![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
See Template:Article history/Archive 6/testcases.
How does one mark a GA that is currently rated A class, such as
HMS Speedy (1782). Putting |currentstatus=A
produces a ? instead of "A class".
Mjroots (
talk)
17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This idea may be completely absurd/impossible, but any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I submit that the recent change to enlarge and render in loud green the "Milestones in this article's history" text renders the template ugly and visually confusing, and I can't see a rationale for it. I propose it be reverted to the longstanding plain text version. Skomorokh 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the style changes per this edit protected note as per WP:BRD. This is a heavily used template and should have been the subject of some discussion or notification before changes. Woody ( talk) 10:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Using the template sandbox, here is an example of the changes (original on top, FT2's on bottom): I have to say that the colour jars with me too. It doesn't fit with the template, nor does the Big text. I can see the logic in "milestone's in article's history" and "what happened", (with the proviso that this isn't simple English Wikipedia and our readers/editors do have some modicum of intelligence. If you think it is too complicated, then fair enough. I think the spacing just adds unneccessary white space, far from making my mind "intuitively identify that there is a table and which text is header or contents" it just makes me think "why is there all this excess space at the bottom?" I can understand the spacing at the top but there is nothing like ramming it home with BIG text, underlining and spacing. The excess space at the bottom is just that, excessive and unneccessary. The whole point of this template is to remove excess talkpage clutter and reduce the space needed. "Navboxes... without dissent" It isn't without dissent, it is simply those who support the colours shout louder than those who don't, see Template talk:Navbox for examples of some dissent. So, in summary the colour is the main sticking point. Woody ( talk) 12:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As
WP:TFL will be up-and-running soon, could code be added for FLs that do not have the |maindate=
parameter set to be added to
Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page. If any other coding changes are needed for the commencement of TFL then please execute those, too.
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
11:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
[1] was pointed out on my talk page. That implementation has bugs - the obvious one being what happens when a FL with a mainpage appearance becomes FFL. Please also note some other changes to make at User_talk:Gimmetoo#Query_on_AFD_statistics. Gimmetoo ( talk) 14:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_list#What_should_I_do.3F. Just switching from list to article is a bit of a problem since it involves a link which I think would end up a redlink. Gimmetoo ( talk) 15:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed there was a flag for the Four Award, however when it is set to | four=yes on St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, I don't see anything in the template that actually indicates it received one. Why is there a flag for it if there's no corresponding "This article received a Four Award" type notice? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
|four=
I mentioned that it would be possible to add something like "This article has received a Four Award", but it's probably not desirable to do so for the reasons Gimme mentions above and because FOUR is a minor project which I don't think has gotten widespread attention from the community yet.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
17:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any easy way to use this template to identify (e.g., put into a category) featured articles which were previously good articles? What I have in mind is something that adds articles to a category if their currentstatus is FA, they have been on DYK (i.e., if |dykdate=
has content), and they were once GAs. The last part is the hard part; as far as I can tell, I only see two ways to do this, and both look pretty tedious:
|currentstatus=
, something like |currentstatus=FA/FGA
, and then have to go and update the status for thousands of articlesto see if the article passed any GANs in the past
{{#ifeq:{{uc:{{{actionN|}}}}} | GAN | {{#ifeq:{{uc:{{{actionNresult|}}}}} | listed | do something}} }}
I'm asking about this in relation to the WP:Four award stuff (see User talk:Rjanag#Four parameter), which is a task not important enough to warrant going through the massive trouble that would be needed to do solution #1. Solution #2 wouldn't be a lot of work, but it would make a horrible mess of the code. Is there any simpler, less verbose way to do this? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's how I think it would work. Code in /output that looks like
|GAN|gan|GAC|gac={{#switch:{{{4}}} |Fail|fail|Failed|failed|Not Listed|not listed={{#switch:{{{6}}} |FA|fa|GA|ga|FFA|ffa|ffa/ga|FFA/GA= |[[Category:Former good article nominees|{{PAGENAME}}]] }} }}
would become something like
|GAN|gan|GAC|gac={{#switch:{{{4}}} |Fail|fail|Failed|failed|Not Listed|not listed={{#switch:{{{6}}} |FA|fa|GA|ga|FFA|ffa|ffa/ga|FFA/GA= |[[Category:Former good article nominees|{{PAGENAME}}]] }} |Pass|pass|Passed|passed|Promoted|promoted|Listed|listed={{#switch:{{{6}}} |FA|fa={{#if:{{{7}}}|[[Category:DYK articles that were once GA and now FA|{{PAGENAME}}]]}} }} }}
