User talk:Dvandersluis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Main Page | Talk Page | Cleanup Taskforce Desk | My Wiki Stats | GAN reviews | My Created Userboxes |
|---|
 |
I am taking a Wikibreak until editing Wikipedia regains its allure to me. In the meantime, I will still keep an eye on my talk page, so any message will be replied to, though possibly not right away. |
Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:
- Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
- Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
- Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
-
- Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
- Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
- To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
- You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).
[edit] StatisticianBot and GAN/R
Could you take a look at this discussion about combining the "on review" templates into one. I think it will break the operation of StatisticianBot. Would it be an easy fix? Geometry guy 12:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not quite clear about what the (proposed?) change is. Is it just a new template for talk pages? SB only parses one page -- Wikipedia:Good article nominations -- and then writes to three other pages with the results. It doesn't parse each nomination's article or talk page. Is there going to be a change to the GAN page? —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 15:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a proposal to change the GAN page review templates as well: see User:David Fuchs/layout for the proposed template. Geometry guy 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So pretty much instead of the individual GAOnHold/GA2ndOpinion tags, there'd be one template with a parameter? If that's the case, the tags wouldn't be recognized when put to use, but it probably shouldn't be too much work to fix the bot once there is a finalized "syntax" for the template, assuming that there isn't one already. Is the new template not going to be given the article name like the old ones do? I'd keep the code to look for the old style tags too so that they are still recognized if used (although maybe put an entry in the malformed nominations list in that event). —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- You got it. Thanks for raising the issue about the article name. I'll let you know when the template is finalized.
- I should also probably mention that there are plans to completely automate WP:GAN. If that happens, your input would be very welcome, but I appreciate you are not active on Wikipedia these days, and understand if you would prefer someone else to take over the handling of GAN/R in that event. Geometry guy 19:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting about automating GAN. I'd be glad to give input when or if that occurs, but I don't know if I'd have the time to take on automation myself. I have no problem continuing to maintain GAN/R, though. In any event, let me know when the GAN template changes are finalized so that I can update the bot. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great, but the way we are planning to automate GAN will completely change things, because the GAN page itself will be static, and simply transclude data from elsewhere. Does StatisticianBot parse the html or the wikisource of the page? The html will not change much, but the wikisource will contain no useful information. Geometry guy 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point, actually. SB currently works by parsing the wikisource, because, at least in the current page format, it makes things a lot simpler to parse. That being said, it's not like I am unable to change it to parse HTML. It doesn't sound like you're near this point at the moment, so when you are, let me know and we can evaluate how to proceed there. I'm rather interested in knowing details when they are finalized, though! —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay. I won't spoil the surprise, but just to hint at the plan, see Template:CF. Geometry guy 20:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a good point, actually. SB currently works by parsing the wikisource, because, at least in the current page format, it makes things a lot simpler to parse. That being said, it's not like I am unable to change it to parse HTML. It doesn't sound like you're near this point at the moment, so when you are, let me know and we can evaluate how to proceed there. I'm rather interested in knowing details when they are finalized, though! —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Great, but the way we are planning to automate GAN will completely change things, because the GAN page itself will be static, and simply transclude data from elsewhere. Does StatisticianBot parse the html or the wikisource of the page? The html will not change much, but the wikisource will contain no useful information. Geometry guy 19:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting about automating GAN. I'd be glad to give input when or if that occurs, but I don't know if I'd have the time to take on automation myself. I have no problem continuing to maintain GAN/R, though. In any event, let me know when the GAN template changes are finalized so that I can update the bot. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 19:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- So pretty much instead of the individual GAOnHold/GA2ndOpinion tags, there'd be one template with a parameter? If that's the case, the tags wouldn't be recognized when put to use, but it probably shouldn't be too much work to fix the bot once there is a finalized "syntax" for the template, assuming that there isn't one already. Is the new template not going to be given the article name like the old ones do? I'd keep the code to look for the old style tags too so that they are still recognized if used (although maybe put an entry in the malformed nominations list in that event). —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 18:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, there's a proposal to change the GAN page review templates as well: see User:David Fuchs/layout for the proposed template. Geometry guy 17:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter
The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
[edit] List of roller coasters at Canada's Wonderland
Since the time you added "intensity ratings" and icons to the rides in List of roller coasters at Canada's Wonderland, Canada's Wonderland has apparently changed the ratings scale. There is a summary table at the bottom of the article that lists what are apparently the current ratings, though without any citation, I don't know if they're correct. I changed the rating icons for each affected ride (most of them were) to reflect this summary table. Now the main problems are: 1. No "5" icon next to those rides rated 5, and 2. No citations. I was hoping you could take care of both issues, as you were the one who added the icons in the first place. --Skylights76 (talk) 19:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yah, I was aware last year that the ride ratings had been changed from 1-4 to 1-5, however, I haven't been to Wonderland in a couple years now and didn't have/couldn't find the proper information to make an image for "5" (and change 1-4 as necessary if they have been redesigned), or update to suit the new rankings (also, I don't seem to have the original files for the icons anymore, it seems). The original information came from a Wonderland park map a number of years ago; I don't know if current maps contain this information anymore. The other option would be to collect the information from the plaque that each ride has, but this obviously wouldn't be possible until the park opens, and I'm not sure how it'd be properly sourced, anyways. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Update on Wikification progress template
Hi Daniel. I promised to get back to you in a week or two ... this was in November 2007. I sincerely apologise for not getting back to you more quickly. I previously asked if you were able to update Template:Wikification progress. Please let me know if you are still interested in having either CbmBOT or StatisticianBot update it.
