link was not updated. Or the same with a couple successive failed FACs. So, the bot is capable of doing this, but two of the templates had not been updated as a result of page moves. Gimmetrow 01:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
As I work my way through the manual work necessary to prepare for the bot, I'm finding that the biggest problem is missing oldid on GA listings - it would be great if we could get people to add those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
It's a relatively recent, and still optional, thing with GA. It was only added July 29, 2006.Gimmetrow 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
So maybe I'm slow, but I'm still not clear. To help the bot, I should check articles to make sure GA tags have the "oldid" parameter, and what do FA tags need? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Most of the FA info is complete - there are generally two problems on talk pages - incorrectly archived peer reviews (as in the example Gimme gave above), and failure to identify oldid on GAs. I also find missing templates. On FAs, just make sure the {{featured}} template is there, and correctly links to old info. In sum, just make sure everything on talk pages is thorough and complete, and the bot can handle the rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Since the GA thing is a bit of a pain, I've got the bot prompting for a date when it encounters a GA template lacking an oldid; eventually the bot will find a date similar to how Pda's script works. So, don't worry about prepping GA templates for the bot. Bigger issues are where old peer review and FAC attempts were archived, but the link was not updated on the talk page template. People archive things to all sorts of odd names, like this one Sandy handled, so a bot couldn't really find them. Gimmetrow 17:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
That particular one is problematic and needs urgent admin attention - the editor has reverted my talk page entries four times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Option for Current Status field

Can we have an option for the Current Status parameter where an article fails FAC, but is a GA? Like the one for an article that fails FAR but is a GA. Harryboyles 15:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case, it's GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Good article messes

In trying to add templates, I'm spending most of my time sorting out GA messes. Someone should impress upon them the importance of doing it right the first time. I find either no oldids, or in three cases now, incorrect oldids - I'm spending way too much time on it. Don't know how to solve:

  • Talk:Climate of Minnesota - completely wrong oldid, can't find anything
  • Talk:2000 Sri Lanka Cyclone was just a mistake, but it took a lot of time to get it right.[1]

Has anyone spoken to the GA folks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Climate of Minnesota was also a truncated id (missing a 1). You can't reasonably expect a human operation to be perfect. I just looked in the history, and it wasn't too difficult. Circeus 18:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Well perhaps I'm naturally stupid, albeit hardworking. I couldn't find any such thing - can you toss me a clue stick? For example, how does one glance through the oldids on history/diffs without having to scroll through each entry? And, since I couldn't find any mention of GA in the talk page history edit summaries, how did you know where to look? Thanks so much for putting up with my efforts to help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the talk page history for the date when GA was added("ga status") and then looked it up in the article history. That approach is unwieldy for old and complex page histories, but quick for recent additions. Circeus 20:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clue, Circeus - that's exactly what I did, and I found a series of oldids beginning with 90. After scrolling through about a dozen diffs manually and finding no 93s, I gave up - so I'm still not sure how you did it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure how you managed to get to the oldids starting with 90 - to me those ones look like they are for the revisions of the article between the 25th and 29th of November, whereas the talk page edit summary with ga status is the 12th of December. Incidentally, if you hover the cursor over a date on the history page (i.e. what you would click to go to the revision for that date) the URL appears in the status bar at the bottom of the browser, which can save some clicking. But have you tried my article history script (I see you've added it to your monobook.js)? This brings up a list of talk page dates for edit summaries with relevant words (like fac, ga etc), followed by the word oldid. Click on this word and it magically (well, javascript-ly) turns into the oldid of the article on that date. Took me 5 seconds to get the oldid. Dr pda 00:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks Dr pda for the hover trick - that will help. I did many templates before I installed your script, so I could teach myself how the whole business worked rather than relying on a script - now I've also used your script many times, and it's great - sold. One thing though, where it says to click to enter a manual date, I can't get anything clickable. ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Pls check this one

Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture) - a couple of things: When I entered "kept" in the AfD result field as in the template instructions, it returned a ? - instructions should say you must enter keep, or accept kept. Also, MilHist lists a current and an archived review, but I gave up on trying to locate them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

'Twas a typo in {{historyoutput}}: "Kept" (capitalized) was listed twice; now has "Kept" and "kept". Gimmetrow 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Jogaila

