Jump to content

Template talk:Article history/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Date

Hello, I'm importing this template to ro.wiki;Justin attended Reed College but left in his first semester. it's almost done, however I ran into a little problem, and I though someone here might be able to help me. At the Romanian Wikipedia, in order for the date to be displayed, you can only introduce it either with English month names, or numerals only. How do I fix this, so that i would make it recognize Romanian month names as well? I guess this is not from the template. — Diego_pmc Talk 21:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This template uses the #time m:ParserFunctions to interpret fields with dates. These are mostly used to regularize the output for the visible text over links to historical versions. If #time isn't localized to accept appropriate month names for other language wikis, you could just use whatever is in the date field as the visible text, without reformatting it. The #time function is also used to make sure the date in the maindate field is in a format to find the today's featured article subpage - you may not need that, or you could make sure any uses like that are in the right format to start with. Gimmetrow 23:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

New Version for Good topics

Hi, per the Good topics implementation plan, I have now created a modified version of this template, in order to be able to handle good topics. This can be found here, and I would like to see it replace the current version. The changes I have made are these:

  1. I have created Template:FeaturedTopicSum, which works out if a topic is good or featured based on categories. It takes three arguments - the name of the topic, what to do if the topic is featured, and what to do if the topic is good.
  2. I have changed it so that the template displays the featured topic logo if the article is part of a featured topic, and if not, the good topic logo if the article is part of a good topic.
  3. I have changed the text for the featured topic section, so the template will now state whether the topics an article is in are good or featured.
  4. I have overhauled the category system for featured topics. The existing categories are no longer used. Instead, categories at Category:Featured topics articles by quality and Category:Featured topics articles by importance are used (yes, we've set up a dummy WikiProject, a la Good articles), as are categories within Category:Wikipedia featured topics categories. To explain these three:
  1. The first is fairly self explanatory. Anything that isn't FA, FL or GA is tagged as Unassessed.
  2. The second is tagged thus: Top importance for featured topic main articles, High importance for featured topic other articles, Mid importance for good topic main articles, Low importance for good topic other articles
  3. The third is used to do the sums in Template:FeaturedTopicSum

This is a very complicated series of changes, if you want anything else explaining please ask, though I have tested it extensively in the sandbox and believe it to be fully working - rst20xx (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rst, just curious; are you convinced that Good topics are going to endure, and are you planning to do the tedious and time-consuming updates to articlehistory to incorporate them as they are frequently added and deleted ? Would it not be better to add them via a template until they are established and you're sure they will endure and that you all are prepared for all the updates that will be needed to incorporate them into articlehistory? Before doing all the work of adding a brand new item to articlehistory, we should be sure it will endure and that people will keep up with the articlehistory maintenance of adding and deleting them. Since good articles aren't inherently stable, that could be a lot of work, and a template might be easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It appears Rst20xx's approach would work mostly automatically using fields already in AH, and a bunch of categories and counts. Seems like a lot of complicated coding, though. Does this just end up choosing between two possible banners for a FT? Gimmetrow 04:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Three things: 1. A good topic has to go through the same nomination procedure as featured topics do to become a good topic, so you don't get topics added abritrarily that way. 2. Gimmetrow is right, a topic moving between the two is all automated. That's basically what my changes have entailed. It is somewhat complicated, but it's a complex process. The only part that isn't automated is the actual article history, but using WP 1.0 bot we can monitor when a topic moves from good to featured very easily, and yes, we will be maintaining the actual article history manually. 3. Yes, I'm pretty sure they're going to endure, as there's a lot of support for them from the FT crowd now, I know of a few GTs that are already in the planning stages, and I've worked out how to automate the majority of extra work that would occur as a result of their existence - rst20xx (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, also, one thing I forgot: Template:Historyoutput needs modifying to have gtc|GTC=Good topic candidate, GTR|gtr=Good topic removal candidate, and then it should have something like ft|FT=Good topic to Featured topic and gt|GT=Featured topic to Good topic for the automated promotions/deletions - rst20xx (talk) 12:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If switching between FT and GT banners is automatic, there is no review and nothing to link to. Why would that need a historyoutput entry? Gimmetrow 13:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it wouldn't necessarily (and obviously there'd be nothing to link to), and feel free to not implement the changes to Template:Historyoutput. But I got the impression from reading Sandy's comments that she wanted it to, and other editors might want to see exactly when something moved to be a good topic too, so that was filling in that part. Well at the very least, the GTC and GTR ones need adding - rst20xx (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK, can we at least get the ArticleHistory template updated? Because as soon as that's done, I can start working on other bits of the good topic implementation process - rst20xx (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but shouldn't Talk:Saffron show a featured topic? Gimmetrow 02:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! And, err, it does... I guess the categories hadn't filled up when you checked or something.
There are two topics which should be now good topics, let's have a check if they are... 1. 2. Oh good! :) (Having said that, Category:Mid-importance Featured topics articles has some stuff listed as in it which isn't actually in it, so we'll have to wait til tomorrow to check properly - rst20xx (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
On Talk:The Simpsons (season 8) where it says "Good topic star The Simpsons (season 8) is the main article in the "The Simpsons (season 8)" series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.", Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 8) and Wikipedia:Featured topics linked. Is that intentional, or should they link to Wikipedia:Good topics/The Simpsons (season 8) and Wikipedia:Good topics or something? Gary King (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The latter is intentional. The two projects are going to share a space apart from the front page. The former is a bug :P rst20xx (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've written a new version to fix this and another bug I found. Hopefully this will be uploaded shortly - rst20xx (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright; rst can you write a summary of all the changes made once this is all done? Just for the general audience as a primer to the new Good Topics process. Gary King (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, sure. I'll do this in the next couple of days, but hopefully it should be largely self-evident/seamless - rst20xx (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Link to section on current page

