Template talk:GA nominee

Feature request

After the subpage is created, the template should by default contain a link to the subpage. Bwrs (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea: done. Geometry guy 17:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Template issue?

(Cross post from GAN talk page)

It's possible I'm missing something obvious here, but how come this edit, that added the GA nominee template to a talk page, made the template box show that the article is being reviewed (when it isn't)? The template documentation shows the same thing in its second example - the template's "status" field is blank, yet the template displayed says the status is "on review"? Thanks, Somno (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Question answered on GAN talk by User:Apterygial, so no need for a response here. :) Somno (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

GAN Error

Is there any reason we still have the GAN error category transcluded in the template? It doesn't exist anymore and is only on two pages (Talk:1971–72_NBA_season and Talk:Freddy Krueger). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I decided to be bold and made the change. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOLD primarily applies to article space. Editing templates which could be used in multiple articles should be done with more care. In this case Category:GAN error does not exist because it is an error category: its purpose is to highlight malformed nominations, hence it is better to keep it as a redlink. Ideally the category should be empty. Geometry guy 20:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies. I was, you might say, seeing red. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

:-) (Puns are always welcome.) Geometry guy 05:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

note parameter?

The documentation lists a "note" parameter, but this parameter does nothing. Is this intentional? Just curious. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I assume that the parameter exists just so that you can leave a note to the next guy that edits the template. I don't know what kind of note you'd leave, though. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

GA bot uses it; leave a note and it will be left on WP:GAN. hare j 09:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Watch link

I nearly implemented the "watch the review" link in the template when I understood that this feature is potentially controversial.

The idea is: as long as the start of review is easy to miss and the changes to review subpage are not shown in talk page, I wanted to add "watch the review" link to this template. This would allow all the interested editors to start watching the review even before it has actually started, so that once the subpage is created, the more significant amount of watchlist traffic would attract the attention. Comments? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Won't make the slightest difference. Anyone not watching the article's talk page is unlikely to be interested in the review. Malleus Fatuorum 05:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Watching the talk page doesn't help much with noticing the review if bot edits are hidden in a watchlist, as the only non-bot changes are the status edits by reviewer, so that once you didn't check the talk page edit by unknown editor with no edit summary you get a chance to notice that nomination has failed without you noticing it at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't see any harm. I occasionally watch a review before it is created so it would be a small help to me at least. AIRcorn (talk) 08:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for a |display_title= parameter

Could a |display_title= parameter please be added to this template, the same way it has been to {{talk header}}? I envisage that it would be used when the article's title has been altered somehow (e.g. with a {{lowercase}} template), so that its talk page's templates refer to it in the same way. Thanks in advance. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 19:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit protected}} is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. Try using the template sandbox to test the new code and ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Templates if you get stuck. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Suggested change

I would like to suggest a minor code tweak:

Change this line:

{{tlp|GA nominee|2=''insert date here''{{!}}nominator={{{nominator|~~~~}}}

To this:

{{tlp|GA nominee|2=~~~~~{{!}}nominator={{{nominator|~~~}}}

That would automatically create the proper signature and time stamp. I am a template editor and normally I would do this myself, but I am afraid the syntax may be off a little. I would be afraid I'd screw up such an important template. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

You have a few things confused here. First off, the datestamp is already automatically created, by {{subst:GAN}}; this template doesn't automatically do that itself. The line you're talking about is used as a reminder line about how to fix the nomination if it isn't completed properly. Next, the "change this line" example is improperly escaped, making it hard to see what you're requesting. Also, you changed the number of tildes in the "nominator=" section; this is correct to synchronize with {{subst:GAN}}, but you should have explained why you're changing it in the nomination.

That said, given that a) this template isn't actually protected (thus I can fulfil the request without template-editor or admin rights), b) the line in question won't show in almost any use of the template, c) the change you're trying to suggest is correct and useful (based on {{subst:GAN}}), I'm going to go make this change. --ais523 12:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

And Done. --ais523 12:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"On hold" wording

