Template talk:Article history

Template:Article history is permanently protected from editing because it is a heavily used or highly visible template. Substantial changes should first be proposed and discussed here on this page. If the proposal is uncontroversial or has been discussed and is supported by consensus, editors may use {{edit template-protected}} to notify an administrator or template editor to make the requested edit. Usually, any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes or categories.

Any contributor may edit the template's sandbox. Functionality of the template can be checked using test cases.

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.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 6 months

Template-protected edit request on 11 June 2024

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

Template-protected edit request on August 8, 2024

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

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 Since the featured portals process is no longer active, it's up to the editor handling this request if they'd like to make the same change for FFPOCs, though I would guess the community would prefer to retain the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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Edit request for dark mode compatibility

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Never mind, and

completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:14, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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