Template talk:Article history/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Error tracking

Starting this to track errors so we can better educate:

1. B-class assessment added to currentstatus. [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2. Vandalism/nonsense added to talk page: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
3. Added "N/A" as result: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
4. B-class assessment added to currentstatus. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Empty articlehistory template added: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Empty articlehistory template (and current process FLC) added: [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Incorrect order and current process (FAC) added: [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Random nonsense/vandalism by IP. [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Removing event. [9] Gimmetrow 08:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
10. Vandalism. [10] Gimmetrow 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
11. Annoying typo. [11] Gimmetrow 00:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    uh, oh, that was me ! But how come it didn't trigger an error? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

    Because the link is not a required field. Gimmetrow 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

12. Vandalism? [12] Gimmetrow 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Current processes added

1. Current process (FAC) incorrectly added to articlehistory: [13] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Current process (FAR) incorrectly added to articlehistory: [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Current process (FLC) incorrectly added to articlehistory: [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
4. Current process (GAN) incorrectly added to articlehistory: [16] [17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Current process (FAC) incorrectly added to articlehistory: [18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
6. Current process (FAC) incorrectly added to articlehistory: [19] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
7. FAC. [20] Gimmetrow 19:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
8. GAN et al. [21] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

GA errors

1. Wrong term used on GA promotion: [22][23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
2. Run of the mill GA error [24] and failure to add in DYK.[25] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
3. Incomplete GA passing, no edit summary, took a long time to track down. [26] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
4. What is the difference between topic and gacat, pls inform GA editors. [27] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
5. Simple typo in GAR, reminder to check bottom of page for errors when done:[28] [29] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

   Sorry. Just saw this. :/ I'll check for the error from now on. :) Lara♥Love 07:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

   Not to worry, Lara, the idea is to track trends to see if we need to make any changes/improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

6. Incorrect GA delisting: [30] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
7. Incorrect GA listing: [31] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
8. Incorrect GA listing, typo in result, and listed as both GA and FGAN: [32] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
9. Incorrect GA listing, where is a list of correct topic abbreviatoins? [33] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

   Edit {{GA/Topic}} and look at the options. Turns out they allow other phrases than the standard abbreviations. Now this template calls {{GA/Topic}} and if it doesn't get any text back, it generates an error. Gimmetrow 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

   Thanks; I wasn't always sure how to fix them, so I had to dig around in other GAs until I found one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

10. Incorrect GA listing, pass instead of listed: [34] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
11. Incorrect GA delisting: [35] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
12. Incorrect GA passing, wrong date and ??? no caps on topics? [36] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

    This one wasn't generating an AH error at the time. It was probably in the error category because the editor had originally used a variation of "pass" that isn't accepted, then fixed it, but it can take a while for pages to disappear from the category cache. The real problem was using the date of GA nomination rather than listing for that action. This is confusing to more than a few people. You can capitalize the topic or not as you wish; I think most instances have them capitalized. Gimmetrow 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

13. Misuse of gacat and confusion with topic. (Hopefully this will be rare now that gacat is out of the docs; it shouldn't have been there to begin with.) [37] Gimmetrow 02:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
14. Improper delisting, empty currentstatus not generate error, perhaps it should. [38] Gimmetrow 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
15. GAR used for GAN, also improper link. [39] Gimmetrow 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
16. Conversion of {{GA}} using gacat rather than topic (though "Miscellaneous" should never be used as a topic for a GA...) [40]. Gimmetrow 00:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
17. Using "passed" for a GAN result [41]. If this is happening often, is there a reason not to allow this? Gimmetrow 00:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

    Passed doesn't really explain what happened. Applicable fields would be kept, listed, or delisted. Lara♥ 20:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    GAN, not GAR. Gimmetrow 20:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

    Oh, just kidding. It's dumbasses like me that cause these errors (obviously, see error 5). :p So yea, disregard. Passed/failed should work. That makes sense. *Leaves room with rosey cheeks* LaraLove♥ 04:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been fixing so many GA errors on articlehistory lately that I've stopped tracking them. By the time I fix them and notify the editors, I've spent way too much time on a process I don't even participate in; it's frustrating. What can be done to get GA reviewers to read the instructions here? They constantly add blank events or invalid parameters or any number of strange things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I know I screwed up one time, I thought I had it, and that wsa my fault. But is it possible to get a bot like SineBot that catches any AH changes that result in an error and put a talk page warning on the editor pages? Sinebot gets its job done pretty fast, so... --MASEM 03:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the real problem is, it's a new editor that needs to be informed every day (that's the way GA is, I guess). If they would just be told to scroll to the bottom of the talk page to see the red error category lit up, and if I had a subst message to automatically inform them and direct them to the instructions here, it wouldn't be so time consuming. I don't think we want a bot notifying them when they've done it wrong, because they might not get it right unless someone leads them through it. It would help if they would simply check the bottom of the talk page for the error category, and then if they don't know how to fix it, they can ask here; that way they'll learn what to do next time. But I suspect that problem is that, since anyone can pass a GA, there's no way to make sure each new reviewer is reading the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

(undent) GA needs a training process. This should be a prominent item within that initiative. --Ling.Nut 14:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you noticed; if I sound frustrated, it's only because I am :-) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I sympathise a great deal: I can see from the list above that this is generating too much tedious work. I've looked through and have a few comments.

• Maybe the template itself should display a request to check for the error category?
• This template is one of the most thoroughly error-checked templates I have seen. Hats off to Gimmetrow for such impressive work, but it might be worth asking if there are some errors you can live with. For example, I tried to remove the checking for an invalid GA topic, but Gimmetrow reverted with the edit summary "this catches things Category:Uncategorized good articles fails to catch, typically invalid topic names in a non-GA". In fact that is all it catches. But the topic parameter doesn't do anything for non-GA's: for delisted and failed GAs, if the topic is invalid, it simply isn't displayed. So it is no worse than a missing topic, which is not checked (plenty of old FAs don't have a topic) so why should we worry about this?
• On the other hand, there are actually very few topic errors. I only spotted "topic=Sports" which made me laugh, because someone was obviously just making it up off the top of their heads. I designed GA/Topic to be fairly robust, so it takes either abbreviations or full topic names, and is case-insensitive. If there is a regular error being made, it can easily be added to the options in GA/Topic.
• ArticleHistory is pretty robust too (hats off to Gimmetrow again), but there may still be opportunities to eliminate errors. I added "promoted" as a synonym for "listed" at a GAN action, since that has cropped up more than once. Are there any other such cases?
• I noticed SandyGeorgia fixing a lot of date formats: in fact the template uses #time, which accepts dates in many formats, so these are rarely errors.
• Finally, whenever I visit the error category, it is empty. This is of course, thanks to your efforts, but does the category really need to be empty all the time? There aren't many Wikipedia processes that are so efficient at cleaning up. Presumably, with time, other editors might notice the error category on the article talk page, and fix it themselves. Geometry guy 18:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Silence :) Okay, I've removed a whole load of gacat parameters: all that remain are gacats equal to actors, bands, hist figures, musicians, and writers. (These were the only categories with significant numbers of articles in them.) They could also be removed (by AWB or bot) as long as whoever removes the gacat from the talk page checks that there is a {{WPCD-People}} template in place. I also added a "WPCD=people" option to {{WP1.0}} which has the same effect.

