Template talk:Article history/Archive 2

FFA/GA, but no FFAC/GA?
Am I correct to assume that a former featured article candidate, which is a good article, is best described as "FFAC"? I'm confused because there is a FFA/GA, but no FFAC/GA. --Merzul 13:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, learning to read does help... GA already says "Good article which is not a former featured article" :), so it's not as confusing; still maybe a little... --Merzul 13:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * FFA/GA is the only combination status. There are currently about 350 former featured articles. If such an article later becomes a GA, the FA folks wanted the former featured status still displayed. A former featured article candidate (FFAC), on the other hand is an article which did not pass at FAC - there are a couple thousand of such articles. If one is or later becomes a good article, it is a GA. Gimmetrow 14:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, but this means I really should learn to read :). I should denote it as "GA"; thanks! --Merzul 14:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

What about FAs which were formerly GAs? Can/should I use both GAN and FAC? --kingboyk 00:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure what you are asking. The idea of ArticleHistory is to list every completed review-like event, so it will easily have multiple GAN and FAC events listed, and perhaps others, like Talk:Pericles or Talk:Edwin Taylor Pollock (Note that the fac on the latter is outside ArticleHistory, as it is not yet a completed event). The  is the current state of the article, and GAs promoted to FA are simply FA. (They are unlisted from WP:GA.)
 * It was probably a dumb question, but I was actually asking the question you answered :) The relevant talk pages have been updated, and thanks again for your help. --kingboyk 17:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The only combo  currently supported is FFA/GA, and as presently implemented, FFA/GA is a display option for GA. It makes the icons smaller to fit both the FFA and GA text. Compare Talk:Euro and Talk:Algorithm. Gimmetrow 00:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

FFAC/GA seems like a logical addition to the "currentstatus" options... —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't track FFACs anywhere; having this as a separate category would create extra work and more margin for error. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we need a category for them. Instead, there should simply be a notice that not only is it a good article, but it's also a failed FAC. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Part of the idea here is simplification. Only the key text(s) are displayed, the rest is inferred from the list of milestones. Gimmetrow 03:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent...
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)
 * I second that. It's a work of art! :) --kingboyk 17:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A template to subst?
I was thinking, a subst-only template which takes the number of actions as a parameter and outputs a skeleton ArticleHistory would be really handy. --kingboyk 13:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Do people really want to fill in this template by hand? Gimmetrow 18:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's how I've been doing it... I wasn't aware there is an alternative. --kingboyk 18:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That's how I've been doing it too, although I refuse to do oldids. Raul654 19:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why not let the code do it? Gimmetrow 20:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found lots of errors in templates done manually; best to wait for the bot to get to them. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

FA of the day
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)
 * OK. Gimmetrow 22:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Former FTs
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)
 * This is a good idea, and will be added eventually. Gimmetrow 04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Change to Final Fantasy featured topics populated the error category. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Current status
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)
 * 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)

Cscr-featuredtopic.png
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)
 * Switching images is fine. I think the concern is breaking the numerous nested parserfunctions. Gimmetrow 15:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fab - done! Stannered 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

OldID documentation
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: 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: 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)
 * 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  Clicking on it will provide the associated article oldid for that timestamp.
 * For further documentation, see: User:Dr pda/articlehistory.js.


 * 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)

Possible change needed
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 ArticleHistory. 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)
 * 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)

Proposal for Template
May I propose this?


 * 1) To rename Date to Version. This seems to convey exactly what is in the column.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) Add a place when it was linked to High Traffic Site.

Hope this is ok! :-) Walter Ching 06:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * I'm not following; currently, we have date and version, which is useful. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When no oldid is provided, there is no linked version, just a date. Gimmetrow 16:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

oldid error
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)
 * Fixed (twice). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article reviews
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)

Breaks Special:Recentchangeslinked
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? &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this template could affect that. Raul654 07:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh my, I've come to the wrong talk page. Sorry about that! &mdash;ptk✰fgs 08:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DRV
Can someone set up DRV syntax? Lexicon (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like what? Examples? Gimmetrow 00:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

2nd Featured Topic
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:. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Over my head; post a note to . Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There really should be a better long-term way to handle FTs. Is it possible that an article could be the main article on two FTs? Gimmetrow 17:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that this template handles FTs very well, and adding optional  and   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)

