Template talk:Article history/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Removal of parameters from sample template; "dyklink" parameter

Why have the highly useful parameters "itndate", "dykdate", "maindate" and "topic" been removed without discussion from the sample template on the documentation subpage?

Also, what about updating the template so that when using the "dyklink" parameter it is only necessary to specify the archive number (e.g., "234") rather than "Wikipedia:Recent additions 234"? I think the "Wikipedia:Recent additions" part does not change. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

These parameters are rarely used. Since people copy-paste the sample, a bunch of empty parameters end up in a lot of the templates. If dykdate isn't needed when the template is added, it will probably never be needed, and itndate can be added when the article actually hits ITN. Gimmetrow 06:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I use the "dykdate" parameter all the time, and found it useful to just copy and paste the template from the sample on the template description page. Perhaps two versions of the sample template could be set out: a short version and a full version? Or maybe just the "dykdate" and "dyklink" parameters can be added. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 08:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I use those parameters, as appropriate, every time I implement the template. I've reverted the removal of these variables. If consensus finds that they really need to not be there, we can remove them then. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I often use them too, but agree with Gimmetrow's rationale. It is better for uncommonly used parameters to be manually added than for them to be dead code all over the place. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Move proposed

There has been a strong trend over the last six months or so to use natural English instead of CamelCase for template names, so this should be relocated to {{Article history}}. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No articles currently use the spaced form, and I see no good reason to change, since it would just make things more complicated. Gimmetrow 05:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

PROD/Deprod

Why isn't there a section for prod/deprod.Smallman12q (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles

Unresolved

 – Obvious bug is not fixed yet.

Talk:Colorado balloon incident is in the category for some reason, not a DYK (could be, but BLP concerns so I didn't nom it). –xeno^talk 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It was because there was an empty dykdate= parameter in the template. I've removed this, and the page is no longer in the category. The template looks like it checks to see if the parameter is empty before adding the page to the category, so I don't know why this didn't work. (Though one of the variables looks like it might have an unnecessary space in it, so maybe this is it). Dr pda (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but probably best to fix the template itself... –xeno^talk 14:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed the same problem at Talk:Cultural depictions of spiders, which is incorrectly listed at Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles. Any progress on fixing the template? Melchoir (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Option for adding DYK hook (redux)

{{editprotected}} I'd like to initiate a fresh discussion (see above for the previous discussion) to see if there is consensus for merging the functionality of {{dyktalk}} into {{ArticleHistory}}. I feel that {{ArticleHistory}} would be improved if the "hook" relating to an article that has appeared in the DYK section on the Main Page is set out in the template, for the following reasons:

• I believe that readers would generally be interested in knowing what the hook is, rather than just knowing that the article has appeared in DYK before.
• Having the hook set out in {{ArticleHistory}} saves readers from clicking on the link, and then searching the "Wikipedia:Recent additions" page manually.
• It would only be necessary to have the {{ArticleHistory}} template on the talk page, and not the {{dyktalk}} template as well. Having both of them on a talk page is repetitive.

