Template talk:Article history/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

maindate2

See the current RfC at WT:TFA. The outcome regarding Option 1 seems clear, and there have been no new comments in the voting section in over 5 days. The TFA coords would like for someone to tweak this template so that it can take a "maindate2" parameter in addition to "maindate". Currently, "maindate" is the TFA date, the date that an article appeared on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article. Any takers? - Dank (push to talk) 02:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Should this be strictly maindate and maindate2 only, or should there also be a maindate3, maindate4, etc.? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We would need another RfC for a maindate3, and it would probably fail. We're not considering it. - Dank (push to talk) 04:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Ok, the code is now in the sandbox. Take a look at the maindate2 test cases and the new error test cases. Does the wording all look ok to you? I also added some new tracking categories - Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once and Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice (and the same for featured lists). Let me know what you think. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

We are looking at rerunning only about five years after the first TFA, so I don't think current maindate/future maindate2 or future/future are going to be required. If I understand it correctly (which I may not do), I don't think we need the "now + i week" parameter, since the posting of maindate2 will not be a at constant interval before that date. Otherwise maindate2 looks fine to me, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I realised that current/future and future/future would be unlikely combinations, but for the module to be robust we need to handle them somehow if they do ever show up, whether that's on purpose or by mistake. One way would be to treat them as valid input and display the appropriate text, and another way would be to treat them as invalid input and display an error message plus a tracking category. (There's also the option of not displaying any text and adding a tracking category, but that didn't seem like a good idea to me.) To me they seemed like valid but unlikely combinations, hence the current approach. The "now + i week" syntax in the test cases is just to make sure that the date is always in the future; it could just as easily be "now + 5 years" without having any effect on what we are trying to test. We could go for something like "1 January 9999", but then when it actually got to the year 9999 someone would have to update the test cases. (Although everything will break the following year anyway unless the PHP people update their date function to accept 5-digit years.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. And I did misunderstand the point of the "now +" bit Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The only other test cases I can think of are maindate2 present twice (I know there's already a test for maindate present twice), and maindate2 present but maindate not present, which might already be covered by the date comparison tests. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've added a test for maindate2 with no maindate. At the moment, maindate2 is not displayed if there is no maindate, so this ends up looking the same as with the current module. Testing for two maindate2 parameters isn't possible from a template - the logic for duplicate template parameters is handled by MediaWiki itself, and the template only sees the parameter that was specified later. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Mr. Stradivarius, I have scheduled Rosetta Stone for March 18th. If the mainspace2 parameter needs on-talk page testing, or implementation, this would be a good case to try it.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492, Dank, and Jimfbleak: Hmm, I have a question. Looking over the code again, I see that I have altered the logic for Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page so that the category is only added after the page has appeared on the main page, not after the |maindate= parameter has been added to the template. Is this going to interrupt the workflow of people looking for articles to feature? I was thinking it might be better to introduce another category like Category:Featured articles that will appear on the main page for pages which have been selected to appear on the main page but have not actually been featured yet; however, I'd like to hear what people's opinions are first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  (Also pinging Mike Christie.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  I wouldn't mind such a category, so long as it's marked administrative so we don't have well-meaning admins deleting it.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  Sorry, I think I worded that badly. It's not the category itself that I'm worried about, it's the workflow. At the moment, if someone adds |maindate=some date to an article history template, then it adds the page to Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page whether its date has come around yet or not. With the code in the sandbox as it currently is, even if the |maindate= parameter is specified, the template will not add the page to the category until the specified date has passed. An obvious counterpart to this rule would be to add Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page if |maindate= is specified but the date is still in the future (although the sandbox code doesn't actually do this at the moment - such pages are currently uncategorised). I'm guessing that people use Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page as a way to find FAs that could be featured on the front page in the future, and that adding already-approved-but-not-yet-featured pages to it would get in the way of people's work. What's the more important measure - whether an article has been approved or not, or whether it has actually been featured on the front page? (Or if those are both important, we could distinguish between the two with a "featured articles that will appear on the main page" category as I hinted at above.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry *sheepish grin*. We have non-category pages that we use to schedule, so I think having the template include scheduled-but-not-yet-featured articles in the Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page would work fine.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've put the maindate2 parameter code up live now. Let me know if you spot any issues. The new categories are at:

• Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Category:Featured articles that have appeared on the main page twice
• Category:Featured lists that have appeared on the main page once
• Category:Featured lists that have appeared on the main page twice

Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The article history banner Talk:Shackleton–Rowett Expedition (the talk page for today's TFA) currently shows that it is the TFA and that it previously appeared as TFA in 2009. Despite this, it is shown as belonging to the category of "once" not "twice". Mr. Stradivarius, can you tweak the code so that this is fixed? Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 08:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: Good catch, and fixed. The category logic was considering articles to have appeared on the Main Page if the current date is after the date specified, but of course that is wrong if the article is on the Main Page today. My bad. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

What is happening to the FL and FA "yet to appear on the main page" categories?