I have added an explicit error message for those who think "currentstatus=B" is a sensible thing to put in this template, and have supplied "not promoted" as a synonym for the GAN "not listed". Finally {{GA/Topic}} now accepts a number of subtopics (such as Music and Sport) as possible parameters.

In theory, all this should reduce the errors to adding current processes, and adding a separate oldid. In practise, though, I'm sure the errors will go on: the template is a nightmare to use, adding about 5 minutes to the processing of any content review event, and really its use needs to be completely automated. I'm all in favour of modifying processes such as GAN and GAR to facilitate such automation. If we can do it with PR that will already be a great start. I fixed the PR of Jimmy Wales today and it took about 10 minutes! Geometry guy 17:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Silence? I just saw your post above, Gguy, and I'm not sure if it was for Gimmetrow, me or general. I don't "speak" the programming of this thing, so I can't address any of that topic, cat, error catching stuff, but on the things I can address ... No, I don't see why we should leave errors on talk pages. They result in misleading info in the template, and errors present a good chance to 1) educate the GA editors on how to correctly add templates and 2) figure out changes we may need to make. I don't ever intentionally change times/dates and the times and dates are not what cause the errors; when there is another error on a template that causes me to run Dr pda's script to correct the template, I input the dates and times returned by his script. When I'm visiting a talk page because it triggered the error cat, I often update and correct other things while I'm there. I don't think the template is too complex; the problem is anyone can list or delist a GA, and these editors don't necessarily learn how to use the templates (including the old GA templates) or read the instructions. The same errors occurred and still occur with the older GA templates, so it's not a matter of articlehistory only. One solution might be to stop letting anyone add or subtract a GA from a talk page or WP:GA; have editors pass or delist articles on a centralized GA page, where only a few knowledgeable editors then complete the task by adding or subtracting the articles from articlehistory and from WP:GA. The problem here is occurring because anyone can add or delist a GA, and you can't force them to read and follow instructions. I can't tell you how many errors we found in the old GA templates when we built articlehistories. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised any of the "gacat" categories were empty. They all had articles at one time. Gimmetrow 18:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments both! My message wasn't addressed at anyone in particular, but I'm happy to have some responses.

I emptied all the gacats with very few articles, adding {{WPCD-People}} where necessary. I have also removed blank "gacat="s in templates, so no one will be tempted to add them again (fingers crossed).

The fact that anyone can list or delist is a key feature of GA: it is what allows the process to scale as the number of articles grows. Sandy is absolutely right: people do not read instructions. We cannot hope to educate every GA reviewer, so we must seek ways to minimize the problems. (Similarly, anyone can nominate or close a peer review, and there is plenty that can and does go wrong there.) The solution, in my view, is not to centralize, but to automate and simplify. All the data is available in edit histories to update ArticleHistory automatically when an event occurs. We just need to modify the processes so that reviewers only have to do something simple, like change a template on the talk page; then automatic processes do all of the mundane, time-consuming and error-prone rest. Geometry guy 18:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, but, but, but ... <stammer, smile> ... even when they only have to change the old templates, they're still making mistakes :-) I think we need to address the problem at the source. Training, or centralization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

:-) Yeah, the older templates are not great, but there are fewer ways to make mistakes with them.

You may be right, but I have a different view: the centralization is the problem. At the moment, the process does not simply involve changing a template name: it involves listing at GAN or GAR, adding or removing from the list at GA, updating the GA number (why the hell do we do that?), finding oldid's, and getting the topic right. As you yourself have pointed out, this is top-heavy instruction creep gone mad, and it is no wonder that no one reads the instructions.

In my view the original nominator should specify the topic in a talk page template, and the article should only be listed (automatically) at GAN when they get this right. Then every other step should only involve changing the template name: no oldid's, no adding or removing from centralized lists, nothing else. Geometry guy 19:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You're right; GA needs to be botified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've thought through a lot of this, but the remaining question for me is how best to provide a stable archive of the review: we have agreed it is very important to do this and I'm hoping that our work on PR will help to answer how it can best be achieved! Geometry guy 23:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Gimmetrow is the go-to person on this, but methinks if ya'll would move to separate pages for GA events (rather than talk page entries), half the job would be done. Then, the bot would have to do similar things as it does for featured article failed facs, promoted facs, and demoted FAs (which are all handled by a bot; the only manual intervention is all the GA error checking). (Did you see my sample on the talk page at the GA Project about templates?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I already commented there. I agree with you that a separate page for a GA review would help, but I'm not sure how best to achieve this. In particular, it does not solve the archiving problem per se, unless the system provides permanent links as soon as a review is complete: this doesn't happen at PR yet, so I am glad we are working on that now. I have already done a lot of groundwork at GA and received positive support for automation, but there is still a hard sell to make, and we need to make sure the product is really good. Geometry guy 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

1. Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to it again. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Other

Will someone else please deal with Talk:Letters Written in Sweden, Norway and Denmark? I have now corrected more than half a dozen GA ArticleHistory errors from the same editor (even before we started tracking), left messages to that editor, and need someone with more patience to jump in here. Also, the person who passed the GA didn't do it correctly, and I don't know what the topic should be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. LARA♥LOVE 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to create a boilerplate template to drop on the talk pages of those that are passing GAs or other errors and failing to utilize the correct formats to help educate those that likely haven't noticed that there's slight changes to these templates? Something like:

"Hi, I noticed that you have passed ARTICLENAME for a Good Article, but in doing so, your use of the GA template does not meet the current guidelines for passing GA articles. Please review the instructions at WP:GA as to help both other GA reviews and editors to keep track of these Good Articles. Thanks!"

