Template talk:Article history/Archive 2

message: I tried it on Talk:God, and looking for the dates and picking appropriate old IDs was the only thing that took a very long time; but that's obviously not the fault of this template I think. There was just one detail I think needs fixing, when you flag an article as "FFAC" (which in this case was wrong); the text talks about the "Featured Article" history; but the history is called "Article Milestones". Anyway, this has to be the best template I've seen so far! :)  --Merzul 15:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. It's a work of art! :) --kingboyk 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent... 

message: I was thinking, a subst-only template which takes the number of actions as a parameter and outputs a skeleton  would be really handy. --kingboyk 13:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thoughts, I suppose the conditional code would end up being subst'd too, so this wouldn't work. I could perhaps create some skeleton templates such as AH2, AH3, AH4 and so on. Good idea or bad? --kingboyk 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do people really want to fill in this template by hand? Gimmetrow 18:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how I've been doing it... I wasn't aware there is an alternative. --kingboyk 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, a bot is converting featured articles over. Once the bot has been through an article, if it has missed anything (such as an old GA pass or fail that was deleted from the talk page), you add a few fields for it. Gimmetrow 18:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That's how I've been doing it too, although I refuse to do oldids. Raul654 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why not let the code do it? Gimmetrow 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A template to subst? 

message: I really love how the template takes an article's front page date and prior to that date says "will be on the front page" and after that says "was on the front page". How about a small tweak so that if the date is today's date it says "*is* on the front page"? --kingboyk 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Gimmetrow 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! And it was done just in time for me to see it at Talk:The KLF. Much appreciated! --kingboyk 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA of the day 

message: There is now one topic that has lost FT status (and a second on the way), so this template should probably get a FTRC action.  We can probably keep it simple and only tag the main article as a former FT like we do with failed FT nominations.  On second thought, we might as well tag all members of a former FT.  The "ftmain=" paramater would not have to get involved in any way, it would just be a matter of adding a new action.  It would be confusing if someone knew that a page used to be part of a FT bus saw no evidence of it.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea, and will be added eventually. Gimmetrow 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Change to Final Fantasy featured topics populated the error category.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former FTs 

message: Current status doesn't recognize A class articles, if anyone feels compelled to add that. Thanks, Doctor Sunshine talk 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A-class is attributed on a project-by-project basis, whereas theotehr are community sel;ected. That's why A-class is not a recognized status.Circeus 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status 

message: :Image:Cscr-featuredtopic.png was listed at :Category:Images which should be in SVG format. I converted to SVG; the new version is :Image:Cscr-featuredtopic.svg (imaginative filename). This image is used in this template, but I've been scared off by the dire warning to would-be editors. I'm guessing that I would do as I do everywhere else, and replace the occurrence of Cscr-featuredtopic.png with Cscr-featuredtopic.svg in the source, but don't want to have to spend an afternoon fixing collateral damage if that isn't the case. Can someone confirm/deny/edit this for me? Cheers, Stannered 14:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Switching images is fine. I think the concern is breaking the numerous nested parserfunctions. Gimmetrow 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fab - done! Stannered 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cscr-featuredtopic.png 

message: I think the template docs would benefit from some instruction on how to fill in the "oldid" line.  Here's what I suggest:
The "oldid" is a several-digit number which refers to the exact version of the page at the time of that particular action. This version can then be viewed when a user clicks on the date in the list of milestones.  
There are multiple ways to obtain an oldid.  For example, while looking at a page's history, it should be possible to hover the mouse over the date of a particular change, and then the URL will appear at the bottom of the window in the browser's status bar:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&oldid=89723590
In the above example, the final number, 89723590 is what should be used in the oldid field.
This number can also be obtained by stepping through the diffs in an article's history, and looking for the oldid in the URL line.
When dealing with a large number of possible changes, researching each oldid can become tedious.  In this case, it can be helpful to use a javascript tool made by Dr pda.  To use it:
*Add  to your monobook.js page.
*Refresh your browser cache
*In your browser toolbox along the lefthand side of the page, you should now see an additional link entitled "Article History"
* Clicking on the link while you are at an article's talkpage, will search the talkpage history for notable events related to the article, and then display a list of these dates and the associated edit summaries
* Next to each summary is the word (oldid) Clicking on it will provide the associated article oldid for that timestamp.
* For further documentation, see: User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js.
How's that look? Or would it be better to make an oldid section somewhere else, like WP:DIFF, and then link there? --Elonka 02:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like a very useful suggestion, although I am not so much an expert in these things.... :-) Walter Ching 06:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OldID documentation