I'd also like to suggest that static phrase "Wikipedia:Recent changes" be coded into the template so that it is only necessary to type the archive number when using the |dyklink= parameter, like this: "|dyklink=246". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You are meaning the large ArticleHistory template added to some article's talk pages aren't you. Forgive my brief absent mind. IMO that would be a good idea, if you are familiar on how to set up the perameters. Calmer Waters 21:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I mean this template ({{ArticleHistory}}. I could probably amend the template if not for the fact that it is fully protected and only editable by administrators. Therefore, at this point I'm trying to see if there is consensus for making the change that I've proposed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I like this idea.—Chris!_c/t 23:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am strongly in favor of such a move. Anything that reduces the profusion of such templates and all their different syntaxes is a Good Thing. The "hook" itself should, I suppose, by |dykentry= to mirror the |entry= parameter of {{Dyktalk}}. I would also set this up as a "[show]" button so that the hook isn't visible in ArticleHistory by default. Do similar things for ITN, OTD, etc. entries. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a consensus on this matter, so I have placed the {{editprotected}} tag on this conversation so that the editors who work on this template can look into the matter. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Disabled the request for now as premature. Please put the required code in Template:ArticleHistory/sandbox, fully test it, and then give editors a chance to comment before replacing the {{editprotected}}. If you are not confident in coding this yourself I could add it to my to-do list and try to get it done within a few days. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Had a look at the template code. I think you'd better do it if you can. I've some limited experience with templates but I'm not familiar with this one, which seems pretty complex. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started playing around with this. To do it efficiently I think we will need to separate the info about whether the article has appeared on the main page as a featured article and the DYK stuff. See the current test cases. There is no particular need for these to be combined (the ITN notification is separate). What would be good though, and maybe someone here can help, is a cropped version of File:Updated DYK query.svg. The current image takes up more space than it should. I'll keep working on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay I have my first version coded and I'm looking for comments. There are some examples on Template:ArticleHistory/testcases (look for the "dyk with entry" examples). It's not finished yet - I am thinking about moving it into the Milestones section, with ITN and peer review, to save some space on talk pages. But that wouldn't affect the appearance much. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 00:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a look at the test cases, but don't see an example where the DYK hook is displayed. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 09:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've put an example below for you to see. The [show] link is sligtly misplaced on Internet Explorer, but it seems to display correctly on other browsers. I might seek some technical help with that issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC) NOTE: commented out to avoid error at Wikipedia:Featured articles/mismatches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. A few thoughts:

1. I'm viewing Wikipedia using Mozilla Firefox. The "[show]" link appears right beside the words "column on" and the font size is the same, so it looks like the sentence reads "... column on [show] December 31, 2006". Is it possible to either reduce the size of the "[show]" link, have it appear on the next line down, or otherwise adjust it to avoid this problem? Here's a thought – instead of the "[show]" link, what about letting users click on the words fact from this article to toggle the DYK hook on and off?
2. Like {{DYK talk}}, I suggest that the word column be linked as follows:
   • If the parameter |dyklink= has not been included or given a "0" or non-numeric value (e.g., "current"), column should be linked to the page "Wikipedia:Recent additions".
   • If the parameter |dyklink= has been given a non-zero numerical value, then column should be linked to the DYK archive page with that value (e.g., "Wikipedia:Recent additions 162"). As I mentioned in my first message, the static phrase "Wikipedia:Recent additions" should be hard-coded into the template so that it is only necessary to type the archive number when using |dyklink=, like this: "|dyklink=162".
   • In recent DYK archive pages, a DYK hook is placed in a section with a heading that is the date on which the hook appeared on the Main Page. Thus, a hook that appeared on 31 December 2009 is archived in "Wikipedia:Recent additions 251#31 December 2009". I wonder if it is possible to use the value given to |dykdate= in some way to generate this heading as a bookmark. A complication may be that different editors may type the date in different formats, and all the section headings are in the "dd MMMM yyyy" format. Is it worth having a separate parameter for that?
3. I liked the old curly question mark. :-) Sorry, I can't help you reduce the white space around that graphic as I don't know how to edit SVG files.
4. Are you following the discussions below at "Problem with DYK parameter", "Style and grammar fix" and "Link fix"? Just wondering if they impact what you are working on.

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC) In reply to your points:

1. What we probably need to do is to insert some padding between the columns so that the [show] looks separate from the other sentence. Unfortunately the link to uncollapse the table cannot be changed as it hard-coded in the JavaScript (as far as I know). So the only thing we could do is to add a sentence like: Click [show] to see the text of the entry. But this is perhaps not necessary?
2. Yes this can easily be done. Obtaining the date in the required format is no trouble either. Actually I was going to suggest that we use the dd MMMM yyyy format in the sentence as well, as a more "international" format, but as this is an WP:ENGVAR thing I won't do it without consensus.  This part has now been coded. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. The reason I changed it (apart from the spacing issue with the curly one) is from the almost unanimous support for the blue circle at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 51#Which icon do people really like better? I was also thinking about changing the one on Template:DYK talk as well, for the same reason ...
4. No, I have not been following any other discussion on this page, as I was just responding to this request. If they are relevant, we should probably merge the threads.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The sandboxed template is looking good!

