Template:Historical is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Please take care to use this template for genuine housekeeping purposes. It should not be used as a means to prematurely close discussions or proposals unless there is agreement to do so amongst the participants. Improper use in this circumstance would be where one editor is attempting to control a debate by ending it without prior agreement. |
It'd probably be best to remove the category from this template, so that pages with this message can be added to subcategories of Category:Wikipedia historical pages. -- Beland 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Should there be a version (perhaps {{historical2}}) that lets you include a statement in the infobox directing the reader to whatever newer page/policy/category/list/whatever it is which has superseded the "historical" one? (See for example Wikipedia:Requests for deletion where I just added that information in a second infobox.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
---- For a new guideline covering the topic of this historical text see [[WP:XYZ]] ----
The red cross and general tone of the tag might put editors off reviving the discussion. I have changed the image and reworded the tag to reflect what I hope is the intention of the tag while at the same time not discouraging further debate. SilkTork 14:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps some guidance could be given for how to use this tag. At the moment some editors, such as Radiant, are placing the tag on discussion pages, including Project discussion pages, which haven't been edited for a month or so, but are not actually dead or rejected. Tagging a discussion page as "Historical" is discouraging and it might be better if that were not done. It might be the case that it would be more appropriate if this tag were removed from discussion pages which are potentially ongoing. It might be the case that this tag should only be used on pages in which there is agreement and consensus from those involved in the page that the page is dead. If those involved have left Wiki, then the tag can be placed. But I should think a little investigation should be done first.
SilkTork 11:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am tagging some old pages in Category:Wikipedia statistics with it, but I'd rather use a different wording, as unlike policies, surely there are many reasons stats should be updated as quickly and easily as possible. I am thinking about something like below, and perhaps incorporating something from Template:Update?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer a red X to a black one. Matter of aesthetics, mostly. >Radiant< 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Centrx that the more concise wording is better. >Radiant< 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would not mind a condensed message as long as it links to the WP: policies and guidelines page, and is informative so that people understand what the tag means. To me the term historical is misleading, but let's not reinvent the wheel. -- Kevin Murray 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I get the impression that there are no particular rules about the utilization of this template. How much time should pass before a given proposal that hasn't been worked on and hasn't developed community support be marked as {{ historical}}? ( → Netscott) 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I created this template for one of my subpages, but I thought it might be able to enjoy wider use (for old personal essays and such... I'm using it for my old RfA criteria that I no longer believe in.) Please improve it as you see fit. Grand master ka 10:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A page which is inactive can easily just be edited. Someone can edit it and make it active.-- Angel David 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
On my sub-page ( User:Cocoaguy/historical alt) i created a version using the ambox template, maby we could update the main one too. -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 22:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take care to use this template for genuine housekeeping purposes. It should not be used as a means to prematurely close discussions or proposals unless there is agreement to do so amongst the participants. Improper use in this circumstance would be where one editor is attempting to control a debate by ending it without prior agreement.-- Gavin Collins ( talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no "Historical" section on WP:Policies and Guidelines.---- occono ( talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The /doc says:
category=no
is given: {{Historical|category=no}}
but when I read the source, it appears that it uses categories=no
. Am I correct in my reading of the code? --
DavidBiesack (
talk) 12:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The word "Historical" currently links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#historical, but the WP:PG page doesn't contain a section titled "historical". What shall we do? -- Theurgist ( talk) 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, great idea to change that ugly red X mark into something more pleasing. File:Thumbsup emote.gif -- œ ™ 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This tag is used on many many pages, not just "proposals" and many are historically significant. When readers arrive at the page and see a big red X mark at the top it really throws them off, because it has connotations of being bad or disallowed. Now, I'm assuming the barnstar icon was chosen because of the historical significance behind the Rosetta stone image. I agree that it might not be the best icon to use for this template but can't we just decide upon a better image to use instead of returning to the red X mark? --
œ
™ 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's two icon sets, I'm sure we can find something to use..