If a GA review was put onto the main talk page of the article (rather than a subpage), how can the action1link parameter be used to link to the right section? For example I tried to link to Talk:Earl Mindell#GA Review and failed. MSGJ 15:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What you tried looks correct, but there are two sections on that talk page with the same section header. Was that the problem? Gimmetrow 20:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well it didn't work. I tried this. MSGJ 00:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay I'm tired and being very stupid :) Thanks for sorting it. MSGJ 00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit

code removed - now in edit history

This would remove the combined maindate/dykdate texts. Why? Gimmetrow 20:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it's better off as separate. How do you think you can also combine DYK and ITN? 68.5.70.154 (talk) 20:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Should we? Gimmetrow 20:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think so because really, which icon to use? ITN's globe or DYK's question mark? 68.5.70.154 (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Good, we're agreed. I wasn't planning to combine DYK and ITN banners, and I see no reason to separate DYK and maindate banners. Gimmetrow 21:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I meant, it's not a good idea to combine DYK and ITN, but I still support separating maindate and DYK. Look at User:Must eat worms/Sandbox for an example; I'm using that account, but sometimes I forget to log in. 68.5.70.154 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Among other goals, this template was designed to reduce the space used by banners on talk pages. The maindate and DYK banners were combined here for a long time. Why separate them now? Gimmetrow 21:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Readers' brains perceive pictures faster than words. In this case, how will the reader know that an article went through DYK if they don't see the question mark image? It might take the reader longer to notice the DYK text. 68.5.70.154 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I like separate lines for each main page appearance type. What about multiple ITNs? I think someone like Tiger Woods or Barack Obama should have multiple ITN notices on his page. How should this appear?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. As for multiple ITN's, have addressed those concerns and enabled the template to hold two ITN dates, per reason in my edit summary. --Must eat worms (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

One of the primary goals of this template is to shorten/eliminate talk page clutter; a space between Maindate and DYK just lengthens the template with no real benefit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Read above discussion, please. --Must eat worms (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I see absolutely no consensus for that edit: epitomised by the fact that it was reverted, which should not happen on a highly used template. Please get consensus for the edit, especially from the people who designed, use and maintain it. At the moment I see consensus to revert more than I see consensus for the edit. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The code included some pretty obvious bugs. I didn't point them out because I didn't expect the code would be implemented as is - we were discussing whether the idea in general was worth doing . I've reverted the maindate/dyk separation, and fixed the other bug with itn that existing since the changes a month ago. If an article has an appearance as today's featured article, a dyk appearance is fairly minor in comparison - that's another reason the dyk appearance isn't listed separately when there is a maindate. Gimmetrow 00:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

[1] ITN in use. Gimmetrow 12:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:GTC

Can someone create parameters for WP:GTs and WP:GTCs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs)

