![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Template-protected edit request on 5 May 2021
Replace “elseif status == 'FFA/GA' or status == 'GA' then” with “elseif status == 'FFA/GA' or status == 'FFAC/GA' or status == 'GA' then“. As it can be seen for example on Talk:Kids See Ghosts (album) these articles are categorized in Category:Unassessed Featured topics articles, but they should be in Category:GA-Class Featured topics articles. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 17:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Excess emphasis
Please remove the confusing and inappropriate italics from "identified" (such as is found in "Reception history of Jane Austen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community.") The word already links to the GA/FA record for the page in question, so it is already emphasized by being a link. I would just go do it, but I don't know these templates and modules well and am not sure where that text and its markup live. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
More specific "community" linking
For "Wikipedia community" (such as is found in "Reception history of Jane Austen is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community."), it would probably make more sense to link to the process page (GAN, FAC, etc.) for the process in question, so people new to nomination procedures can find them faster. It will also be more accurate, in that these decisions are made entirely via those community-subset processes, not by a broad community vote. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
- I'd be wary of introducing too many links (to that end, not sure Wikipedia community should be linked). "Featured article" is already linked, and I guess if they want to read more about the process and its selection criteria there's always links on that page. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
|collapse= parameter
In 2012 Lexein requested a collapse= parameter, and in 2019 czar seconded the requested. To the extent someone is willing able able to edit the template accordingly, I would like to add my voice to the chorus. Currently the template autocollapses if there are three or more article milestones (e.g., at Talk:Martin Rundkvist), and it would be nice to have the option to keep this from happening. Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 08:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Usernameunique: I've added this to Module:Article history/sandbox, along with some test cases at Template:Article history/testcases#Collapse argument. Is this what you had in mind? @Kanashimi, Hawkeye7, and Shubinator: Would this cause any issues with the bots? (I'm guessing it won't, but pinging just in case.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- It seems no problem for this parameter. Kanashimi (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius. From what I can tell that looks perfect. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- It will not cause any problems for the FACBot or MilHistBot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks all. I've added the
|collapse=
parameter code to the main template. Let me know if you see any problems. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)- Thanks, Mr. Stradivarius—tried it out on the Rundkvist talk page, and it works perfectly. Also pinging Lexein and czar to give them a heads up. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- It seems no problem for this parameter. Kanashimi (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Peer review § Finished reviews are not being integrated into Template:Article history
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Peer review § Finished reviews are not being integrated into Template:Article history. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)