and the code using /output would add the dykdate parameter to place 7
|{{ArticleHistory/output|{{{action1}}}|{{{action1date|}}}|{{{action1link|}}}|{{{action1result|}}}|{{{action1oldid|}}}|{{{currentstatus|}}}|{{{dykdate|}}}}}
This would need some testing, naturally. Gimmetoo ( talk) 00:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just wanted to let an admin know that the recent edit to the above template is causing an extra whitespace to appear after the template, in headers on article talk pages. I think it is related to the spaces involving the "include" and "noinclude" tags on the template. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 20:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Marking a nomination as withdrawn (and still linking to the review) would be useful. — Designate ( talk) 05:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I realize that the article history mostly deals with the status of articles, but given the presence of the AFD and related categories, it seems like there may be a place for listing other milestones like mediation and arbitration. Does this make sense? aprock ( talk) 20:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Hello, the format of Wikipedia logo is PNG. The same logo exists in SVG format. Please change
Wikipedia-logo.png to
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg.
Nodulation (
talk)
00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A missing result case from AfD (probably any XfD) is |actionXresult=withdrawn
with the "Result" column output: Withdrawn (kept). Example case:
WP:Articles for deletion/The golden cue. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
05:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This article has had two AfDs and a redirect for discussion . . . is there any way to include the discussion in the template as well?--~ T P W 18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The instance of this template in Talk:Prolog, near the top of the article, has 2011 as the year, despite the year being 2006 in the talk page's source. Calcdude84se ( talk) 02:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I am rather confused. The template documentation instructs using the dates that a particular process had ended, whereas the Fermi paradox example seems to use the dates on which the various processes were initiated. On a similar note, are the oldids meant to be of the article at the start or at the end of the process? Please can someone clarify this? It Is Me Here t / c 13:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
In this discussion, we decided to split Category:Wikipedia good articles on historical figures into Category:Wikipedia good articles on politicians (McCarthy and Washington) and Category:Wikipedia good articles on royalty (the rest). I can't figure out how to adjust this template so that this split is possible. Does anyone here know how to do that?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The
Nick Drake article was the featured article on 18 and 19 January. Currently, a workround has to be done to show this in the {{
ArticleHistory}}. Is there any way that the template can be tweaked to allow the use of |main2=
to allow this? (I tried it but it don't work atm)
Mjroots (
talk)
08:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The A class note says "This article has passed an A-Class review." where "A-class review" links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review#A-Class_review. This is obselete; it should now link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. If someone could change this, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What's causing the error evident at " Talk:Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law"? — SMUconlaw ( talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
|actionn=
is to be treated in the same way as one that is omitted or not. If |action1=
...|action3=
are present but blank, an error is thrown: by contrast, if |action4=
...|action20=
are present but blank this is the same as being omitted entirely. The inconsistency seems to have come in with
this edit where a pipe seems to have gone missing from three entries, but not the other 17. I've checked the logic, and despite the different spacing and position of line breaks, this is the only inconsistency between the two groups. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{action1|}}}|{{{action1|u}}}
{{#if:{{{action1|}}}
|action4=
...|action20=
behave differently because my test does not reflect that — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
14:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
When you say "threw an error" what do you actually mean? That the template misbehaves (as reported above) or that it populates the error category. I have just looked at the previous code again, and |action1=
would have done the former but not the latter. Now it does not do the former, and still does not do the latter. (Why should we treat that as an error anyway? It does not have any effect on the template and should not.) And, apologies if my response came across as condescending or in any other unpleasant way. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Disabling request for now as it's not obvious that we even know how this should be fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Blank parameters are now treated the same as if they are omitted, so no error will be thrown up. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The ArticleHistory template has nine milestones on Talk:Dungeons & Dragons, but only the first eight are showing. Is this because there is a cap on the number of milestones it can show? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a version in the sandbox that would change "article" to "portal", when used in the portal namespace. For an example of how it is now, see: Portal talk:Louisiana. Please update this template. Thanks, -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 19:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is an error or if it is intentional. I was browsing the source code for this template and noticed that the switch commands match action18