Yea, I suck at writing these, but you get the idea. Likely have a second one for AH template users (which would encompass both bad GA additions as well as other changes like FAR and the like). --Masem 15:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I just showed him an example of what the GA template should look like when properly used, explained how to find the oldid and the correct topic. Told him to drop a line on my talk page if he ever needed any assistance. I'm the master of such templates ;), but I'm not sure how necessary it is for this. If SandyGeorgia thinks it would makes his/her life easier, I'd be glad to make them. LARA♥LOVE 15:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I 'spose I'd just fix them myself, but how do I determine the topic? I think it means I have to go to WP:GA and search for what topic the article was added to, and I always find that frustrating because you can't do a ctrl-f5 on the entire page because of the hidden sub-sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

When we were cleaning up topics for WP:UCGA, I just opened the WP:GA page's source, and searched in that window. Much faster than trying to second guess the submitters intent. --Masem 16:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

ah, ha (d'oh); that works. Then how do I know which topic associates with each category at WP:GA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My steps are: 1) open source, 2) do a find by the GA title 3) scroll back to the left to the front of the line, look in the tags and you'll see the sub cat. 4) look up from that until you get to the major cat (all major cats are after two DIV elements, so there's extra white space before them). Of course, once you get familiar with subcats, you can probably get the topic from step 3, or look at the subcats that are around that article, and actually, this approach is probably easier that trying to hunt and peck on the GA page if you do have good awareness of the subcats as to avoid step 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masem (talk • contribs) 18:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Masem. Next time I encounter one, if I can't figure it out, I'll bug you :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) The sections are open for me now. They have been for a couple of weeks. In both Firefox and Internet Explorer. Perhaps there's something funny going on with my settings, but I just go to WP:GA, Ctrl-F and find it. LARA♥LOVE 19:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bah

I have an error on Talk:Maroon 5. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I'm sure it's stupidly obvious, but I can't see it. Lara❤Love 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Painfully, stupidly obvious. I'm a moron. Thanks, Gimmetrow. You da man. :) Lara❤Love 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Addition of catagory for AH's w/o correct entries?

More for GAs since we just had a bot clear out most of the issues with categorization of GA and AH articles for WP:UCGA, but now we're looking at GAs without oldid's and filling those in (a much less daunting task). However, while I was categorizing, I noticed a good handful of articles using GA but lacking a GAN action set. (Most cases, these articles were missing ANY actions) Is it possible to have this template spit out articles that are lacking certain details for it's current status? (a GA should have a GAN, an FA should have an FAC). From how I read the template code, there's a category that spits out articles with syntax type errors in the AH, but not procedural ones like this. --Masem 12:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the featured articles and former featured articles are correct and complete. Passing data on most of the older GAs was not provided by the editor passing the GA (and this still occurs). Good luck; that data most often has to be searched for manually. I suggest using Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s articlehistory script as a starter, but since many editors passing GAs don't even use edit summaries, often you have to go diff by diff in the talk page history to find them. Not fun. Please remind GA people working on ArticleHistory to scroll to the bottom of the talk page when they're done and make sure the red error category isn't lit up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yea, Dr pda's script helped a heck of a lot for those GA articles that lacked oldid and I've gotten enough of a rhythm to scour the talk pages to find when the GA was added without too much problem (thanks to popups.js), and there's still a good just-less-than-1000-or-so of the GAs (using Template:GA) that don't have oldid that we have to work on. And if every FA/FFA has a FAC , then that's fixed, so I'm still wondering if its possible, without manual going through every article with an AH template, to have the template classify any article with a current GA status that lacks a GAN action into a category so that one would manually be able to correct and fill in the missing GAN. --Masem 15:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what you're asking, but I've never been able to sort out GA terminology. The two editors who write most of those kinds of scripts related to AH are both pretty well tied up during the month of August. If you can explain exactly what sort of data you need, perhaps someone at the Village Pump (technical) can generate it for you. (An example would help.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Finding an example article that I've not already dealt with is a bit hard, but I've seen articles with simply this: {{ArticleHistory|currentstatus=GA}}. These articles have gone through the GA review process based on trying to find the old on the talk page and thus should have a GAN, but whomever added this neglected to include the GAN action, and thus there should be a GAN action in there. I've manually added those in (once I've tracked the right oldid) when I was also adding the topic field, and I think out of 500+ articles I've done for topics, maybe only 5 to 10 that used AN lacked the action.

I cannot recall a GA article with AH that has other actions (PR or FA related) that lacked a GAN, so the easiest thing would be, in pseudo code:

IF (currentstatus == GA) && ( action1 is empty ) THEN put into catagory

Ideally, it would be more like this (to include the cases that I've not seen, where there's a GA with PR or FA-related actions but no GAN action):

"IF (currentstatus == GA) && !(( action1 == GAN ) || ( action2 == GAN ) || .. (for 14 actions) ) THEN put into category

Really ideally, you'd also want to include any article with a GAN action but an improper/non-existent oldid as well, but I've never seen a case like that yet.

There is no rush to do this; the WP:UCGA has just a notch under 1000 articles to find oldids on for GAs, and that really can't be automated more than beyond Dr pda's script and popups, so that'll take a couple of weeks to clear up. I expect that the number of articles that would fall into this "GA articles using AH that lack correct GAN action entries" will be relatively small (in the 10s, maybe a bit over 100?), but it is a natural extension of the oldid for the GA template. If the regular maintainers of the AH template code are busy for the month, that's fine - I'm sure we can wait and unlike the categorization of GAs, the pressure to complete the oldid is more to be complete than a need. However, I do know there are these oddities that exist and I'm just seeing if there's a way to automate some part of it.--Masem 16:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, GG - that looks exactly like what I was talking about and the current size of the category Category:Good articles with no article history action is about what I thought it would be. --Masem 12:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good estimate Masem; I think the category is fully populated now. At the moment, the template code just tests action1, and I found already one case where action1 is empty, but the GAN is action2. However, the category is so small, I do not think it is worth refining the code. Have fun depopulating it! Geometry guy 12:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

There are also a few FA or FFA with action sequence problems. The two I recall are Talk:Glass and Talk:Indus Valley Civilization. There are probably a couple FAs without any link to a FAC or RBP page. Gimmetrow 03:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Note this interesting "conversion" to ArticleHistory: [42] Gimmetrow 04:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed Category:Good articles with no article history action from the template code. This will now show up as another ArticleHistory error. I would also like to know who fixed the other four or so articles in the category - some had peer reviews to add to ArticleHistory. Gimmetrow 03:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem with the simplification, but at least here, it seems that Category:ArticleHistory error is empty, am I looking in the wrong place? (and while I saw the category before that was made above, I didn't touch them as the GA's without oldids is still pretty large). --Masem 04:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who else is checking/fixing errors, Gimmetrow; could be LaraLove? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed errors in four or five articles a few days ago. They were listed in the category that Gimmetrow removed the code for. If I remember correctly, there were two or three articles left in the category, but they disappeared before I could get to them, and I didn't know where to look for AH errors. So that could have been me that took care of the articles Gimmetrow was referring to. Lara♥Love 05:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What ?

