![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
This is a list to simplify the tracking of proposed additions
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.
Circeus 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Circeus 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding Featured list and portal to the current status and actions. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed nomination/candidate statuses, by discussion lower on the page. Circeus 01:38, 25 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)
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)
Wow. Impressive work. -- kingboyk 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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? -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
Dr pda 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Would it be possible to make it so it can link to the version shown on the main page? The Placebo Effect`
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)
/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)
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)
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)
There is some debate about Brilliant Prose articles at Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.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 deleted all of the lists and moved my work here to keep better track of work needed.
I've deleted my test page, so you shouldn't have any more problems with it. Raul654 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Newest on top? Or on bottom? Or does anyone care? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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 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:
Has anyone spoken to the GA folks? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- El on ka 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Gosh, you guys are doing fantastic work! Well done all round. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Can someone pls doublecheck the changes I've made at {{ FAC-instructions}} ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
small=yes
option described at
WP:TS?
Gimmetrow 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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? -- El on ka 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | 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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
This is a list to simplify the tracking of proposed additions
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.
Circeus 13:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Circeus 20:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest adding Featured list and portal to the current status and actions. -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 23:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed nomination/candidate statuses, by discussion lower on the page. Circeus 01:38, 25 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)
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)
Wow. Impressive work. -- kingboyk 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
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? -- Fbv 65 e del / ☑t / ☛c || 03:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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
Dr pda 23:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Would it be possible to make it so it can link to the version shown on the main page? The Placebo Effect`
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)
/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)
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)
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)
There is some debate about Brilliant Prose articles at Wikipedia talk:Former featured articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.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 deleted all of the lists and moved my work here to keep better track of work needed.
I've deleted my test page, so you shouldn't have any more problems with it. Raul654 18:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Newest on top? Or on bottom? Or does anyone care? -- SatyrTN ( talk | contribs) 01:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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 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:
Has anyone spoken to the GA folks? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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. -- El on ka 21:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Gosh, you guys are doing fantastic work! Well done all round. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
Can someone pls doublecheck the changes I've made at {{ FAC-instructions}} ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
small=yes
option described at
WP:TS?
Gimmetrow 16:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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? -- El on ka 23:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)