Help fix my code
I've almost got FT2 right, but I had to add an  paramiter because the original   parameter assumes the link of the   action link. Right now I have:

and I want it to link to whatever the  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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * The easiest way to fix that would be to make an  parameter in addition to the   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)
 * Solved it. I should have been using #if rather than #ifeq.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * This seems to look good now. Thanks for your help.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to take a look at Talk:Final Fantasy VIII.--Rmky87 23:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Nevermind.--Rmky87 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

How many articles use this template?
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)
 * 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&mdash;Gimmetrow will have a better answer&mdash;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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Which reminds me ... GAC instructions say to add oldid on GA passing, but date on GA failing. Inconsistent, confusing.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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&mdash;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&mdash;if someone takes this on and starts the list on the work page, I can help review the article pages for readiness :-)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * *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)
 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Impressive work, guys. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
On the peer review's  parameter, there should be an option to state that the article was not reviewed. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Maybe someone needs to highlight the PR, GAC, and FAC backlogs at the Village Pump? It's across the board.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug: WikiProject-run peer reviews tend to work a bit better than the centralized one! ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * We forgive you. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

small=yes
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).
 * That link looks OK here. Perhaps try removing the blank lines between templates on the page? Gimmetrow 10:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, removing the lines between it and the next fixes it in IE6. Thanks. NicM 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC).

Article of the future
There's someone odd going on with the dates. If you check out Talk:Medieval cuisine, you'll notice that the date for all entries is set for 2007, even though both the peer review, Good Article-promotion and Did you know?-appearance were aoo in 2006, and the year is set to 2006 in the template. Can someone tell me what's going on?

Peter Isotalo 23:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed it on Talk:Medieval cuisine by using the yyyy-mm-dd format. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)`


 * Yay! :-)
 * Peter Isotalo 00:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this had anything to do with the date formats. AFAICT, it's fixed now, and Talk:Medieval cuisine works fine without the yyyy-mm-dd format. Good thing this came up though, as the oldids pointed to versions of the talk page rather than the article. Gimmetrow 00:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a date format issue. There's a bug in the #time parser function which doesn't correctly read the year if the date is given in the format (and only in the format) digits fullmonth comma year, e.g. 22 April, 2006. To see this go to Special:ExpandTemplates and paste in to the box. However this bug does not seem to be present when you view the page in a form where the url is of the form /w/index.php?title=Main_Page, i.e. in preview mode, viewing old revisions and diffs. For example Talk:Medieval cuisine as of 14:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC) shows 2007 for all dates, but if you go to the current revision in the history,  it shows 2006. Dr pda 14:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It showed 2006 for the DYK, GA and PR dates when I just viewed it, but I removed the commas anyway. Gimmetrow 17:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Help w/ template application ?
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).
 * Disregard. Thanks, Gimmetrow !! Smee 22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

current status
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)
 * 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)


 * 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.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

aciddate
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? -- Lara Love T / C  16:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul fixed it; I fixed the rest of ArticleHistory there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Added around May 10 by User:Diez2. It's in the instructions. Gimmetrow 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Diff Raul654 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, now it's there, since I just added it. :-) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I concur. Raul654 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not following, but I concur &mdash; too much stuff added. What/where is the drop down box ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Ongoing errors
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? &mdash; I don't know how to set up a subst'd message. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Problem with DGA status banner
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: 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)
 * A Wikipedian removed XXXX from the good article list after consensus was reached to do so.
 * Noticed this a while back, forgot to say something, agree with Jayron32. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

FTR
FTR 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)
 * Looks like only the template for the Main article was created, it's at FTRCmain. Circeus 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Other templates to absorb
It would be great if ArticleHistory were expanded to also absorb Onlinesource and related templates, as well as WP1.0 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  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 15:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Fair enough. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Onlinesources aren't related to the process/history of bringing an article to featured status. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True; I was poposing to make it a little broader. This template after all is called ArticleHistory not ArticleReviewHistory. :-)  —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 18:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the AFD code?
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  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 01:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That code is in a sub-template Historyoutput. I added your speedies, check if the synonyms seem reasonable. --Merzul 10:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Verra nice. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

How to do GARs and the like?
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  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * GA/R pages can be linked from the GA/R archives, see Talk:Martin Luther. Gimmetrow 14:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, from what I can tell, GA/N simply isn't archived. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 20:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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, although the review doesn't really say much. Gimmetrow 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Current status options
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  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 03:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Peer reviews in Template:ArticleHistory
I have been using ArticleHistory on several talk pages. They suggest using the date that peerreview changes to oldpeerreview 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)
 * The bot uses the date of the last review comment. Gimmetrow 18:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

OLDID for DYK?