Why are GA oldids, needed by GimmeBot to convert to articlehistory, being removed in the drive to add topics ?? [43] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that they shouldn't be, but if people do do this, the request above about having a category for AH's without proper GANs for GA articles will catch those. --Masem 02:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, note that was someone converting the GA template to AH, not adding a topic. I think whoever added that red note to the GA template a while back got a lot of people thinking they should do exactly the sort of nonsense shown in that link. As I fixed some of those articles, I saw quite a few where the GA template was added, then immediately converted to AH without an action. I'm guessing that was around end of May, same time as the link I gave above which converted two templates to AH without adding either action info. The next step would be to add code saying if there is a current status (of any sort) and no action1, display a big red error. Gimmetrow 03:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Whew, thanks; I was afraid it was being done across the board. I spend a lot of time digging up some of those oldids :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had this page on my watchlist, but I guess not. The diff you posted above is not an example of the WP:UCGA task force. Our instructions were to use whatever template (GA or AH) that was already in use on the page, updating the topic field. Now, it's the same thing only the oldid field. This will take longer, however, since we can't get a bot to wipe out the list in less than two hours. :( Lara♥Love 05:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Empty/Non-existant Category:ArticleHistory error

Ok, maybe I'm missing something, but should there not be entries in Category:ArticleHistory error; presently the category doesn't exist, yet there are articles (being pointed out above where the AH is used incorrectly) that have this as a category. I can't tell from the code if there is something special about how this category comes up, but doing some silly user-space tests show that articles that are tagged with AH error via the AH template do not really enter this category; explicitly adding it allows this to happen.

I would think that we'd want this category to be filled to see what articles need fixing in their AH use so that we can correct them and add examples of bad AHs to the above list. Am I just missing something here? --Masem 16:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It's empty unless there's an article with an error; I just cleaned it out this morning. When I find errors and resolve them, I track them above so that others can learn and we can improve the process. When editors update the articlehistory on a talk page, they should scroll to the bottom of the page and make sure they don't see a red-linked error category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha, ok, I thought there would be more AH problems, but I gotcha. (and yes, I forgot to colon-ize the category links above, sorry) --Masem 17:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been less errors in the last few weeks. I don't know if that's because others are tracking the category and resolving them without updating the record above, or if it's because more editors are learning how to correctly use ArticleHistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured List template?

It would be nice if template:FL had a list history format; I was setting about to base such a template for lists on template:ArticleHistory but honesty, it's just too complicated for me. On the other hand, such a task would be very simple for an author of ArticleHistory -- would anyone be willing to help?--Zantastik talk 16:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

template:ArticleHistory already include everything needed for lists... Circeus 22:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it still say "Article History" though? --Zantastik talk 04:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

From a technical point of view, everything in the main space that is not a redirect is an "article" . There's simply not point whatsoever in creating a fork for something that the template already does. The name is not 120% accurate. So what? Circeus 16:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, while that may be true in some technical sense, our audience is made up of readers, not wiki-programmers. Many of them may want a series of items written together in a meaningful sequence so as to constitute a record to be called a "list", not an "article". The name isn't entirely accurate? Why not make it so, just by copying the code of this template, pasting it into a new one called "ListHistory", and changing one word? If only all improvements were this easy!--Zantastik talk 07:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Forks are actively fought against in template space. I have to say in all honesty this is the most preposterous suggestion I've read on this talk page since I've started following it. Circeus 17:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion appears to have been made in good faith and with good intentions. "Preposterous" or not (I'm not in a position to judge whether it is), that's absolutely no way to react. · jersyko talk 02:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added another parameter to the template. Adding list=yes will change the heading from Article Milestones to List Milestones, if absolutely necessary. Dr pda 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I certainly appreciate your having added that parameter. The template can now be used entirely accurately with lists, and we avoided a template fork; sounds like a great resolution to me. --Zantastik talk 04:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Simply listing "Milestones" would have worked, no, without adding yet another parameter? Gimmetrow 02:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it would. I was thinking in terms of adding the word list because of the above discussion. Feel free to change it if you like. Dr pda 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the code to use currentstatus: if the currentstatus is FL, FFLC or FFL, then the page is some sort of list and the text will display "List milestones", otherwise it displays "Article milestones". Not perfect if a list is first sent to peer review, but I prefer this to having the extra "list" parameter. Assuming this works for Zantastik, please do not use "list=yes", and sometime soon I will remove any uses of them. Gimmetrow 05:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I feel awful; I put in a couple dozen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, a bit of code will populate the error category and they can be taken care of. (I see this never made it to documentation anyway...) Gimmetrow 05:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've removed a few "list=yes" parameters and came across two that had only been through AFDs: Talk:List of insurance companies in Hong Kong and Talk:List of notable people who converted to Christianity. Given that it's called "Articles" for deletion, I think this is OK company. Gimmetrow 06:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Other hide/show template needs help

Would someone knowledgeable about these hide/show templates take a look at {{articleissues}}? Much thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

A common problem

I find that if the actionlink connects to the same talk page then the discussion is archived, the link is broken. It seems like you have to do the work twice (once for listing the action, once for linking to archive) or you have to wait until that section is archived then you put up actionlink. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It should be added when AH is added. I just change it when the section is archived. LARA♥LOVE 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Can I archive part of this page? LARA♥LOVE 15:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK with me (keep error tracking). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Current status is GA nominee