When the status is on hold, it currently says "...Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues...". From Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/FAQ, we very well know that putting it on hold could be for any time period, shouldn't this wording be altered? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ugog Nizdast, I'm so sorry no one ever answered you, I only just now noticed this. Yes, I see what you mean about this wording. A couple of things, the second one will surprise you, but the first is a question: What exactly do you suggest the new wording actually be? All I can think of is "approximately seven days", as the GA Instructions do suggest a guideline of about seven days (even if, as you said, that can certainly be changed by the reviewer on a case-by-case basis, but seven is the suggested default). Now, I took a look at the template and found an undocumented feature: The reviewer (or anyone) can change the number of days displaying in the {{GA nominee}} template that appears on the talk page by adding a "time" parameter to the template. For example, like this: "{{GA nominee ... |time=approximately seven days}}" or this: "{{GA nominee ... |time=8.75 milliseconds}}". Any phrase may be entered and the default is obviously "seven days". What do you think? Now that we know about this, maybe the documentation should be edited instead of the template? Maybe you would like to do the honors? The documentation is here: Template:GA nominee/doc. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Took a while to remember and get a hold of what you said. Hmm. I've updated the doc. I'm also curious as to how you found out this secret field.

If we've to change anything, it probably has to be WP:GAI right? There might be other linked and lesser templates like Template:GANotice etc. Anyway, I would say we should probably put along with "approx seven days" something like "or any reasonable time specified by the reviewer". Also, add about the |time field and instruct them to use it. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, I found it by taking a look at the template. Your edit to the documentation looks good; I improved it a bit by moving it to the end of the list of parameters, moving it away from the list of possible values of the status= parameter, and included the default value. Best, Prhartcom (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, see what you mean. I found that " {{{time|seven days}}}" part in the template now. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

subtopic throws error in spite of instructions

Hi. I do not see a subtopic for Biographies, so for the Talk:Caitlyn Jenner GA nom I left the parameter blank‍—‌per the instructions (for miscellaneous noms). However, this throws what appears to be an error. I tried removing the subtopic parameter completely and the same error is thrown. Please advise. Ping me back! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Checkingfax, thanks for raising this as a possible issue. You're right; the template displays a "!" in a triangle followed by an error message, warning that the subtopic parameter is not being called or it is being called with a blank parameter. Fortunately, we see that Legobot was able to pick up the nomination and place it into the miscellaneous list. There was another nomination there too; it's article talk page displays the same "!" message. So, as we can all see, the template "!" message is harmless. It doesn't distract Legobot. I believe the warning it gives is appropriate, as it give editors a chance to change their mind before really keeping that category. And in your case, I recommend instead the "Media and drama" subtopic: the first sub-subtopic is people in the media such as "Actors, directors, models, performers, and celebrities"; I hope you'll agree she belongs there. Let me know if this helps; or if you have further thoughts. Good luck on the GAN. Prhartcom (talk) 23:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

nominator2

Do you think that there should be a parameter for nominator2 if 2 people are working on it? This is most commonly used in FAs, but for example in Watch Dogs both me and Samtar are working on it. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Italics not appropriate to add to sig

I have removed the introduction of italics on the nominator sig; they are not needed, and the sig should be left intact. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't particularly care either way, but that part isn't a sig tag, it contains one, but it isn't one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove reply link

Currently when Template:GA nominee is transcluded on a talk page, there's a link with the text "reply" which returns a client error when I click on it, asking me to reply in source mode. I think this should be removed altogether. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:15, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit Request

"Sports and recreation" was recently split up (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 28#Proposal to Split Sports and Recreation into Seven Sub-Topics). However, inputting "Sports" into the "subtopic" field still causes the template to generate "is currently a Sports and recreation good article nominee". This should be updated so "Sports" and "Recreation" generate "is currently a Sports good article nominee" and "is currently a Recreation good article nominee". Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

 Note: This request will actually need to be handled at Template:GA/Subtopic. I'm not fully aware of the nuances of the template so I'm not comfortable doing it myself, but as a starting point from what I can see it could look something like this:

|sport|sports=Sports
|parks|amusements|toys|recreation=Recreation

Tollens (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Mike Christie since it appears they might be able to help with this (if not, sorry!). Tollens (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't be certain how the template works; I maintain ChristieBot, which maintains the GAN page, but I haven't dealt with the subtopic page directly. Within ChristieBot I broke up the keywords like so:

• Sports: "sports and recreation", "sports", "sport and recreation", "sport"
• Recreation: "recreation", "everydaylife", "everyday life", "games"

It's a pity that "sports and recreation" and "sport and recreation" still have to be valid keywords despite now being ambiguous, but I've no doubt they'll continue to be used for a while so I don't think it's practical to try to retire them. I would assume you can take these same keywords and fix up the subtopic page, but as I said above I can't be sure. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)