Wikipedia talk:Good articles/recent

Delisted articles[edit]

Since when did we add delisted GAs to this page? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We never have. Its TonyTheTiger who keeps adding "delisted" articles into the section. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, ok. Not sure we want it there... –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, probably have a discussing about it. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: LivingBot[edit]

Sorry all those watching this page. It's malfunctioning at the moment, but should be useful when I get it working. Disabling for now, pending further enquiry. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, bot now up to full speed. Posting to this page manually is now more optional than it ever has been before. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot notice[edit]

Seeing as how the bot is now handling the updates to this page, perhaps a (temporary?) commented out notice should be added to the page notifying users that LivingBot is now updating this page? I don't see any problem making it permanent, and even adding the fact that human error might screw up the updates to this page would also help with any future problems. I also think the 15 article limit should be increased to 20 or even 25, seeing as how newly listed articles might be delisted sooner now that it is being updated more frequently. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 19:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Humanity is so unpredictable (and lovable, but mainly unpredictable), but the bot is fine to preserve whatever number is requested, though the easiest way of achieving that is a rather odd one, a bridge we can cross when we get to it. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't see the point of a simple list of recent GAs. WP:GAN currently sorts GAs into 33 sub-topics (incl "Miscellaneous"). I'm no statistician, but I'd guess "recent GAs" would have to be extended to at least 50 in order to create a 50% chance that a random visitor's favourite sub-topic would be represented.

What might be more helpful to readers would be a toolserver page that displays a list of sub-topics, then a list of recent GAs in the chosen sub-topic, preferably excluding those with open GARs. That would also be useful in our guidance on what makes a GA and how to review articles for GA status - we've had some hopeless nominations in the last few months and at least 2 inadequate reviews in the last month, see WT:GAN and its recent history. --Philcha (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The long-running idea of the page is not to provide pages of interest per se, but to let everyone know what's just been passed. Some people like to check these in order to maintain quality standards. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 08:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LoveGame and Paparazzi (Lady Gaga song)[edit]

I wonder if these two articles were wrongly listed here. They seem to be promoted in 2009 and 2010 respectively. Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They were listed in the wrong subsection of Wikipedia:Good articles/Music, and were shifted from "2009 songs" to "2008 songs" yesterday. I guess the bot thinks that means they were just listed. Adabow (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I'm doing good article reassessments (GARs) on both articles. ~~}IMr*|(60nna)I{~~ 08:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever: you should not open a GAR for a bot misplaced listing, under the declaration that you "hate pop music". This is not what GAR asks. You listed articles for having dead links and faulty prose but failed to point out any mistake. I will be nominating them for MFD per WP:BOLD. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have listed here the four main points from the WP:GAR page which I saw. "Fix any simple problems yourself. Do not waste minutes explaining or justifying a problem that you could fix in seconds. GAR is not a forum to shame editors over easily fixed problems. Tag serious problems that you cannot fix, if the templates will help reviewers find the problems. For example, it may be helpful to add a ^{[unreliable source?]} tag after a source you think is dubious. Do not tag bomb the article. Make sure that the problems you see in the article are actually covered by the actual Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Many problems, including the presence of dead URLs, inconsistently formatted citations, and compliance with 90% of the Manual of Style pages, are not covered by the GA criteria and therefore not grounds for de-listing. Notify major contributors to the article and the relevant Wikiprojects. The aim is not to delist the article, but to fix it." WP:MFD for them has been done I suggest you comment there else go through the whole process. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bot happened to check the article in between the removals and the additions, so when it came back 15 minutes' later it saw two new articles compared to the article list it saw on a previous run. Or to put it another way, it thought the articles had been delisted and then relisted. Not sure there's any change desirable, one of those chance occurrences. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 21:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Missed articles[edit]

Due to the Wikimedia Labs outage, the following articles missed their chance to appear on /recent. Sorry! In no particular order:

- Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 08:30, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot skips GAs if more than 5 are promoted in 15 minutes[edit]

As a precaution against large-scale errors, User:LivingBot skips its update to WP:Good articles/recent if it detects more than 5 new GAs since the update 15 minutes earlier. Skipped articles can be added manually to /recent – or if this becomes a recurring problem, the bot owner should be notified. —Patrug (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Merkel[edit]

Apparently promoted on 7 August.--Ipigott (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]