message: Today's main page FA's talkpage (Talk:Fourth International) is listed in both :Category:Wikipedia featured articles and :Category:Wikipedia featured article candidates (contested). I suspect that this is because there are details of a past unsuccessful FA nomination in its . If I'm right, can the template be changed so that it does not add articles to that category once there has been a subsequent successful FA candidacy listed in it? WjBscribe 03:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This behaviour would have happened with the older templates, if a featured and facfailed were on the same page. What is the contested category used for? Could it be eliminated entirely? Gimmetrow 12:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible change needed

message: May I propose this? 
#To rename Date to Version. This seems to convey exactly what is in the column.
#Add a column or something separated by slash in the same Version column to put down the Talk Page at that time of that Version. I thought of this when Elonka made a useful edit at an article history template, showing the Talk Page at the moment when the GA template was put by someone. This would give the reader an insight into the discussions at that time of that particular version. 
#Add a place when it was linked to High Traffic Site. 
Hope this is ok! :-) Walter Ching 06:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who would be adding the talk page version info to the template? High traffic seems a little outside the scope of this template, which is meant for review-related events. Gimmetrow 12:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, agreed as to high traffic issue. :-) As for talk page info, I suppose the same Wikipedians who were interested to fill up the other info will do it? As to Date to Version, this is my number one proposal. Hope this latter is ok? Thanks, Gimmetrow! Walter Ching 06:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not following; currently, we have date and version, which is useful.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  When no oldid is provided, there is no linked version, just a date. Gimmetrow 16:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal for Template

message: Could you someone please take a look at Talk:Mackinac Island. The oldids I put in this template on that page show 'Error: invalid time'. I've rechecked the oldid values at least three times. Dr. Cash 23:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed (twice).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: oldid error

message: Hey, I've come across a small thing that should be addressed: there should be a "listed" option for the Good Article Review parameter, since articles that failed their nomination can be reviewed and promoted. Teemu08 14:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article reviews 

message: I'm not sure how many other projects use these special pages, but for pages that have begun using this template, change lists such as Special:Recentchangeslinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games no longer show changes to those articles. This breaks a useful feature of WikiProject banners, which is that they can be used to quickly obtain a list of changes related to a WikiProject. Is there a solution for this? —ptk✰fgs 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how this template could affect that. Raul654 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my, I've come to the wrong talk page. Sorry about that! —ptk✰fgs 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaks Special:Recentchangeslinked 

message: Can someone set up DRV syntax? Lexicon (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like what? Examples? Gimmetrow 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, it doesn't matter what it looks like--the same as AFD, I guess.  It simply cannot list DRV as it now stands. Lexicon (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is how you want to represent the overturn outcomes. The easiest choice is just to state that it was overturned. Is that enough? --Merzul 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  It might be enough, since it very likely to follow the actual AFD in the history. I only tried this on Talk:Satellite map images with missing or unclear data, which is a case of "Endorsed keep". I wonder though, how much of an article "milestone" is a deletion review :) --Merzul 11:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DRV 

message: I'm not sure whether or not this would be too complicated, but I was thinking that we should have the option of allowing people to enter a second Featured topic.  There have already been two articles which were members of more than one FT, and another is two more are in nomination.  I was thinking that the first FT could use the existing code, and a second one could be added with ft2name= and ft2main=.  For example, for the currently nominated FF8 article, it could be: |FTname=Final Fantasy titles|FTmain=no|FT2name=Final Fantasy VIII|FT2main=yes.--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one gets back to me before some articles get a second FT, I guess I'll try to add the parameter to the template myself based on the existing code for the FT parameters.  I think I understand this well enough to edit, but if I end up screwing up the template, I'll revert.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over my head; post a note to .  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that this template handles FTs very well, and adding optional ft2name and ft2main parameters should be good enough to fix this problem.  In almost all cases, an article in two FTs will be the main article in one topic and a member article in the other.  I think there could, however, be a few cases where an article could be the main one of two topics.  Off the top of my head, for example, a singer-turned-actor could have a "movies staring John Doe" topic and an "albums by John Doe" topic which would both use the "John Doe" article as their main one.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Easiest would be to combine this with the the regular FT text, and if a second FT parameter exists, it gives both topics it's part of as one text. There isn't really a need for these links since they are part of the milestones. Gimmetrow 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  In fact, the way it is currently coded appears to have a bug, if an article is part of one FT then is nominated as part of another which fails, the failed FTC seems to be linked. This can't happen with current FAs and FLs because the latest FAC or FLC must have been a success or the article wouldn't be FA/FL. Gimmetrow 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to fix that would be to make an ftlink= parameter in addition to the ft2link= parameter.  So, how can I fix my #ifeq line to say "put whatever is indicated in the ftlink parameter here"?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved it.  I should have been using #if rather than #ifeq.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  There really is no point having the links in the displayed text - they are going to be listed below. How's the combined version? Gimmetrow 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to look good now.  Thanks for your help.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to take a look at Talk:Final Fantasy VIII.--Rmky87 23:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.--Rmky87 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Featured Topic 