1. Right, no problem. Yes, perhaps try inserting some padding rather than a sentence like "Click [show] to see the text of the entry" which seems a bit clumsy.
2. Cool.
3. Well, we should definitely go with consensus on the DYK image if there's one.
4. I will leave notes in the sections below to direct attention to this section.
5. A new suggestion: rather than have the DYK hook split over two paragraphs in the box, I'd suggest that the hook simply appear like this: 'The text of the entry was as follows: "Did you know ... that this is a test of Template:ArticleHistory?"  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

— Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK hook (section break)

First, I don't think the mainpage mentions should be separated, as it makes the visible template longer. Second, the hook isn't important enough to be in the top part; I don't think it should be in the template at all, but it would object less if it were in the bottom section, below the milestones. Gimmetrow 05:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am intending to move it to the lower section. That's where ITN is and it is of equal importance to that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now implemented this in the sandbox and the DYK row now appears below the milestones. Awaiting comments. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The sandboxed template looks good. A few additional comments:

1. Does the template automatically link to the correct section heading in a "Wikipedia:Recent additions" archive page based on the |dykdate= parameter, as suggested above?
2. SMcCandlish made two suggestions which I am going to raise here since he or she has not done so: (1) replace in the Did you know? column with in the "Did you know?" column (similar changes may be needed to "In the news" and "On this day"); (2) the |dyklink= link should be around the text "fact from this article appeared" instead of "column", since the topic of the link is the appearance, at DYK, of the fact from the article, not the DYK column itself.

Does anyone have comments about number 2 above? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes it does now. The dyklink is now unneeded and unused.
2. Okay, I've implemented both of those suggestions in the sandbox.

I think we're almost there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are! It looks fine to me. The only comment I have this time is that you need not italicize the term "Did you know?" in the phrase in the "Did you know?" column, but if this was done for consistency with other elements of the template that I'm not aware of, that's fine. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if there are no more comments, then I intend to implement it shortly. I haven't done anything with the padding yet, so this may need to be tweaked later. Yes, the ITN and POTD elements use italic there, so I changed the same part in DYK to use italic for consistency. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have now implemented these changes. Although I have tested this version thoroughly, some parts of the code have been extensively changed and there may be some unintended consequences. If so, apologies in advance, and please report them so they can be fixed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you haven't documented the use of |dykentry= yet. Also, have you thought about adding the |image= and |views= functionalities available in {{DYK talk}} to {{ArticleHistory}}? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will do it. But the documentation is not protected you know so you could have helped me with it :) I can't see how the image is going to be able to fit into the structure that we have. The number of views could be supported I suppose. Do you think it needs the "check views" and "disclaimer" as well? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK icon

[Relocated from above.] The blue circle question mark only had consensus for that template. I myself prefer the blue circle for that use, and the curly question mark for talk pages. Another DYK regular also commented there that the curly question mark is better for {{dyktalk}}. Whichever you choose, {{dyktalk}} and ArticleHistory should use the same icon; we shouldn't add inconsistencies. Shubinator (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that, for consistency with {{DYK talk}}. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly the icons should be consistent, not only between this template and {{DYK talk}} but across all DYK templates. Perhaps I misread that discussion - if so, do we need to start another one? I don't have a strong preference, as long as the excessive spacing can be removed on the curly one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think another discussion is needed to change the status quo. I don't have Inkscape, but it seems to be free. Shubinator (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, as requested, I am initiating a fresh discussion about whether the blue circle icon or the curly question mark icon should be used in {{ArticleHistory}}. There are potentially three several options to choose between. Please indicate your views, giving reasons:

Blue circle icon

During a previous discussion at "Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 51#Which icon do people really like better?", there seemed to be a preference for this icon. It is similar to the icons used to indicate that an article is of Good Article or Demoted Article status. On the other hand, there are other icons that are not enclosed in a circle, such as the Featured Article icons (see {{icon}}). {{DYK talk}} still uses the curly question mark icon.

Curly question mark icon

Currently used by {{DYK talk}}.