I think what TonyTheTiger means is he would like Template:Historyoutput edited to include parameters for GTCs and GTRs, i.e. that the following is added:
...FTR|ftr=Featured topic removal candidate|GTC|gtc=Good topic candidate|GTR|gtr=Good topic removal candidate|FLC|flc=Featured list candidate...
(FTR and FLC are already there, I just showed them to make it clear where exactly I would see GTC and GTR added). I too want this change - rst20xx (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
What I mean is that we need GTC and GTR parameters for actionX. We also need gtname and gtmain parameters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what my change to Template:Historyoutput would do. And we don't need gtname and gtmain parameters, as these would only be alternatives to ftname and ftmain, and it would require a lot of reprogramming to accommodate them - rst20xx (talk) 23:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure I understand how we can get by without gtname and gtmain.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
ArticleHistory automatically works out the number of the articles in a topic that are featured, and if it is greater 2 and greater than 25%, it shows as a featured topic. Otherwise, it shows as a good topic. Hence, we don't need any good topic parameters in ArticleHistory, just in Historyoutput so we can say what the type of the nom was - rst20xx (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
O.K. so gtname and gtmain would be redundant. However, are we going to show all GTCs as FTCs in the actionX parameter?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hopefully not, hopefully we should show them as GTCs just for that added bit of informativeness. But this requires the update to the protected Template:Historyoutput I outlined in bold above, an update that for some reason has yet to be made :/ rst20xx (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I don't quite understand the GT process. Isn't it just a featured topic, but the topic displays the "good topic" banner when the topic doesn't include enough FAs and FLs? Basically, I don't see why you can't keep using the FTC and FTR action codes. Gimmetrow 01:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't understood it either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Good topics are nominated just like featured topics, yes, but on a separate part of WP:FTC, for clarity's sake, and hence are "good topic candidates", not "featured topic candidates". And so it looks a bit silly to call them "Featured topic candidates" on the Article milestones, and various editors over there have been pointing this out. It's going to become an especially big problem when the good topic candidates start getting promoted on the 20th.
But if a good topic gets enough featured content to be a featured topic (or vice versa), the move is automatic from one to the other, there is no new candidacy, and so yes, this move wouldn't be in the milestones anywhere. But it'd still be better to call the initial candidacy by what it was called at the time, if you follow - rst20xx (talk) 13:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I got Arctic gnome (who's in charge of featured topics) to fix this. Look at the list milestones here and hopefully you should see slightly clearer why this change was sensible - rst20xx (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
If it's the same process, I don't see the need to unnecessarily complicate the template by adding a whole 'nother process (particularly one whose durability is not yet evident). Perhaps Gimmetrow can give us some ideas to just add another possibility to the result field on Featured topics, or a simpler way to approach this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have preferred just calling them topic candidates and let the banner do the work, but the extra codes are not a big deal if the topic people handle it. Gimmetrow 15:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion is far more practical. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

This one change doesn't really make things any more complicated, it doesn't cause any extra work for anybody, and there are currently 12 open Good topics nominations, most of which look set to pass. It hasn't caused any bugs or broken anything and it is what the people at WP:FT want - rst20xx (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And that's fine. By the way, is it necessary to have the "failed good topic candidate" template {{GTCfailed}} at Talk:List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow and elsewhere? Gimmetrow 01:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Not sure, when I implemented that I was just copying the existing practice for failed FTCs - they use {{FTCfailed}} - rst20xx (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I didn't realize FTCfailed was used in conjunction with featured or good articles. I thought the line in ArticleHistory covered that. Gimmetrow 20:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OTD/SA

Where's the entry for "On This Day"/"Selected Anniversaries" ? There's a DYK and ITN, isn't there one for OTD/SA? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

What's the existing template? Gimmetrow 23:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Good question, I don't know that either, since I was looking for that when I ended up here. 70.51.8.75 (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Template:OnThisDay, strangely enough. --GRuban (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Mbox classes

Resolved

{{editprotected}} I wrote up a version using the mbox classes at {{Article history/Archive 4/sandbox}}. I believe it is ready to replace the current template, so please update the template. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the behaviours changed in the sandbox version - for instance a heading and status line added when there is only one action. Any particular reason? Gimmetrow 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It just seemed quite silly to me that you would just get a row without any information what the contents meant. I don't feel very strongly about it, so I can change it back if you prefer. —Ms2ger (talk) 12:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
When there is only one event, the banner makes it evident what the line below refers to, so with the headers and status line removed the template displays smaller. Gimmetrow 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any better now? (Sorry for taking so long, I've been quite busy.) —Ms2ger (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reactivated per WP:SILENCE. —Ms2ger (talk) 11:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone else tested it? I'm willing to make the change, but I'm not familiar with the code and this is a heavily-used template. If someone else signs off on it though, I'll proceed. --Elonka 03:17, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll take care of it when its ready. Gimmetrow 03:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Gimme, what is it, and where's a sample? The sandbox tells me nothing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) —Ms2ger (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know what it is. Ms2ger, why did you de-redlink the error category? The point was for it to show up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It shows up either way, doesn't it? I'm afraid I don't get your point. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The redlinked articlehistory category was specifically set up that way so a RED link would show on the talk page when editors entered an error. By filling in that page, you changed it to a blue link. Gimmetrow fixed it. It would be helpful to discuss articlehistory changes on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I see. Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

failed articles?

If an article fails both WP:FAC and WP:GA?, then should the "currentstatus" parameter be set to FFAC or FGAN? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Generally whichever happened last, but it doesn't really matter. Gimmetrow 03:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

New switch request: WADR

Could someone with considerably more template skills than I possess please add a switch? It is for A-Class demotion reviews, where A-class articles are reassessed to ensure they still meet the criteria. We are just setting up the process and although it is likely at first to be Milhist specific, Milhist stuff usually filters quickly across to other projects. I've added a bit of the chart below showing the proposed amendment.