message: I've almost got FT2 right, but I had to add an ft2link= paramiter because the original ftname= parameter assumes the link of the =ftc action link.  Right now I have:
identified
and I want it to link to whatever the ft2link= paramiter is, but it is just giving me the word "identified".  What am I doing wrong?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Easiest would be to combine this with the the regular FT text, and if a second FT parameter exists, it gives both topics it's part of as one text. There isn't really a need for these links since they are part of the milestones. Gimmetrow 04:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact, the way it is currently coded appears to have a bug, if an article is part of one FT then is nominated as part of another which fails, the failed FTC seems to be linked. This can't happen with current FAs and FLs because the latest FAC or FLC must have been a success or the article wouldn't be FA/FL. Gimmetrow 04:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to fix that would be to make an ftlink= parameter in addition to the ft2link= parameter.  So, how can I fix my #ifeq line to say "put whatever is indicated in the ftlink parameter here"?  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved it.  I should have been using #if rather than #ifeq.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text:  There really is no point having the links in the displayed text - they are going to be listed below. How's the combined version? Gimmetrow 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to look good now.  Thanks for your help.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need to take a look at Talk:Final Fantasy VIII.--Rmky87 23:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.--Rmky87 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Help fix my code

message: How many articles use this template? I make it somewhere around 2500. So how many should be using it? Anyone have any stats for number of FAs, FFACs, GAa, and so on? Can such stats be generated from the template itself (using what links here)? Carcharoth 15:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gimmetrow (mostly) and I have carefully worked through all FA article lists that should have it, and all links to old FA templates.  All FAs and FFAs currently have it (you can see the tally of the number of each at WP:FA and WP:FFA).  All WP:FACs that weren't promoted (failed) since January have it.  All WP:FARs since about January have it.  Many FACs that failed during 2006 or prior don't yet have it; what prevents us from adding those is simple; most of the old GAs don't have complete templates on their pages, and searching for and adding back in the oldids will be a pain.  Some GAs have it, but that has been sporadic—Gimmetrow will have a better answer—but since GA is such a random process anyway, it's hard to get it fully implemented there.  As far as I know, the template is implemented about as fully as we can accomplish for the FA process; holdups are at GA. Not sure what you really want to know; give me a better idea and I can better answer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose what I really wanted to know was how "completely implemented" the template was. And your answer pretty much answered that question. Can't a similar code be used to search for when the "GA" template was added to the talk page, and then suggest an oldid update? Carcharoth 16:17, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr pda's script is rendered useless on GAs because *SO* many reviewers don't use edit summaries when passing GA and/or don't add the oldid.  Once, I decided to start working on this, and it was taking me up to ten minutes to find each oldid on GA.  I don't think it's worth it.  Now, if someone wants to encourage THEM to go through the entire list of GAs, and make sure the talk page has an oldid on the GA template, we might have a whole 'nother story.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Just checked the data by checking What Links Here on ; there are currently about 1,250 old facfailed that don't have the ArticleHistory template.  If you start looking at them, you'll get a sampling of how many have missing pieces (either peer review or GA oldid, for example).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The bot also has some code to try to find the GA oldid if not present. In addition to the problem Sandy mentions, some talk pages are archived by moving, splitting the edit history. Also sometimes the GA template has a date rather than an oldid. (This is actually better for ArticleHistory, even though it's wrong in the GA template...) Gimmetrow 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which reminds me ... GAC instructions say to add oldid on GA passing, but date on GA failing.  Inconsistent, confusing.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, 'only' 2050 GAs. I had a look, and some really do look quite nice (of course, looks aren't everything). It would be nice to get them all covered by this. I might even demote some of the less 'nice-looking' GAs. After reading them, of course. Carcharoth 16:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To accomplish implementation on all GAs, you'd need to get a drive at the GA Project for editors to 1) upload 's article history script, 2) go through all 2000 GAs and check for oldid to add back to the GA template (and peer reviews and facfaileds while they're in there), 3) make sure templates for all other pieces indicated in Dr pda's script are accurately listed on the talk page with no dead links (that includes old archived facfaileds and peer reviews), and 4) put a worklist of talk pages here that are GimmeBot-ready so that Gimmetrow can run through them and convert all the templates to articlehistory.  (We've found it's not optimal for editors to be manually installing articlehistory themselves, as there are usually errors—better to let Gimmetrow run GimmeBot.)  It's a lot of work; that's what Gimme and I did on all the FAs.  Of course, while you're in a talk page, might as well group the articlehistory templates together, and add the banners, too :-)  (Isn't it nice of me to volunteer Gimmetrow's time—if someone takes this on and starts the list on the work page, I can help review the article pages for readiness :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I've started a thread over there here. If you could, please clarify what I've said, especially what you mean by "GimmeBot-ready". Carcharoth 22:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  *ding*
I'd like to see that bot applied to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I spent almost an hour figuring out the basics of the GA nomination edit war, and didn't even begin to worry about finding oldids... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: oh, my.  ArticleHistory isn't intended to track a GA edit war; you've got five entries in a few days, several times!  Article History need not list all those old reviews; just when it was listed, when it was delisted.  Since you already constructed ArticleHistory, it would be hard for GimmeBot to do the work now.  It would have been easier if you had just put the templates on the talk page, and then let GimmeBot run.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just used the dates that the reviewers said they added/removed it; I didn't feel like looking through several thousand talk page edits. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Impressive work, guys. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many articles use this template? 

