The archival bot that normally runs on the feedback page is broken. Could you enable MiszaBot for it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MutantPlatypus (talk • contribs) 01:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it broken, or is it only archiving things that are 1680 hours (70 days) old? –xenotalk 18:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is archiving Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 but the archives aren't linked on the talk page, and I think some posts have been archived somewhere else.
The bot's earliest appearance in the talk page history is this edit, which sent 37 threads to Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009/Archive 3. The bot is still archiving, having recently archived material to Archive 5, but no archives are linked on the talk page. Archive 4 has back and front links to Archives 3 and 5, but Archive 3 links only to Archive 4. There is no Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009/Archive 2 or Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009/Archive 1.
I suspect that this problem arose because of multiple page moves, but I couldn't find anything at Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan/Archive 1 or Talk:Economic Stimulus Act of 2009/Archive 1.
Here's what I think is needed, and if you can help with any of this, it would be great:
- Easy. Edit Talk:American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to report the automatic archiving and link to the three archives (3, 4, and 5) now available, with provision for creating and linking to additional archives as they're created.
- Harder. That the bot started archiving with Archive 3 suggests that there might have been some threads archived from earlier versions of the talk page, but I can't find them. Ideally, we'd find them and rename them as Archives 1 and 2. If there are no such threads, I suppose we should create empty archives so that the existing ones don't have to be renumbered.
Thanks for any help or advice you can give! JamesMLane t c 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When the editor set up the archiving, they must have copied the settings from another page because they started with "counter=3" [1] which is why there is no 1 and 2. I've shuffled them all two places to the left. –xenotalk 18:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Size of archival pages. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about it? Миша13 23:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is there such a wide variety in the size of the archival pages? -- Wavelength (talk) 16:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Checking the edit histories, the small ones were done manually. The large ones were done by the bot, but sometimes the counter gets stuck, so it keeps adding to old archives as well as to the one that's supposed to be active. See 108, 109, & 110.
- —WWoods (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How can the counter be prevented from becoming stuck? -- Wavelength (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The next edition of the WP:PW newsletter, Issue 63, is available for delivery here. Thanks, ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 09:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got stuff 2 weeks overdue for archiving on my page. This is all that's changed on the page since the last time the bot archived, [2] any idea why its not doing its thing again?--Crossmr (talk) 10:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the page as of this revision only the thread "Thanks" qualified for archival (the second one doesn't have a timestamp), but you haven't specified the minthreadstoarchive variable, which means a default value of 2. Миша13 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several months ago, an editor accidentally changed the archive line of an article from
|archive = Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive %(counter)d
}}
to
|archive = Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive %(counter)d}}
And ever since the bot has been "Archiving to [[Talk:Fox News Channel/Archive 23}}]]."
Without actually saving the stuff anywhere, or realizing that the name wasn't right. I don't know if there are any other instances of this; I hope not, as it was a pain to dig up all the lost sections.
—WWoods (talk) 07:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've encountered this a few other times. The core of the problem is that MediaWiki doesn't throw a recognizable "page not saved" error in this case. Maybe I should really fix that, hmm... Миша13 07:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Misza13, I'm wondering why your bot archived a comment and link I left Feb. 15, 2010. This is the log entry:
- 03:37, 25 February 2010 MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m (13,379 bytes) (Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 4d) to Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 12, Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed/Archive 11.)
Most posts on that page are older than 4d, but have not been archived. I will undo this action if it was a robot's mistake. Yopienso (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't look like a mistake, though there's an oddity: it didn't take the oldest section.
- The bot doesn't archive individual comments, but rather sections which have no dated comments less than the limit — up to a point. Out-of-date sections will be left if taking them would leave the page with less than
minthreadsleft , the default value of which is 5. And it won't take less than minthreadstoarchive , the default value of which is 2, so it won't archive Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed again until a couple of new sections are added.
- On a talk page, there's not a lot of point in putting URLs in
<ref> tags, since there's no {{reflist}} to show them. If they're cluttering the page, you can just put single brackets around them.
- —WWoods (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm confused: Who is WWoods? Who is Misza13? How is WWoods answering on Misza13's talk page?
- Hmm--seems like the bot selected my post irrationally, unless there's a clue word there that triggered it. Since there's nothing wrong with my comment and it's useful and should stay in context, I'll just undo the action. That "oddity," as you call it, makes no sense. Why doesn't it look like a mistake? (I'll wait for your response before undoing. No hurry, but thanks for your previous prompt reply.) Yopienso (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to thank you for explaining about URLs on talk pages. Thanks!Yopienso (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not Misza13, but I thought I knew the answer to your question. This page is on my watchlist since I've asked and answered questions about Miszbot before.
- More fully, three of the seven sections on the page were old enough to archive, but it couldn't take them all because that would have left only four. Evidently the bot simply took the first two it came to, working from the top of the page, without bothering to rank sections by relative age. So what it did seems odd, since it left the oldest section, but not wrong, since both of the archived sections did qualify for archiving.
- —WWoods (talk) 05:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not understanding this. Almost all the comments are over 4 days old. One goes back to October. Many talk pages have comments that are several years old. I'm thinking someone just wanted to hide the information I provided. I will provide it again, this time at the Stern peer review controversy. If it's hidden again, I'll conclude I was right, but will leave it hidden. Yopienso (talk) 07:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You must understand two things:
- The bot works a thread at a time, from the top of the page.
- Once the page is reduced to a minimum size (5 threads by default), further threads are not processed, regardless of content.
- This edit is consistent with that algoritm. Don't look for conspiracies where there are none. You can, however leave a new comment in a thread to bump it. Миша13 07:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the bot didn't work from the top down; it took out my contribution from about the middle of the page, leaving much older contributions above it. But never mind--it's not worth the trouble. (No sour grapes--it really isn't worth the trouble!) I am curious about the technology and practice, though. Here, [[3]] to choose a random example, is a long talk page with contributions dating back 3 years. The page from which my contribution was excised was much shorter and more recent. Thanks for your information. Unfortunately, I am very unsavvy about wikis and bots....and even about how to post links and references. Yopienso (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it worked to me: It left the first section (Sexpelled) because it had a timestamp less than 4 days old; it took the second and third sections (Sternberg 1, NPOV) which didn't; and then it stopped, because taking the fourth section (Second Sentence) would have left the page with only four sections — less than the minimum number.
- By the way, I've lengthened the minimum_age_to_archive from 4 days to 90, since the page isn't getting the level of traffic it was. A couple of years ago, it peaked at almost 700k!
- —WWoods (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking the time to try to clue me in on the procedure. I still don't get it, though--Second Sentence and One Question? are older than Sternberg peer review controversy 1. The older ones were left and the newer one was archived. And, it was put into Archive 11 instead of Archive 12.
- OK--so the time frame for archiving is tailored to each page. That makes sense. (Yay! I get it.) Yopienso (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I broke my archiving by changing my username, and I don't think my fix worked. Would you have the time to take a gander at it?--~TPW 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly seems to be the problem - it archived some threads today? [4]. –xenotalk 19:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, didn't see that it had worked (only checked my watchlist and the page, not its history). Sorry for the trouble!--~TPW 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No trouble. –xenotalk 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|