Process actionX actionXdate actionXlink actionXresult actionXoldid Possible current statuses[1]
Peer reviews
WikiProject A-class review[2] WAR Date ended Link to PR page[3] One of approved or failed oldid number of version. N/A
WikiProject A-class demotion review[2] WADR Date ended Link to PR page[3] One of kept or demoted oldid number of version. N/A
  1. ^ See bottom section of the table.
  2. ^ a b Via Wikiprojects
  3. ^ a b If available

Many thanks in advance, --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could we not treat "WikiProject A-class review" as any review about an article's A-class? I've added result options for "kept" and "demoted" to the "WAR" action. Gimmetrow 14:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Much simpler,. Thanks very much :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 15:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK entry

Resolved
 – Discussion moved to #Option for adding DYK hook, then #Option for adding DYK hook (redux).

Is there a way to augment the DYK information to have a parameter DYKTEXT so that we can fully replace {{dyktalk}} templates which now have an entry parameter? See Talk:Jennifer Brunner as an example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you use dyklink and link to the dyk archives? Gimmetrow 01:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I've just realized I made a similar request below. You may want to discuss the matter further there. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

HIde/show button

Just a thought to make things look neater to myself, is it easy / a good idea to move the show/hide button to just before the 'article milestones' text so it reads 

'[show] article milestones', or '[hide] article milestones',

currently it looks like the text following the template is the article milestones . LeeVJ (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice idea, but actually nontrivial to implement—it would need significant changes in Common.js and probably some special-casing in Common.css. I also think it's more useful to keep the show/hide button in the place for all collapsibel tables. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just had a look at some of the source - run away ! Was thinking other collapsible boxes could be modified in same sort of way - 'show details' etc .. but in the light of the code changes, just put the idae into that pot that we can come back to when everything else is done ;) cheers LeeVJ (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

missing border?

See here

Why would this template's upper-right hand corner's worth or border be missing? See the screenshot here. I refreshed this page several times, but can't see why it's screwing up here, but not on any other pages AFAICT. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It happens on a lot of articles, but I haven't had an opportunity to track down why. Gimmetrow 06:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Option for adding DYK hook

Resolved
 – Discussion moved to #Option for adding DYK hook (redux)

{{editprotected}}

Can this template be updated so that there is an option for displaying DYK hooks, as {{dyktalk}} now does? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have disabled the editprotected request as this request needs discussion and you need a specific description of the request with the edit protected template (ie specific code to add to the page). Regards, Woody (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've no problems discussing the request, but am not familiar enough with the workings of {{ArticleHistory}} to be in a position to suggest the specific code to be added to the template. I thought the request was fairly uncontroversial. The update to {{dyktalk}} that allows DYK hooks to be displayed as part of the template is a welcome innovation. Before the update, {{dyktalk}} merely stated that an interesting fact (or "hook") from the article had appeared on the main page's "Did you know?" section. There was no easy way to determine what the hook was, other than by trawling through the DYK archives. Allowing the hook to be set out in the {{dyktalk}} template (and, I would propose, in {{ArticleHistory}} as well) eliminates the problem and also satisfies readers' curiosity as to what the hook was. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I have just noticed that another editor has made a similar request at "DYK entry" above. I think it is advantageous to allow hooks to be displayed within {{ArticleHistory}} rather than relying on a separate {{dyktalk}} template since {{ArticleHistory}} is meant to replace other talk page templates such as {{dyktalk}}, {{GA}}, etc. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 20:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This template can link to the WP:DYKA subpage where the hook is already archived. Why do we need to have the hook text on the talk page of the article, too? Gimmetrow 22:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think there is an advantage to having the hook actually appear in the archive history to save readers from an extra click. But a link is better than nothing. I didn't realize it was possible to add a link. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 03:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes. And if the archives had anchor links for each set of DYK updates, the link pointing to the anchor would be pretty direct. See also User_talk:DYKBot#DYKtalk_templates and Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#DYK_articles_that_make_GA.2FFA. Gimmetrow 04:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, they don't. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 23:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Can someone add an action in Articles for deletion for speedy deletion. The obvious three-letter code would be CSD. Many articles have page histories that would be better clarified with such a code. Examples are Talk:Justine Ezarik and Talk:Jennifer Brunner. I am not sure what page to link to since information is generally only found in the page log.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see the need for this, we have articles accidentally put up for speedy deletion all the time and for the most part they are not relevant. Any article that gets so high up the food chain as to require an articlehistory template means that there are far more important things to be noted. I notice the Ezarik example has had afds: these are much more noteworthy than any csd. Regards. Woody (talk) 23:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a CSD is rarely significant to the history of an article, but CSD works as an action code. Gimmetrow 23:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point. Both articles have CSDs in their histories that are misrepresented as AFDs, which gives a false perception of their history. If Article History is suppose to give a snapshot of what has happened saying that a group of people agreed that something was to be speedily deleted is different than saying one individual did so. These are a few of the many articles affected by CSD.
I am not sure what Gimme is saying when he says CSD works as an action code? I don't see it in the template instructions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Groups of people don't nominate articles for cfd, if there is a discussion, it is a deletion discussion or a malformed afd. Gimme's point is that action1=csd works as an action code, it is just not in the instructions as no-one uses it. Woody (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I fully understand how rare it is when a CSD becomes an article with a relevant ArticleHistory template. You are making my point that things that are CSDed should not have AFD action codes. We need an instruction for CSD action code to explain the possible arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, a CSD action code is now an alias for AFD except that it displays something other than "Articles for deletion". If anyone wants to add that to the documentation, great. But please try to recall: this template originally collected links to reviews from a couple other templates, but it's slowly becoming the one template to collect everything and in the darkness bind them. Gimmetrow 01:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I was asking because Nate Parker, Manny Harris, Tory Burch, Justine Ezarik, John W. Rogers, Jr., and Jennifer Brunner all needed CSD actioncodes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Who usually writes the documentation for this template?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Glad we've solved the problem for those articles. I don't think the documentation is very actively maintained by anyone. Gimmetrow 01:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to do the documentation myself, but I do not understand the code and could not explain the possible arguments.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The "small" parameter