with action19result
, where every other pair has consistent numbering. For example:
-->{{#switch: {{uc:{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action20|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action20result}}} | {{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action18|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action19result}}} | {{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action18|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action18result}}} | {{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action17|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action17result}}} |
I can't think of any practical reason why this would be intentional but I have not fully dissected the template yet. (Besides which, I couldn't make an edit myself even if I was sure). Can someone with more familiarity with the template have a look at this? - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 13:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. We have had some confusion with the wording of passed good articles. Currently it says
"Article has been listed as one of the Category good articles 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."
This has lead an editor to beleive that they can instantly delist a Good article, whereas they should go through the reassessment process. Can we change the last sentence to say If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it."
Discussion is at WT:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Lucille Ball for an example of what the template currently looks like.
AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The article history on this talk page is putting it into Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) when it's not been to FARC. Can anyone spot what's causing this? Bencherlite Talk 10:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
For the "copyedited" section of designation action WPR, can this please be changed or add an option for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors instead of "League", as "League" is now a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors?
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 05:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
We need some sort of process for validating the data. More specifically, it seems that anybody could set |maindate=
to any date they liked, and there is no check that the article really was the
WP:TFA on that date. This is in relation to
this thread and
this thread, where the general impression that I got was "it's not our problem - if you care about this, fix it yourself". How many other talk pages are showing a misleading note like "This article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page as
Today's featured article on November 24, 2012." and appear in
Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page when they should in fact show no such message, and instead appear in
Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page? Note that if |maindate=
is future, it's not (yet) a problem - my gripe is where |maindate=
is past and inaccurate. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
|maindate=
; I've done that already a couple of times since becoming a TFA delegate a few weeks ago. If I were to spot an error while going through
WP:FANMP (which is a list of FAs awaiting main page exposure that works independently of this template), I would fix it, but I have yet to find an error. Otherwise, I think the "process" for validating the data is human-based, with all the strengths and weaknesses that implies - if a regular editor of a page spots a |maindate=
being added for no apparent reason, or left uncorrected after a rescheduling, or clicks on the link to find a completely different article, then the parameter can be removed or altered. Meanwhile, I'll leave a suggestion at
WP:Today's featured article/Delegates that others update |maindate=
if they do end up rescheduling a TFA. Thanks,
Bencherlite
Talk
17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)|maindate=
being fixed. After the bot runs, just after 00:00 UTC, the only differences between the pages listed at WP:FANMP and in the category should be the 20 or so scheduled TFAs for the rest of December and 1st Jan.
Bencherlite
Talk
22:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
|maindate=
which wasn't fixed for
almost four weeks. A day after the alteration to the TFA blurb,
Bencherlite set the |maindate=
on
Talk:RAF Northolt - they could have blanked out that on
Talk:London Necropolis Company at the same time, but might not have been aware of the change. Ideally, the person who altered the TFA blurb page would have amended the |maindate=
on both talk pages as part of the reschedule process. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)|maindate=
and where WP:FA/FANMP didn't have the correct TFA markings, so I think we're OK now.
Bencherlite
Talk
23:58, 12 December 2012 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
See Template:Article history/Archive 6/testcases.
How does one mark a GA that is currently rated A class, such as
HMS Speedy (1782). Putting |currentstatus=A
produces a ? instead of "A class".