• Support: The blue circle icon is already used in {{classicon}} to indicate an unclassified article. On the other hand, the use of the curly question mark icon in relation to DYK is well established. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• Now that I have found a cropped version of this question mark then I am happy to use this. I still think DYK needs to decide on one icon for all its uses, but we can leave that discussion for another day. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
• For consistency. I do not think this image should be used for all DYK purposes though. Shubinator (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Give editors the choice as to which icon to use

The {{icon}} template gives editors a choice: {{icon|DYK}} and {{icon|DYK2}}.

GA:you can delist it

This template can say:

'''{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}''' has been listed as one of the under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. ''If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a ''reassessment''.

I delisted a GA article only to be told this is not procedure. So either template is incorrect or prodecure advice was incorrect. Please advise. SunCreator (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem with DYK parameter

Not sure if this was brought up previously (I noticed other DYK problems/requests, but mostly pertaining to adding the hook), but the problem with the "dykdate" parameter is that, when used, the article does not remain within Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles. In order for his bot to function and display DYK articles properly, articles need to have the "dyktalk" template on its talk page. Simply using the "dykdate" parameter in the ArticleHistory template complicates this. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Fix the bot, then. Merging all of these various "article milestone and achievement and merit badge and whatever" tags into ArticleHistory has been an ongoing and seemingly implacable cleanup trend for a couple of years now. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I will let the bot controller know of this issue. Not sure how the problem can be addressed, but hopefully a solution can be found otherwise there will be many DYK articles missing from these walls of recognized content. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not with the bot; it is with the ArticleHistory template. Articles are either in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles or they are not. DYK articles should be in that category so placing the "dykdate" parameter in the ArticleHistory template should cause that category to be added to the the articles talk page. While I applaud the attempt to consolidate templates, it needs to be done correctly. The DYK template adds the category & if ArticleHistory is supposed to subsume the role of the DYK template, then it needs to subsume adding the category also. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree. Until a change is made though, it looks like many articles will be left out. Is someone able to associate the DYK articles category with the DYK parameter in this template? --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This template puts dyk articles in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles. People wanted to track intersections, so they asked that GA articles be put in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are good articles, FL in Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles that are featured lists, and FA in an appropriate category. Are you all saying that such articles should also be in the parent category? I suspect that is not what people wanted when dyk was incorporated here, or it would have been implemented that way. Gimmetrow 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do. I think it would be helpful to know which articles have been featured in the DYK section of the main page, regardless of their current rating on the quality scale. (Plus it would mean the recognized content bot would work properly!) --Another Believer _(Talk) 06:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Separate categories are fine & the bot can handle that. However, the template is not applying the main category when the subcategories are not applicable. See Talk:Revolution. This has the "dykdate" filled in, but there is no DYK category assigned. It should be in the main category as the subcategories don't apply.

I also found another issue. If the "dykdate" parameter is present, but not filled in, the subcategory is still being applied. Examples: Talk:Malcolm X & Talk:World Trade Center. As many people copy templates and leave unused parameters blank, it should be able to handle this case also. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Gimmetrow. That looks like it fixes both issues. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may be related to a discussion going on at "Option for adding DYK hook (redux)", pursuant to which an editor is working on an updated version of the template. Do participate in the discussion there if what you are talking about here is relevant. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Style/grammar fix

Replace in the Did you know? with in the "Did you know?" before the word/link "column". Similar change needs to be made for "In the news" and "On this day". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion may be related to a discussion going on at "Option for adding DYK hook (redux)", pursuant to which an editor is working on an updated version of the template. Do participate in the discussion there if what you are talking about here is relevant. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Link fix

The |dyklink= link should be around the text fact from this article appeared instead of column, since the topic of the link is the appearance, at DYK, of the fact from the article, not the DYK column itself, and it's reader-confusing to put two links right next to each other anyway. A similar change may need to be made for ITN and OTD link code as well; I haven't checked. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This suggestion may be related to a discussion going on at "Option for adding DYK hook (redux)", pursuant to which an editor is working on an updated version of the template. Do participate in the discussion there if what you are talking about here is relevant. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed wording change

I assume this text is part of this template ... but if not, let me know and I'll take it up in the proper place.