message: On the peer review's action#result= parameter, there should be an option to state that the article was not reviewed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Methinks that's a sad commentary on the state of affairs at peer review these days, rather than a change needed in the template :-)  Similar is occurring at WP:GAC, and WP:FAC is overrun as well.  What's going on?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. I know that there's a roughly 1-month backlog on GAC, and out of the last four (?) articles I submitted for peer review, only two of them got reviewed (one reviewer each). So, I definitely know what you're talking about. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe someone needs to highlight the PR, GAC, and FAC backlogs at the Village Pump?  It's across the board.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shameless plug: WikiProject-run peer reviews tend to work a bit better than the centralized one! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FAC is overwhelmed because I haven't had much time for Wikipedia editing lately. It's not that I'm ignoring the site - far from it (I'll explain more on this later) - it's just my energy is currently being directed to other Wikipedia-related tasks. Raul654 02:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We forgive you. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have a hunch that some of the overflow at FAC is people who have given up waiting for PR and GAC, so come to FAC hoping for feedback.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, my problem is that my WikiProject (WP:TECH) is a tad too small to run its own peer reviews; I'd be the one doing all the reviewing, and I hardly know everything :p —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: This template (along with a few other less important ones) are broken with |small=yes. It pushes the text down rather than letting it flow on the left, see this. NicM 10:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That link looks OK here. Perhaps try removing the blank lines between templates on the page? Gimmetrow 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, removing the lines between it and the next fixes it in IE6. Thanks. NicM 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small=yes 

message: I haven't been able to get the template to work properly, at Talk:Leo Ryan.  Can someone take a look and either fix it or point out what I'm doing wrong?  Thanks for your time.  Smee 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help w/ template application ? 

message: Could we add a FFAC/GA which shows failed feature article candidate but is still a GA.  Thats not on the current staus list. Take James Bond for instance.SpecialWindler 23:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would it be important to display text about the article failing a FAC submission, if it's now a GA? Gimmetrow 23:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem that occurred there (and on Talk:Shen Kuo) was that  altered the ArticleHistory after GimmeBot went through.  I left him a note, and corrected the page.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  current status 

message: I can't get the aciddate field to work. I'm trying to add it to talk:Money, but it only displays brackets. What am I doing wrong? --LaraLoveT/C 16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raul fixed it; I fixed the rest of ArticleHistory there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way, where, how, when did aciddate get added to the template; it's not a GA/FA event and it's not in the instructions.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Added around May 10 by User:Diez2. It's in the instructions. Gimmetrow 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Diff Raul654 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, now it's there, since I just added it. :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, OK. Now, is this really a good idea? Seems like a potentially bad precedent, if GACotW and LoCE want space too. I'm thinking this should probably go in the drop-down box (for those that can use it), and that similar project-specific "article of the week" connections don't belong. Gimmetrow 16:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Raul654 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not following, but I concur — too much stuff added.  What/where is the drop down box ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  The drop-down box means the list of milestones. If this hasn't been implemented on many articles, it could probably be converted into another action type so it appears in order among milestones. Or, it could appear with an icon below that. Another idea I had for handling the WP1.0 and related versions (before a separate template was developed), was to make a specific area for icons like these. They would appear like a set of badges or endorsements with a terse, abbreviated link, and could probably fit in the space before the milestone list. Gimmetrow 17:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  aciddate 