Mjroots (
talk)
17:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
This idea may be completely absurd/impossible, but any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! -- Another Believer ( Talk) 22:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I submit that the recent change to enlarge and render in loud green the "Milestones in this article's history" text renders the template ugly and visually confusing, and I can't see a rationale for it. I propose it be reverted to the longstanding plain text version. Skomorokh 21:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the style changes per this edit protected note as per WP:BRD. This is a heavily used template and should have been the subject of some discussion or notification before changes. Woody ( talk) 10:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
Using the template sandbox, here is an example of the changes (original on top, FT2's on bottom): I have to say that the colour jars with me too. It doesn't fit with the template, nor does the Big text. I can see the logic in "milestone's in article's history" and "what happened", (with the proviso that this isn't simple English Wikipedia and our readers/editors do have some modicum of intelligence. If you think it is too complicated, then fair enough. I think the spacing just adds unneccessary white space, far from making my mind "intuitively identify that there is a table and which text is header or contents" it just makes me think "why is there all this excess space at the bottom?" I can understand the spacing at the top but there is nothing like ramming it home with BIG text, underlining and spacing. The excess space at the bottom is just that, excessive and unneccessary. The whole point of this template is to remove excess talkpage clutter and reduce the space needed. "Navboxes... without dissent" It isn't without dissent, it is simply those who support the colours shout louder than those who don't, see Template talk:Navbox for examples of some dissent. So, in summary the colour is the main sticking point. Woody ( talk) 12:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As
WP:TFL will be up-and-running soon, could code be added for FLs that do not have the |maindate=
parameter set to be added to
Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page. If any other coding changes are needed for the commencement of TFL then please execute those, too.
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
11:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
[1] was pointed out on my talk page. That implementation has bugs - the obvious one being what happens when a FL with a mainpage appearance becomes FFL. Please also note some other changes to make at User_talk:Gimmetoo#Query_on_AFD_statistics. Gimmetoo ( talk) 14:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_list#What_should_I_do.3F. Just switching from list to article is a bit of a problem since it involves a link which I think would end up a redlink. Gimmetoo ( talk) 15:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed there was a flag for the Four Award, however when it is set to | four=yes on St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, I don't see anything in the template that actually indicates it received one. Why is there a flag for it if there's no corresponding "This article received a Four Award" type notice? ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
|four=
I mentioned that it would be possible to add something like "This article has received a Four Award", but it's probably not desirable to do so for the reasons Gimme mentions above and because FOUR is a minor project which I don't think has gotten widespread attention from the community yet.
rʨanaɢ (
talk)
17:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there any easy way to use this template to identify (e.g., put into a category) featured articles which were previously good articles? What I have in mind is something that adds articles to a category if their currentstatus is FA, they have been on DYK (i.e., if |dykdate=
has content), and they were once GAs. The last part is the hard part; as far as I can tell, I only see two ways to do this, and both look pretty tedious:
|currentstatus=
, something like |currentstatus=FA/FGA
, and then have to go and update the status for thousands of articlesto see if the article passed any GANs in the past
{{#ifeq:{{uc:{{{actionN|}}}}} | GAN | {{#ifeq:{{uc:{{{actionNresult|}}}}} | listed | do something}} }}
I'm asking about this in relation to the WP:Four award stuff (see User talk:Rjanag#Four parameter), which is a task not important enough to warrant going through the massive trouble that would be needed to do solution #1. Solution #2 wouldn't be a lot of work, but it would make a horrible mess of the code. Is there any simpler, less verbose way to do this? rʨanaɢ ( talk) 17:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Here's how I think it would work. Code in /output that looks like
|GAN|gan|GAC|gac={{#switch:{{{4}}} |Fail|fail|Failed|failed|Not Listed|not listed={{#switch:{{{6}}} |FA|fa|GA|ga|FFA|ffa|ffa/ga|FFA/GA= |[[Category:Former good article nominees|{{PAGENAME}}]] }} }}
would become something like
|GAN|gan|GAC|gac={{#switch:{{{4}}} |Fail|fail|Failed|failed|Not Listed|not listed={{#switch:{{{6}}} |FA|fa|GA|ga|FFA|ffa|ffa/ga|FFA/GA= |[[Category:Former good article nominees|{{PAGENAME}}]] }} |Pass|pass|Passed|passed|Promoted|promoted|Listed|listed={{#switch:{{{6}}} |FA|fa={{#if:{{{7}}}|[[Category:DYK articles that were once GA and now FA|{{PAGENAME}}]]}} }} }}
and the code using /output would add the dykdate parameter to place 7