A minor niggle, but I feel one worth addressing:

<article> is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Except for that brief moment in history right after the FAC, it will always be the case that it was "a previous version" that was "identified". It seems perverse to treat that case as an exception by using the word "or". For this reason, and since the sentence is anyway more straightforward and clear without the parenthetical insertion, I propose the following replacement text:

<article> is a featured article; it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve the current version, please do so.

PL290 (talk) 10:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the current version of it, mainly because it makes it a lot clear to "newbies" that it might not be this version that was promoted, that it will be a previous version. I think your altered wording doesn't make this clear enough to "the outsider." Regards, Woody (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article & Former Featured Article Category Problem

Articles that were promoted to feature articles, demoted, and then re-promoted have both the Category:Wikipedia featured articles and Category:Wikipedia former featured articles. See Talk:Io (moon) and Talk:Venus for examples.

This seems an error as the categorization should be based on the current status. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that behaviour is intentional. Those articles are listed on WP:FFA. In the category, they are listed below "#" rather than alphabetically. Gimmetrow 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

They are listed on WP:FFA under "Former featured articles that have been re-promoted". They are not listed as actually being FFA so I don't understand why they would be categorized as such. It's confusing especially since it's not described anywhere. At a minimum, the FFA category should describe the meaning of "#". -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It tracks re-promoted FFAs. Gimmetrow 05:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it would be far more logical to have a Category:Wikipedia re-promoted featured articles instead of using a cryptic & unexplained symbol. -- JLaTondre (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a maintenance category. Now hidden; problem solved. Gimmetrow 05:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't solve it. There is no reason to hide the category. None of the other quality categories (current or former) are hidden. Even if hidden, the articles are still listed in Category:Wikipedia former featured articles so hiding doesn't address my point. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alt text on former good article

{{editprotected}} The alt text on the former good article wrongly says it's a good article. [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30|50}}px|Good article]] should be [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|30|50}}px|Former good article]] --h2g2bob (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you actually mean the former good article nominees not the former good articles. I have made the change to the sandbox copy, which will be deployed when we sort out some issues with the DYK stuff which we are discussing higher up. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --h2g2bob (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please correct

This page is showing up in the Category of articlehistory errors; please find and correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory/testcases is where the errors come from; MSGJ is testing things out on that page. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Add copied fields?

It might be nice to add the fields from {{Copied}} to this, somehow, so that we can use this template instead of multiple instances of {{Copied}}.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it fit within the date/action/result framework of this template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

...sort of, I guess. The way {{Copied}} currently works you provide it with the "from" article, the "to" article, and the diff which added the merged content to the target article. So, there's a date, and both the action and result would be a merge. It's not an exact fit really, but... I don't know, maybe we can make it work somehow.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 13:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to look into it, once I've finished doing the DYK stuff in the sandbox. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I do any more work on this template, I'd like to shake up the formatting and improve the appearance of this template. The current display of the DYK, ITN and OTD stuff when it appears underneath the milestones is not optimal because the margins don't line up. I propose the following:

• Line up all the margins. I think this can be achieved by putting the milestones and other stuff in a four-column table, but I will need to play around with it.
• Move ITN, OTD, DYK above the milestones, but still in the collapsed section.
• Only collapse when there are more than three rows in the table. (Currently it will collapse if only two rows are present.)
• Show the Date/Process/Result headings whenever there is an action. (Currently it only shows if two actions are present.)
• Move the TFA bit to the top of the collapsed section. It would sit better next to the other main page column notifications.

I am also planning some other improvements, for example, automatically sorting the actions into chronological order to save editors having to move all the code around when adding a new action. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ArticleHistory errors due to recent change

Just a note to anyone experiencing problems with ArticleHistory: a recent change seems to have resulted in syntax problems, placing perhaps any article with a newly-edited ArticleHistory into Category:ArticleHistory error. Have asked the editor who made the change to investigate. Maralia (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Sorry about that. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not fixed, unless there is something wrong with all of those 500 odd ArticleHistories. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just a cache issue at this point; the number in the cat is slowly decreasing, and a null edit I made to one ArticleHistory prompted the article's removal from the category. Maralia (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK then. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've still got 544 errors in the cat, when I've never seen more than three. Are we sure this is fixed? In the meantime, we can't check errors; will every one of those articles need to have a null edit to clear cache? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we are just waiting for the job queue queue now. They will clear out themselves in time; unfortunately it's taking longer for it to depopulate than it took to populate! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've manually forced the update. Shubinator (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good teamwork. I got them down to about 70 or so last night and you finished it off. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