Why isn't there a current status for "Good article nominee"? Many GA nominated articles are not reviewed for a week or two, and on some pages (like Talk:New York University), there are two GA-related templates - which I thought this template was supposed to get rid of. I presume it would be pretty easy to add for one that knows the code (unlike me). If we included GAN as a possible current status it would make things a little more coherent. -- Noetic Sage 02:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Articlehistory does not track any current processes; it tracks completed processes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If the purpose of the template is "to reduce clutter on talk pages" then would that be something we should implement? We could change the template so it doesn't produce errors (by making a new result action). It seems that wouldn't be a bad idea. -- Noetic Sage 05:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to create extra work to reduce templates that will be gone in a matter of weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Right now there are articles that have been on the list for over a month. It seems like a worthy effort if it reduces clutter on talk pages. No big deal I suppose. -- Noetic Sage 05:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it's worthwhile since I'm not an optimist about the GAC backlog. I urge someone who knows the intricate features of this template's syntax to add it. -- Reaper X 03:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) This is why we shouldn't add GAN to the template. It's for completed actions, as noted above, so to add GAN, when one clicked on the template to expand it, it would show when the article was nominated, followed by when it was passed/failed... but who cares? It doesn't matter when it was nominated. That's not a milestone. If it were to be added, which I don't think it should be if SandyGeorgia and Gimmetrow don't see the necessity in it, the GAN would need to be replaced with the result (FGAN or GA), so that the nomination wouldn't show up as a milestone. Personally, I don't see what it matters. GAN templates are only on talk pages for a few days to a few weeks, depending. Either way is fine with me, but SandyGeorgia and Gimmetrow are the ones that deal with this template daily, so I respect their decision on this. LaraLove 04:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistent language

I also have an issue with the inconsistent language. For good article history, for example, the two possible results in the code are "listed" and "failed". It makes more sense, I think, to have "passed" and "failed" or "listed" and "not listed" (I prefer passed and failed because many users don't understand that Good Articles are in fact a list). And then with the code we currently have, I put in "failed" and on my actual template it says "not listed". Perhaps these could be consistent for ease of use. Although I'm somewhat new to GA review, I initially thought "listed" meant "listed on the GA nominations page". So perhaps we could have a third result that (instead of ?) is "pending review" or something similar. Maybe "?" is easier, I'm not sure. -- Noetic Sage 02:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles that have been nominated but not yet reviewed are not added to AH. Being nominated is not a milestone. Once it has passed or failed, then it is listed in the template, so "pending review" doesn't apply. As for the inconsistency with "passed" and "listed", that's something I noticed early on and found confusing, so for that much I can agree. Lara❤Love 03:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK image size

...is ridiculously small, probably because the image is a rectange. Would it be worth swapping with Image:DYKsquarecrop.png, which is the same shape as all other images and is bigger? Daniel 11:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed that it looks small now; it might be because the original Image:Updated DYK query.svg was replaced by a different image. You're welcome to fix it, but are not svg images preferable to png? Gimmetrow 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm a graphics idiot so SVG's are beyond me *sigh* Furthermore, I couldn't seem to fix the template either, so I'll need someone to do that as well... Daniel 03:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The change looks good, thanks :) Daniel 04:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Portals?

Could/should this be adapted to allow portals? Daniel 01:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it could, but it wouldn't do much for portal talk pages. The comparable processes for portals are {{featuredportal}} (73), {{portalnomfailed}} (25), {{formerFP}} (2), and peer review (5). I only see a handful with more than one template (1 PR/formerFP, 3 PR/FP, 1 PNF/FP). Gimmetrow 02:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm more thinking just general consistency (ie. {{FL}} is now almost-redundant, even on articles where only one "action" is present, because it's been migrated over). Daniel 02:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Creation date -- proposal

Just thinking aloud after seeing the template added to Banksia spinulosa. What about the addition of a creation date for the article to the milestones that way it shows how long its taken for article to get there. using Banksia spinulosa it'd show

created 12th June 2006

FA on 14th October 2007

If it was at DYK there'd be two dates very early close to each other but many article dont go through DYK, other stay as stubs for a long period then get to DYK when expanded. Gnangarra 02:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess, it is a major "milestone". Daniel 02:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to dated article talk pages

Could a way be found of including a link to dated article talk pages as well as the previous version of the article itself? I'm thinking particularly for good article reviews/removals where (unlike with PR/FAC) the review actually takes place on the talk page, so a link to a prior version of the talk page would be relevant. TheGrappler 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Former featured article AND unsuccessful GA nominee

Libertarianism is a former featured article that recently quick-failed a GA nomination. Should its current status be FFA or FGAN? Skomorokh ^incite 01:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be an FFA, because there is a page for those (WP:FFA) and their numbers are tracked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for clarifying that. Skomorokh ^incite 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Three questions

1. Does WP:1.0 review/A-class assessment count as WAR?
2. When AfD is listed in articlehistory, should {{oldafdfull}} be removed?
3. Can AfD be made more visible, i.e. show below current status in the main template, as DYK date and date on Main Page already do?

Thanks in advance :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't think so, but I could be wrong. 2. Yes. 3. You mean have old AfDs show in the main template, even if the article has moved past that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

1. OK.
2. Thank you :)
3. Yes. IMHO, AfD (especially more than one, as usually listed with {{oldafdmulti}}) is a significant enough process to merit visible, prominent mention. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Politics and governmentas GA topic

Can we add "Politics and government" to the options for GA topics? The GA project seems to list those ones separately from the other Socsci articles now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This template just calls {{GA/Topic}}. You should ask over at Template talk:GA or one of the regular GA pages. Gimmetrow 03:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

{{ArticleHistory}} to the front side of an article?