 * Is there a way for this template to include the OLDID of the article page for the instance when it appeared on 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).
 * In other words, so that the output action for DYK also has the features of :
 * action1=


 * action1date=


 * action1link=


 * action1result=


 * action1oldid=

Thanks again, this would be really neat if the template could do this. Smee 05:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

What is wrong with the aciddate parameter?
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)
 * 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)

Delisted GA
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)
 * 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)
 * Thanks - I see your bot has done the job. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

No A-class?
I find it strange that the parameter does not include A-Class. Can you add that? OhanaUnited   Talk page   05:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Gacat
Could someone please give guidance on what the new "gacat" parameter is for? --Elonka 21:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Bump. -- Avi 00:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not new, it's been there for ages. It served to consolidate the wide variety of GA templates for biographies. It's not documented, so don't worry about it. Gimmetrow 01:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that GAs should be categorized. So much so that I created a task force under WikiProject Good articles. (See WP:UCGA. There is debate on that talk page regarding the necessity of categorizing along with some objections to using the topic field of the GA template as there is the gradual migration to AritcleHistory which uses a different field that accepts different categories. My suggestion is that the accepted categories for gacat be the same as those accepted by the topic field, which are the 11 top-level categories at WP:GA. It's simple and easy. It just makes sense. Gacat has its own categories not specifically listed at WP:GA. It seems more appropriate that it be categorized the same as on the GA list. Lara  Love  05:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The gacat parameter exists because at the time GA functionality was added to ArticleHistory there also existed a dozen specialised GA templates&mdash;Template:GA-actors, Template:GA-biz people etc&mdash;which put GAs in the corresponding subcategory. I seem to recall the templates/categories were created by User:Maurreen a month or two before she left Wikipedia as part of an attempt to categorise GAs. There were (and are) only a small number of articles in each of these categories, so they do not seem to have caught on. The templates were deleted in March 2007 (see discussion at Templates for deletion/Log/2007 February 27), the main argument being that this functionality was now included in ArticleHistory. However since it seems these categories are not really used, and they only categorised biographies (well, there was also a geo category), it seems sensible to rework the gacat parameter to use the same categories as WP:GA and WP:1.0.
 * However these specialised GA templates and hence the gacat parameter also put the articles into Category:Wikipedia CD Selection - People. This subcategorisation of Category:Wikipedia CD Selection also seems to have been the work of User:Maurreen, from a month or so before she left Wikipedia. There are again a number of specialised template (e.g.WPCD-People) which put articles into the corresponding subcategory. The only one of these 10 subcategories which has more than a handful of articles is People; this just comes from its use in the GA templates, and indeed the Places subcategory has been deleted, for being empty.
 * So, provided the WP:GA people don't object to subcategories of Category:Wikipedia good articles not being populated, and the Wikipedia CD Selection people don't object to Category:Wikipedia CD Selection - People not being automatically filled by a GA template (WPCD-People exists and seems to be on most of the pages anyway), I would be happy to make the necessary changes to ArticleHistory. Though this would mean the 100 or so articles which currently use the gacat parameter would need to be changed. --Dr pda 10:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm hesitant to see more complexity added to ArticleHistory to accommodate the ever-changing panorama at GA; it's not a particularly stable process, and all of these changes generate work down the line. I suppose I'd feel better about accomodating the choice of the day at GA to articlehistory if I weren't still correcting daily errors in articlehistory templates from editors passing GA.  Unfortunately, because anyone can pass a GA, it seems to be a struggle to get all of them to read and learn how to implement articlehistory. It might help if we could sort out all of the confusing terminology over there (GAC, GAN and GAR); if they were all on the same page and used consistent terminology, there might be less errors in articlehistory.  It just seems that the processes there change so often that they're not well suited to programming a template around.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're getting at SandyGeorgia. What is the inconsistency? GACs (or, for the purposes of AH, GANs) either pass or fail. GA/Rs are either delisted, listed, or kept, depending on the situation, although I don't think listed was ever added as an option to that field. Regardless, the gacat field is pointless. The topic field is the easiest option, easy to understand, even for the apparent illiterates that work the GA project, and easy to explain. We'll even create the bot to fill in the field so we don't have to depend on our fellow project participants (who read and review the articles) to read any instructions. We'll just let the bot do it. Lara  Love  04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because the names are similar and used inconsistently across GA processes (I've made several talk page posts about this at various GA pages), GA nominators (GAN), reviewers (GAR), and the person passing the review or nomination often enter the wrong descriptor into ArticleHistory. There's a GAN template which is listed under the name of review, so the terminology apparently confuses even the GA regulars.   Further, it's called GAC (Good article candidates, consistent with FAC, Featured article candidates, but there are GAN templates rather than GAC.  It confuses people updating ArticleHistory, so that articles passing GAR or GAN often appear in the error category. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the first time I've seen you complain about GA participants causing errors with AH. If correcting these errors is a pest of a project for you, I'll be glad to take it over. I'm sure it would bug the hell out of me too if I weren't a GA regular. As far as the inconsistencies with GA, we're trying to get all that fixed. Hopefully the recent changes, and those soon to come, will be lasting. Lara  ♥Love  15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