message: I'm pulling a couple of errors a day out of the ArticleHistory error category.  By far, the largest number of errors are people who simply don't follow instructions, and add nomination procedures (GAN, FAC, PR) to the template.  Can we somehow make that prominent in the instructions (that nomination procedures aren't added to AH until they close).  The second most frequent cause of errors is vandalism.  And then, many GA passes that are set up wrong.  It's frequently the same people who are doing it wrong, so I leave them talk page notes.  We need a template we can subst to leave a canned message on editors' talk pages, informing them of the error, to check the corrections, and reminding them it's OK to leave the templates and request botification by leaving a talk message here.  Can anyone do that? — I don't know how to set up a subst'd message.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way, there's a new message on  encouraging the switchover to ArticleHistory, so we're likely to get a lot of errors as inexperienced editors switch over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with you, I added the little message on , so I'll create the template:Warning template edition so you subst it on people's talk pages. --Andersmusician $ 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing errors 

message: It looks like the ArticleHistory template is using an older version of the DelistedGA banner.  It was decided some time ago that not every article needed to go through WP:GA/R to be delisted; egregious violations of WP:WIAGA are delisted on sight.  The current text of the DGA status banner as Template:ArticleHistory calls up reads:
*A Wikipedian removed XXXX from the good article list after consensus was reached to do so.
This is incorrect in some cases.  While consensus GA/R discussions MAY lead to a delisting, some articles are delisted without discussion.  Please update this template with the current text of Template:DelistedGA.  Thanks a bunch! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with DGA status banner 

message: is referenced in the article, but it's a redlink (and deletion log doesn't show anything.)  What's the correct reference? --Sigma 7 11:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|FTR}} 

message: It would be great if  were expanded to also absorb  and related templates, as well as  and related older templates. These little bits of "old news" aren't particularly useful at all as stand-alone templates, and just clutter up talk pages. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I could understand Onlinesource and similar, but WP1.0 process is more like a WikiProject. It has rating, importance and so on... Shinhan 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Onlinesources aren't related to the process/history of bringing an article to featured status.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True; I was poposing to make it a little broader.  This template after all is called ArticleHistory not ArticleReviewHistory. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

text: NB: It already includes plenty of other article history stuff not related to GA/FA status, such as AFD.  I'd still propose adding Onlinesource and similar. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other templates to absorb

message: I've read this line by line twice, and must be going blind. I don't see where any of this code is handling the AFD stuff (it needs to be modified to accept "speedily kept" and "speedily deleted"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That code is in a sub-template . I added your speedies, check if the synonyms seem reasonable. --Merzul 10:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verra nice. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Where is the AFD code?

message: The dox say (if I read the weird wording there correctly) to use a history link for GAR as the link in the template, specifically the version of the article's talk page in which the GA template was inserted.  But using the full URL or a partial, like "Talk:Carom_billiards&oldid=102639909", simply breaks the template.  Is there a Wikilink way of getting at those history pages? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: GA/R pages can be linked from the GA/R archives, see Talk:Martin Luther. Gimmetrow 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, from what I can tell, GA/N simply isn't archived. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There would be nothing to link to on WP:GAN, as it contains no review information. Why couldn't the link go to the section in the talk page, or if it's been archived, in the talk page archives? For Carom billiards, that would seem to be Talk:Carom_billiards#Good_article, although the review doesn't really say much. Gimmetrow 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to do GARs and the like?

message: The problem with current status is it always says "?" if nothing from the list of allowed values is specified, implying "unknown", even when it might well be known.  I propose either a "na" value, which would display as "N/A" for "not applicable", or new more specific values, Stub, Start, B and A, from the Assessment Scale. Always having it be "?" will send people on wild goose chases to try to figure out the "unknown" status. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This template has nothing to do with the Stub/Start/B/A rating system. It's about the FA/FL/PR/GA processes, which is why the code is called currentstatus rather than class. If an article hasn't been through FA/FL/PR/GA, it shouldn't have a currentstatus. Gimmetrow 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status options 

message: I have been using  on several talk pages.  They suggest using the date that  changes to  which seems to be about 2 weeks after the last comment on the peer review discussion page.  With this action date the action ID associated with the review is two weeks after any commentary.  Does this make sense. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot uses the date of the last review comment. Gimmetrow 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the proper date to use because the template page suggests using the date of the template change.  It seems that a hybrid of using the date of the template change for the date, but using the ID of the last review comment is correct. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer reviews in Template:ArticleHistory 

message: *Is there a way for this template to include the OLDID of the article page for the instance when it appeared on Wikipedia:Did you know, just like it already does for GA, Peer Review, and FA ??  Thank you for your time.  Yours, Smee 21:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OLDID for DYK? 