On This Day parameter

I regret to say that it is useless for any article which has been featured in an anniversary entry more than once; I am not saying that merging this template with {{OnThisDay}} is necessary, but if it is to be done, I think it ought to be done properly. I've had a quick look at the archives and found this discussion of the issue from last August, but it appears that no progress has been made since. Waltham, The Duke of 07:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I can have a go at it. But {{OnThisDay}} supports up to 75 different dates (which seems quite ridiculous to me - see Talk:Teachers' Day for example). I could see the point of having up to, say 3, different dates in this template. But if there are more than that, could we just say "A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on several different dates"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, my goodness. And there I was, thinking that a date was only included if the article was featured in bold on that day, not merely linked in passing. But even if this is not the case with the independent template, it could very well be the case with the relevant parameters of this template. It is my opinion that this would be the best course of action, not only because an article can be linked in bold only once a year, but because the other links can be rather arbitrary, and are often redundant. Indeed, I'd prefer this to be the case with {{OnThisDay}} as well this template. I shall leave a message at the appropriate fora, soliciting opinions. Waltham, The Duke of 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The job of tagging talk pages with {{OnThisDay}} is currently being done by User:AnomieBOT. See Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/Archive 2#Tagging talk pages of SA articles and especially Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 30 for more information. Although I did some participation in those discussions, I myself had little interest in following up in my questions because, ultimately, I have never been a big fan of this template. The problem is that since the OTD templates are recycled every year, many events and articles rotate on and off of them. So a generic "this article was featured on OTD on [MONTH] [DAY]" without mentioning a year will not work because when you click on the link, it might not there on the specified OTD template this year (which would confuse newbie users). On the other hand, you do have instances like Talk:Teachers' Day that may list almost every single year since Wikipedia was first launched. Therefore, IMO, I would like to get rid of it ... but since I am in the minority, I'll let you guys handle the issue from here. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, irrespective of the question about retaining or discarding {{OnThisDay}}, I have come to believe that the best course of action in this case is to remove the "On This Day" parameters from {{ArticleHistory}} entirely. The nature of the segment requires an increasing profusion of mentions and links which can overwhelm this template, and although measures can be taken to limit the problem in the independent template (see suggestion here to collapse the dates if too many), such a solution applied here would probably be unwieldy; a second "show" link above the first could detract from the much more important milestones of the article.

On the other hand, the current arrangement cannot be satisfactory, either, for it only leaves room for one date, which is not representative and would have us treat the various articles unevenly. Martin's idea above seems to cut through the Gordian knot, but then I cannot say how useful a general statement would be for articles featured over the set number of three times—especially if {{OnThisDate}} would also be transcluded a slot or two below on the talk page. {{ArticleHistory}} could refer to it, of course, but in this case it would probably be viewed as simply redundant. One could raise the number to, say, five or eight, and omit the holidays and observances, but this would still be a necessarily temporary measure: every year that passes could add a link, and Wikipedia is already nine years old.

My own idea for adapting the current status quo would be to have the template only display the latest date on which the article was featured on the Main Page, but this, too, seems to be of dubious benefits, because it would only offer a token piece of information out of the full list provided now. For this to work, we should have to decide that we do not need an exhaustive list of the dates on the talk page, and then proceed to delete such lists, a course of action for the popularity of which I cannot vouch.