Mr. Stradivarius (or anyone else) - Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page now has just 50 pages in it, and all the rest of the FLs yet to be main-paged seem to have arrived in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page, which has 3,700-odd entries instead of less than 1,100 (compare WP:FANMP. What's gone wrong? Bencherlite^Talk 16:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: I'm not quite understanding this. Why should Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page have more than 50 pages in it, and why should Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page have less than 1,100? (I am guessing that there is some problem with my code, but before I can fix it I need to get my head around what the problem is.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: for example, 1991 College Baseball All-America Team is a featured list, but it now appears in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page, even though it is not a featured article. That category should only contain FAs that have never been TFA, which is about 5,000+ FAs minus over ten years of TFA, or about 1,000. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bencherlite and Mike Christie: Ok, should be fixed now with this edit. There was a logic error for lists with no |maindate= parameter, meaning they were being treated as articles in the Main Page date categories. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Still showing the wrong numbers for me; I assume that's a caching issue (I did try purging). I'll check again later. Thanks for fixing this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're talking about 1k articles, changing the template won't immediately update everything. The system will have to update. Might take a while. Primefac (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page is now up to 387 pages, and Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page is down to 3,411. The numbers are starting to correct themselves, but verrrry slowly. If there's a talk page that you want to change the category for right now, you can do it with a null edit (to the page in question, not the category page). — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this, much appreciated. The categories can't be used properly otherwise. Bencherlite^Talk 12:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Feature req: Incorporate Template:Annual readership

Raised this on the other template's talk page, but I think this chart would be a natural fit for Template:Article history: reader stats for the past X period. I think monthly bar graphs are more helpful than a line graph for the last 60 days (more accurate "annual" picture for the small space), but wanted to float the idea first.  czar 18:00, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Lua error

For some reason, this template is giving me "Lua error: bad argument #1 to 'params' (string or number expected, got nil)." on Talk:Us Tareyton smokers would rather fight than switch! and I can't figure out what the hell I did wrong. Please fix? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer, I'm not seeing it. Is it still there, or are you seeing it in other places? Primefac (talk) 01:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: It seems to have been unfucked. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yay? Primefac (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 8 February 2018

Please make my changes to the sandbox live (if you just copy the sandbox module's content to the main module, don't forget to change the config page at line 10). I used mw-collapsible class instead of collapsible – the former works with a module in core MediaWiki, while the latter uses on-wiki code which should be deprecated. Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Tacsipacsi, just to double-check, the removed text is unnecessary because the extra rules don't need to be in place for mw-collapsible, yes? Primefac (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The old one works only with tables, while the new one works with nearly any tag, including <div>s, so I simplified the code. I checked the test cases, and all differences are intentional. --Tacsipacsi (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done can't see any issues with the testcases. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Please update Category redlink, Syntax section

Greetings, For this template Most syntax errors place the talk page in Category:ArticleHistory error. the category red link needs to be updated to Category:Article history templates with errors. Regards, — JoeHebda • (talk) 03:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done. For future reference, 99% of the time the /doc isn't protected and you can just edit it yourself. Primefac (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Tracking spurious bullets

I have added spurious bullet dyk entry tracking and autofixing. before the change it would read 'Did you know * ...' and after the change it reads 'Did you know ...' when the entry started with a bullet. any auto fixed entries are tracked in "Category:Pages using article history with a spurious bullet" until the bullet is removed. once the tracking category fills up and the entries are fixed, we can remove the autofixing if it's not generally useful. please let me know if any of this causes a problem. Frietjes (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

the tracking category filled up, all the entries were fixed, so I have undone my changes. Frietjes (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit request: Academic peer review parameter

Hello, as more articles get added to the category Category:Wikipedia_articles_published_in_peer-reviewed_literature, it would be useful to be able to add them to the {{ArticleHistory}} section (e.g. Talk:Dengue_fever, Talk:Circular_permutation_in_proteins). Would it be possible to add such a parameter?