My explanation (above) of the problems was fairly incoherent, considering the changing and conflicting terminology. Following up on the discussion on my talk page, I'll start over, and hopefully the factors leading to the ongoing errors will be more clear this time: The errors seem to partly result from the number of editors who can pass GAN/GACs and who may not know how to build articlehistory, but are also due to the changing and conflicting terminology. I hope that is clearer now. LaraLove, if you want to help watch for these errors, you can grab the errorcategory link from the userbox on my userpage. I typically check it several times a day. Do you have 's articlehistory script? Building and correcting articlehistory templates without that script is a recipe for a headache :-) Thanks for offering to help; you're a gem.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) There is confusion over the usage between GAC and GAN. The page is called Good article candidates, and that usage is consistent with the terminology, Featured article candidates.  It would seem that standardizing the terminology would help avoid the errors between GAC and GAN.
 * 2) An additional complication is that the process for delisting or reviewing a GA has changed several times, so some of the errors result from editors not delisting correctly. In fact, I don't know what the current procedure is myself, so each time one of those errors comes up, I have to do a lot of diffing to figure out what happened.
 * 3) The third problem is conflicting templates and terminology between GAR and GAN/GAC. There are templates that confuse even the editors passing the nominations, such as .  I often see this template—which is titled review—used for a GAC/GAN.  But isn't GAR a different process, used to review an article that is already GA as opposed to reviewing a candidate for GA?  If so, what is the correct usage of the GAReview template, and can't it be renamed if necessary?  Some editors passing or failing a GAN/GAC have used the GAReview template, and think the correct entry in articlehistory is GAR, when it actually should be a GAN/GAC.
 * Surprisingly, I have no scripts whatsoever. My computers tend to hate me and have strokes when I add things to them. I'll look into it, though. We're in the process of changing the various aspects of GA. I'm a regular in the project and even I am confused by the inclusion of GAN. I do both GAC and GA/R reviews and I am inconsistent with what I title my GAC reviews (i.e. "Good article nomination review" vs "GAC review"). I go back and forth b/c it can be confusing since I also do GA/R reviews ("Good article review"). My task force is currently updating GA and AH templates with the topic field. Only messing with existing AH templates, rather than updating pages that currently use the GA template with AH. We're also going to be reorganizing the sub-categories at GAC to match those at GA. That should also help to alleviate some of the confusion with categorization.
 * Hopefully the GA/R process will be altered to more closely resemble that of FAR and FAR/C. Some changes have already been implemented and seem to be working well. It's just a balance of using procedures from a formal process while still keeping our process informal. That's just some of the needed changes. As you've noted, the variations in the process names and inconsistencies with templates needs to be corrected. Nomination needs to be stricken from everything GAC related. Candidate needs to be the considered proper term for GAC while nominations should be reserved for GA/R. But one step at a time. You think it's confusing now, imagine if we just changed everything all at once! Lara  ♥Love  18:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It sounds like it should all be straightened away soon enough, now that all the collective brainpower is focused on the issues :-) I don't recommend attempting to build articlehistory without Dr pda's script; it will make your eyes cross. Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did use AH for almost all my GA passes and GA reviews. I don't think I've had errors since the first few attempts, which I worked on until I got it right. It was time consuming, but it's like GAList and WikiProjectBanners at this point. You just learn them after a while. Lara  ♥Love  19:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of comments.
 * GAN vs GAC. The reason that GAN is used in the ArticleHistory template is that this was the original terminology. This terminology was probably changed to GAC for consistency with FAC. However, there are editors who are wedded to each of these terms, and we cannot eliminate the inconsistency at the moment. Dr pda's solution to add GAC as an undocumented alternative to GAN is a very good solution, and I hope it will eliminate a lot of errors. I think there is very little risk that it will be used for candidates in process. We could move towards using GAC instead of GAN, but it will not be without problems, and would have to be done in stages.
 * Review. Unfortunately, everything about good articles is a review, sometimes in the sense of a report, sometimes in the sense of a revisit. This is a compensation for the fact that GAC/GAN decisions are handled by a single editor: because of this, such an editor is encouraged to place a review on the talk page, using, for example, . The same principle applies to individual editors who wish to delist an article. WP:GA/R itself (which, unfortunately, has to be distinguished from the guide to abuse reports) is designed to handle cases in which listing or delisting an article by an individual editor is not sensible. Although its original role was to handle delisting, it is increasingly considering contested GAC/GAN reviews, and so the "kept"/"delisted" terminology is inadequate.
 * I'm not sure what to do about this: ArticleHistory could either distinguish between the individual/collective process, or it could distinguish between the initial listing/re-evaluation processes. Geometry guy 20:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible or helpful to eliminate and encourage only use of ?  Ignore me if that doesn't make sense, since I'm not up on GA processes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't got it complete either, but I checked out the usage of : it does not appear on any article talk pages; instead it is used at WP:GAC to indicate willingness to review so that articles are not reviewed by multiple editors. The template is entirely different: it should be substituted onto article talk pages after the review has been completed. Does that help? Geometry guy 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure; maybe what we can do is begin to track the kinds of errors that occur, to determine what fixes are really needed. I typically fix the errors without letting anyone know.  Maybe as each of us fixes an error, we can start a tally to see where the problems are originating.  In my experience, the single biggest problem is that people add current processes to articlehistory (ongoing peer reviews, FACs, GANs, etc.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GAR
The actionXresults for Good article reviews are currently either "kept" or "delisted". Seeing as one of the purposes of Good article reviews are to decide if good article nominations have been inappropriately failed, the terms "kept" or "delisted" are sometimes inappropriate and cause confusion on talk pages. Would it be possible to include the terms "listed" and "failed" to the actionXresults for Good article reviews? Epbr123 17:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also refer to original discussion at GAC. (And why do they call it GAN if it's GAC ????)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I used GAN when I was coding the template since WP:GAN was the first listed shortcut, and the template is GAnominee. Dr pda 10:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded above, under GAcat. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The GAR action has supported "listed" for some time. There is no need for a "failed" though; a GA/R which determined a previous pass was invalid is adequately described as "delisted". Gimmetrow 19:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that listed/kept and delisted are adequate for most purposes. However, the GA/R is sometimes (quite often) used when a Good article nomination is failed and other editors feel it was failed unfairly. If GA/R is used in this way, but endorses the fail, then "delisted" is not appropriate, because the article was never listed. It is useful to record this action because it provides a valuable link to the Good article review which endorsed the fail.
 * Anyway, it is a minor point, and I am happy to modify to accommodate it. Geometry guy 20:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