A few potential alternatives to using the standard filing cabinet image
|
---|
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello. Wikipedia is not a forum, therefore, the word "forum" should be changed to " talk page", with that link. Thanks in advance. 75.53.218.81 ( talk) 19:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC), modified 19:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but letting y'all know. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the background colour on this template be made more prominent. Currently the template is quite difficult to see, and not very prominent, as it is almost the same as WP's background. Making the colour more prominent would make the notice itself more prominent, which would be useful as it would more clearly visually indicate what pages are historical, and not get lost in a gaggle of other templates. This template is fairly widely used so I would like to hear the opinions of other users.
Am not sure if there are any other users watching this page, but here goes. -- LT910001 ( talk) 09:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a parameter that allows the "try contacting the user in question" wording that appears on user subpages to be omitted? If not, is it worth adding such a thing?
Specifically, I want to use the template on User:Nageh/mathJax. The script described by that page is broken because our MediaWiki installation no longer supports a preference to leave TeX unparsed. Its use would not be desirable now that the MW-supplied MathJax is newer anyway. Nageh has retired, so he is no longer maintaining the script and should not be contacted. -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 03:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have made a new parameter, "|type=woundup", for pages closed down by explicit community consensus. I thought that such a parameter might be useful, following a discussion that led to the deletion of Template:Closed down. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Do we really want to direct people {granted, not many, though it just happened to me, which brought me here) to a defunct page via its formerly active connections with categories (for me, it was Category:Wikipedia page help)? If so, would this be something that could be automatically stripped out, or should this be a style point to add to this page's documentation? If not, should we rename such articles, adding "(defunct and historical)" to the title and describe this as a style point on the documentation? Thanks! — Geekdiva ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the line break and the 90% font per this consensus. Ups and Downs ( ↕) 07:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would it be useful to include a parameter to link to some sort of 'most relevant active page' similar to Template:WikiProject_status#parent? It makes the page less of a dead end for users, especially if something similar is actually active. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 13:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Category:Inactive project pages says it's just for pages in the Project Namespace (i.e. Wikipedia). However, this template is being used on many pages in other namespaces (e.g. Template, Portal and even File and Category). Should this template be changed to only categorize pages in the Project Namespace? If not, then that category should be changed. DexDor (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm looking at some old database reports, and have noted that there's a significant number of old ones that aren't maintained. Some of these have {{ historical}} on them. The wording in the template isn't quite appropriate for database reports; this normally wouldn't be a huge issue, but there's quite a large number of them, so it occurred to me that maybe I ought to make a {{ historical DBR}} that more accurately describes their status. However, in this template, I see there's already a switch for {{{type}}}, so it would be quite simple to just add the appropriate language here (incorporating some of the language from {{ Community Tech Bot reports}}).
This is what I think it ought to say if {{{type}}} is supplied as dbr
:
This database report is no longer updated, and is retained for historical reference.
However, it may have been superseded by another report, or replaced with a maintenance or tracking category.
To see currently maintained reports, consult the main database report page.
If you would like a historical database report be run again, see the main database reports talk page.
Other discontinued database reports can be found in the archive.
The wikitext for this, in the switch block, would be:
|dbr='''This [[Wikipedia:Database reports|database report]] is no longer updated, and is retained for [[WP:HISPAGES|historical]] reference.'''<br /><span style="font-size: 90%">However, it may have been superseded by another report, or replaced with a [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|maintenance]] or [[:Category:Tracking categories|tracking category]].<br />To see currently maintained reports, consult the [[WP:Database reports|main database report page]].<br />If you would like a historical database report be run again, see the main [[WT:Database reports|database reports talk page]].<br />Other discontinued database reports can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Archive|archive]].</span></span>
Thanks! jp× g 05:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Per its documentation, this template should not be used in mainspace, and checking just now, it (thankfully) has no transclusions there. I have mocked up in the sandbox a change that will prevent it from displaying in mainspace, instead emitting a warning in preview. I'll plan to implement in a day or so if there are no concerns. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Template:Historical is permanently
protected from editing because it is a
heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by
consensus, editors may use {{
edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's
documentation to add usage notes or
categories.
Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases. |
Please take care to use this template for genuine housekeeping purposes. It should not be used as a means to prematurely close discussions or proposals unless there is agreement to do so amongst the participants. Improper use in this circumstance would be where one editor is attempting to control a debate by ending it without prior agreement. |
It'd probably be best to remove the category from this template, so that pages with this message can be added to subcategories of Category:Wikipedia historical pages. -- Beland 06:10, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Should there be a version (perhaps {{historical2}}) that lets you include a statement in the infobox directing the reader to whatever newer page/policy/category/list/whatever it is which has superseded the "historical" one? (See for example Wikipedia:Requests for deletion where I just added that information in a second infobox.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
---- For a new guideline covering the topic of this historical text see [[WP:XYZ]] ----
The red cross and general tone of the tag might put editors off reviving the discussion. I have changed the image and reworded the tag to reflect what I hope is the intention of the tag while at the same time not discouraging further debate. SilkTork 14:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps some guidance could be given for how to use this tag. At the moment some editors, such as Radiant, are placing the tag on discussion pages, including Project discussion pages, which haven't been edited for a month or so, but are not actually dead or rejected. Tagging a discussion page as "Historical" is discouraging and it might be better if that were not done. It might be the case that it would be more appropriate if this tag were removed from discussion pages which are potentially ongoing. It might be the case that this tag should only be used on pages in which there is agreement and consensus from those involved in the page that the page is dead. If those involved have left Wiki, then the tag can be placed. But I should think a little investigation should be done first.
SilkTork 11:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I am tagging some old pages in Category:Wikipedia statistics with it, but I'd rather use a different wording, as unlike policies, surely there are many reasons stats should be updated as quickly and easily as possible. I am thinking about something like below, and perhaps incorporating something from Template:Update?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I prefer a red X to a black one. Matter of aesthetics, mostly. >Radiant< 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Centrx that the more concise wording is better. >Radiant< 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I would not mind a condensed message as long as it links to the WP: policies and guidelines page, and is informative so that people understand what the tag means. To me the term historical is misleading, but let's not reinvent the wheel. -- Kevin Murray 18:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I get the impression that there are no particular rules about the utilization of this template. How much time should pass before a given proposal that hasn't been worked on and hasn't developed community support be marked as {{ historical}}? ( → Netscott) 12:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I created this template for one of my subpages, but I thought it might be able to enjoy wider use (for old personal essays and such... I'm using it for my old RfA criteria that I no longer believe in.) Please improve it as you see fit. Grand master ka 10:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
A page which is inactive can easily just be edited. Someone can edit it and make it active.-- Angel David 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
On my sub-page ( User:Cocoaguy/historical alt) i created a version using the ambox template, maby we could update the main one too. -- ( Cocoaguy ここがいい contribs talk) 22:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Please take care to use this template for genuine housekeeping purposes. It should not be used as a means to prematurely close discussions or proposals unless there is agreement to do so amongst the participants. Improper use in this circumstance would be where one editor is attempting to control a debate by ending it without prior agreement.-- Gavin Collins ( talk) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
There's no "Historical" section on WP:Policies and Guidelines.---- occono ( talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
The /doc says:
category=no
is given: {{Historical|category=no}}
but when I read the source, it appears that it uses categories=no
. Am I correct in my reading of the code? --
DavidBiesack (
talk) 12:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The word "Historical" currently links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#historical, but the WP:PG page doesn't contain a section titled "historical". What shall we do? -- Theurgist ( talk) 23:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
BTW, great idea to change that ugly red X mark into something more pleasing. File:Thumbsup emote.gif -- œ ™ 22:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This tag is used on many many pages, not just "proposals" and many are historically significant. When readers arrive at the page and see a big red X mark at the top it really throws them off, because it has connotations of being bad or disallowed. Now, I'm assuming the barnstar icon was chosen because of the historical significance behind the Rosetta stone image. I agree that it might not be the best icon to use for this template but can't we just decide upon a better image to use instead of returning to the red X mark? --
œ
™ 00:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Here's two icon sets, I'm sure we can find something to use..