This template looks like a great idea, thanks.  :) We'd love to use it at Talk:Jogaila but we apparently have many boxes which aren't yet covered by this template. I thought I'd bring it up here though, as an example of another "complex" talkpage which could benefit from this template in the future. --Elonka 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused - the template is already installed there - the dates were wrong, and I corrected them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Is there a chance that someday the template could be used to summarize the other boxes as well, such as for WikiProjects, Mediation, etc.? --Elonka 22:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Your idea - a meta-projecte template - has already been suggested and discussed, although it's still in the initial thought stages. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_pda#Round_2 Raul654 19:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
In the meantime, it would be nice if there was an "Other" or MISC category, and the title could be placed into the "result" column, or a separate "text" variable. For example, if I wanted to list a link to a mediation, and an item on "Selected anniversaries", I could put:
action1 = MISC
action1date = (date)
action1link = Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/(subject)
action1result = Mediation
|
action2=MISC
action2date=2005
action2link=Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 2
action2text = Listed at selected anniversaries - October 2
--Elonka 02:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that would work very well, and it risks abuse in obfuscating relations between articles.Circeus 03:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject meta-template started

I have created Template:Multiproject to fulfill the above request. It's still in development. I've rigged a mockup for Talk:Jogaila at User:Raul654/multiproject Raul654 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I don't like it. This kind of misses the point of having WikiProject banners.. Small option is better for this. -- Ned Scott 18:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikiproject banners are, in almost all cases, nothing more than talk page spam designed to bring attention to the various wikiprojects. Most wikiprojects do *very* little to improve articles they have brazenly tagged as being within their scope. I grant there are few exceptions - a few wikiprojects do genuinely great work, as measured in their output of featured articles. (Milhist, medicine, hurricanes, and the horror-movies wikiprojects come to mind in particular). However, these are rare exceptions.
So yes, in this sense, a multi-template project banner does "miss the point", if the point is to use wikiproject banners as shameless advertising. On the other hand, it will dramatically reduce the talk page clutter that has resulted from this unchecked spamming, and that is a Very Good Thing. Raul654 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, but you're going to find it very hard to get support for such use. And yes, they are there for advertising the project to get more people into them. I don't plan on "defending" any and all banners, but if I see {{Anime}} or another I feel strongly about in one of these, I'll pull it right out of such a template. A much better idea would be something like, trying to get WikiProjects to have a wording / size limit to their banners, and using the small option. -- Ned Scott 23:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Possibly a compromise where the 'hidden' version still shows the name of the WikiProject (hence keeping them visible - they are a great way to attract people to a wikiproject). And the 'show' version shows everything. Might be difficult to code that for mutiple templates though... Carcharoth 00:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Yay! Such a template is really needed on talk pages with multiple WikiProject banners. --Conti|✉ 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple Current Statuses

Is there a way to display multiple current statuses? For example, Charizard is a GA, so I put it at currentstatus=GA, but it's also failed 5 FACs, which can only be seen in the milestones section. --PresN 05:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Part of the goal here is to reduce multiplication of talk page banners, among other things. Not displaying the FAC text in this situation reduces the space taken up on the talk page, so currentstatus=GA is correct. The only combo status is FFA/GA, for former featured articles that later become GA. Gimmetrow 06:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Documenting when a page was moved, plus MfDs and DRVs

Is it possible to also include something in this article so you can document when a page was moved? Sometimes the move history of a page gets quite complicated. Also, it would be nice to list whether a page has been deleted in the past and/or undeleted. I realise the page logs will show some (all?) of this, but could there be a parameter to activate to provide a link automatically to the page logs from this template. Something like "page move=yes" and "deletion activty=yes", to generate automatic links to the page logs?

Also, are MfDs and DRV included here yet? I want to use this template for a Wikipedia namespace page. It previously existed in article namespace and got moved. It has had one AfD, a move from article namespace to Wikipedia namespace, an MfD, a DRV, another MfD, and now possibly another move (staying in Wikipedia namespace this time). Any of the designers of this template have any idea how to document this? Have a look at Wikipedia talk:List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia to see the current 'templates' in use. Any way this template can be applied there? Carcharoth 12:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since the template is explicitly aimed at articles, multiple MfDs and complicated move history are probably better covered by a customized box at the top of the talk page. Moves are trickier because right because there is only so much that can be inserted in the history (15 actions right now,if I'm not mistaken)Circeus 14:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
So something like {{WikipediaPageHistory}}? I think at least DRVs should be included somehow, maybe linked to the notice of the AfD that was reviewed? Carcharoth 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