Obviously "Peer review" is already taken by by the internal WP:PR process. However, perhaps "External peer review" or "Academic peer review" Withe the result "published". Ideally it would link to both the published version (e.g. [1]) and its peer review (e.g. [2]). Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 04:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Two things, which can probably be accomplished in one step. First, it would be good to know the exact wording of how it will be displayed in the template (see Module:Article history/config for other specific text). Second, I think this is something that should be sandboxed first, to make sure it doesn't break anything (and to further demonstrate what needs doing). If you feel like messing around in the module sandbox you can bash these both out at the same time, but otherwise let's just start with the first issue. Primefac (talk) 02:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: I've had a go at a suggested version in the module config sandbox. I don't really know LUA, so I've just adapted from the existing code, but hopefully it makes sense. ActionXlink could either be to the version as published (example) or to the academic peer review (example), though I'm not sure which is better. The published version is more useful, but the actual peer review is more in line with how other articlehistory types are displayed. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 03:20, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Re-ping Primefac. Apologies for pestering, but just making sure you saw this. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in replying. I notice we already have {{Academic peer reviewed}}, so why would this need to be added? The sandboxing looks acceptable, just thinking that it's a bit unnecessary. Primefac (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: I see what you mean. I felt like it could be good to ensure that it's placed in the same timeline as other content quality review processes. Especially, GA or FA review can happen before or after academic peer review. It would also be the only presence on the talk page. However, this isn't an area of the encyclopedia's organisation that I have much experience in, so I'm happy to gather opinions. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

With only a (relatively) small number of people watching this template, gaining consensus for (what I guess would be) a merger of this sort is probably best handled by some cross-posting to the interested Wikiprojects. Or, if you don't get any replies, a TFD merge request works. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: It wouldn't really be a merge as such. I think {{Academic peer reviewed}} would still be used on the article page, but {{Article history}} would be used on the talk page. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:15, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, didn't realize it was an article-space template. If the testcases show it works, I'd say go for it. Primefac (talk) 15:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Date for AFD

For AFDs, this template requests that the |action1date= parameter be filled in with "Date ended", described in footnote as "Use the date when {{AFD}} was removed from the article", whereas {{Old AfD multi}} says that its |date= parameter be filled in with the "Date of nomination". Other than same-day speedy closes, these are clearly incompatible. Which is correct? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Old AFD multi says "it was nominated on XYZ", whereas this is simply "this happened on XYZ date", so I would say that the end date would be appropriate (basically saying "on XYZ the AFD was closed as <result>". Primefac (talk) 23:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

FFAC/GA

When an article passes a Good Article review and then fails a Featured Article candidacy it is given the status FFAC. When this happens it is removed from the Category:Wikipedia good articles, even though it is still a Good Article. One way to keep track of misplaced Good Articles is to compare that category with the Category:Good articles. This can be seen at Wikipedia:Good articles/mismatches. The Good Articles that fail Featured Article candidacy appear as false positives. I am hoping we could add a new status of FFAC/GA, similar to the FFA/GA one, which returns them to Category:Wikipedia good articles. If this is not feasible or too much work I will just give them a GA status, but wanted to check here first. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 08:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac and Mr. Stradivarius: Is it possible to do this? AIRcorn (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. I haven't dug into the guts of the module enough to know where everything is located, but it should be possible. Primefac (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I know nothing of modules, but Module:Article history/config seems to be the guts of it. Mr Stradivarius seems to be the main editor there so hopefully they reply. If not I will probably just change the status to GA as I can't see any category or other practical purpose of keeping them as failed feature article candidates. I will leave a message at WP:FA just in case anyway. Thanks for responding. AIRcorn (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it should just be a matter of adding the new status code to the table of statuses at Module:Article history/config. I don't have time to do this today, but I might do tomorrow, if someone else doesn't get there first. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks.AIRcorn (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done. I will note (which I discovered while checking out something related) that there is a |currentstatus= parameter, which even if we didn't have the new option would allow for the page to be in the right cat(s). Primefac (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, perfect. Unless I misunderstand something the |currentstatus= parameter is where the FFAC/GA option belongs. I was always going to just change that to GA if this couldn't be done, but thought it better to have both. See [3] for an example. AIRcorn (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that there's a misunderstanding here. Where the documentation says that the possible current statuses for a good article nomination are "FGAN/GA/DGA or any FA code", that doesn't mean that you should literally write |currentstatus=FGAN/GA/DGA - it means that you can use |currentstatus=FGAN or |currentstatus=GA or |currentstatus=DGA or |currentstatus=FA or etc. So since FFAC/GA would be a pair of alternatives, it's already covered since |currentstatus=FFAC falls within "or any FA code". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Former featured articles