I think that a number of the significant issues raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Important article statistics on mainspace could be addressed by applying some modified version of {{ArticleHistory}} to the front side of an article, where the information is not hidden from our many casual readers who do not read (and are even unaware of) talk pages. It would be a great benefit to the popular appreciation encyclopedia, in my opinion, if our casual readers understood our processes better. And those who understand our processes better would also, I think, be more inclined to join the community of editors.--Pharos (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Or, you know, like we could just add a little green GA dot to GAs in the upper right hand corner of articles, just like the star for FAs,... ;-) Dr. Cash (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Back to the future

I'm sure this must be happening elsewhere as well. Currently on Talk:City & South London Railway, the year fror the dyk is showing as September 29, 2008 instead of 2007. Can someone please fix this? Simply south (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Any dates written in the form "31 December, 2007" with the comma will have this problem. Just remove the comma. Gimmetrow 00:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Error with mainpage entry for TFA

Articles that appeared on the main page as TFA in the past are now showing that they "will appear on the main page" on the same day in 2008, rather than saying "this article appeared on the main page on..." This, of course, is an error. I wouldn't know what to look for here, but the problem is most certainly with the template. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 02:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be the same issue as above (a quirk in the #time function), although some of this is vandalism. Gimmetrow 04:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't see those comments above. Thanks. Okiefromokla's sockpuppet/talk 05:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Article not peer reviewed

So the article I've been working on slipped through the cracks in the peer review system when nominated, and managed not to get one review. Yet, when I add the info to the milestones, the only option is "Reviewed". Can't it be possible to list the actionXresult as "not reviewed"? My only other option is not just not list the peer review at all.--Patrick Ѻ 15:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's an option. Gimmetrow 18:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

GA topics

"American football was a Everyday life good article". This is really clumsy imho, and in fact made me think the template had been vandalised. What's wrong with saying just "American football was a good article"? --kingboyk (talk) 17:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:RM...

Okay, this is not quite a move request for this. I was just wondering whether requested move proposals should be added (with result=move or result=not move). I am meaning parameters for this and not that various move proposals be moved here. Simply south (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would probably be useful. I know I've had to dig through page history to find what an article used to be named. Does "requested moves" have a custom of leaving permanent talk page templates? Gimmetrow 01:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, no. You'd have to search to see when that was a section on a page, when the template was on the top of the article, or when it was listed on requested moves. The Placebo Effect (talk) 01:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe diffs could be provided but... Simply south (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

"version" FA

The language that states that "[this article] (or a previous version of it) has been identified..." drives me nuts because I have no idea what version was "identified". I'd like to propose that we add a permalink to the version which actually had the star attached; the link can be placed on the words "previous version". It would be useful in a number of ways -- to Wikipedia project management (review of FAs, for example), but my main interest is its use for encyclopedia readers: Having the link to the particular "previous version" approved would permit the inquisitive to easily see the particular version reviewed; one could then easily compare with changes since approval, and it might inspire new wikipedia editors or at the least critical thinking about presentation of information. (This may have been discussed before but I didn't see it.) Thoughts? --Lquilter (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is linked in the article history diff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I've seen that -- so is the plan to have all of the current "Featured article" notices be replaced by "ArticleHistory" templates? --Lquilter (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All featured and former featured articles do have articlehistory; perhaps I'm not following your question? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Question about centering

I've checked in both Firefox and IE7, so I don't think this is a problem on my end, but has anyone noticed that the [show] link forces the Article milestones text to the left of center? I honestly don't know enough CSS/HTML to have a crack at fixing this (I think I'd just break stuff), but is there some way to stop this from happening? I have vague recollections of 'floats' helping here .. but as I said, I just don't know enough :) As an aside, the same thing is happening in WikiProjectBanners and NewBanners templates. Ben (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Collapsible parts have quirky interacts with tables. It seems to have something to do with the space given to the "hide/show" button. Gimmetrow 17:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Should GABoldDelist have it's own code?

I've been working recently on the GA quality control sweep, in which a lot of articles are summarily delisted from GA. This is usually due to insufficient references as inline citations were required for the earlier GA nominations. GA sweeps calls this a "BoldDelist", implying it doesn't have to go through GA reassessment, but I've been using "GAR/delisted" in the article history template, which implies that there was a reassessment. Should they're be a new action name for these? Like GAS (GA-sweep) with outcomes "kept", "bold-delist", "passed to GAR"? --jwanders^Talk 08:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like that idea has GA support.[44] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not an issue that is specific to GA-Sweeps. In the AH template, "GAR" is currently used to refer both to an individual reassessment, and to reassessment at WP:GAR. This has bothered me for some time. As Sandy's link indicates, I am quite strongly opposed to "bold delisting", but I support the efforts of individual reviewers to delist articles which don't meet the criteria. At the moment, the way to indicate this is GAR/delisted, exactly as Jwanders suggests, but I do wonder if it would be more helpful to distinguish between the two kinds of reassessment. Geometry guy 18:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps in article history?

Is there a parameter for GA Sweeps in the article history? Or could this type of info be filled in using the WP:GAR parameter that exists in the template? Cirt (talk) 05:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The way this template was designed, action = GAR and result = delisted or kept are the appropriate parameters. See also section immediately above. Gimmetrow 05:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot work proposal

As I understand it, there's already a bot that gathers a bunch of talk page tags into a single ArticleHistory tag, searching the talk page and archives to find dates and oldids. I'm wondering if this bot could be expanded to also fill in the date or oldid of an action parameter if one of the two is missing. It seems to me that this would be a much simple task than parsing the talk archive and would save time that editors currently have to spend menially digging up that information. --jwanders^Talk 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot's fills in the oldid if a date is provided. Working the other way could be done, but it's not exactly accurate. The date is always later than the timestamp of the version it refers to. In most cases, it's only a day different, but there are situations where an article hasn't been edited for a month when it goes through some review. The date is easier to get, so I would recommend providing that, and the bot will fill in oldid. Gimmetrow 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject A-class review

Hello, as far as I understand this great template, it should allow for "WikiProject A-class review" somehow through the actionX "WAR". However there does not seem to be anything in the list of possible "current status" that would get for an article whose only step would be an A-class review. Would it be possible to add two status: "A-class within a WikiProject" and "Failed A-class within a WikiProject", or something else ? SyG (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything applicable for the currentstatus because A-class is project-dependent. An article could be rated B for one project, A for another, GA for a third, and have an overall GA rating. Just use "approved" or "failed" in the result field for the A-class review event. Gimmetrow 20:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Too bad the template looks ugly when the very only step the article has been through is a Wikiproject review. I mean, without setting a precise status, it could at least have "Article History" as a title of the infobox, couldn't it ? SyG (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. Gimmetrow 05:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks much nicer! (see for example Talk:Alexander Alekhine) SyG (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem

I just delisted Coca-Cola but the template has some problem. It was an FA, then delisted, later reinstated as GA, and now a delisted GA. The template doesn't show that it was a GA. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it; see the list of possibilities on the template instructions, the current status was incorrect. GA is in the history; the main template doesn't need to show that it was then wasn't GA, since many article are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

That's how the template was designed. To simplify talk page templates, just one "failed" review is shown. The only "combo" status really supported is FFA/GA. Gimmetrow 18:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be hopelessly and needlessly complex if we showed in summary every time an article moved in and out GA status; the template is designed to show the most significant "current" status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, problem "solved" OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A/an