GAN on hold?
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)
 * "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)

GA topic?
GA includes a  parameter, which is used to feed the ten main WP:1.0 categories (documented at WP1.0) 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  parameter for anyways? Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 02:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See reply under Gacat above. Dr pda 10:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Responded above as well. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems like a very sensible idea to me. Contrary to the responses above: I'm happy to implement it if others agree, as I think it is essential that ArticleHistory reflects the behavior of the templates which it replaces, and it is necessary to do this in order that the WP 1.0 categories have any meaning. Geometry guy 17:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * the eleven categories are used by both WP:1.0 and on the Good Articles page and are stable;
 * it would be extremely easy to add a topic= parameter to ArticleHistory;
 * this does not interfere in any way with the historical gacat parameter, which can be left as it is.
 * It would be very helpful to the uncategorized GAs task force, and to WP:1.0. Eventually, that could allow for WP1.0 to be merged into ArticleHistory, if desired. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 20:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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 GA 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 GA, 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

I've now added the topic parameter, although most of the work is done by. I provided "category" as a synonym for compatibility with WP1.0. Ultimately it would be a good idea to include the WP1.0 information in the article history as well, but that requires more work. Let me know if there are any problems. Geometry guy 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Synonyms can be useful, e.g., importance and priority in WP1.0 ratings. This one is harmless enough and is the field used by, which may be merged here in the future. In the meantime, I doubt it will be used very much: I've hardly advertised it beyond this forum, and GA editors are used to the topic parameter. Geometry guy 20:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Is there a way a bot can replace GA and fuse others such as DYK and FAC to merge into ArticleHistory? Right now both templates are used roughly 50:50.  OhanaUnited    Talk page   04:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)