message: Leonardo da Vinci was the subject of one, but I can't get the parameter to work. Who decided to delete this?--Rmky87 14:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never deleted. The code had a bug so the "acciddate" value was only used when there was no "maindate". It's fixed now. Gimmetrow 06:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is wrong with the aciddate parameter? 

message: I've just delisted Talk:Leo J. Ryan Federal Building as a GA without a WP:GAR - the GAR guidance allows "6. If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria, you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately."
Essentially it hasn't been through a GA - it's unilateral action on my part - what action code should I give it (GAR doesn't seem approriate)?
--Mcginnly | Natter 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use GAR for any delisting. New "currentstatus" will be DGA in most cases. (If it had been FFA/GA it would become FFA). Gimmetrow 12:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I see your bot has done the job. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: I find it strange that the parameter does not include A-Class. Can you add that? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ArticleHistory lists reviews, and FA or GA status which are general assessments not specific to a project. An A-class review is a review and is listed in the template with other reviews, but an article may be A-class for one project, GA for another, and B for a third. There is no general project-wide A-class to use here. Gimmetrow 06:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No A-class? 

message: Wouldn't it be a good idea to add "On Hold" to one of the outcomes of a GAN? We're removing the GAN template from the talk page, so a date is available. Mouse Nightshirt | talk 16:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "On hold" is a very temporary state which, after a week, resolves into a listed or not listed. ArticleHistory is to record the result, not the microdetails of how it got there. Gimmetrow 16:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN on hold? 

message: includes a topic parameter, which is used to feed the ten main WP:1.0 categories (documented at ) into the 1.0 article database. However, all the articles that have GA status and that are using ArticleHistory cannot use that function, leaving a lot of them in the "Unclassified" category. Is there a way a paramater could be added to be able to add that functionality? And what is the gacat parameter for anyways? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See reply under Gacat above. Dr pda 10:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Responded above as well.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be very helpful to the uncategorized GAs task force, and to WP:1.0. Eventually, that could allow for  to be merged into ArticleHistory, if desired. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. With all due (and deep) respect to Titoxd, it seems to me that GA articles which employ ArticleHistory aren't categorized in any "Unclassified" category, a pernicious problem. Representative instance illustrating the class: Burnham Park. It employs ArticleHistory on its talk page, but it is not present in :Category:Uncategorized good articles, nor is it present on the category page that WP:GA suggests that it should: :Category:Geography good articles. Further, none of the string of categories at the foot of the article's talk page seem to serve as a holding bin for unclassified Good Articles. It appears to me that 'Burnham Park' is an "invisibly unclassified" article, at least insofar as the classification scheme that  drives. As a consequence, reviewing :Category:Uncategorized good articles doesn't even furnish a complete picture of uncategorized articles, probably Not A Good Thing. If a future implementation of ArticleHistory populated these WP:1.0 aligned categories in a manner akin to , the world would be a more consistent, if not better place. Thank you all for your help. Take care — Gosgood 21:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  FYI, ArticleHistory has lost absolutely none of the "topic" parameters that may have existed in the GA template. The bot copies them over verbatim and has done so for a few months (when the "topic" paramter was added to GA). It's a simple matter of coding to have ArticleHistory use the field. Gimmetrow 21:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm glad to hear that the bot has been copying over the topic information. We seem to be agreed that implementing the topic code in ArticleHistory is easy to do, and worth doing: I'll do it in the next day or so, unless Gimmetrow beats me to it. Geometry guy 22:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Egads, please do not have synonym fields in templates. Please. "topic" is quite adequate and corresponds to the field in the GA template. Gimmetrow 19:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not harmless when the bot code handling this already has way way way too many options to support. If WP1.0 is ever merged, then all the field names can be changed one way or the other. No synonyms on the field names. Gimmetrow 05:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is there a way a bot can replace  and fuse others such as DYK and FAC to merge into ? Right now both templates are used roughly 50:50. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA topic?