Has this been removed? It doesn't seem to be working presently. -- Banjeboi 01:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently had something to do with [2] Gimmetrow 01:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
That horrible discussion - OMG, brain hurt - can't think. In any case, it seems to have have either been fixed or otherwise unbroken. Thank you for whatever you did or undid! -- Banjeboi 01:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
[3] Gimmetrow 02:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
LOL! Ok, you get the job! Thanks again. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

GA/FFAC

Shouldn't there be a parameter for "current status" indicating that the article is a GA and was a former featured article candidate? There are options for former FAs that are now GAs, former FACs which aren't GAs, and GAs which aren't former FAs or FACs, so adding this would round out the history. -Drilnoth (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

When this was started, nobody seemed interested in tracking failed FACs for any reason, so there was no reason to track GAs with failed FACs (either before or after passing GA). We only have a FFA/GA status because there was interest in tracking all former featured articles. Gimmetrow 17:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay; I just thought I'd ask because I've seen quite a few articles with that combination, and there is the FFAC status already. Thanks! -Drilnoth (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Parameter for WikiProject collaborations?

How about adding a parameter for WikiProject collaborations? Some WikiProjects have templates that say "This article was a Collaboration of the Week." and those banners can take up a lot of space, so it would be nice to merge them into this template. Thoughts? Has this been discussed before? Gary King (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

These could be entered with the WPR action, with link going to the project. Would that work? Gimmetrow 12:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
That's what I've been doing, but it's just a workaround. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've added another option for "collaboration" as a result of a WPR, though it bothers me it's not a verb form like all the other results (reviewed, promoted, listed, etc.) Gimmetrow 19:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
It can be "collaborated". Gary King (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noted a couple of problems with the codes for featured portals. There are two classes for reviewing, Featured Portal Review and Featured Portal Deletion Candidate. Here are my problems:

  1. All of the other Featured X Removal Candidate codes use "FXR" format in the |action= field to denote this in the template, except Featured Portal which uses FPOR as its code. Shouldn't this field use the code "FPR" to denote Portals that have come up as a Wikipedia:Featured portal removal candidates? The same scan be said about the Featured portal candidates, shouldn't they use the "FPC" code? I understand what you are saying but the second problem still exists.
  2. To add to the confusion, in the documentation the "FPOR" code is described to be used to denote an article that underwent a featured portal review, yet when added to the template is states that the portal was a removal candidate which is a different thing. There needs to be a code for this as well, possibly "FPORV"?

Look at the Portal talk:Food and Portal talk:Wine pages to see what I mean.

Could some one please fix this?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 23:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

FAC and FAR codes are based on the WP:FAC and WP:FAR shortcuts. WP:FPOC is the shortcut for portal candidates. To be consistent and to avoid ambiguity with featured pictures (which may someday be supported by this template), I used FPO for the portal candidate and review codes. I'm not sure what you mean by a "deletion review" at either Portal talk:Food or Portal talk:Wine. Gimmetrow 00:02, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I copy edited my request, the Wine Portal underwent a Review so I used the code that the documentation says is for that process yet the template states that the portal was a deletion candidate. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Is the issue that the text says "Featured portal removal candidate" and it should say "Featured portal review"? The WP:FPRC page was called Wikipedia:Featured portal removal candidates when the codes here were added, although I see that the WP:FPRC page was moved. Gimmetrow 00:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the issue is that there is a two step process going on here. First the article is reviewed, the result of the review will determine whether the article will be nominated for removal as a featured portal. I believe that you need to add the intermediate stage to the process and correct the documentation.