For many AfD's there is {{oldafdmulti}}, but to include non-AfD items you might want to use {{multidel}} rather than four subst'ed templates. Gimmetrow 16:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:
Wonderful! Thanks. I'll credit you when I copy-paste that in. Carcharoth 17:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Need help

For some reason, I can't get Dr pda's script buttons to be clickable - probably something to do with my pop-up controls. Anyway, I can't get the next 200 entries, so I can't find the exact dates and oldids on very busy talk pages. Can someone else complete what I started at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks? I also can't find the original nom - don't really understand brilliant prose noms. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it and added all the Id's. I think that the problem is that some articles with were kept/demopted aginst the number of votes. The Placebo Effect 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm noticing - it's really messing me up :-) Thanks, Placebo ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Kudos

Gosh, you guys are doing fantastic work! Well done all round. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Old FARCs not archived

I don't know what to do with these old FARCs. I was working my way through the old medical FAs, and Dr pda's script pulled them up in article talk history of Action potential. As far as I can tell, the FARCs were never archived (Talk:Race, Talk:Action potential, and Talk:Cladistics). I guess I have to just ignore them? They passed anyway; Race and Cladistics are now defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


FAC instructions

Can someone pls doublecheck the changes I've made at {{FAC-instructions}} ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another "Multi..." template?

Is it possible to create a (separate but similar) template like this that would incorporate WikiProjects? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Look up, under Talk: Jogaila section here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Doh! Thanks :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Show/hide

Great Template!!!! I am very glad that the User:GimmeBot added it to Campbell's Soup Cans. I am wondering if there is a way to set the template to show the details instead of hide them. TonyTheTiger 02:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

By default, it hides them - the reason being that the purpose of this template is to save talk-page space. Raul654 04:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
This should be optional since the purpose of having the templates is to make the it clear at a glance to the visitor that the article has a review history and some editors may prefer to have a preference for show instead of hide if the page does not have many other templates such as WP templates. An alternative might be to have it set to show if there are small number of other talk article templates and hide if there is a large number such as 5 or more. TonyTheTiger 15:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that I'd like to have a way to set it to "default show" instead of "default hide." --Elonka 23:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Disagree - default hide. The idea is to reduce talk page clutter. Let's not put it back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Repsonse to above disagree That is the reason I suggested "alternative might be to have it set to show if there are small number of other talk article templates and hide if there is a large number". In this way if it is clutter it will hide and if it is uncluttered it will show. TonyTheTiger 17:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually, if you are assessing lots of articles in one go, it is sometimes useful to be able to see, say, the importance ratings, or the current quality rating. I turned one template from default hide to default show for that very purpose. Now, if the template is inside this box, you can't do that. Carcharoth 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not have it so that you can customise it using your monobook.css (or other skin you are using). That way those who want it customised can, while the vast majority see it for what its intended purpose is: to save talk page space. Harryboyles 10:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never been bothered enough to customise my css, but for this I might. Can you point out pages where this is demonstrated in detail? Carcharoth 10:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Almost nobody uses whatever you are talking about. The solution sounds like a pass the buck solution. I think the programmer should make his template neutral. Either make the template's collapsability optional or create a feature to make it dependent on the amount of competing clutter. TonyTheTiger 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Earlier proposal for reducing template talk clutter

Wasn't there an earlier proposal for reducing talk page template clutter? It involved making the templates physically smaller and rewriting some of them. Can anyone remember the name of that one? About 6-9 months ago, I think. Carcharoth 15:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the small=yes option described at WP:TS? Gimmetrow 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly it. So, how do the two system relate, if at all? Carcharoth 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The small option hasn't reduced the amount of talk page clutter - just made it smaller. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Small option is great for things that are more.. "timeless", like WikiProjects. Having once been nominated for deletion or peer review isn't something that really needs constant exposure, since as this template calls it, it's mostly just for history. I find the two solutions to be a big improvement. -- Ned Scott 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

I've got an article (Opus Dei) that had an RfM launched to debate its content. This should probably be included in the ArticleHistory, but I can't figure out how to include the link. Should I list it as a kind of PR / Peer Review? Or can someone think of a better way to handle it? --Elonka 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The template doesn't include Mediation, et al. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not have requested moves listed as well? I think the line has to be drawn somewhere, or do we want to record everything recordable in this template? Carcharoth 00:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
And, for example, theoretically mediation is a temporary template - we wanted to consolidate all of the permanent templates involving featured articles into one; we didn't set out to track everything that ever happened to an article, particularly not temporary templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fix?