I previously mentioned a proposal for changing the format of the template. This was finalised just over a week ago. The new format of the template is based on the table at Category:Cleanup by month, with only a few formatting differences. Most notably, each month on the table links to a corresponding "Wikify by month" category: e.g., "March 2008" links to Category:Wikify from March 2008; the # of articles listed to the right reflect the number of articles in that "Wikify by month" category. The "Total" figure at the bottom is the sum of the numbers above it. The "Updated on ..." sentence above the table is itself updated using a timestamp (five tildes).
Now that the template format has been finalised, I should be able to respond to any queries within a day or two. Let me know if you need more information. Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 10:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Liveste. I actually had completely forgotten about this, so don't worry about taking a while to get back to me. I can still do this task (it would fall under StatisticianBot -- CbmBOT really was supposed to be completely replaced by StatisticianBot a while ago, but I have yet had a chance to do so), and it seems like the output you are looking for is pretty close to Category:Cleanup by month so it shouldn't be too hard. I can't say right now when I can start working on it, but possibly within the next week or so; as long as patience is no problem on your end, it's fine for me to take this on.
- Is it accurate to say that Category:Articles that need to be wikified is an appropriate place to determine all the "... from [month]" categories that are being counted? I need to have some sort of central place for the bot to pick up the categories it needs to investigate, and that appears to be it, but I want to make sure. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 16:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'd have some nerve to say that patience would be a problem. Take whatever time you need. You're correct in assuming Category:Articles that need to be wikified contains the "Wikify by month" categories. Only the monthly categories should be included in the table. Category:All pages needing to be wikified should not, nor should any of the articles in Category:Articles that need to be wikified itself (take care not to confuse the two categories).
-
- I should inform you that the very day that I got back you, a new feature of categories appeared that displays the total number of member articles (for some reason, it doesn't work with the "Wikify by month" categories). {{PAGESINCATEGORY}} is a proposed magic word that could parse this number onto a page, but I'm not sure if this would work with the "Wikify by month" categories, or on the wikification progress template. I'll try to keep you apprised of developments. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Yah, I was asking about that category as a "resource" for finding the montly subcategories. So it looks like I had the right place.
- Interesting about {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}. I don't quite understand how it works, or how it can be used. However, it seems that categories now report the number of pages contained within them, such as "The following 200 pages are in this category, out of x total" ... except for some reason this isn't showing up on the wikify by month cats?? Strange. If this stat is given, it make the bot need to parse a lot fewer pages, as it doesn't need to count each category page, it can just take the number from the stat. But if it's not showing up on the wikify subcats, for whatever reason, it might not be safe to try to use it... —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 03:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] CbmBOT
Is CbmBOT running? RJFJR (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes; however, the text on category pages that displays how many articles are on the page changed so the bot couldn't pick it up (it determined that there was an error). I've fixed it to use the new text and manually ran the bot, and it will start running as normal tonight. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you check the bot again, please. Sorry to have to keep bugging you about this but I value the statistics it displays. RJFJR (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't worry, it's no bother. Obviously the bot runs for a reason which isn't fulfilled if it doesn't update properly or at all. It seems like the problem was that an article was removed from a category between the time that the bot found the link to go to the next page of the category and when it tried to go to that next page. As far as I can tell, as April 2006 now has less than 200 articles, the second category page no longer exists, and the bot could not find any articles on a page that it thought should have articles so gave an error and gave up. Freak occurrence, obviously. In any event, I've run the bot manually so it should be updated now. I have also added functionality to the bot to send me an email when it runs into an error so that I can take a look at it quicker (but feel free to continue letting me know here if something's up). —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 17:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can you check the bot again, please. Sorry to have to keep bugging you about this but I value the statistics it displays. RJFJR (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
CbmBOT seems to be stuck again. Are they making frequent changes to the layout tha keep throwing off the parser? (I think they added a feature that tell how many total articles there are in the category, an overdue feature in my opinion.) RJFJR (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my last update left a syntax error in the bot, which caused it to obviously not be able to run (and therefore not email me, either). It's fixed now. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the bot is superseded by the magic word {{PAGESINCAT:category}}. So the entire table can be updated real time if coded with some magic... No? Renata (talk) 09:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- No idea. If you find out, let me know and I'll shut it off :) —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 14:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, I added auto generated table on the talk page of the category. The bot is still more accurate, especially with the total. Renata (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, well you might want to start a request for comments or something about if the bot should be superceded or not, but in my view, the big benefit of the bot is that empty categories will be automatically pruned, new categories will be automatically added, and it doesn't sound like you're sure about the accuracy of the magic word. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 05:22, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- FYI, I added auto generated table on the talk page of the category. The bot is still more accurate, especially with the total. Renata (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] April GA Newsletter
The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
[edit] GAN templates have been changed
User:David Fuchs has (somewhat unilaterally, but the change may stay) changed the usage of templates at WP:GAN, along the lines which I mentioned to you a month or so ago: this is the diff. Could User:StatisticianBot also support this format for second opinions and holds? I promise to report to you if this change is reverted or there is any other change. Plans for complete automation of the page are still in the minds of several people, but there are technical and editorial obstacles still to be addressed. Geometry guy 22:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, I've noticed that the bot is having a hard time with the oldest articles at GAN. It seems to have problems recognizing the templates, and the list needs fixing after every bot update (today, only 4 of the 10 oldest that it identified were actually unreviewed). Is this something that can be fixed, or is there a problem with recognizing the templates? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Good Articles May Newsletter
The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Courtesy ping
User_talk:StatisticianBot#Issues_at_Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations.2Fbacklog.2Fitems. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. I know that the GAN templates changed and that is what is causing this problem. Unfortunately, I have had next to no time to do anything lately, and updating StatisticianBot fell by the wayside. I will try to get it working again ASAP, but I can't say at the moment when that will be. —Daniel Vandersluis(talk) 12:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Good articles newsletter
| The Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||
Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