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:45, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:FAR has the same two-stage process but doesn't use two codes in this template. Is there a reason portals need the extra complexity? Gimmetrow 01:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The processes are different, they shouldn't be grouped together under a single descriptor. It is confusing to readers, I know I was when I read one thing and got another that didn't describe what I wanted. --Jeremy (blah blah 03:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorization for "maindate"

I'd like to propose the following addition to the template code:

This would parallel the functionality of {{DYKtalk}} (Category:Wikipedia Did you know articles) and {{ITNtalk}} (Category:Wikipedia In the news articles).

I actually want this category for bot work, but it might as well be interesting for humans. The category could be hidden if that is preferred.

Any opinions? --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me (disclaimer: I requested the bot work). Besides allowing automated alerting of WikiProjects, this would also let us do some statistical modeling on what kinds of articles we put on the main page, which might be interesting to the people at WP:TFAR. I would support this being a hidden category. Kaldari (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
A category is easy to add. Just settle on a name. Gimmetrow 01:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
If Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page is too long, we could do something like Category:Articles featured on main page. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Although the first suggestion is rather long, it does describe what's being categorized better; the second name could also be interpreted to apply to article appearing in DYKs, ITNs, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Good point. In that case, does anyone object to using the original suggestion: Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page? Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

New status needed: FFA/DGA

Some articles, such as Mitochondrial Eve, have lost both FA and GA status. I don't see a way to mark these other than plain FFA. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, just FFA. See also #GA.2FFFAC above. Gimmetrow 13:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

maindate2

Can a "maindate2" parameter be added to mirror the functionality of "itndate2"? I know of at least one article that has been Today's Featured Article twice. Mike R (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

No need. There is only one such article and it has been dealt with. Gimmetrow 16:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I want to see "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 18, 2004 and again on November 4, 2008." on Talk:Barack Obama, but all I see is "This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 4, 2008." Mike R (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Move?

Shouldn't this be moved to Template:Article history, to be more inline with other templates, such as {{Article issues}}? –Drilnoth (T • C) 13:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes please. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? What problem is its current name causing that outweighs the new difficulties a move would cause? Gimmetrow 02:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Like? —Ms2ger (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Why? You are welcome to call {{Article history}} just the same as {{ArticleHistory}} or {{Articlehistory}}. Dan, the CowMan (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
By the same logic, why not? —Ms2ger (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
You're asking for a change which you expect me to implement and maintain. Kinda doesn't make this situation quite parallel, ya know? Gimmetrow 23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

PROD

Above at Template_talk:ArticleHistory#Speedy_Deletion, I had pointed out that I had taken several articles up the food chain from CSD deletions to GAs such as Nate Parker, Manny Harris, Tory Burch, Justine Ezarik, John W. Rogers, Jr., and Jennifer Brunner. You informed me that action1=csd works as an action code. Now, I need you to add PROD as a working deletion action code.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

What sort of "result" would a prod have? Would it have the same or a subset of the CSD results? Gimmetrow 05:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
From what I understand it would.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
FYI, this was done in March. Gimmetrow 23:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Phrasing for DGA

For delisted Good Articles, the message is as follows:

'''{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}''' was one of the {{GA/Topic|{{{topic|}}}}} good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

What suggestions below are being alluded to? This may be a hangover from when GARs appeared directly on the talkpages instead of on dedicated subpages; does anyone object to rewording it accordingly? Skomorokh 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

It presumably refers to the discussions linked in the events list. There shouldn't be any recent delists without at least some discussion/explanation somewhere (including the article talk page). Gimmetrow 05:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

uncollapsed

Would it be/is it possible to implement an option to make the table uncollapsed by default. For articles which have been nominated multiple times already on AfD for example, it helps to have this very visible on the talk page, rather than in a collapsed table... --Reinoutr (talk) 13:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

This template was designed to make talk pages less cluttered. Uncollapsed doesn't make any difference to me (I routinely browse without javascript), but it's not what people wanted. Gimmetrow 05:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Switch query: MERGE?

I would like to document an unsuccessful Merge proposal using this template, but there doesn't seem to be a parameter for that. Would it be possible to add one (or to add something that would show for "nonstandard" actions)? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge is a result code for FAR, FLR and AFD. Gimmetrow 05:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Punctutation