A few potential alternatives to using the standard filing cabinet image
|
---|
|
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello. Wikipedia is not a forum, therefore, the word "forum" should be changed to " talk page", with that link. Thanks in advance. 75.53.218.81 ( talk) 19:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC), modified 19:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a big deal, but letting y'all know. -- Kendrick7 talk 01:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the background colour on this template be made more prominent. Currently the template is quite difficult to see, and not very prominent, as it is almost the same as WP's background. Making the colour more prominent would make the notice itself more prominent, which would be useful as it would more clearly visually indicate what pages are historical, and not get lost in a gaggle of other templates. This template is fairly widely used so I would like to hear the opinions of other users.
Am not sure if there are any other users watching this page, but here goes. -- LT910001 ( talk) 09:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Is there a parameter that allows the "try contacting the user in question" wording that appears on user subpages to be omitted? If not, is it worth adding such a thing?
Specifically, I want to use the template on User:Nageh/mathJax. The script described by that page is broken because our MediaWiki installation no longer supports a preference to leave TeX unparsed. Its use would not be desirable now that the MW-supplied MathJax is newer anyway. Nageh has retired, so he is no longer maintaining the script and should not be contacted. -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 03:44, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I have made a new parameter, "|type=woundup", for pages closed down by explicit community consensus. I thought that such a parameter might be useful, following a discussion that led to the deletion of Template:Closed down. RGloucester — ☎ 20:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Do we really want to direct people {granted, not many, though it just happened to me, which brought me here) to a defunct page via its formerly active connections with categories (for me, it was Category:Wikipedia page help)? If so, would this be something that could be automatically stripped out, or should this be a style point to add to this page's documentation? If not, should we rename such articles, adding "(defunct and historical)" to the title and describe this as a style point on the documentation? Thanks! — Geekdiva ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the line break and the 90% font per this consensus. Ups and Downs ( ↕) 07:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Would it be useful to include a parameter to link to some sort of 'most relevant active page' similar to Template:WikiProject_status#parent? It makes the page less of a dead end for users, especially if something similar is actually active. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 13:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Category:Inactive project pages says it's just for pages in the Project Namespace (i.e. Wikipedia). However, this template is being used on many pages in other namespaces (e.g. Template, Portal and even File and Category). Should this template be changed to only categorize pages in the Project Namespace? If not, then that category should be changed. DexDor (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'm looking at some old database reports, and have noted that there's a significant number of old ones that aren't maintained. Some of these have {{ historical}} on them. The wording in the template isn't quite appropriate for database reports; this normally wouldn't be a huge issue, but there's quite a large number of them, so it occurred to me that maybe I ought to make a {{ historical DBR}} that more accurately describes their status. However, in this template, I see there's already a switch for {{{type}}}, so it would be quite simple to just add the appropriate language here (incorporating some of the language from {{ Community Tech Bot reports}}).
This is what I think it ought to say if {{{type}}} is supplied as dbr
:
This database report is no longer updated, and is retained for historical reference.
However, it may have been superseded by another report, or replaced with a maintenance or tracking category.
To see currently maintained reports, consult the main database report page.
If you would like a historical database report be run again, see the main database reports talk page.
Other discontinued database reports can be found in the archive.
The wikitext for this, in the switch block, would be:
|dbr='''This [[Wikipedia:Database reports|database report]] is no longer updated, and is retained for [[WP:HISPAGES|historical]] reference.'''<br /><span style="font-size: 90%">However, it may have been superseded by another report, or replaced with a [[Wikipedia:Maintenance|maintenance]] or [[:Category:Tracking categories|tracking category]].<br />To see currently maintained reports, consult the [[WP:Database reports|main database report page]].<br />If you would like a historical database report be run again, see the main [[WT:Database reports|database reports talk page]].<br />Other discontinued database reports can be found in the [[Wikipedia:Database reports/Archive|archive]].</span></span>
Thanks! jp× g 05:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Per its documentation, this template should not be used in mainspace, and checking just now, it (thankfully) has no transclusions there. I have mocked up in the sandbox a change that will prevent it from displaying in mainspace, instead emitting a warning in preview. I'll plan to implement in a day or so if there are no concerns. Cheers, {{u| Sdkb}} talk 01:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)