Would it be possible to remove articles that lost and then regained Featured status from Category:Wikipedia former featured articles? I find it incredibly confusing, and it's also breaking Rick Bot which keeps going through WP:WBFAN and marking them as "former". I found a couple of years-old discussions about this here and here where Gimmetrow was saying this was done for maintenance reasons, but neither he nor his bot are active any more. James K. Polk is the example that brought me here. Pinging Rick Block and Wehwalt just FYI. --Laser brain (talk) 13:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I've updated Rick Bot so that if an article is both FA and FFA the bot considers the article to be FA. Changes related to this will show up tomorrow. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

FACs that aren't promoted

Re: article history parameters - I made a suggestion on the TP of Ian Rose to consider changing the parameter status from "failed" to "not promoted", considering failed is rather harsh and a bit of a disincentive for noms to try again. Also, for FACs that have been withdrawn by the nom, it is my understanding that it's a parameter that FAC coordinators can add when closing. Is "not promoted" doable? ^{Atsme📞📧} 19:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

GoCE category

We should probably add Category:Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors to articles copyedited by the GoCE. There is a patch available for Module:Article history/config at revision 875683264 (diff). TheDragonFire (talk) 09:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Another request for a |collapsed= param

Backing up this last request. Would be useful, since this auto-collapses. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 04:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK subpage parameter

If one of the purposes of this template is to aggregate and centralize the various behind-the-scenes bureaucratic history associated with an article, it only makes sense that it would link to all the subpages generated as a result of that work. Therefore, there should be a parameter called |dyklink= in which an editor can enter the unformatted wikilink to the DYK nomination subpage. E.g. at Talk:William Matthews (priest), an editor would enter: |dyklink=Template:Did you know nominations/William Matthews (priest)

Moreover, in order to be consistent between DYK and other action inputs, the bolded text "fact from this article" would link to the DYK nomination page, while the DYK date would link to the Recent Additions section (as opposed to the other way around). Ergo Sum 20:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This sounds like a reasonable request. However, before we can update the code we need two things: a) a consensus for the change (or at least an absence of disagreement if no-one chooses to comment here), and b) the actual code needed to implement it, preferably in the config sandbox, with a test case or two on the the test cases page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:36, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks for your response. I imagine you would agree that 2 months is a sufficient amount of time to wait before concluding that there is no objection to the proposal. I, unfortunately, am not familiar with Lua, otherwise I would add the code to the sandbox myself. Do you happen to know anyone who does and would be willing to assist? Perhaps Jonesey95 might be willing to lend a hand, given their assistance below? Ergo Sum 02:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

As a user who can generally understand Lua, I would say that this edit request is beyond my technical skill. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Example

@Ergo Sum: I would do the change (when I have time in a day or two) but first I would like to clarify exactly what is wanted, and think about whether it is desirable. What I think follows. Please check the links carefully and confirm my understanding.

Following is an example template to generate the DYK record at Talk:William Matthews (priest). I have included the proposed new dyklink parameter.

{{Article history
|dykdate=2016-09-02
|dykentry=... that [[William Matthews (priest)|'''William Matthews''']] was the seventh [[List of Presidents of Georgetown University|president]] of [[Georgetown University|Georgetown College]] and the first person born in [[British America]] to be ordained a [[Priesthood (Catholic Church)|Catholic priest]]?
|dyklink=Template:Did you know nominations/William Matthews (priest)
}}

Current result (fixed wikitext)

Wanted result (fixed wikitext)

