Jump to content

Template talk:Article history

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gimmetrow (talk | contribs) at 01:58, 5 February 2023 (→‎HTML comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Remove small

I'd like to make the suggestion that we remove the |small= parameter in the template. Given the content, it simply doesn't look pretty at "small" size. Furthermore, it's used by approximately 21 pages out of the 45k on which it appears. That's in the 15 years (since creation!) it's had the option to be small. Izno (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RM

Can this template be modified to include requested moves? Would help consolidate a lot of article history information on pages with contentious titles, e.g. Uyghur genocide — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the purpose (why not figure out how to collapse those requested moves); there are other things needed to clean up that talk page. The AFD can be merged to AH, and there is template overkill on the disruptive end. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, just in general, it would be useful and make sense since RM's are often part of the article's history; I don't want it added just to fix that page. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doing so would explode the template, and requested moves have nothing to do with article assessment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits, AFD, PROD, ITN, CSD, and OTD have nothing to do with article assessment either, yet they are all in the template. What do you mean by "explode the template"? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyedits are certainly to do with assessment, it's one of the steps towards GA. AFD and PROD show that the article has been rescued in some manner. ITN and OTD show that it was good enough to be mentioned on the main page (they reject poor-quality articles). CSD isn't part of article history - if it is, I don't recall seeing it. Do you have an example? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think GOCE should be there either; copyediting is a routine part of article development, not a "processs" like GA, FAC, ITN, AFD, etc.
What I mean by "explode the template" is that we no longer have what we had back when we designed this template (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches), meaning, Gimmebot, which via User:Gimmetrow made sure that every process that used AH was processed by bot in to the template. We now have no single bot or person doing what GimmeBot did, and we have a hodgepodge of various bots not doing even a part of what GimmeBot did. With me running around behind a few of them to do cleanup.
Until we can maintain what we have, we shouldn't be adding to it; and adding Requested moves will give every crazy discussion a spot in AH, making it hard to find that which matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: CSD and the rest of the deletion processes are listed at {{Article history}}'s documentation, under "Deletion processes". — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

shrunken width

For articles with only history items, why has the template now shrunken width-wise as at Talk:Cia Berg, Talk:Killing of Ashli Babbitt, and Talk:Linda Skitka? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be recent changes to Module:Message box/tmbox.css by Izno (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly, but thanks for the ping. Should be able to sort this shortly. Izno (talk) 06:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Shouldn't have any more of that particular issue pop up. Izno (talk) 07:23, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, Izno! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 13:59, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Readership

Thinking out loud here, I'm curious if there's any interest in possibly folding Template:Annual readership into the "Article history" template. I don't mean a merge, I just mean a way to optionally display readership stats in the template. Thoughts? Concerns? ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern, per MOS:COLLAPSE things should not be collapsed by default. If we're thinking of collapsing information by default, I'd question the need for said template/info in the first place. It's not just from an accessibility point of view, but also thinking about UX >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown icon

At Talk:COVID-19 pandemic, the article history template currently includes this icon in the upper left: . However, there's no tooltip, destination link (beyond the file page), or other indication of what it represents. The file is File:Nuvola apps kedit.svg, and looking at Module:Article history/config it seems like maybe it's for peer review or "NA"? Could the design please be adjusted, through adding either a tooltip or destination link or maybe something else, to make its purpose clear? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the module config, "Peer review is a valid current status, but it doesn't trigger a header row" (for PR). Same is true for NA. No comment on usefulness or what can replace it (just commenting from a technical perspective). Primefac (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Soft deletions and refunds

Is there any way to apply this template to be used for outcomes such as WP:SOFTDELETEs and WP:REFUND? PROD deletions are essentially "soft deletions" and articles deleted via PROD can be "refunded" without needing to go to WP:DRV. Soft deletion is also an option for AfDs where there's been minimal participation per WP:NOQUORUM and these too can be refunded without needing to go to DRV. It seems like it would be helpful if such outcomes could also be somehow handled by this template. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add topic parameter to the simple example

