Template talk:Article history

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Article history template.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 180 days

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Peer review § Finished reviews are not being integrated into Template:Article history. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 21:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7, Sdkb, Mathglot, SD0001, Headbomb, Shubinator, and Anomie: Sorry for the indiscriminate list, but I am really unsure who to ping here, and probably need feedback from all of you. I had hoped to wait for more consensus to develop, but Hawkeye was already pinged, so I wanted to bring in all of you.

WP:URFA/2020 was started to help sort through the older FAs that don't need to be sent to WP:FAR, while also providing a means of locating the most deficient that do need to be sent to FAR. So, we end up with some FAs defeatured or kept via FAR (which FACbot already processes into articlehistory), with others "marked satisfactory" (don't need FAR) based on at least three reviewers at URFA/2020.

There is a proposal to add URFA to the article history template. Please have a look at the general discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#URFA addition to article milestones, and the more specific detail and questions at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#If we were to ask. Also, please ping anyone who might be helpful, as I really don't know who all to ask. I would hope to hold an RFC before moving forward on the idea, but need to know how to design the new entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Template:Article history/output has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At Template:Article history/output, please remove the following syntax:

|farc=[[Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed)]]

This syntax categorizes certain pages into Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed), which is being deleted per the result of this CFD discussion. No replacement is necessary. Thanks! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, noting that more syntax needs to be removed than as requested to implement the category deletion: Special:Diff/1058238683. feminist (talk) 08:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes this template is used in talk pages for testing, and it adds those pages into the Featured Articles categories, example Template_talk:Article_history/Archive_5 (search on "currentstatus=FA" and see cats bottom of page). This then creates problems with other processes such as Wikipedia:Featured_articles/mismatches which is reporting a mismatch since the "Archive 5" page is not in other places one would expect a Featured Page. Would it be possible to add a flag to not add categories? -- GreenC 16:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GreenC, do you meant to not add categories only when not used on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Something like |nocat=1 -- GreenC 16:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to Module:Article history has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add special text for when an article is currently on Today's Featured article, ideally something like below:

This article is currently appearing on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article as of July 13, 2024. 172.112.210.32 (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really seems like overkill. – The Grid (talk) 00:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It already has that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. Can someone take a look at Talk:NASA Astronaut Group 2 and investigate why it is showing as a featured topic? It is a good topic. I added GTC (not FTC) to the {{Article history}} template, and I purged the page, but it is still showing up as a featured topic when it should show as a good topic. Did I do something wrong, or is this a bug that needs fixing? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will look now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found the issue. There's 5 FAs and 5 GAs in the topic. Module:FeaturedTopicSum#L-31 does numFeatured >= numGood. Let me double check that the >= should be a >= and not a >. Once I get consensus I'll come back if a change needs to be made. Thanks for the quick response. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if that does it, because I was otherwise striking out. I checked multiple similar good topics and they were fine, so you may have found the issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After chatting with the featured and good topic folks, the module is correct as is. Thanks for looking into it, I appreciate your time. Happy holidays :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A thought: Couldn't the template detect the action/process type from the link text? E.g., |action#link=/GA1 and |action#link=Wikipedia:Peer review/.../archive1 make it easy to tell what kind of action is being described. czar 19:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template says that there are suggestions below to improve the article but is that a given? Talk:Aurelio Voltaire has that template but below it there are no suggestions. This was what made me wonder. There can be countless of articles like this. Should we rephrase that to mean something like "There may be suggestions below..." or "Please check below as there may be... if not..."? - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]