![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Just a minor point here, but it appears when you delist a good article the link in the template heading "Such and such was one of the ????? good articles, but it has been removed from the list" points to WP:Good Articles. When an article is listed the link in "Such and such has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria" links to the WP:GA subpage. Like I said a minor point but if it is easy or warranted it would be nice to link to the subpage in delisted articles. From my end it would simply make it easier to remove said delisted article from the page after a reassessment. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
For example see Talk:Elephant (delisted) and Talk: Spider (listed). AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Added request to
to do list — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Done GA topics will now be properly linked for delisted GAs (and also for failed GAs, which were broken too). Thanks.
Maralia (
talk)
04:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Slight majority in favour of the move, but more importantly the support arguments (as a whole) are far stronger than the oppose arguments. I'll give a more detailed summary if requested. Two notes, though: if any technical glitches and the like are not easily fixable, then I will move the template back; and there's no prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of Template:Article milestones as a title. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:ArticleHistory →
Template:Article history – Shouldn't be at all controversial: CamelCase went out of fashion with the Modern skin, CRT televisions and Pogs. Long precedent for naming templates using standard conventions. An earlier, aborted move has resulted in all the old double redirects being cleared out as well, so it should be straightforward to carry out.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a followup to Template_talk:Article_history#Requested_move to rectify errors. User:Thumperward presented a "move request" as non-conttrovsial after user:Thmperward had unilaterally moved the template despite prior move requests. In the process of the "discussion", user:Thmperward said "it [the move] will not break one single script nor bot of any sort". It has. User:Thmperward promised "In the extremely unlikely event of this causing any technical fallout, I will be more than happy to fix it myself." Persuant to User_talk:Thumperward#AH_problems, User:Thmperward refuses to fix the issue in the only way feasible to him - by restoring the template to the name it had for years. The "reasons" given for the move included "Discoverability, consistency, elimination of undesirable legacy naming (which might encourage new template authors to erroneously think CamelCase is a good idea): this is, at present, the only high-profile template that I know of which has not been moved in this way." The move has resulted in creating inconsistency in the user of this template. To the extent the CamelCase style is involved, moving this template made it no longer consistent with other CamCase styled templates, including especially a talk page template strongly connected with this one. For these reasons and others, the template should be restored to the form it had for years. Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 17:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Template:Article history → Template:ArticleHistory – This was moved to "article history" at the end of October 2012 (see above). That discussion should have ended in, at best, a "no consensus" and no move, and indeed, the "move" result was surprising, as some of the reasons for the move were factually incorrect. There are other templates using CamelCase, including the talk page template strongly associated with this one, as anyone who works with talk page templates would know. Furthermore, prior to the move, the template had been at ArticleHistory for about 5 years. I am the main editor affected by this move, as I run a bot that processes the ArticleHistory template. Haivng it at a consistent name is helpful to scripting, and indeed, prior to the October move, only about 21 out of 31,700 transclusions of the template used "article history". Even now, 32856 transclusions out of 32904 use "ArticleHistory", which is currently a redirect. The reasons given for the October move included "Discoverability, consistency, elimination of undesirable legacy naming (which might encourage new template authors to erroneously think CamelCase is a good idea): this is, at present, the only high-profile template that I know of which has not been moved in this way." Again, to the extent the CamelCase style is involved, moving this template made it no longer consistent with other CamCase styled templates. Therefore, for simplicity, consistency, and other reasons, I propose restoring the template to its original name. Gimmetoo ( talk) 15:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I have made changes in the sandbox to correct three minor errors in code logic:
|action19link=
to |action18=
, resulting in returning the wrong link for the corresponding FAC.|action18link=
to |action19=
, resulting in returning the wrong link for the corresponding FLC.These extremely specific scenarios are not covered in Template:Article history/testcases, so I made test cases in my userspace. They can be viewed here (I blanked the page after testing because reproducing scenario #3 requires creating an error). Anyone see a problem with these changes? Maralia ( talk) 06:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Throwing an error on Talk:History of feminism. I've tried adding more params, moving things around, searching history of this talk page, but no dice. Any ideas? czar · · 02:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
|topic=arts
instead of |topic=art
. It needs to match one of the entries in the "keyword" column at
Template:GA/Topic, which is very picky about spelling. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to add Article created to the history using this template?