{{editprotected}} Can someone please change

{{#ifeq: {{{ftmain|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''"[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ftname}}}|{{{ftname}}}]]" series''', a {{FeaturedTopicSum|{{{ftname}}}|[[Wikipedia:Featured topics|featured topic]]|[[Wikipedia:Good topics|good topic]]}}. {{#if: {{{ft2name|}}}|It is also {{#ifeq:{{{ft2main|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''"[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ft2name}}}|{{{ft2name}}}]]" series''', {{FeaturedTopicSum|{{{ft2name}}}|a featured topic|a [[Wikipedia:Good topics|good topic]]}}. {{#if: {{{ft3name|}}}|It is also {{#ifeq:{{{ft3main|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''"[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ft3name}}}|{{{ft3name}}}]]" series''', {{FeaturedTopicSum|{{{ft3name}}}|a featured topic|a [[Wikipedia:Good topics|good topic]]}}. {{#if: {{{ft4name|}}}|It is also {{#ifeq:{{{ft4main|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''"[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ft4name}}}|{{{ft4name}}}]]" series''',

to

{{#ifeq: {{{ftmain|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ftname}}}|{{{ftname}}}]] series''', a {{FeaturedTopicSum|{{{ftname}}}|[[Wikipedia:Featured topics|featured topic]]|[[Wikipedia:Good topics|good topic]]}}. {{#if: {{{ft2name|}}}|It is also {{#ifeq:{{{ft2main|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ft2name}}}|{{{ft2name}}}]] series''', {{FeaturedTopicSum|{{{ft2name}}}|a featured topic|a [[Wikipedia:Good topics|good topic]]}}. {{#if: {{{ft3name|}}}|It is also {{#ifeq:{{{ft3main|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ft3name}}}|{{{ft3name}}}]] series''', {{FeaturedTopicSum|{{{ft3name}}}|a featured topic|a [[Wikipedia:Good topics|good topic]]}}. {{#if: {{{ft4name|}}}|It is also {{#ifeq:{{{ft4main|}}}|yes|the main article in|part of}} the '''[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/{{{ft4name}}}|{{{ft4name}}}]] series''',

This removes the incorrect quotation marks. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 22:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Next time please put the proposed version on the sandbox, thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do! Reywas92Talk 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

On this day

Can Template:OnThisDay be worked into this template? It looks like it could appear in the template similar to the way that DYK is formatted? Has there been opposition/discussion on this in the past? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it could/should be shoved in this template when possible. Free free to make it compatible.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to it being handled like ITN, which appears as a note after the event list. See the testcases if that's not clear. Gimmetrow 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't really care how it's handled, it's mainly used for populating Category:Selected anniversaries and their link to the OnThisDay revision which was in effect at the time. If it doesn't appear in 50pt italicized, bolded, and underlined Comic Sans font with a 30000 px × 30000 px picture of Desmond Tutu's left nostril, chances are I'll be happy with what you've done.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Is this easy to format into the template or do we need further input from other editors to make this change? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Is a merge tag/straw poll needed, or can it just be worked into the template? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Just shove it in, no one will cry, it's only been around for the last month or so. The template is mainly used to give link to archived version of selected anniversaries and populate archive categories. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If someone wants to take the current version of the code to the sandbox and add the coding like ITN, go for it. Gimmetrow 05:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I looked at the coding, and it's definitely over my head. If anybody else can make the change, it'd be appreciated. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added support for OTD to the sandbox per suggestions above to handle it like ITN; see Template:ArticleHistory/testcases#On this day... testcases. I'm not sure how best to integrate the categorisation from {{OnThisDay}}, though. Anyone else fancy having a go? PC78 (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice job. What's wrong with the categorization? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
What I've coded will allow for up to two OTD dates and add pages to Category:Selected anniversaries articles. {{OnThisDay}} allows for up to fifty dates and further subcategorises by date. If you wanted to replace a transclusion of {{OnThisDay}} with {{ArticleHistory}} (which I assume is the reason behind this request) then this functionality will need to be carried over. PC78 (talk) 23:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything being done about this? I'd like to see OTN in this template, too. Gary King (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not doing any more work on it. The code I wrote in the sandbox works well enough in it's own limited way, but to properly duplicate what {{OnThisDay}} does will require a more adept code than myself. PC78 (talk) 11:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the secret sauce is in Template:OnThisDay/link; I'll get around to it if I have time, but I've been spending way too much time in templates lately and so I'll wait a bit before I get back there. If nobody does it then I'll certainly do it soon, though. Gary King (talk) 15:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate you guys taking a look at it. I tried for about 30 seconds and figured I'd let more knowledgeable editors take the task on. Hopefully we can then get a bot to move these over once the code is ready. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 17:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Has there been any progress with the code? I'd love to see this implemented. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
The sandbox code was copied over on 14 August 2009 by Gimmetrow. It allows for |otddate1= |otddate2= |otdlink=. Woody (talk) 14:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Couldn't we implement | otd1oldid = parameters to preserve the full functionality of {{OnThisDay}}? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Talk page layout

You guys might want to take a look at this discussion. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 12:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggested change of wording

{{editprotected}} When an article has failed a GA nomination, the template currently states (for example): "[Name of article] was a nominee for Social sciences and society good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. ..." That isn't grammatical. I'd suggest that it be changed to "[Name of article] was a Social sciences and society good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. ..." — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 07:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 06:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Date format

Why does this template (or rather {{historyoutput}}) output all dates in the American mmmm dd yyyy format? I thought it was possible now to set date formats according to user preference. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Uncollapsed (2)

I agree that this should be uncollapsed by default. You save tons of space by condensing all the boxes into a list. But then taking that list and hiding it saves a very tiny amount of space. It's not worth it.