So, to recapitulate, my view of the situation is that we either have to remove the On This Day parameters from {{ArticleHistory}} or stop listing all the dates on the talk pages in general. My preference lies with the simpler and less radical first solution. What do you think? Waltham, The Duke of 17:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I realise this is much later, but having stumbled here by accident I do want to add something: the article Battle of the Nile was featured in OTD early in Wikipedia's life but was subsequently dropped for something else and has not been in OTD since 2005. This was part of the reason I was so determined to get the article to FA in time for the next anniversary, and I'd never have known if the OTD dates were not easily accessible on the talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm still here, waiting patiently for input. :-) Personally, having the OTD dates on the talk page doesn't bother me in the least; all I am saying is that they would be better off in their own template rather than in this one. Indeed, they may be more visible there, as this template is collapsible. Waltham, The Duke of 08:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

My opinion: it would be better for this template to support OTD and possibly keep Template:OnThisDay as well and give editors a choice. This template will never be able to support 75 different dates, but it can provide the basic support required by most uses. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm just getting over here, but this is a long discussion, and I'm not sure what the question is. I'm in favor of whatever adds less maintenance work to the template, which has become overused. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look very long to me, but I suppose it appears different to a busy busier person. My original point was that the current situation with regards to the listing of an article's OTD mentions in {{ArticleHistory}} is unsatisfactory, and I wondered whether we could include more parameters. It soon transpired that the exhaustive listing of such mentions can get out of hand, and that no matter how many parameters {{ArticleHistory}} has, they will not always suffice. Realising that this situation forces us into an inconsistency (some talk pages will use this template's parameters and others will use {{OnThisDay}}), in addition to the danger of over-crowding the template if we do add more parameters, what I am asking now is essentially this: "Is there enough consensus to remove the remaining OTD parameter from {{ArticleHistory}} and only keep {{OnThisDay}} for this job?" I support such an action and Martin above apparently does not; I cannot say about Jackyd101, but Zzyzx11 seems to advocate removing OTD mentions from talk pages altogether. I cannot claim to speak for you, Sandy, but from your comment above I assume you would also be supportive of relieving {{ArticleHistory}} of the OTD parameter. Waltham, The Duke of 12:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Date error

Does anyone know why on Talk:Bobby Robson, the dates for the first Peer review and Good article nomination appear as 2010 instead of 2007?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a parameter error. Now corrected. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That was quick! Many thanks.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested 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 no consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Template:ArticleHistory → ? — "ArticleHistory" is probably not the most perfect name for this template. "History" can easily be confused with the editing history (see e.g. this) and the template isn't solely used on articles, but also on portals. Furthermore, as camel casing should be avoided, this should also be removed while moving. My personal proposal would be "Page milestones", but there might be better names for this template. --The Evil IP address (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Suggest {{PageHistory}} or {{PageMilestones}}, but "history" is shorter. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. It's been discussed before, and renaming this would just be a bloody waste of time for everyone who maintains it. Gimmetrow 03:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. This template's name is ingrained in numerous parts of Wikipedia and changing its name would serve no purpose but creating confusion and work and satisfying some people's preferences. Agree with Gimmetrow. Ucucha 06:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with Ucucha and Gimmetrow, there is absolutely no need to change this. This seems like discussion for the sake of discussion along with change for the sake of change. Why fix it if it isn't broken? You haven't persuaded me that there is any problem here, a three year old diff doesn't show widespread confusion about this template. Woody (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
• I would support a change from "history" to "milestones" and I would like to add a space between the two words. But I would prefer to keep "article" because that is the main use of the template. Nothing to stop a redirect being created from {{Page milestones}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:08, 7 May 2010 (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.

DYK column parameter

What happened to the "column" parameter for DYK, which previously linked to the appropriate archives page? -- Cirt (talk) 07:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"?"!?

If an article has appeared as a DYK hook and also has other milestones, the Article milestones line will be preceded by a small DYK icon: If you hit the [show] button to see all of the milestones, one of the entries will be about the DYK hook, which is also preceded by the DYK icon, this time somewhat larger. Why are there two DYK icons? I think the first one should be removed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the smaller DYK icon is to indicate that there is a hidden DYK hook which can be displayed by clicking on the "Show" button. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. Is there any way to make the smaller icon hide when the [show] button is clicked? Ironic, yes, but it would be cool. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK views

I don't currently see a parameter for adding the number of views a dyk got, as found on {{dyktalk}}. Should we add it? Airplaneman ✈ 21:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also noticed that, and planned to bring it up here. I think this parameter should accommodate the number of views. Ucucha 21:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Make DYK separate "action" in ArticleHistory