|{{ArticleHistory/output|{{{action1}}}|{{{action1date|}}}|{{{action1link|}}}|{{{action1result|}}}|{{{action1oldid|}}}|{{{currentstatus|}}}|{{{dykdate|}}}}}
This would need some testing, naturally. Gimmetoo ( talk) 00:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just wanted to let an admin know that the recent edit to the above template is causing an extra whitespace to appear after the template, in headers on article talk pages. I think it is related to the spaces involving the "include" and "noinclude" tags on the template. -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 20:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Marking a nomination as withdrawn (and still linking to the review) would be useful. — Designate ( talk) 05:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I realize that the article history mostly deals with the status of articles, but given the presence of the AFD and related categories, it seems like there may be a place for listing other milestones like mediation and arbitration. Does this make sense? aprock ( talk) 20:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
Hello, the format of Wikipedia logo is PNG. The same logo exists in SVG format. Please change
Wikipedia-logo.png to
Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg.
Nodulation (
talk)
00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
A missing result case from AfD (probably any XfD) is |actionXresult=withdrawn
with the "Result" column output: Withdrawn (kept). Example case:
WP:Articles for deletion/The golden cue. —
SMcCandlish
Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ
Contribs.
05:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This article has had two AfDs and a redirect for discussion . . . is there any way to include the discussion in the template as well?--~ T P W 18:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The instance of this template in Talk:Prolog, near the top of the article, has 2011 as the year, despite the year being 2006 in the talk page's source. Calcdude84se ( talk) 02:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I am rather confused. The template documentation instructs using the dates that a particular process had ended, whereas the Fermi paradox example seems to use the dates on which the various processes were initiated. On a similar note, are the oldids meant to be of the article at the start or at the end of the process? Please can someone clarify this? It Is Me Here t / c 13:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
In this discussion, we decided to split Category:Wikipedia good articles on historical figures into Category:Wikipedia good articles on politicians (McCarthy and Washington) and Category:Wikipedia good articles on royalty (the rest). I can't figure out how to adjust this template so that this split is possible. Does anyone here know how to do that?-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 19:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The
Nick Drake article was the featured article on 18 and 19 January. Currently, a workround has to be done to show this in the {{
ArticleHistory}}. Is there any way that the template can be tweaked to allow the use of |main2=
to allow this? (I tried it but it don't work atm)
Mjroots (
talk)
08:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
The A class note says "This article has passed an A-Class review." where "A-class review" links to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Review#A-Class_review. This is obselete; it should now link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. If someone could change this, it would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 01:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What's causing the error evident at " Talk:Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law"? — SMUconlaw ( talk) 23:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
|actionn=
is to be treated in the same way as one that is omitted or not. If |action1=
...|action3=
are present but blank, an error is thrown: by contrast, if |action4=
...|action20=
are present but blank this is the same as being omitted entirely. The inconsistency seems to have come in with
this edit where a pipe seems to have gone missing from three entries, but not the other 17. I've checked the logic, and despite the different spacing and position of line breaks, this is the only inconsistency between the two groups. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{{action1|}}}|{{{action1|u}}}
{{#if:{{{action1|}}}
|action4=
...|action20=
behave differently because my test does not reflect that — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
14:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
When you say "threw an error" what do you actually mean? That the template misbehaves (as reported above) or that it populates the error category. I have just looked at the previous code again, and |action1=
would have done the former but not the latter. Now it does not do the former, and still does not do the latter. (Why should we treat that as an error anyway? It does not have any effect on the template and should not.) And, apologies if my response came across as condescending or in any other unpleasant way. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
12:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Disabling request for now as it's not obvious that we even know how this should be fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) ( talk) 10:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Fixed. Blank parameters are now treated the same as if they are omitted, so no error will be thrown up. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The ArticleHistory template has nine milestones on Talk:Dungeons & Dragons, but only the first eight are showing. Is this because there is a cap on the number of milestones it can show? Thank you. Regards, RJH ( talk) 16:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a version in the sandbox that would change "article" to "portal", when used in the portal namespace. For an example of how it is now, see: Portal talk:Louisiana. Please update this template. Thanks, -- Funandtrvl ( talk) 19:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is an error or if it is intentional. I was browsing the source code for this template and noticed that the switch commands match action18
with action19result
, where every other pair has consistent numbering. For example:
-->{{#switch: {{uc:{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action20|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action20result}}} | {{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action18|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action19result}}} | {{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action18|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action18result}}} | {{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action17|}}}}} | FAR | {{{action17result}}} |
I can't think of any practical reason why this would be intentional but I have not fully dissected the template yet. (Besides which, I couldn't make an edit myself even if I was sure). Can someone with more familiarity with the template have a look at this? - AdamBMorgan ( talk) 13:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi. We have had some confusion with the wording of passed good articles. Currently it says
"Article has been listed as one of the Category good articles 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."
This has lead an editor to beleive that they can instantly delist a Good article, whereas they should go through the reassessment process. Can we change the last sentence to say If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it."
Discussion is at WT:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Lucille Ball for an example of what the template currently looks like.
AIRcorn (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
The article history on this talk page is putting it into Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) when it's not been to FARC. Can anyone spot what's causing this? Bencherlite Talk 10:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
For the "copyedited" section of designation action WPR, can this please be changed or add an option for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors instead of "League", as "League" is now a redirect to Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors?
Thank you for your time, — Cirt ( talk) 05:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
We need some sort of process for validating the data. More specifically, it seems that anybody could set |maindate=
to any date they liked, and there is no check that the article really was the
WP:TFA on that date. This is in relation to
this thread and
this thread, where the general impression that I got was "it's not our problem - if you care about this, fix it yourself". How many other talk pages are showing a misleading note like "This article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page as
Today's featured article on November 24, 2012." and appear in
Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page when they should in fact show no such message, and instead appear in
Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page? Note that if |maindate=
is future, it's not (yet) a problem - my gripe is where |maindate=
is past and inaccurate. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
17:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
|maindate=
; I've done that already a couple of times since becoming a TFA delegate a few weeks ago. If I were to spot an error while going through
WP:FANMP (which is a list of FAs awaiting main page exposure that works independently of this template), I would fix it, but I have yet to find an error. Otherwise, I think the "process" for validating the data is human-based, with all the strengths and weaknesses that implies - if a regular editor of a page spots a |maindate=
being added for no apparent reason, or left uncorrected after a rescheduling, or clicks on the link to find a completely different article, then the parameter can be removed or altered. Meanwhile, I'll leave a suggestion at
WP:Today's featured article/Delegates that others update |maindate=
if they do end up rescheduling a TFA. Thanks,
Bencherlite
Talk
17:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)|maindate=
being fixed. After the bot runs, just after 00:00 UTC, the only differences between the pages listed at WP:FANMP and in the category should be the 20 or so scheduled TFAs for the rest of December and 1st Jan.
Bencherlite
Talk
22:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
|maindate=
which wasn't fixed for
almost four weeks. A day after the alteration to the TFA blurb,
Bencherlite set the |maindate=
on
Talk:RAF Northolt - they could have blanked out that on
Talk:London Necropolis Company at the same time, but might not have been aware of the change. Ideally, the person who altered the TFA blurb page would have amended the |maindate=
on both talk pages as part of the reschedule process. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)|maindate=
and where WP:FA/FANMP didn't have the correct TFA markings, so I think we're OK now.
Bencherlite
Talk
23:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)