Is the above correct? If it is, I'm a bit concerned about the "A fact from this article" link. Is the target page really a "fact", or could people complain that it's an WP:EASTER problem? Johnuniq (talk) 06:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Thank you for your attention. Yes, that's what I was suggesting. That was also a concern of mine. One potential solution I've thought of is bolding the date and unbolding "a fact from this article." This way, it keeps the date link generally consistent with how it is used elsewhere in the template, while drawing the reader's attention to it as the fact in question, rather than the "a fact from this article" link, which directs to a behind-the-scenes page. Ergo Sum 16:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, I updated the "wanted result" above with the bolding change. Any chance you could find at least one other person to say that was desirable? Template talk:Did you know is not a suitable place to ask for opinions but is there somewhere else? Johnuniq (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I won't spend much time examining the code unless the RfC below supports a change, but I suspect the proposed parameter should be dyknom rather than dyklink. That would (I think, from a quick look at the code) better suit the way the module works. Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Either, I think, would work. I just suggested dyklink to keep the nomenclature consistent throughout the template. Ergo Sum 17:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is a quick overview of the relevant code. I don't expect others to follow all this—I'm putting it here mainly as a record for the future for anyone (including myself!) who wants to know why I think dyknom is the right name. I'm pretty sure that function makeDateText in Module:Article history/config is used only by DYK, ITN and OTD. That function creates the date text, and it uses any XXXlink parameter to make the date a link. Parameters itnlink and otdlink (which can be extended such as with itn2link and otd2link) are optional. Omitting them means the date is automatically linked to the expected ITN or OTD page for the given date. If the link parameter is included, the date is linked to the given title. The result is that if the template had parameters |dykdate=2016-09-02|dyklink=Example, the function would output September 2, 2016 (linked to Example).

The proposal is that "fact from this article" would be linked to Example, not the date. Accordingly, I think the parameters should be |dykdate=2016-09-02|dyknom=Example. In the future, it is conceivable that a dyklink parameter would be wanted to replace the automatic Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2016/September#2_September_2016 link. Johnuniq (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Demo

@Ergo Sum: The RfC looks like it will support the change so I updated the sandbox modules and put a test in my sandbox (permalink). The module has to support multiple DYK entries which makes it more interesting. The current main module ignores entries after the first when making the link for a "fact from this article" so it seems reasonable for the sandbox module to do likewise. Please think about whether that is a problem. You might try using {{Article history/sandbox}} to see if it works as expected. I have not finished checking whether the code does what it should but it is probably pretty ready. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I've tested the sandbox code, and it all seems to check out. Only one minor issue is that it appears when there are multiple dates, the commas separating them as well as the "and" are bolded, while only the dates themselves should be bolded. Other than that, it seems to run smoothly. I didn't notice the existing issue in the current template that you pointed out. I can't think of any quick solutions off the top of my head, so that should be something that will need to be addressed down the road. I think if the proposed modification behaves the same way as the current template with regard to the "fact from this article" links when there are multiple dates, that will be fine. Ergo Sum 02:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

That was easy to fix so I have done it. I doubt there will many cases with multiple DYKs since each involves a five-fold expansion, but it's good for a program to do something sensible if the unlikely occurs. Johnuniq (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Great. Looks good now. Ergo Sum 16:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Do you think we're about ready to implement this proposal? Ergo Sum 16:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It's a bit awkward given there is an RfC below. I suppose a bold edit to change the module might be justified on the basis of determining whether more people would want to comment. I might do that in about 24 hours if nothing further develops. Johnuniq (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I updated Template:Article history/testcases by adding |dyknom=xxx in three places (search for "dyknom" to see them). The tests show the sandbox modules are behaving as expected. Johnuniq (talk) 10:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Given the relatively technical and specific nature of the RfC subject, I don't expect any more comments, or at least a sufficient number to alter the consensus below. Therefore, I am inclined to close the RfC within a day or so. Ergo Sum 04:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

You probably know that to avoid drama you should get someone uninvolved to close the RfC. It might be better to leave it to run for the normal 30 days. At any rate I have updated the modules so the change is now implemented. That allows what it does to be more widely examined and anyone interested might notice the change and want to comment. Johnuniq (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC on proposed link in template

The following discussion 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.

---

Per the above discussion, the question is whether the above change regarding the DYK parameters is desirable. Any comments are appreciated. Ergo Sum 23:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• I mentioned this a WT:Did you know#Template:Article history. See my sandbox (permalink) for a simulation of how Talk:William Matthews (priest) would look with the proposed change. Johnuniq (talk) 00:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support Major improvement. Having an easy link to the nom page is great, and bolding the date makes it easier to find the archived hook that ran. I'm not too concerned about WP:EASTER in this case, the nom page does list facts from the article that could have (and usually did) appear on the main page. Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 18:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support. An improvement in usability and brings this template closer to {{DYK talk}} in functionality. feminist (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to suggest that instead of either having a link for all of "fact from this article" or for none of it, that the link be included but only for the words "this article"; "fact" should really not be linked, but it would be quite useful to have a link to the article in question. Here's how the above example would look:

  A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 2, 2016.

