Template talk:Historical

Remove the category

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)[reply]

Good idea, but it would require you (or someone at any rate) to sift through the entire what links here section to re-add some kind of cat to the historical pages. R adiant _* 12:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC) I agree with Beland. I've removed the cat, since it clutters up cat:historical. R adiant _* 11:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

parameterized version?

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a statement in the infobox directing the reader to whatever newer page/policy/category/list/whatever it is which has superseded the "historical" one?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)[reply]

Possible, but why not simply say so below the template? Something like this:

----
For a new guideline covering the topic of this historical text see [[WP:XYZ]]
----

Omniplex 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tone of tag

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)[reply]

Yeah... trouble with that is, this template is on a lot of pages that really are historical, and really don't need further debate. And I don't see what the exclamation mark is exclaiming about. These pages are pretty dead and buried, on the whole – Gurch 20:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And "hasn't been edited in a long time" isn't necessarily the case, either. Having no edits for a long time doesn't always mean a page can be tagged as historical, and nor is the reverse true. Apart from anything else, if you tag the page, you've just edited it, which doesn't make sense – Gurch 20:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I am unaware of having placed the template on talk pages; it probably shouldn't be on any talk pages. Generally I only put it on "proposed" pages where debate has died down without a clear conclusion, and sometimes on process pages that are deprecated. The intent of the tag is not, and has never been, to discourage discussion, and I have no objection to rewording it to make that clearer. >Radiant< 13:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. The tag is present on a small number of talk pages, most of which were used as pseudo project pages.

2. The {{historical}} tag should not be applied to proposals that failed to generate any consensus. Such pages should be tagged {{rejected}}. Quoth Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines:

A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected.

—David Levy 13:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, but it is sometimes unclear whether a proposal was not consensual. If there is little response, is that lack of dissent or lack of advertising? If a page was on the right track but debate just died out, is that lack of consensus or a constructive debate that was temporarily suspended? Note that people sometimes get upset if a page is tagged "historical" (omg! you're telling us to stfu!!!11), and some people get really upset if a page they worked on is tagged "rejected" unless there was a clear and visible majority in disagreement (and sometimes even then, people insist that they can propose it again and again). Therefore I tend to avoid "rejected" except on pages that are really extremely bad ideas. >Radiant< 14:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, Wikipedia consensus cannot exist without agreement among a significant (with respect to the context) number of people. This can be established via discussion or common convention, but it must be established. The possibility that consensus could be established doesn't change the fact that it hasn't been.

Nonetheless, there is a legitimate distinction to be drawn, so I've created a new tag for proposals that never reached any sort of consensus. —David Levy 14:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical-stats-update ?

I am tagging some old pages in 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)[reply]

This article or section about Wikipedia statistics contains obsolete data. The following statistics have not been updated for many months or years and are kept primarily for historical interest. Please archive old data and update the article with more recent ones.

X

I prefer a red X to a black one. Matter of aesthetics, mostly. >Radiant< 15:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree, I thought perhaps an article had been mis-tagged originally, until I happened to take a look at the template and noticed that it had been changed. Anyone object to my being bold and changing it back? ^demon^{[omg plz]} 13:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't. I also prefer the red icon. I replaced it with the black version in a second attempt to address SilkTork's above complaint. As you guys agree that the red icon is fine, I'll change it back. —David Levy 14:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I see that Radiant already did. I switched to the custom PNG that matches the dimensions/styling of our other icons. —David Levy 14:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have several red X icons now? :) >Radiant< 14:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2006, I created Image:Red x.png as a slightly modified version of Gmaxwell's Image:X mark.svg. I changed the aspect ratio from 1:1.14 to 1:1 (the same as the checkmarks used in the other header templates) and tweaked the background transparency for compatibility with Internet Explorer 6. Subsequently, WarX replaced the SVG with a fancier (and larger) version, so I re-uploaded the original as Image:Red x.svg.

As a result, Image:X mark.svg is rendered by MediaWiki as a PNG that differs from our other main header icons both in aspect ratio and in style. Also, the background is not transparent for most users.

But that's probably more than you wanted to know. :-) —David Levy 14:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wording

I tend to agree with Centrx that the more concise wording is better. >Radiant< 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you have a suggestion for a better term, I'd be happy to hear it. >Radiant< 08:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for usage of this template?

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)[reply]

As a rule of thumb, about a month with no active discussion, or earlier if there's hardly any community reaction at all. Of course people are free to re-start active discussion. >Radiant< 12:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well some guidlines for utilization are in order here. There are many similarities between this tag and {{rejected}} and because that is the case it is sensible that some ground rules be laid out about when to employ this template lest editors become unecessarily antagonized when faced with a page they've worked on suddenly being tagged as "historical". (→Netscott) 12:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yawn. I give you the answer you want and you respond by making snide remarks. Come back when you're interested in WP:CIVil discourse. >Radiant< 13:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Snide? Wrong, just utilizing a good example of how mis-utilization of this type of template can foster contempt in other editors. Ergo, guidelines for usage are needed. (→Netscott) 13:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Historical-User

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)[reply]

We can probably add a parameter to {{historical}} - and you can get your subpages deleted if you want. >Radiant< 10:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Well, I'm an administrator, I restored the page so I could mark it with this. I want people to see what a poor idea it was. Can you make the whole body of the text change with a new parameter to what it is on my template? Grandmasterka 10:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, right :) I meant we could use some namespace detection for "this <foo> page is historical". But it may not be worth the fuss. >Radiant< 10:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can't just drop out

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)[reply]

Updating template

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)

Improper use

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 amoungst 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)[reply]

The link is outdated.

There's no "Historical" section on WP:Policies and Guidelines.----occono (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

category=no or categories=no ?

The /doc says:

Pages using this template will be placed into Category:Inactive project pages unless the parameter 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)[reply]