Can someone look at what causes the big gap when clicking "show" on articlehistory template at Talk:United Kingdom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, but removing {{talkheader}} makes the problem go away. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 18:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Moving talkheader so that it's not right under articlehistory also makes it go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the cause, but {{talkheader}} has a stray closing div tag. I removed it once, but it was re-added (along with some other changes) and was protected shortly after. Gimmetrow 19:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Can someone with admin powers pls make the change suggested above by Gimmetrow? I'm having to move the talk page banner on many of the talk pages where I'm installing articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Kirill Lokshin 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

hmmm ... not sure that was it - see new problem at Talk:Bob Marley when clicking show on articlhistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

still a problem - see Talk:Forth (programming language) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I did say I wasn't sure the /div was the problem. Whether it is there or not the template looks the same on my browser. What's the new problem? I was just editing Bob Marley and didn't see any issues there. I don't see anything at Forth, either. Gimmetrow 16:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
hmmmm, perhaps an IE7 issue? I get a large space after articlehistory when clicking "show". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't see it in Mozilla. Could you tell me if the issue is present in Talk:U2 or Talk:Frank Black? Gimmetrow 17:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Those are fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Are they a problem if you place the talkheader in the offending spot and look at it in preview? Gimmetrow 00:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Preview? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Preview = the preview button. I tried a few browsers, and in one I noticed the {{talkheader}} was offset some in comparision to other templates. It seems to have an align="center" which most other templates do not. Removing that made it line up like other templates, so that's the next thing I would try. Gimmetrow 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

ah, Preview on Wiki; I was looking for preview on my browser <smack>. In preview, the problem goes away; still there in regular mode. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Including v0.5 etc

Per a request by User:Raul654 support for the v0.5/v0.7/releaseversion templates has been included in a test version of ArticleHistory. This can be seen with examples at User_talk:Dr_pda/Sandbox. Further discussion at Template talk:WikiProjectBanners#What to do with selection versions?. --Dr pda 01:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The idea was to lower talk page clutter. This doesn't change anything on the talk page (same amount of info shown/space taken). Another piece of work to have to keep up with, when we've already implemented over 500 templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

(Very) Minor issue

This is a very minor problem, as only 2 articles on wikipedia have it at the moment, but both Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 are in 2 separate Featured Topics. Since the template only shows one, they both currently have one of them in its own template, and one in the merged template. I don't know if that could be fixed, or if it even is a big enough deal to mention, but I thought that I would point it out. --PresN 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Seperate syntax and discussion?

Can I suggest moving the information on syntax and examples to another page (e.g. Template:ArticleHistory/help)? I just think it would be useful to keep documentation and discussion seperate from one another.

Excellent work - look forward to seeing it become the norm. :-) Tompw (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

space

is there anyway to reduce the pixel paddings around the edges of this template? i think it could take up less space and not look bad if you just removed some of this. JoeSmack Talk 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessments and articlehistory

I noticed a completed {{ArticleHistory}} template for a Good Article had its current status parameter changed to A-class, based on a MilHist assessment. In the past—with all the templates cluttering talk pages—it wasn't possible to incorrectly change a GA template. Now it is possible to incorrectly enter A-class into the "current status" field on articlehistory. Just wanted to call this to folks' attention, so that when assessments are upgraded to A-class, the articlehistory template stays at GA. Talk:T-26 (now corrected). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Added Category:ArticleHistory error to the template to catch problems with uses. Some are missing a status entirely, but one had a B rating. Gimmetrow 03:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
The error category is being populated by articles using it to exclusively track AfD's. Can we make it clear in the instructions that is not its purpose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we should make an AFD template? Raul654 03:38, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, this template does support AfD, but on the other hand there are already two perfectly fine multi templates for AfD. Gimmetrow 03:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak AfD (it ranks right up there with FairUse for areas of Wiki I don't understand), so I have no opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, uses that don't specify a currentstatus at all shouldn't be in the error category now, so Dr pda is fine. Gimmetrow 04:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
So, AfDs are OK now? The error category is empty. It will only return an error when an incorrect, non-blank entry is made? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think so. It should also catch any uses of an old parameter I changed, and invalid options for another parameter. Gimmetrow 04:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry 'bout that misunderstanding. At the time I wasn't aware of multi-ADF templates, but im glad to see that resolved in a meaningful way. Great work everybody, by the way. Dan, the CowMan 06:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The issue with the "B" and "A-class" entries is the same; editors aren't understanding that Project assessments are different. Do we need to clarify instructions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Keeping a record of errors found in case we need to make changes: here, an editor added a FLC (featured list candidate) to the template, before the article was promoted or failed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested)