And if not, can that be added please?
Thanks very much for all who maintain this useful template, — Cirt ( talk) 02:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't you think that File:Featured article star - cross.svg seems a bit... ugly? What about replacing it with File:Cscr-featured-strike.svg? It is already used for former featured lists, but I don't think there's a need to use a different image for each case (in fact, featured articles and lists both use the same star) Cambalachero ( talk) 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Talk:The Who has both {{ GA}} and {{ Article History}}. Should these two templates be combined? If so, what's the proper way to do it? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add {{shortcut|T:AH}} to this page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The To-do list at the start of this talk page has a lot of work to do. Could someone do it?
Is/are there additional template(s) than {{ edit protected}} to get the attention of template coders? — Lentower ( talk) 03:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not intended to get the attention of template coders - see
WP:PER - it is used once the required change has been determined, tested and agreed. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)This template can't seem to decide if this topic is a GT or FT. On Talk:2013 Atlantic hurricane season it's listed as an FT but on Talk:Tropical Storm Andrea (2013) it's listed as a GT. — Designate ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I find this template really useful for condensing all of the AFD/Copy edit/peer review stuff, but what if the article hasn't got one of those GA/FA related current status'. Could we have a "basic" input to the current status, or when it's left blank not have an error message, because it would make it a far more applicable template. Jonjonjohny ( talk) 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Article history has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change the image for FGAN articles from "unsupport" vote to "oppose" vote. That way, there is a separate icon for that from DGA's like there are separate icons for FFAC's and FFA's. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:55, 24 October 2014 (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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Just a minor point here, but it appears when you delist a good article the link in the template heading "Such and such was one of the ????? good articles, but it has been removed from the list" points to WP:Good Articles. When an article is listed the link in "Such and such has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria" links to the WP:GA subpage. Like I said a minor point but if it is easy or warranted it would be nice to link to the subpage in delisted articles. From my end it would simply make it easier to remove said delisted article from the page after a reassessment. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 08:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
For example see Talk:Elephant (delisted) and Talk: Spider (listed). AIRcorn (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Added request to
to do list — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
10:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Done GA topics will now be properly linked for delisted GAs (and also for failed GAs, which were broken too). Thanks.
Maralia (
talk)
04:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Slight majority in favour of the move, but more importantly the support arguments (as a whole) are far stronger than the oppose arguments. I'll give a more detailed summary if requested. Two notes, though: if any technical glitches and the like are not easily fixable, then I will move the template back; and there's no prejudice against a new RM discussing the merits of Template:Article milestones as a title. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:ArticleHistory →
Template:Article history – Shouldn't be at all controversial: CamelCase went out of fashion with the Modern skin, CRT televisions and Pogs. Long precedent for naming templates using standard conventions. An earlier, aborted move has resulted in all the old double redirects being cleared out as well, so it should be straightforward to carry out.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk)
13:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
This is a followup to Template_talk:Article_history#Requested_move to rectify errors. User:Thumperward presented a "move request" as non-conttrovsial after user:Thmperward had unilaterally moved the template despite prior move requests. In the process of the "discussion", user:Thmperward said "it [the move] will not break one single script nor bot of any sort". It has. User:Thmperward promised "In the extremely unlikely event of this causing any technical fallout, I will be more than happy to fix it myself." Persuant to User_talk:Thumperward#AH_problems, User:Thmperward refuses to fix the issue in the only way feasible to him - by restoring the template to the name it had for years. The "reasons" given for the move included "Discoverability, consistency, elimination of undesirable legacy naming (which might encourage new template authors to erroneously think CamelCase is a good idea): this is, at present, the only high-profile template that I know of which has not been moved in this way." The move has resulted in creating inconsistency in the user of this template. To the extent the CamelCase style is involved, moving this template made it no longer consistent with other CamCase styled templates, including especially a talk page template strongly connected with this one. For these reasons and others, the template should be restored to the form it had for years. Gimmetoo ( talk) 13:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 17:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