  —BlueMoonset (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

• @BlueMoonset: I not quite sure I understand hat you're suggesting. Are you saying just link "this article" instead of "fact from this article"? If so, I worry that would be an instance of WP:EASTER because one would expect that link to point to the actual article. Ergo Sum 16:53, 31 March 2019 (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.

Talk page to do list disputed edits

@Anomalocaris: You made two one bold edits related to this talk page's to do list, which I reverted with rationales (there was another of yours I reverted, but I've since self-reverted). Per BRD, the next step is discussion; you can argue the merits of your changes below if you still think they should be carried out. e^πi (talk | contribs) 01:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: I didn't realize one of the edits was my own mistake; otherwise I probably wouldn't have made this talk page post because one revert isn't a big deal. e^πi (talk | contribs) 01:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Why is Template talk:Article history/to do using HTML instead of wikitext? Johnuniq (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

E to the Pi times i: Thank you for pinging me. At this point, I do not know why I believed the page had fostered content. I assume I saw it at Fostered content: Template. It's not there now, and like other special pages, the lint pages don't archive. I do know why, upon examining the wikitext, I came up with the solution I did. Both my version and the version you've reverted to are lint-free, so I'm done here. Sorry for the inconvenience. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Probably because it uses a separate template to generate the rows (Template:Article history/to do/row), and the pipe (|) is often a special character in template coding, so someone thought it would be easier to use <table>, <tr>, and <td> instead of escaping all the table-related pipes with {{!}}. See Help:Tables#Other table syntax. However, escaping the table-related pipes is not particularly hard, particularly if you have a text editor with find-and-replace functionality; for example, I did it myself in my personal subpage header. Ultimately, I think table row templates are more of a nuisance than a help unless there's a very specific benefit (DRY alone doesn't cut it), so I might end up replacing Template:Article history/to do/row with actual rows.

@Anomalocaris: No inconvienence at all here. In fact, I appreciate you mentioning the database report Special:LintErrors, which is useful for a WikiGnome like myself. I've never seen that special page before. It seems the related extension was only installed in 2017 and I guess I haven't looked at Special:SpecialPages since 2015, if at all. e^πi (talk | contribs) 08:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

E to the Pi times i: See Wikipedia:Linter and especially Wikipedia:Linter#How you can help, and welcome to the de-linting crew! —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: We'll see how much I actually end up de-linting, since I tend to get obsessed in my own little projects (there's a reason I currently have 8 main subpages). I appreciate the optimism and links though! e^πi (talk | contribs) 09:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Error on Talk:Death of Elisa Lam

Can anyone see what's wrong with the template on this page, I've had a look but can't see the problem. PC78 (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@PC78: I couldn’t see it, either—literally, as the template was full of some invisible characters. I retyped the whole template, and that fixed it. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

They were Zero-width space U+200B characters, lots of them, no idea how they got there. Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Tense of "mainpage" parameter output

As I noticed on Talk:Horizon Guyot the template renders "This article will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 9, 2019." as future even though it's now the 21st October. Is this an error? JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@JoJo Eumerus mobile: All it needed was a WP:PURGE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

itndate always shows up as a red link

I noticed that itndate (In the news) needs to be updated. It always shows the date as a red link. Example: Talk:Kim Jong-hyun (singer). This apparently happens because the ITN archives are no longer maintained. There should be a way to link it. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I suppose we could link to the Candidacy archives (e.g. Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates/December_2017 for Kim Jong-hyun). Primefac (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears that ITN archives work up to and including June 2011, see Wikipedia:ITN archives/2011. The code in the module generates links of that form if the date is in or after 2009. The code could be changed to give the same links for dates January 2009 to June 2011 inclusive, and Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/month year from July 2011 onwards. I can do that if it looks like a good plan. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Support as we've archived ITN from July 2011 to now on Candidate subpages, so I think it's worth building it into the template itself, instead of having the end-user overwrite it with itnlink. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@CherryPie94: I implemented the above change. It works at Talk:Kim Jong-hyun (singer). Please check other pages. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much! ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 08:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured portals

