Template talk:Article history

Requested move 17 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

---

• Template:Article history → Template:Page history
• Module:Article history → Module:Page history

– This is not just for articles; it is for pages of various sorts (for example, it has parameters for old TFDs, MFDs, and featured portals). Thus, the current name is actively misleading.

{{Page history}} does currently exist as a redirect to {{history}}. However, the redirect has only 11 uses which can easily be adjusted, and in general it is a silly redirect. I am not sure why you would want to use a "shortcut" which is literally the target page with additional text stuck on the beginning. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide an example of any page that is not the talk page of an article on which this template is used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

This search gets all of them. (Most uses are on article talk pages, but a non-insignificant number are not.) Examples include Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, Template talk:Tom Hanks, and Portal talk:The arts. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

All three of those examples are poor uses of this template and for which other templates are available (as I suspected). The template has been misused in the three examples given. Since changing this template would mess up ALL kinds of things everywhere, I suggest instead repairing the instances where the original purpose of this template has been distorted by misuse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy if the result of this discussion is to remove the parameters for non-article pages (and therefore use different templates as appropriate on non-article-talk pages). I still think that if we are going to advertise this as a template for non-article pages in the documentation by providing parameters for TFD, MFD, etc., it should be reflected in the title. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster I don't know how to read the code or understand how (or even if) the template got altered from its original intent and design, but I don't see where we are "advertis[ing] this as a template for non-article pages in the documentation" and I'm unsure how or when it came to be used that way. Where on the page do you see it is advertised for non-article pages (you may have to give it to me in dummy 101 language :) I suspect the template is simply being misused on certain pages, as it was originally intended to track articles through different assessment processes, and I fear that having it grow beyond that use is asking for problems. (I could be wrong-- technodummy.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I have no idea about the history of this template, but I can certainly see that it has become a very feature-rich. If I may be philosophical for a minute, sometimes being an all-purpose template is beneficial: nobody complains that {{citation}} is trying to be too many things at once. There are also times that trying to be an all-purpose template is harmful: "jack of all trades, master of none" and all. This template might very well be trying to take on too many "responsibilities", in which case splitting it out into separate templates would be a good idea.

To answer your question: there is no place in the documentation that says HEY GUESS WHAT DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN USE THIS ON ALL TYPES OF TALK PAGES!!!!!. I was referring to the fact that this template contains parameters documented in #Syntax which only apply to non-articles. For instance, under the "Deletion processes" header, you can see that this template currently takes |TFD= and |MFD= parameters. (Obviously, mainspace articles don't go to TFD or MFD.) It also has parameters (see the "Featured content process" header) for featured portals. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster thanks for all that -- most helpful. I was involved in establishing this template on every then-extant FA way back in 2007 or 2008, although Gimmetrow handled all the technical stuff. So I'm not in a position to say whether we have now turned in to a "Jack of all trades, master of none" situation by extending beyond the original intent, or whether it has become a helpful all-purpose template that needs renaming. But I hope we've raised the right questions at least, for the six bots that use this template. I shall keep watching to see if a direction develops! Thx again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I made an example conversion of Wikipedia talk:List of Wikipedians by number of edits, a page already on my watchlist, to show how {{Old XfD multi}} may be used. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes to that; I'm wondering how many of them can be cleaned up (since it appears to be only a few hundred per Novem), and if we could then adjust the documentation here to avoid further misuse? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Corrected the remaining eight instances to use Old Xfd; I'd oppose renaming for an exceedingly small handful of misuses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: and thank you for taking this seriously! I am certain—no matter what happens with this rename—the template, and thus Wikipedia, will be better off than it was in no small part from your insistence on getting this done the right way. :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

My pleasure ... thanks for bringing forward the problem. Not many people have been around long enough to remember how bad talk pages were before Gimmetrow undertook this effort, and Maralia and I did the grunt work, so I keep an eye on it. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Dispatches, Taming talk page clutter, March 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. Perhaps not a reason to oppose the move, but I suspect there is bot code that depends on the current name. There's certainly code in ChristieBot that expects "article history" (including capitalization variants); it wouldn't be that big a job to change it but I'd prefer not to unless the move is actually needed, rather than just tidying. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  It will also mess up FACbot; @Hawkeye7:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, it would require a change to the FACBot and MilHistBot as it depends on that name. Not a major change; everything runs through a single module that deals with the Article History template. It would need to be coordinated though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Novem Linguae do you need to look at this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also, @0xDeadbeef: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