Template:Article history → Template:ArticleHistory – This was moved to "article history" at the end of October 2012 (see above). That discussion should have ended in, at best, a "no consensus" and no move, and indeed, the "move" result was surprising, as some of the reasons for the move were factually incorrect. There are other templates using CamelCase, including the talk page template strongly associated with this one, as anyone who works with talk page templates would know. Furthermore, prior to the move, the template had been at ArticleHistory for about 5 years. I am the main editor affected by this move, as I run a bot that processes the ArticleHistory template. Haivng it at a consistent name is helpful to scripting, and indeed, prior to the October move, only about 21 out of 31,700 transclusions of the template used "article history". Even now, 32856 transclusions out of 32904 use "ArticleHistory", which is currently a redirect. The reasons given for the October move included "Discoverability, consistency, elimination of undesirable legacy naming (which might encourage new template authors to erroneously think CamelCase is a good idea): this is, at present, the only high-profile template that I know of which has not been moved in this way." Again, to the extent the CamelCase style is involved, moving this template made it no longer consistent with other CamCase styled templates. Therefore, for simplicity, consistency, and other reasons, I propose restoring the template to its original name. Gimmetoo ( talk) 15:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.I have made changes in the sandbox to correct three minor errors in code logic:
|action19link=
to |action18=
, resulting in returning the wrong link for the corresponding FAC.|action18link=
to |action19=
, resulting in returning the wrong link for the corresponding FLC.These extremely specific scenarios are not covered in Template:Article history/testcases, so I made test cases in my userspace. They can be viewed here (I blanked the page after testing because reproducing scenario #3 requires creating an error). Anyone see a problem with these changes? Maralia ( talk) 06:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Throwing an error on Talk:History of feminism. I've tried adding more params, moving things around, searching history of this talk page, but no dice. Any ideas? czar · · 02:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
|topic=arts
instead of |topic=art
. It needs to match one of the entries in the "keyword" column at
Template:GA/Topic, which is very picky about spelling. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to add Article created to the history using this template?
And if not, can that be added please?
Thanks very much for all who maintain this useful template, — Cirt ( talk) 02:01, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Don't you think that File:Featured article star - cross.svg seems a bit... ugly? What about replacing it with File:Cscr-featured-strike.svg? It is already used for former featured lists, but I don't think there's a need to use a different image for each case (in fact, featured articles and lists both use the same star) Cambalachero ( talk) 17:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Talk:The Who has both {{ GA}} and {{ Article History}}. Should these two templates be combined? If so, what's the proper way to do it? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 02:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone add {{shortcut|T:AH}} to this page.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The To-do list at the start of this talk page has a lot of work to do. Could someone do it?
Is/are there additional template(s) than {{ edit protected}} to get the attention of template coders? — Lentower ( talk) 03:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not intended to get the attention of template coders - see
WP:PER - it is used once the required change has been determined, tested and agreed. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)This template can't seem to decide if this topic is a GT or FT. On Talk:2013 Atlantic hurricane season it's listed as an FT but on Talk:Tropical Storm Andrea (2013) it's listed as a GT. — Designate ( talk) 17:58, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I find this template really useful for condensing all of the AFD/Copy edit/peer review stuff, but what if the article hasn't got one of those GA/FA related current status'. Could we have a "basic" input to the current status, or when it's left blank not have an error message, because it would make it a far more applicable template. Jonjonjohny ( talk) 21:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Template:Article history has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change the image for FGAN articles from "unsupport" vote to "oppose" vote. That way, there is a separate icon for that from DGA's like there are separate icons for FFAC's and FFA's. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 03:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)