The featured portal process is now {{historical}}. Does this affect what should be displayed in the article history box? At present it says: "The [name] Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia" and "Current status: Featured portal". Perhaps instead: "The [name] Portal was identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia under the featured portal process, which stopped operating in 2017" and "Current status: Featured portal (historic designation)". Thoughts? See e.g. {{Featured sound}}. Bencherlite^Talk 10:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not. Where was it decided to mark the portal process historical (for "the record" etc). Primefac (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response, Primefac. Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 138#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as "historical" and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure/Archive 23#RfC about marking the Featured portals process as "historical" should be what you're looking for. The wording for "former featured portals" will need changing similarly, I now realise. Perhaps "This portal was once a featured portal but lost that status before the featured portal process stopped operating in 2017" and "Current status: Former featured portal (historic designation)". Bencherlite^Talk 16:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding former FPs - just like former Presidents, they're always former Presidents. I don't think we need to say that they used to be a FP before losing the FP status but also before FP was historical. Especially since, if I remember correctly, the template gives a "de-Featured" date. Primefac (talk) 16:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC

@Primefac and Bencherlite:Just like {{Featured portal}} could be made the changes of icon and text below.

	FPO = {
		id = 'FPO',
		name = 'Featured portal',
		icon = 'Linecons big-star.svg',
		text = "The '''$2 Portal''' is a [[Wikipedia:Featured portals|featured portal]], " ..
			"'''''[[Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:$2|designated]]''''' " ..
			"before the featured portal process ceased in 2017. ",
		categories = function (articleHistoryObj)
			return {Category.new(
				'Wikipedia featured portals',
				articleHistoryObj.currentTitle.text
			)}
		end
	},

Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

{{edit template-protected}} Please add text above in Module:Article history/config. See Module:Article history/config/sandboxGuilherme Burn (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please briefly explain what difference this would make, with an example. I found Portal:Music which I think is an example, however I can't quickly see what difference the requested module edit would make. Johnuniq (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:It is a simple adjustment to the text and icon to make it clear to the reader that the feature portal process has been discontinued. The same was done in Template:Featured portalGuilherme Burn (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

If I did a bunch of looking I'm sure I could figure out what you mean, although the one obvious feature is that the text and icon would be changed. However, why not just tell me, and any other onlookers, where to look to see the difference. Can the old text and icon be seen at Portal:Music? Where/how? Johnuniq (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Do you have any thoughts regarding what should appear on featured portals? This requested module edit changes the text and icon and you might have an opinion on that. It looks good to me but I still want to see an example before making the change. For one thing, it is desirable to check that the edit, however simple it seems, has worked. Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: the "featured portal" process was a thoroughly shoddy exercise, full of vague comments likes "looks good" rather than assessments against defined criteria. So I'd be happiest to just see it removed from the article history, since it isn't really any sort of a milestone at all.

Portal:Music was mentioned above, so to illustrate my point, just look at its FP nomination 1 and FP nomination 2. Cringeworthy.

However, previous discussion have shown that some editors remain keen on the FP process. So, sadly, FP will probably need to remain part of the history. In that case, the change looks mostly good. I just have one quibble. The proposed new version says text = "The '''$2 Portal''' is a [[Wikipedia:Featured portals|featured portal]], "

That should be past tense: text = "The '''$2 Portal''' was a

The grading assigned within a discontinued process should not be presented as current. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Can't you make this change? I can not understand the difficulty here.Guilherme Burn (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it is ideal to include a new status.Guilherme Burn (talk) 14:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

	PFPO = {
		id = 'PFPO',
		name = 'Past featured portal',
		icon = 'Linecons big-star.svg',
		text = "The '''$2 Portal''' was a [[Wikipedia:Featured portals|featured portal]], " ..
		       "before the featured portal process ceased in 2017. ",
		categories = function (articleHistoryObj)
			return {Category.new(
				'Past featured portals',
				articleHistoryObj.currentTitle.text
			)}
		end
	},

"Speedy keep" for speedy delete?

A question was raised on IRC just now about the "articleXresult" section of the /doc, in which it says a valid outcome of a CSD is speedily kept, which I thought might just be a copy/paste holdover from when all the deletion criteria were lumped together, but turns out is actually in the config code. This seems rather silly, since there's really no distinction between a "keep" and a "speedy keep" when it comes to CSD; the page is either kept, deleted, or turned into something else. Should the following code (lines 1714-1718) be removed from the /config file? Primefac (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

['speedily kept'] = {
	id = 'speedily kept',
	text = 'Speedily kept',
	aliases = {'speedy keep'}
},

Template-protected edit request on 1 January 2020

There is a disambiguation link in the text for Featured Lists: is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced – the word lists links to Wikipedia:Lists, a disambiguation page. Could you please pipe this so that it links to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (which is the general page for list articles).