This category problem mentioned above occurs with other states as well. For example, Stuyvesant High School went through 2 failed FACs before it made FA and later the main page. Because SandyGeorgia and GimmeBot inserted this template, it now is listed at Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested), when in fact it isn't contested and its currentstatus is "FA". I can't see what's wrong with the template, but removing its use removes the category. RossPatterson 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I see now how the category gets attached. It isn't {{ArticleHistory}} adding it, but rather the subsidiary template {{historyoutput}}. RossPatterson 00:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
You're confusing two different things/categories. Former featured articles (WP:FFA) are not contested feature article candidates— there has been no change, except that perhaps templates which were earlier deleted from history have now been added back in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Nope, no confusion on my part - I know the difference between FACfailed and FFA. As I said, this is about other statuses, not FFA (in the Stuyvesant High School case, it's FACfailed). What you're talking about is a change in practice when promoting articles. In the past, the FA Directory (currently Raul654) deleted the {{facfailed}}s and {{fac}} and added a {{featured}} (e.g., S.H.S's promotion). So up until {{ArticleHistory}} started taking over the world, FAs weren't also tagged as FACfailed and categorized as such. It appears that the reappearance of this category is an unitended consequence of applying this otherwise great template. RossPatterson 00:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
This is correct. I deleted the former featured article and FACfailed templates because it wouldn't make sense to most people to come to a talk page and see conflicting messages "This is a featured article" and "this is a former featured article". In fact, that very problem was the initial reason we created this template. Raul654 00:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, if it's intentional, it's intentional. It still seems silly to have an approved Featured Article listed in a category called "featured article candidates (contested)", but I guess it's your business to decide how the FA practice should work. RossPatterson 01:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Since Raul654 agrees with my comments further above, I withdraw my kowtowing :-) RossPatterson 02:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
No no, I agree with you - I was just explaining the motivations. Raul654 01:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It would be confusing to keep the template text around, but this isn't the case with the ArticleHistory template. An old failed FAC for a current FA only shows up as a category. Gimmetrow 03:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it only shows up as a category, but it's a category that shouldn't be there. A Featured Article that's been through a failed Featured Article Candidate attempt shouldn't be listed as a failed Featured Article Candidate, because it isn't - not anymore. RossPatterson 17:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
It is just a matter of coding to remove current FAs from CAT:FAC(contested). This issue has been mentioned before. Gimmetrow 00:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yup, it's an SMOP. In fact, it looks like the entire last {{#switch ...}} in {{historyoutput}} should probably be deleted. It presumes that an article should be categorized according to its past status, rather than its current status, and that just seems wrong. RossPatterson 03:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
The reason that switch block is there is for cases where the article has failed one process and subsequently undergone another. For example if an article has failed FAC but subsequently been listed as a GA (e.g. Talk:Salt Lake City, Utah), then currentstatus=GA puts in in the GA category, but without the categories implemented in the switch block in {{historyoutput}} it wouldn't be in the failed FAC category. Ditto failed FAC/failed GA, failed FAC/delisted GA etc. Maybe if the category was renamed to 'Articles with unsuccessful FACs' (or something) it would resolve your objection. Dr pda 14:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK plus maindate

Can someone look at Talk:The Four Stages of Cruelty? It's not showing both the DYK and the maindate on the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It does show it for me. Above article milestones, it says "This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 19, 2007. It appeared in the Did you know? column on January 16, 2007." Is this what you're referring to? Nishkid64 19:32, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the mainpage date shows; the DYK date does not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
oops, sorry, yes they both show. Don't know if that was a fix, or if it was always there. I'm up to my eyeballs in templates and archives, and someone else notified me of the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Template:Oldafdmulti, problem with hidden AfDs