Can we make DYK its own "action" in the ArticleHistory, instead of awkwardly appearing as its own thingy below on the template? -- Cirt (talk) 03:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts? -- Cirt (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I support this suggestion, but would suggest that ITN needs to be added too. Mjroots (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then, why not TFA as well. These are all about articles making an appearance on the main page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I that case, OTD needs to be added too. Will someone please do the necessary? Mjroots (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

What would the "result" column be used for? What would you link from the "action"? We could do something like the following:

Image	Title / subject	Location and coordinates	Date	Type	Material	Dimensions	Designation	Owner / administrator	Notes
	Allegories of Art and Industry	Above north-west door of Birmingham Museum & Art Gallery (The Feeney Gallery extension), Great Charles Street 52.4811°N 1.9050°W / 52.4811; -1.9050	c. 1919 (1919)	class="category"	class="category" | Stone			Birmingham City Council

But how would the DYK blurb be included, as currently happens in some cases? These are all things which need to be decided before this can be implemented. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Why not current processes?

I know this question has definitely come up before (hence the bold text on the documentation page), but why exactly do GAN, FAC, and FAR need to be separate from this template. I think it probably has something to do with substing and whatnot, but I cannot find the answer anywhere. Thanks to whoever answers. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 20:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No support for incubation?

Unless I've missed something there's no support for WP:INCUBATE which means I can't use this template to clean up Talk: Kelly Rowland (album). Could the support not be added? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

GA update problem

The most recent update to the Good Article link for this template (diff) doesn't appear to function properly; instead, it points to a red link. For an example, please see Talk:Razer (robot). Can someone with the power to edit this page please resolve this issue? Thanks, CountdownCrispy 10:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The good article topic was missing from that page; I've added it. I've also fixed the template so that it won't break when the topic is omitted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

RFD

Can an editor please add WP:RFD to the template? Please refer to this error for an example for why this is needed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedias for deletion?

As can be seen at Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, it appears that this template uses the term "Wikipedias for deletion" rather than the proper "Miscellany for deletion". This should probably be fixed. -- œ^™ 00:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Article history REDIRECT

{{editprotect|Template:Article history}} Happened to be over here planting the T:AH shortcut on this template to try to keep it from deletion, and noticed that the REDIRECT needs Rcats as follows:

#REDIRECT [[Template:ArticleHistory]]{{R from move}}{{R from other template}}

If nobody objects, I'll do an {{editprotect}}, if necessary.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  09:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Martin! and Happiest of holidays to you and yours!

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  03:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the T:AH shortcut?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:58, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's still there. Ucucha 23:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Some problems with FAC

I tried looking through the archives, but I couldn't find anything that explicitly addressed my problem. I recently put an article up as a featured article candidate. The article already had a properly working article history template, which included a failed GAN and a successful GAN. I added another entry for the FAC, but left the result parameter empty, as it is still was in progress. I didn't realize that the template should only be updated after a pass or fail occurs. Someone else removed the bad entry, but now the article is shown as both a current FAC and a former FAC, though this is the first nomination. Is there any way to fix that? I'd hate for it to be permanently mis-marked. Thanks for any information. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? What article is this about? Are you referring to the assessment shown by a gadget on the article page? Ucucha 00:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

This was the edit I made. It caused the talk page to show up in the ArticleHistory error category. Another editor removed it after seeing it in that category, but now, yes, I have the user interface gadget that shows what the current assessment is, and it shows both FAC and FFAC. I suppose it's not that big of a deal, but it is mis-categorized, somehow, I think, and I was hoping to fully correct my mistake. Perhaps is it a bug with the gadget, and I should file a bug report. Still trying to figure it out. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

KMFDM only shows "A good article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Currently a featured article candidate." for me. If you still see "A former featured article candidate", you should probably purge your browser cache. Ucucha 00:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd tried that earlier, and it didn't seem to do anything. I also tried removing the entire history and replacing it, and it actually is showing just FAC now. Either way, I'm satisfied. Thanks for your help! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)