I think this is the line, in Module:Article history/config:

"[[Wikipedia:Lists|lists]] produced by the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedia community]]. " ..

if that could be changed to:

"[[Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists|lists]] produced by the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedians|Wikipedia community]]. " ..

Thank you. Reidgreg (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Primefac (talk) 15:37, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Dates with a comma

Should the template maybe be tweaked to support more date formats? To avoid problems like this:

• Wikipedia talk:Did you know#9 August 2020

--Moscow Connection (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition. I tried writing "August 9, 2007", and that format seems to be supported. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

It supports valid date formats - 9 August 2020 and August 9, 2007 are both valid formats, see MOS:DATE; but 9 August, 2020 is not a valid format, see WP:DATESNO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Add maintenance category on invalid actionlinks

If the title provided for the actionNlink parameter does not exist and red link is rendered, the talk page should be put into a maintenance category so that the issue can be tracked. I found a number of pages with an invalid GAN link. – SD0001 (talk) 09:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this for GAN in the sandbox with this addition: Special:Diff/985374364/991498852. Would appreciate extra eyes on this before I break stuff by editing directly :P – SD0001 (talk) 11:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Weird formatting on Talk:Near-Earth object

On Talk:Near-Earth object (permalink), the article history table has no table headings, so it's just the line with the peer review. This looks pretty weird. It can't be intentional, right? Enterprisey (talk!) 08:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: That was the behaviour of the old template, which I kept when I ported it to Lua. I think you're right, though - it would make more sense to have the "Template milestones" header there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, yeah... would you anticipate any objections if the "template milestones" header was added? I suppose people might be depending on the current behavior for layout, but I can't imagine that's too common. Enterprisey (talk!) 09:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I am not seeing the problem or understanding the question about the header ... could you please spell it out for dummies? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The top of the permalink version has a small box saying "Peer review" with no heading. After [4] the current version has a larger box lower down with the heading "Article milestones". PrimeHunter (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I was concerned this discussion was about changing something, rather than working to get the processes to implement the article history correctly (I have spent the last two months cleaning up after bots and processes that drop templates on talk pages without using the ah). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:13, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I don't have any objections myself. Looking back through the template history, it seems that originally the "Article milestones" header was always present, but was removed for pages with 1-2 actions by User:Gimmetrow in this edit back in January 2008 in order to save space. I didn't find any discussion about the change in the archives, although it's entirely possible that I might have missed it. I don't think that it would be controversial to reintroduce the header in these cases. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, yeah, that sounds good to me if you could spare a bit of free time (or could convince someone else to). Enterprisey (talk!) 03:18, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: I've implemented this in the sandbox (diff). My edit makes the "Article milestones" header appear if there are one or more actions, or if the collapsible table is collapsed. Previously there needed to be at least two actions or collapsible notices for the header to appear. Take a look at the test cases for examples of how the template looks with the new code, and let me know if you think the change is OK. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, I like it! Thank you so much for working on this. Enterprisey (talk!) 03:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Enterprisey: As there were no objections, I have put this up live. Let me know if you notice any problems with it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Enterprisey (talk!) 01:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Featured portal status

This template doesn't yet reflect the fact that the featured portal process ceased in 2017. Is it okay to update Module:Article history/config with something similar to the language we use for the empty star? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Have those portals all become de-featured? If not, they should retain the history. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Redrose64, see the blurb at WP:Featured portals. I haven't read through the discussion fully, but my understanding is that the process was retired but not entirely wiped out, and the portals that were featured now have {{Featured portal}} to indicate their past status. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

All de-featured - process no longer valid.--Moxy 🍁 23:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I share the same understanding as you, Sdkb. The FP process is dead, but the portals that were once featured still retain the hollowed out star. As I'm sure you all know, there was the utterly messy discussion about what to do with portals, delete them entirely, etc. The outcome was basically put them in limbo. Until that changes, I think we have to keep FP available in this template. Ergo Sum 15:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To clarify: I'm open to tweak the language to reflect their current status. What that status is exactly, though, is hard to describe concisely. They're no longer "featured" but they weren't "un-featured" like through a FAR process. Ergo Sum 15:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Styling of DYK

My esteemed colleague Gerda Arendt kindly brought to me her view that this template does poor work of making conspicuous the links to the nomination and archive for DYKs, and I quite agree. I also see that the template bolds the date for DYKs, while it does not for OTDs and ITNs, and this inconsistency should probably be resolved. I think perhaps a parenthetical stating "nomination" at the least, serving as the link. --Bsherr (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)