Someone suggested that Template:Oldafdmulti be merged into this, but what worries me a little bit is that this template is normally hidden and one has to click "show" to look at the article history. The idea behind having the prior AfD listings on the talk page is to prevent people from re-listing articles at AfD over and over again. When the previous AfD results are hidden in this template, people with be more likely to miss them and re-list articles. Would it be possible to list the previous AfDs in this template to a seperate section that can not be hidden (meaning that the FAC etc... are still hidden, but not the AfD results)? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Same argument can be made for multiple FACs—for example, see how that was handled at Talk:New York City. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
True, but that is no reason to dismiss the argument. It would argue against hiding the template by default alltogether. Also, multiple AfD is far common that multiple FAC I suppose. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
If "hidden" AfDs are OK, this template can do that, but {{oldafdmulti}} is not being replaced. If the AfDs shouldn't be hidden, use that or {{multidel}}. The bot is not automatically incorporating AfD info into this template when pages are processed. Gimmetrow 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thats a clear answer, I've removed the merge suggestion. On other issue is that this template shows the date of the closure of the AfD, where as both {{oldafdmulti}} and {{oldafdfull}} use the date of listing. Perhaps we should straighten that out? --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 08:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Typo?

Both the examples on the Template page and the template itself refer to RBP as Refreshing of brilliant prose. Shouldn't it be or? It's slightly ironic that the RBP tag doesn't have, er, refreshing or brilliant prose.  :-P --PresN 20:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

In January 2004, old "brilliant prose" articles were "refreshed" as part of the transition to the FA system. Gimmetrow 02:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Feature request

Could we get a Custom field? Something like:

|action3=XXX
|action3date=4 September 2006
|action3link=Wikipedia:WikiProject The KLF
|action3result=WikiProject-approved revision
|action3oldid=73741285

Where the result text is included verbatim. The reason for asking is that the "final" revision of The KLF was some time after it became Featured (strange, but we weren't actually finished when it got promoted ;)). This important milestone needs to be documented, and I'm sure similar scenarios will pop up for other Projects too. Shouldn't be too difficult to add but my code is a bit rusty and this is quite the most complicated template I've ever seen :) --kingboyk 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better off in the project's banner, though? Kirill Lokshin 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I think it would be better in the chronology. Besides, I don't want to add it the project banner where it will get used precisely once, rather than here where it can get used multiple times. --kingboyk 22:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I am reluctant to support a "MISC" action, because a MISC action by nature would accept any link, and I'm concerned it would end up being used for everything rather than the specific FAC/FAR/PR/GAN actions supported. For an "approved" stable version event, perhaps you could use the WPR action? See Talk:The Cat and the Canary (1927 film) for an example. If "reviewed" is not quite the appropriate result text, it might be possible to allow for a specific result text like "approved". Gimmetrow 00:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to a misc option for the same reasons as Gimmetrow. Kingboyk, We already have a WPR option to address just this kind of use. Raul654 02:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Any reason we can't change the displayed text for the WAR option to something like "WikiProject quality review"? It could then be used for things that aren't quite A-Class reviews. Kirill Lokshin 02:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
WPR is for "Any topic-specific peer review" - e.g, any review done by a wikiproject. Raul654 02:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
He's not talking about a "peer review" (as the term is commonly understood in the context of Wikipedia processes), though. Kirill Lokshin 02:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
This seems reasonable. WAR and WPR now allows approved/not approved/pass/fail/passed/failed as results. Any other result for a WAR or WPR event *should* display simply Reviewed, except WPR will also support "stable" as a result, displaying "stable version" in the result column. I'm going to see how many articles currently use WAR/WPR events and see what got broken. I notice at least one article already has a MILHIST A-review listed with a "passed" result, displaying "Approved" in the result column: Talk:Roman-Spartan_War. The rest will take a while to re-cache. I'll change the documentation once the bugs are cleaned up. Gimmetrow 06:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

An "approved" result from WikiProject peer review has been added and I'm perfectly happy with that. Thanks all! --kingboyk 15:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is {{aartalk}} necessary then? Some statistics: 21 pages had a WPR action (12 with review, 4 with empty result, 4 without the result parameter, and 1 now has approved). 4 pages had a WAR action (1 empty, 2 review, 1 pass). I've changed the WAR action results to passed/failed. Seems to me WAR should be kept for A-reviews only. Under the WPR action, "approved" now corresponds to an "approved version"; other result codes should display "reviewed". If another type of review is needed, I think it should be handled by a result code under the catch-all WPR. Gimmetrow 16:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:WikiProjectBanners

Template:WikiProjectBanners has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I figured some good input could come from posting a notice here, what with all the talk page cleanup that this template has inspired. -- Ned Scott 08:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I had just moved an article to using it, after seeing what a nice job this template does. RossPatterson 21:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)