The template used to read "[Article name] has been listed as a [topic] under the good article criteria". I've tweaked this to read "a/an" because some of the topics start with vowels (e.g., "Arts good article" and "Everyday life good article"). — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice. It's better for it to be a little clunky than grammatically incorrect. The logical next step would therefore be to get the template to use "a" or "an" appropriately, depending on the next word. Anyone got a bright idea how to do this? --Dweller (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

You'd have to use an #if or #switch statement to sort the topics that begin with vowel sounds from those that don't. I'm unsure how this would be done as I'm not terribly good with parser functions. Perhaps we could use something like this: "{{#switch: {{{topic|}}} |arts=an |everydaylife=an |engtech=an |a}}". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I tested the #switch statement in a sandbox and it seems to work, so I'm going ahead to add it to the template. Let me know if it causes any problems. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. Nice one. --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If this approach were used, there would be more cases to enumerate than just three, and you didn't modify the delistedGA and formerGA texts anyway. I've pluralized to avoid a/an. Gimmetrow 20:36, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Are there more than three cases? The template documentation suggests that the only three values for the "topic" parameter beginning with a vowel sound are the ones that I mentioned in the #switch statement. Anyway, your fix is fine. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 01:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The "Arts" category, for instance, shows when topic is "arts", "architecture", "music", "dance", "theatre", "film", "television" and many others, and the first letter may be capitalized too. It would be too much to replicate here and keep in sync. Gimmetrow 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

An alternative fix, if anyone has a strong preference for the singular, would be to parse the topic parameter through {{GA/Topic}} to reduce it to standard form before passing it on to #switch. Geometry guy 16:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

dyk

Could we add a parameter which allows the link of the Did you know page.

For example: This is from the Talk:Cumberland (rugby league team) page (pretty much):

An entry from Cumberland (rugby league team) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 March, 2008.

But what I'd like (as optional) on the parameter: dyklink=Wikipedia:Recent additions 212 would go

An entry from Cumberland (rugby league team) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 15 March, 2008.

You'll notice that the word entry links to Recent additions 212 (which is a page that archives DYK's from the Main page. On that list is the CUmberland fact.

The other alternative would be to check the history page of the template. Any opinions.  The Windler talk  04:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The {{dyktalk}} template doesn't have such a link. What is the need to access the DYK archive page? I'm not saying no; I'm just trying to understand why. Gimmetrow 05:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

While the {{dyktalk}} has an entry parameter which allows the template to expand and show what fact was used, this template does not. I also don't think it would be practical for this template to do something similar (it would make it ugly), but link to where the fact was.  The Windler talk  06:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts. You can get the dyk archive from "what links here" to the article (most of the time), so it's not too hard to get the info if you want it. Linking on the talk page seems a marginal benefit. Another approach: the dyk archives could be regenerated and organised by month, which would make finding the info even easier, but would also allow automatic linking based on the dykdate without a new parameter. Gimmetrow 21:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That way is still harder that my suggestion, and because it's optional, I can't see why not doing it.  The Windler talk  22:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Because it adds a parameter. Gimmetrow 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Then the world comes crushing down because of it. When, or if, we ask for editprotected, we (I) have already identified where the changes are and would have shown this on this page for the administrator what to do, thats not really a problem. I can also change the documentation page, I have no problems with that and no one should really have a problem with that. The Windler talk  05:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, we're discussing whether it's a good idea to add this parameter, including considering that if added it might quickly become obsolete. (And this has nothing to do with editprotected since the template isn't currently protected.) Gimmetrow 05:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ok. I thought it was fully protected (it was). I mis-understood you. I get where you're coming from, but when you add any parameter, it will take time to for people to use it (unless you get a bot to do it all), but I think people would use it.  The Windler talk  08:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's sorta what I'm afraid of. I have a pretty good idea who would have to write any bot to deal with this ;) Gimmetrow 03:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean (simply)?  The Windler talk  05:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean I would probably have to write any bots to deal with this. Or would you be willing to have this parameter completely unsupported, forever? If you agree that no bot will ever need to do anything with this parameter, I'll add something in next time I do other updates to the template coding. Gimmetrow 05:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine I'll drop it, forever. Though it is only you (Gimmetrow) who is opposed to it, though obviously others don't care or don't check this page.  The Windler talk  06:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd put it in. I just don't want to get roped into writing a bot for it a few months down the road. That's all. Gimmetrow 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, OK then I change my previous statement. I don't mind how this is implemented, just if it is. Just publise it on the template page, and it should fix itself.  The Windler talk  22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou. I have fixed up the documentation page.  The Windler talk  23:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sports category needed

I was just looking at Talk:Lewis Hamilton, and I noticed that the article "has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles". My first thought was: "huh??". First of all, it's not at all obvious that an "everyday life good article" is supposed to be a good article on a topic that is to do with "everyday life" (whatever that means). Secondly, even if it made sense, it still wouldn't be appropriate for Hamilton. I was going to change the category to "sports" or similar, but I see that isn't listed as an option. Suggest it is added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.41.174 (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA icon

I would like to file an {{editprotected}} request that the template be changed to transclude the GAicon just like the {{GA}} template does.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What does this do differently? Everything was copied from {{GA}}; GAs show Image:Symbol support vote.svg from {{ArticleHistory}} too. Gimmetrow 02:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

GA subpage

Because GA nominations are now on a subpage, there's no way to access it after the bot archives it. I was able to fix the temporary Failed GA template, but when the bot archives it there's no way to go to it again. Can this be fixed? Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 00:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. You can link to subpages using the actionNlink= parameter. Gimmetrow 01:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

limitation?

Does this template limit itself to 15 entries? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

14, I believe. Is there an article that requires more? Raul654 (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Was trying to consolidate Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica's {{multidel}} into an {{ArticleHistory}} with 21 entries. I searched through the Special:WhatLinksHere and think I found them all, but it only shows the first 15. I haven't saved it yet, only previewing for right now. Thoughts? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So is there any function to extent the functionality beyond 15? I should think that it could be coded to accept an indefinite number of entries; I expect/hope for Wikipedia to last a very long time. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect year showing.