• Looks like theres 48518 article talk transclusions and 242 non article talk transclusions. 48518 is a lot of template names to change, and also multiple bot and user script code. Looking pragmatically at this, is it really worth the effort? –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A redirect would still be left—WP:NOTBROKEN would apply. I don't know about bot/user script code, though. If it would be a royal pain in the rear to update scripts/etc., we shouldn't rename. If it is a matter of adding/updating a line or two of code, I think it is beneficial for template names to reflect what they do (see WP:TPN). HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The ratio of articles to non-articles is north of 200:1, and it's even higher if you remove tests and mistakes. The current title correctly describes the principal use of the template, and that's more important to me than being punctiliously exact about edge cases. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per Extraordinary Writ and Novem Linguae. And if this were moved without the bots/user scripts being updated, it would be not great to have to say "please do not use this template's title when transcluding this template". SilverLocust 💬 09:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose, the vast majority of parameters are clearly intended for articles. Use for other page types feels incidental, although if it's easier to appropriate this rather than make up a whole new template I'm not exactly opposed to the incidental use. CMD (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support. A non-encompassing name is still a non-encompassing name. Ratios are irrelevant if there is even one exception, which there is. After the change, someone can work to fix the template coding ... which it seems there is already discussion about. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Eh ... 8 exceptions remaining? Either they can be substituted or a different template can be used. Withdrawing my opinion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming for the eight instances of misuse of the article template when Old XFD multi works for those cases. I'm unsure why this was relisted when HouseBlaster offered to withdraw the proposal after understanding what went wrong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be better to remove the non-article-space uses, but even without doing that the current name is accurate and changing it would cause a lot of clean up work with little benefit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no problem. The template is intended for articles. If people find a way to use it for something else, good luck to them. It is not helpful to wear out script maintainers just to scratch an itch. Johnuniq (talk) 01:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Misuse?

Used for TFD

1. Template talk:Infobox military person a single TFD
2. Template talk:Tom Hanks single TFD
3. Template talk:Expert needed two TFDs
4. Template talk:Coord three TFDs
5. Template talk:Extreme metal two TFDs
6. Template talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors two TFDs
7. Template talk:Ben Affleck three TFDs

   Used for MFD

8. Template talk:User legal userboxes two MFDs

Called away, will continue later, but it looks from these like the problem may be more easily solved by using a multiple TFD or multiple MFD template on the eight pages that are using AH for TFD or MFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

253 user pages ???

• What? [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

131 user talk pages? [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to select "Hide links" as well, this brings the transclusion counts right down to 17 for User, 19 for User talk and 9 for Template talk. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

So that seems to be about it, or am I missing something? If this is all, then it does seem like a multiple TFD or multiple MFD would be more appropriate. Can anyone tell when or by whom the TFD and MFD were added to this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Here are my assessments for the uses in User: space:

• User:Amakuru - this is due to {{User:Amakuru/Featured article}}
• User:Amakuru/2 - this is due to {{User:Amakuru/Featured article 2}}
• User:Amakuru/3 - this is due to {{User:Amakuru/Featured article 3}}
• User:Amakuru/alt - this is due to {{User:Amakuru/Featured article}}
• User:Amakuru/Featured article - this has {{ArticleHistory}} (a redir). Amakuru is still active, but hasn't edited this page since 2012
• User:Amakuru/Featured article 2 - this has {{ArticleHistory}}. Amakuru hasn't edited this page since 2012
• User:Amakuru/Featured article 3 - this has {{ArticleHistory}}. Amakuru hasn't edited this page since 2018
• User:Amakuru/old - this is due to {{User:Amakuru/Featured article}}
• User:Chanpara - this has {{Article history}}, but is misused (probably a test). User is inactive, and has few edits outside user space - last edited April 2020
• User:Dr. Blofeld/GAR temp - this has {{ArticleHistory}}. Dr. Blofeld is still active, but hasn't edited this page since 2016
• User:EcoBoiii223/citing sources - this has {{Article history}}, but is misused (probably a test). User is inactive - last edited April 2020
• User:Ermunu - this has {{Article history}}, but is misused (probably a test). User is semi-active - last edited March 2024
• User:Paulapace14/Sandbox - this has {{ArticleHistory}}, but is misused (probably a test). User's only edit was to create this page in 2012
• User:Rahim Mia BD - this has {{Article history}}, but is misused (probably a test). User's only edit was to create this page in 2020
• User:Shimdidly/Archive - this is a cut&paste user talk archive, but has been modified since. It has {{ArticleHistory}}, apparently used correctly. User has been blocked since 2009
• User:Troll-Life - this has , but is misused (probably a test). User has been inactive since 2015
• User:Weebiloobil/Sandbox - this has {{ArticleHistory}}, but is misused (probably a test). User has been inactive since 2016

Most of these can probably be removed outright, apart from those of Amakuru. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru what you up to there ? This convinces me we might be better served to NOT have these TFDs and MFDs run through article history. AH was intended to track articles as they progressed up the assessment scale from stub through FA, including DYK and ITN appearances. The instances where it was used for TFD or MFD will never become good or featured articles, and can (probably?) be served by another template, so we should remove TFD and MFD from AH and re-do the documentation accordingly. I could be wrong (techno-dummy)! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I think I was just using that template as a means of getting the "this FA was on the main page on <date>" message on the FA blurb used on my user page. To be honest the user page was written more than a decade ago and could probably use a revamp, it's just not particularly a priority! The uses of that template can be removed there anyway, it certainly isn't essential to have them there.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sandy, the MfD and TfD params were added to the documentation page here, in 2015, so it was probably also Mr. Stradivarius who added those params to the template itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I found now {{Old XfD multi}}, and suggest the best solution here is to remove TFD and MFD from article milestones (they aren't), and use Old XfD multi on those eight pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mike Christie and SandyGeorgia: I just moved the parameters from the template. These are the diffs you are looking for: [3][4]. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be happy to withdrawn this RM if we are going to remove the TFD/MFD/featured portal parameters. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Give it another day or so to see if anyone has new feedback? If we decide to remove and fix the TFD/MFD, I don't know how to do that :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

HouseBlaster, I have now commented out the misuses of the template from the documentation,[5] and repaired those eight instances where multiXFD works instead, but don't know how to repair the code -- will have to leave that to someone else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: thank you so much, both for doing this and for the ping. Let me see what I can do in the sandbox; I will then be able to file an edit request :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-move discussion

I have started {{portal history}} to cater to the obvious demand (175 uses), even though portals don't have content review processes anymore (as far as I am aware). Still on the todo list include supporting MFDs and Wikipedia:Portal peer review (which this template never supported). I realize that these are historical processes, but that is kinda the point of these templates: documenting history. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Missing parameters for good and featured topics

I had a good topic delisted and the whole process is obscure and difficult to accommodate. Why do we not have "Good topic reassessment" and "Featured topic reassessment" parameters? There is also no "Good topic removal candidate". Has nobody ever needed to update articles after a delisted GT/FT? Has there never been a delisted GT/FT before? Super Ψ Dro 13:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 11 June 2024

Change FGAN from

FGAN = {

id = 'FGAN',

name = 'Former good article nominee',

aliases = {'FAILEDGA'},

icon = 'Symbol unsupport vote.svg',

More stuff after.

but change the icon to

Symbol oppose vote.svg 48JCL TALK 22:22, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Linked page:Module:Article history/config 48JCL TALK 22:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

@Elli sorry for this ping but {{icon|noga}} makes and Template:FailedGA uses the same logo. pretty sure you’re an admin so please help edit the module to change the logo of FGAN to Symbol oppose vote.svg thx and congrats on being an admin. Cheers 48JCL TALK 14:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 20:02, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on August 8, 2024