Many times when users convert article history to this template, they leave out the |topic parameter, which is needed for the GA text to work properly. As this template is often used to handle multiple GAN attempts, I have added it to the "simple use" below the |current_status parameter. CMD (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that makes sense, as action1 (simple case) is rarely GAN, and topic isn't needed until GAN ... this may make editors think they have to navigate the GAN pages to figure out which topic to use even when there is no GAN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to @Chipmunkdavis: to be sure you see post above ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the need to add the topic parameter be dealt with on the GAN end of things? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is already done in the GAN end of things, and is invariably in the GAN templates. For some reason many editors converting to Article History delete that field completely rather than putting it into the Article History template. CMD (talk) 05:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Why are editors converting GANs to AH manually? GimmeBot used to do that for the GA process (in fact, for all processes) and FACbot does it for FACs ... I'm just worried that topic is really not needed for anything but GAN, so is not the simple case, and may confuse more people than it helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why any editor does it individually, and don't wish to pick on specific examples as it is a common problem. I catch them due to having Category:Good articles without topic parameter on my watchlist. If the inclusion is misleading, are there alternatives that might help? Could the parameter be renamed "GA_topic"? CMD (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Actually ... that may be a good solution. To my knowledge, no other process uses the topic parameter, so specifying that it's only needed for GAN may clear that up. I just don't want editors to think they have to go looking for GAN topics, as I find them impenetrable. I check the AH errors category every day, and fix about five a week, and missing topic is not a common error I find (maybe because you are getting all of them?). As to why no one has yet replaced what GimmeBot did, I wish I knew. GimmeBot processed *all* processes into AH every day; since Gimmetrow was chased off, no single bot has done for any individual process what Gimme did for all processes ... and we are back to having talk pages filled with unprocessed and incorrect templates. I correct every FAR, but gave up on correcting every FAC, and often see unprocessed ITNs, OTDs, AFDs, DYKs, and GANs. I don't know how to request changing the parameter to GA topic ... Gimmme used to do all this stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want editors to have to go sift through the various archaic GA topics (although we can finally edit those now, after many years!), I want editors who have a GA template which already has the topic in the code to simply copy that code into the Article History template. Regarding the coding change, to my understanding it should theoretically be easy to add synonyms for |topic, but that would need someone more fluent in wikicode. CMD (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure who to recommend ... if I knew, we'd have a new gimmebot by now, and we wouldn't have to process GANs manually, and we wouldn't have the missing topic problem at all, and I wouldn't be spending hours and hours folding dozens of OTDs into AH :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand the issue. I don't see discussion of the GA topic on this template's documentation. In the "more complex uses" there's a topic field in the third group of parameters -- is that the GA topic? I found out in this discussion about Module:Good article topics and Module:Good article topics/data; does article history check against that list? I'm not yet ready for ChristieBot to take over GimmeBot's old tasks, if that's the question. So far all that ChristieBot does with regard to article history is check article talk pages when updating a pass or fail to see if the page has already been updated with the GAN result, so that it doesn't complain when e.g. adding oldids. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie I have found that what is most often missed is OTD, and it is VERY hard to convert, as they use a different format for the date and oldid than AH does ... in case you're looking for a task to add :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For example, see here, where I have to manually adjust 20 parameters. This is standard for OTD on talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one day, but not yet! CMD, reading the above again, are you asking if it would be OK to add an alias "GA_topic" to the article history parameter "topic"? If so I'm the wrong person to ask; I don't do much template coding. Currently ChristieBot does not look at that parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input Mike, I wasn't asking you to take over GimmeBot! I'm looking for a way to prevent the GA topic being dropped when this template is created. Probably easier to find a template coding solution than to make a bot specifically do this. (Although if a new Article history bot is created, this would be one thing it should look at.) CMD (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, OK. I was being slow. Yes, an AH bot would want to look at this. I think the recently created GAN review tool is just a script; you might ask whoever wrote it if they could come up with a script that would fix it, though I'm not sure that's possible as they might have to go to a previous revision of the page to get the topic. At least that would make it a one-click solution on each page you have to fix it on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The FACBot folds in GA, AFD, ITN, OTD and DYK when an article is promoted to Featured. I did have a run that would do it more widely, but like Mike I ran into a lot of trouble with malformed (or oddly-formed) dates. On every occurrence I would have to instruct the Bot script on how to deal with them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, when did you add OTD processing to FACbot ? As an example from November 19, 2022, here I merge OTDs on a recently closed FAR. I routinely find and do these on every closed FAR (I used to do every closed FAC, but it became too much work for me to do manually). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. The code is there alright. I will investigate why it did not work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx! I got very busy IRL and stopped pinging you when I noticed issues ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Looks like I told the FACBot to do it for FAC but not FAR. Added to FAR. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic maindate

We now have a "database" of past and upcoming TFA appearances: Template:TFA title/data.json, so it should be possible to generate the maindate values based on that. Legoktm (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Idea has potential. Could work by using the page name to look up the maindate from that list. One issue is that the data would need to be maintained for page moves, which it currently is not. Gimmetrow 05:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove some styles to improve mobile version

Please remove the following fragment:

@media (min-width: 720px) {
	.article-history {
		width: 80%;
	}
}

These styles are not necessary on desktop (tmbox already has styles to set it to 80% width), and cause this template to display at an unusually narrow width in the new version of mobile talk pages (visit e.g. [1] on your desktop and click "Learn more about this page" to see). Matma Rex talk 09:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually the entire page. Pinging @Izno who created it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This new Vector thingie is so dismal that I can't actually figure out how to get the talk page, or the article history, to show when accessing Wikipedia logged out from my phone ... could someone fill me in, so I can see what the problem is? Right now, I can not even figure out what buttons to push on an article talk page to be able to see the talk page. AH is showing fine for me on an iPad and regular computer (Google Chrome), but I stuck with the Monobook skin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... I may (or may not) have pushed the right button, where I see that neither article history nor {{talk header}} are displaying correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it sounds like you got to where Matma wanted you to go. Izno (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I think (??? Don't take my word for it, lost in space), there is also a problem at talk header and a problem with the FAQ at Talk:J. K. Rowling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: This was done because of #shrunken width. I don't remember why that fixed it but it did, and I assume that issue was being encountered on desktop. Izno (talk) 00:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Basically, mbox relies on some old hacky behavior that I'd really rather not have to care about, but that's in the "when I get around to fixing mbox to not use tables anymore" pile.) Izno (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno Hmph, can we use min-width instead of width then? Matma Rex talk 09:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex, because I don't know better, how is min-width going to help here that width isn't helpful with? Izno (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno In the new mobile interface, where the margins are overridden to 0, it will allow the template to take the full width, instead of only 80%. Visit e.g. [2] on your desktop and click "Learn more about this page" to see the currently existing problem. Matma Rex talk 11:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex, thinking about it a bit more thoroughly, I think this is an artifact of testing the mobile website on desktop. I don't see an issue if I make the resolution 719px on desktop (particularly using console), even under your requested testing condition. I don't think changing it to min-width is a big deal after some thought, but I think you're also definitely in edge case territory for most people.
Actually, I rather think the bug here is that the other tmboxes on the page at desktop resolution aren't taking the directed margin: 4px 10% from the TemplateStyles which Firefox console shows is the active margin (you seem to suggest otherwise with where the margins are overridden to 0). Every tmbox with ?dtenable=1 should be exhibiting the behavior of article history (and talk header, where I've just noticed Template talk:Talk header#Remove some styles to improve mobile version). I think this may be a happy misfeature given the fixed width of the modal, but something isn't jiving in the above story. Izno (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno I am testing the mobile feature on desktop, because that's how (I expect) Wikipedia editors will test it once it's released, and I don't want it to look half-baked like a certain other recently released feature. You're completely right that this doesn't matter for actual users, except a tiny group using tablets.
The margins are overridden with some !important rules in the Minerva skin: [3], as is the width below 719px: [4]. I would like tmbox not to rely on that (I think I saw you mention somewhere that you'd like to make it stop using tables, which will break this), but I don't think I dare propose that, given how much effort it is to get even much simpler changes approved. Matma Rex talk 23:27, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex, oh no, using flex or grid is definitely an involved change that I'm not expecting to entertain exactly right now, as it's mixed up with changing it for all the kinds of mboxes as well as the handful of templates (mostly tmbox styles) that aren't using the relevant module today (really, the reason I haven't jumped on it is phab:T282588 because depending on the skin I get super different behavior even with the workaround I bump into regularly, never mind the !important that Minerva drops on it).
Yeah, never mind me about the margin-right/left, I was not parsing the existence of the strike out for the relevant rule at all.
I'll add min-width for the handful of templates of interest. Izno (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno I see you've changed a couple, thanks. Can you also do it for Template:Talk header/styles.css? Matma Rex talk 23:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, the T282588 issue affects the current templates with tables as well, not just flex layouts. Compare [5] to [6] – the images on "Doctor Who is a former featured article", "This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects" and "This article is written in British English" are missing, because they get squished to zero size. Matma Rex talk 23:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Matma Rex, small comfort. :) Izno (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HTML comments

The documentation includes "DO NOT put HTML comments inside this template". There are comments in this template at Talk:Holocaust and Talk:New York Yankees; I had to temporarily remove them to process those pages with a bot. Why are comments forbidden? What problems do they cause? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it had to do with parsing the parameters. Can't recall specifically what could happen, but my bot would renumber actions to put them in order, and action parameters inside a comment could result in duplicate actionnumbers if de-commented. Gimmetrow 01:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request

At least one small piece of talk page clutter: Bot request. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Article_history&oldid=1137520937"