Template talk:Article history/Archive 11
 | 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. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
How can we add Vital article history here?
See Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Category:Wikipedia level-unknown vital articles for some contenxt (TL;DR: "we should have a talk page notice template that an article was added/removed from Vital list, just like for GA/FA"), @TonyTheTiger Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:25, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- Vital Article issues have been discussed many times in many places; it is nothing more than a WikiProject, now merged with other WikiProject designations, and warrants no place in Articlehistory. Anyone can add and subtract to Vital Articles, and the designation has little meaning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
- AFAIK, the process is based on voting, not "anyone" making an arbitrary decision. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Then here's a Vital Article vote; the person who wrote the article on an obscure person made it a Vital Article, I queried that choice more than a year ago, and I queried it in two separate Vital Article discussions since then, and it's still a Vital Article. There's no there there. The designation is based on ... nothing ... no criteria, just an involved person tagging the article talk page, just like any WikiProject can do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's a minor thing, but I don't see that your formatted your request to remove it properly (starting a vote). I'd support removal if a vote was held. From my limited experience, a discussion like queries like the one you started are less likely to attract comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's "not my job" to try to fix an obscure process on Wikipedia that few people follow ... that there is no one in the process who cares to fix that says all we need to know. I've raised that example several times, and there's still no there there. Any WikiProject can tag any page; that's OK, but it's not a part of the history of article development. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- It's a minor thing, but I don't see that your formatted your request to remove it properly (starting a vote). I'd support removal if a vote was held. From my limited experience, a discussion like queries like the one you started are less likely to attract comments. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- Then here's a Vital Article vote; the person who wrote the article on an obscure person made it a Vital Article, I queried that choice more than a year ago, and I queried it in two separate Vital Article discussions since then, and it's still a Vital Article. There's no there there. The designation is based on ... nothing ... no criteria, just an involved person tagging the article talk page, just like any WikiProject can do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- AFAIK, the process is based on voting, not "anyone" making an arbitrary decision. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
- The vital article classification is entirely unrelated to article development/quality, unlike DYK, GA, and GA, as it is focused solely on evaluating the relative merit of of the article topic. Due to this it wouldn't make sense in this template, as the revision at the time of vital article addition/removal has nothing to do with the addition/removal. CMD (talk) 11:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Template-protected edit request on 8 November 2023
 | This edit request to Module:Article history has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I previously brought this idea to the village pump as I thought that I could do this myself, but upon further conversation with another user, I thought it would be best to bring it here.
I propose that someone add all articles affected by |currentstatus=FFA & |currentstatus=FFA/GA to Category:Former featured articles as an FFA equivalent of Category:Delisted good articles.
This is a strange request, but I believe that it would help editors find former FAs and bring them back up to FA status, just like the DGA equivalent to this proposal has done. — Mugtheboss (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria and DrKay: could you take a look at this? I thought this was already dealt with, and may not be understanding the request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- For example Talk:Parkinson's disease is already in Category:Wikipedia former featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see, I was under the impression that there wasn’t already a category like the one I was describing, as I was searching for "Category:Former featured articles", but as you mentioned the category is actually located at "Category:Wikipedia former featured articles". I was searching for the original query as "Category:Delisted good articles" isn’t named "Category:Wikipedia delisted good articles". Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will create redirects to prevent future confusion.
Self-trout — Mugtheboss (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- No need :) Bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- I see, I was under the impression that there wasn’t already a category like the one I was describing, as I was searching for "Category:Former featured articles", but as you mentioned the category is actually located at "Category:Wikipedia former featured articles". I was searching for the original query as "Category:Delisted good articles" isn’t named "Category:Wikipedia delisted good articles". Sorry for the misunderstanding. I will create redirects to prevent future confusion.
- For example Talk:Parkinson's disease is already in Category:Wikipedia former featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