This template appears on Talk:Eastbourne. The parameter is action1date=1 July, 2007 but when I look at the box it says July 1, 2008 Good article nominee Listed. I cannot work out why. ++ MortimerCat (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, incorrect date format. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Images for deletion

Hello, I have a question. I want to use this template on an IfD nom for the Image:Sitting king logo.png but it will not accept IFD as a parameter, only AFD. Can someone change the template so IFD parameter will produce the "Images for deletion" line under the milestones heading?

--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Topic History Template?

Is there any chance we can get an equivalent template for featured topics, to replace Template:Featuredtopictalk? So I imagine it'd be much the same, but with for example a different "Current status" section, saying which article was on the main page when instead of just saying when, and giving the name of which article was a FAC/FARC/FLC/GAC/etc as well as the result - rst20xx (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The template supports completed featured topic reviews. Gimmetrow 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you looked at the usage of this template closely enough. It appears on Featured topic pages, for example Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System. Another thing I would see for it is that additions could be listed in a sensible manner - rst20xx (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, done... well, something similar myself - rst20xx (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Tracking assessment changes: a reflection of article quality over time

Looking to the future, we want the history of Wikipedia articles to be as transparent as possible, and to easily inform the reader of the changes the article has undergone. We have assessment rankings to identify the quality of a specific version of the article. It would be highly useful, I think, to be able to see at a glance the history of the development of a given article. There are a number of ways this could be done; in the same manner as GA/FA changes (July 12, 2008. Reassessed as Start-Class by WikiProject Exemplar), via a simple link at the foot of the table to an assessment log subpage (like so), a show/hide section in the template, or more elaborately in something like this:

Now, obviously this would be a significant change that would effect a large number of pages, but I think the potential gains are great and the costs little.

What do people think in principle about the idea of having the ArticleHistory show assessment changes? Skomorokh 14:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

is it generally useful to know when an article passed from stub to start class? Gimmetrow 20:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Aye. For example, as an article reviewer I often have to dig through the history to get even a basic idea of the article's development. Skomorokh 20:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, there's a Firefox Greasemonkey User Script which can be used to "animate" the edit history of an article. Wikipedia Animate. I find it useful for things like that. (This comment is independent of the primary discussion here; just thought I'd mention it as a useful too.) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks DragonHawk. Skomorokh 21:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't think that most articles follow a trajectory as typical as the example above, as assessment is sporadic and often missing. Second, it will be very time-consuming to uncover an article's history of assessment (it was hard enough to build the articlehistory of GA/FA events, and those have better records). Third, many articles will have little info other than what is already in Articlehistory. Fourth, doing the work of uncovering assessments would take a lot of time and could not likely be bot-assisted, because people rarely use edit summaryies.I checked Tourette syndrome, and all we have is:

• Nov 21, 2003 Started
• Aug 31, 2006 GA
• Sep 11, 2006 A-class
• Nov 2, 2006 FA

So, it would take a lot of extra effort to discover what is already shown in articlehistory: the article was nowhere and unassessed for most of its history, then quickly brought to FA status. Once I began improving it, there were no interim assessments, so it went from zero to GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding Sandy. I would summarize your first and third point as "assessment history is not always very informative"/"adding this feature will not change much for many articles" (correct me if I'm wrong here). On your second and fourth points, you seem misinformed; it is very, very easy to track assessment changes without human assistance, as the log I linked to in my proposal shows (another example). So how do you feel about the net positive/negative of the proposal? Skomorokh 21:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't figure out how to use the log: how would I find, as an example, the assessment of Tourette syndrome to A-class on September 11, 2006? If someone wants to do all the work, and if the template can be hidden in a way that doesn't increase talk page clutter (I have little use for article assessments cluttering talk pages, as they're rarely accurate), it would be an interesting addition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The logs are a WikiProjects initiative automatically updated by User:WP 1.0 bot; instructions on operation are at that userpage (I think you need to be an admin to start a new log). You'll find Tourette's at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Neurology articles by quality log. Should be simply a matter of tweaking the code to initiate a bot for our purposes. Skomorokh 21:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The log is incomplete if a large number of changes are made; for instance I recently tagged thousands of articles for WikiProject Trains, and not all were in the log. --NE2 16:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that if some way of simple way of computing this timeline could be found, it would be a potential benefit to the article history by providing an "at-a-glance" overview of the timeline of each article's evolution. Sure, a lot of articles have growth spurts, but even for those articles, this will help identify where those occurred. The WikiProject I belong to (U.S. Roads) seems to be a bit more fastidious than most other projects when it comes to keeping the assessments up-to-date, so I think for us at least it would be a worthwhile addition to the template, if the brunt of the work could be automated. (While nifty, it's not something to spend a bunch of man-hours on.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

ITN

Regarding the DYK discussion above, I think that the {{ITNtalk}} template should be integrated into the articlehistory as well. --haha169 (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made multiple attempts to input the ITN into this template for Talk:2008 Chino Hills earthquake. Do you know if anyone can configure the syntax to make it work, just like how it's done to the DYK template? --Splat5572 (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Never mind; ITN is now enabled. --Splat5572 (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is a bug the way you did it, but as long as you're done I'll fix it eventually. Gimmetrow 11:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Do we want ITN added? Is there no end in sight to additions to the AH template, which started to track FA progress? Does this create an unncessary maintenance chore? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly, but those ITN templates, etc, will be on the talk page anyway. Might as well put them all into one template. --haha169 (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There are barely 100 ITN uses. Gimmetrow 03:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's what I suspected; no need to take on another maintenance chore in this template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Template is broken

Whoever had the idea of unprotecting this template, I hope it will be protected again. Gimmetrow, can you find the problem at Talk:Senate of Canada? FFA doesn't show, there's a featured topic in there. Please, let's get this template protected again so editors who want to fiddle can request it on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Re-cached and it's back now, so the reverts I did, back to the protected version, seem to have worked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why the stuff from August 6 causes a problem. Gimmetrow 02:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm uncertain if it was the August 6 changes, or the recent changes (when I reverted the first batch, it could have been a caching problem on my end), but the FFA template at Talk:Senate of Canada was eaten. Now it's back. Other FFA templates were there, and the only difference I can see is that Canada had an FTC. In general, I think this template should be protected and requests should go through the talk page. Why was the decision made to unprotect it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Gimme, when you find the time, the documentation needs attention as well: [45] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Protected

This template is transcluded on 11,152 pages at the moment. Given that extremely high use, and the complex syntax this template employs, I think full protection is prudent. I have enabled it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Carl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)