![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
Why isn't there a section for prod/deprod. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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'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)
|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(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 23:10, 3 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)
Thanks. A few thoughts:
|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".|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
".|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?— Cheers, JackLee – talk– 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC) In reply to your points:
— Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
|dykdate=
parameter, as suggested above?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.I think we're almost there. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
[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)
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:
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.
Currently used by {{ DYK talk}}.
The {{
icon}} template gives editors a choice: {{
icon|DYK}}
and {{
icon|DYK2}}
.
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)
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)
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)
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(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 23:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
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(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)
This page is showing up in the Category of articlehistory errors; please find and correct. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What happened to the "column" parameter for DYK, which previously linked to the appropriate archives page? -- Cirt ( talk) 07:32, 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 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)
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)
No meetup number identified.
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)
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)
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, Countdown Crispy 10:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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)
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
Why isn't there a section for prod/deprod. Smallman12q ( talk) 23:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
{{
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'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)
|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(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 23:10, 3 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)
Thanks. A few thoughts:
|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".|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
".|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?— Cheers, JackLee – talk– 18:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC) In reply to your points:
— Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 18:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
|dykdate=
parameter, as suggested above?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.I think we're almost there. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
[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)
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:
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.
Currently used by {{ DYK talk}}.
The {{
icon}} template gives editors a choice: {{
icon|DYK}}
and {{
icon|DYK2}}
.
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)
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)
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)
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(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 23:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
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(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs. 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)
This page is showing up in the Category of articlehistory errors; please find and correct. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What happened to the "column" parameter for DYK, which previously linked to the appropriate archives page? -- Cirt ( talk) 07:32, 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 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)
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)
No meetup number identified.
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)
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)
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, Countdown Crispy 10:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
{{
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)
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)