In any case, I think this is often one of the most important things on the talk page. Knowing an article's history gives you an immediate understanding of what its level of quality is – if it was made a FA in 2009, it's probably excellent; if it was made a GA in 2007, it probably needs a lot of work, etc. This information's very useful, and it's usually not more than a few lines. Hiding it doesn't save enough space to justify it... I wonder if you might reconsider. —Noisalt (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It's always been collapsed and it's pretty easy and evident that all you need to do is click "show" to see the goods. When {{articlehistory}} is used, there's nearly always a bunch of other templates as well, and space is indeed a concern.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Space is indeed a concern," why? The size of the list is trivial. Nothing's made more difficult by showing it. —Noisalt (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The size of the list is not trivial, otherwise we'd have no problem having the list's text at size 14 double spaced. Templates of convenience should be as unintrusive as possible, while templates carrying information should be as intrusive as the importance of the information carried.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and this is important information. There's really no reason to hide it at all. —Noisalt (talk) 01:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Take a look at Talk:Barack Obama, Talk:Inauguration of Barack Obama; those lists aren't small and trivial. Articlehistory can display up to 18 now and many use this amount of actions. As headbomb says there is no need to have this uncollapsed automatically especially as the idea around this template is to reduce talkpage clutter. Regards Woody (talk) 10:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
So hide it on Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Inauguration of Barack Obama. You can have it uncollapsed by default and collapsed in cases where it's overwhelming. Just like we do with Wikiproject banners. —Noisalt (talk) 11:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be collapsed by default. Talk pages are mainly for discussion and not for exhibiting templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I think it's fine to have it collapsed by default. However, I can certainly understand the argument for having it uncollapsed by default since in most cases, there are only one or two lines in the template; but the template is already uncollapsed when there is only one line in there, so it's not all bad. The reason that it collapses at two lines or more is because that's when the template's header is added, along with the column headings, so that takes up a fairly big chunk of space. Gary King (talk) 15:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article assessment

Is this old process covered at all by the template? Currently it seems to be covered by {{assessed}} but looks like it could be integrated here - rst20xx (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems like WPR would suffice for this? I think that that field is flexible enough to be used for reviews and such like this. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

date error in action1date param

In the action1date parameter, if you include a comma when using dmy format, it shows the current year, not the year in the parameter. e.g. for this diff

[4], the value 14 July, 2007 displayed as July 14, 2009. Removing the comma fixed the problem,[5] albeit that the date still shows in U.S. format. I'm not sure if this is a fault of the template or its usage, as commas should not be used in dmy format dates. --Jameboy (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

This template uses the #time function, which has that bug. Gimmetrow 08:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

File history for images

Resolved

Is there an appropriate template such as {{ArticleHistory}} for files. I am attempting to preserve the history of Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_11#File:Pokerstars_20051215_Check.jpg at File:Pokerstars 20051215 Check.jpg. The WP:FFD was closed as no consensus, but Keegan (talk · contribs) who is an oversighter deleted the file due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy with notice to me to black out or omit private data. I would like to properly document the history of this file on its page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

This template system includes a code IFD, similar to AFD. Is that what you want? Codes for the featured processes for files/images were never implemented, in part because these files often reside on commons. Gimmetrow 08:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I am having trouble getting the syntax right because there is no syntax documentation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
It is now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OTD oldids and other languages...

I have several suggestions for this template...

The "On this day..." parts (and probably other similar ones, like DTK) need a lot of revision to look more like the corresponding template. With otddate=2008-04-14 and otdlink=Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/April 14, the current version comes out as (without the underlining):

The biggest problems here are:

  1. That word "column" needs to change to "section". The template code in that section isn't being used generically for other sections, so that's no problem....
  2. It's ridiculous that you have to type in the "Wikipedia:Selected_anniversaries/" part for the otdlink. That can be build in, and, again, it's not being used for other paramenters....
  3. The biggest problem, I think, is that there's no otd-oldid parameter! In the corresponding template, the part I've underlined is liked to the old version of that page using the oldid. This is a good feature for several reasons, especially because there's already a link to the current version too.

The other thing that really should be incorporated is the article's FA status in other lanuages. See WikiProject Echo for more details about this, and check out Template:FAOL. It'd be a very useful thing to have in this box...less page clutter!!!

I might try playing around a bit in a sandbox, but I've never worked with templates before, so I'm REALLY not comfortable with doing it myself! Any volunteers...? — Skittleys (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, is it possible to set multiple parameters for otd? For example, Che Guevara has been used in On this day three times. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Article_history/Archive_4&oldid=1138524381"