Per this discussion, please change the phrase "nomination failed" to "nomination was archived" for FFACs, FFLCs, and FFTCs. Since the featured portals process is no longer active, it's up to the editor handling this request if they'd like to make the same change for FFPOCs, though I would guess the community would prefer to retain the historical state. Let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

To make sure I get this right, can you make the required changes to Module:Article history/config/sandbox? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sure; here's the diff. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done Sohom (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request for dark mode compatibility

On line 1026 in Module:Article history, remove the line with :css('background', 'transparent'). This is per this MediaWiki page which says this is unnecessary and doesn't work with night mode. I have tested at Module:Article history/sandbox and verified per Template:Article history/testcases. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 09:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

 On hold – please confirm you meant line 1206, not line 1026 in the module. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, and  completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposal for currentstatus=A

For articles which have passed an A-class review, I would suggest |currentstatus=A would be more logical than GA because A-class is a higher class than GA-class. At the moment, if you look at an example like Talk:Wallachian Revolution of 1848, this template advising that it is currently GA and the banner shell advises that it is A-class. I would prefer to see consistency between them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

A-class is a Wikipedia:Content assessment rating used for some WikiProjects. It is slightly different to FA and GA, which are assessed against Wikipedia-wide criteria and listed at central pages (WP:GA and WP:FA). If |currentstatus=A is created, then |currentstatus=A/GA should also be allowed to avoid mismatches between the list of articles at WP:GA and the articles listed in Category:Wikipedia good articles. Adabow (talk) 06:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Since 2023 (WP:PIQA) all the standard classes described at WP:Content assessment are Wikipedia-wide criteria. (WikiProjects no longer do their own assessments, except for a few exceptions.) So there is much less distinction now than previously. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

WikiProjects still handle all assessments for A-class, there's no other process for it. The GA code will still be needed to create the category, although there's no issue if display on the article talkpage is overridden by an A-class icon. CMD (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Should old article history templates be deleted?

In this edit @Bdushaw deleted the article history, saying in the edit summary that the article was completely different now. I agree but I wonder if there might be reasons for maintaining the info nevertheless? Johnjbarton (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The page changing isn't a reason to remove the article history template, it's history relating to the development of the page. CMD (talk) 03:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal; CMD is right -- the point of the template is documentation of the article's history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 06:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 October 2024

Similar to my request here, I request an extra parameter be added that includes a link to the specific nomination discussion for the article. Something like:

A news item involving {event} was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 October 2024. The nomination can be seen here

Or

A news item involving {event} was nominated and featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 14 October 2024.

— Knightoftheswords 16:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

Around line 441, it should be changed to something along the following to reflect the FPO process is deprecated:

Update: see below

text = "The '''$2 Portal''' was '''[[Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:$2|identified]]''' " .. "as a [[Wikipedia:Featured portals|featured portal]] " .. 'before the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as "historical"|discontinuation of the Featured Portal system in 2017]].' .. "It was considered one of the best portals on [[Wikipedia]]. " .. "If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without " .. "compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute.",

Bonus points for replacing the icon and hover text as well, though I haven't looked into a suitable replacement image (maybe there's something like the featured star, but greyed out). Retro (talk | contribs) 20:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I have to admit... I'm not crazy about the "can be updated or improved without compromising previous work" wording. Sometimes previous work needs to be compromised for whatever reason, even when a page is or was once thought to be emaculate, in order to improve this encyclopedia. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 03:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

At one point we used File:Linecons big-star.svg on featured portals. Then it was decided that annotating them on the main page was silly and Template:Featured portal was deleted. That image would work fell here. I'm also inclined to delete the last three sentences entirely, and just say "was identified as a featured portal" as a factual statement with no further details. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

{{icon}} also uses that image since 2017, so that should work well. Phrasing-wise, I generally agree, but I'd prefer to mention the process was ended for clarity (see below). Retro (talk | contribs) 02:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Updated version: Module:Article history/config/sandbox.

More phrasing revisions (from incorporating feedback above, brevity, and consistency) and updated the image. Looks good in the testcase I created. Retro (talk | contribs) 02:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)