User talk:Wugapodes
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Sorry - I'm not at all sure how to use this talk page. The thing is our organisation just changed its logo and updated some key messages - so we're really the only ones who CAN update this info. I'll change the user name - unfortunately the previous person in my position didn't leave any log in details. So how do you propose making the changes necessary if we shouldn't make them ourselves?!
2nd Annual GA Cup - Round 4
 GA Cup competitors and observers: Happy Fall! Get ready, we're about to move into the finals of the second-ever GA Cup! Monday saw the end of Round 3. Out of the 8 contestants in the semi-finals, 5 have moved to the finals. The semi-finals were competitive. Our semi-finalists reviewed a total of 61 articles, or a grand total of 1,151 points. If you were to lump the top winners from each of the three pools together, it'd be a close horse race; they were within 35 points of each other, which can only mean that the finals will be an exciting race. Tomandjerry211, our top scorer in Round 2, again earned the most points in the semi-finals, with 288 points and 16 articles reviewed. Johanna came in second overall, with 251 points and 13 articles reviewed; Sturmvogel 66 came in third overall, with 221 points and 16 articles. Rounding out our wildcard slots are Zwerg Nase and The Rambling Man. These contestants were very strategic in how they reviewed articles. Like every other round in the history of the GA Cup, success depended upon reviewing oldest-nominated articles. For example, Johanna reviewed 5 articles that were worth the highest possible points. Congrats to all our finalists, and good luck! Stay tuned to this space for more information about the 2nd GA Cup, including overall statistics and how this competition has affected Wikipedia. We regret to inform you that Dom497, one of our original judges and co-creator of the GA Cup, has stepped down as a judge. Dom, a longtime member of WP:WikiProject Good articles, is responsible for the look of the GA Cup and has been instrumental in its upkeep. We wish him the best as he starts his university education, and are certain that he'll make an impact there as he has in Wikipedia. The finals started on October 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and will end on Ocober 29 at 23:59:59 UTC with a winner being crowned. Information about the Final can be found here. Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6 and Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.
|
2015 GA Cup Wrap-Up
The second-ever GA Cup is now over! The competition officially ended Thursday. Congrats to everyone who participated, and especially to our finalists. The winner of the 2nd GA Cup is Zwerg Nase! He earned 408 points, over 100 points more than he earned in all previous rounds. He tied with our second-place winner, Sturmvogel 66 with 367 points, in number of articles reviewed (24), and they earned almost the same points for reviewing articles that were in the queue the longest (Zwerg with 322, Sturmvogel with 326). Basically, they tied in points, but what made the different for Zwerg was the advantage he had in reviewing longer articles. It seems that the rule change of earning more realistic points for longer articles made a difference. All of our contestants should be proud of the work they were able to accomplish through the GA Cup. Congrats to these worthy opponents! Our third and fourth place winners, Johanna and Tomandjerry211, also ran a close race, with 167 points and 147 points respectfully. We had one withdrawal; we found it interesting that competitors dropped out in Round 2 and 3 as well. One of the original judges and co-creator of this competition, User:Dom497 stepped down as judge during Round 3; as stated previously, we will miss his input and wish him the best. The judges were pleased with our results, even though fewer users competed this time compared to our inaugural competition. We recognize that this might be due to holding the competition during the summer months. We intend on looking more closely when we should conduct this contest, as well as other aspects of the GA Cup. We've set up a feedback page for everyone's input about how we should conduct the contest and what rule changes should be made. If you have any ideas about how we can improve things, please visit it and give us your input. Again, thanks to all and congratulations to our winners! Please stay tuned for the start of GA Cup #3. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar and MrWooHoo. |
WugBot output
Wugapodes, it's fantastic to have updated information on the Reports page. Thank you so much for taking on this bot. A very minor thing on the bot output in the Old reviews section of the Exception report: there's a stray apostrophe at the end of the line right under the header; if you could fix that, it would be great.
Are you making any progress on including the links to the GAN page? It's a helpful feature that I find I'm missing; I hope it will prove to be feasible. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thanks for pointing that out! I am making some progress, yes, but unfortunately I took this on right as the finals period rolled in so I don't have as much free time as I would have hoped. I'd put an ETA of Dec 17 on that feature, once things slow down. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: So making the bot category aware is going to talk a bit of reworking of the code, so in the mean time I set it up to link to the review page (if there is one) or to the talk page (if it's just a nom). Personally, I think this is a better solution as you can go directly from the report to the problem nomination/review. Still, I plan to make it count the number of reviews and give the summary at the bottom of the page as well so I'll need to rewrite it anyway, so if you think the previous method is better I can switch back at any point. Let me know. You can see how the links work at the test page or on the report page in about 30 minutes. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Each nomination entry on the GAN page offers "(edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d))" links, which is why it's desirable to link there: more potential information is immediately available. (In addition, the nomination and review initiation dates are immediately visible on the GAN page, while only one is visible on the other pages.) In addition, failing to use the links as they had been makes WugBot useless for another StatisticanBot task I had hoped it could soon be tasked to do, which is to update the pink "The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are" box near the top of the GAN page. These use the same links as had been in the Report page's "Oldest nominations" section: as you can see on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items, the first five of the ten oldest are the ones that are visible, and the next five are placed in a commented-out reserve. Without those links, however, it's far better to manually maintain that page, since clicking on the link in the pink GAN backlog box takes you directly to an entry on that very same page. I strongly recommend that you go to the WT:GAN discussion page and see how people use the report and whether they'd prefer your innovations. I personally don't, but I'm only one of the people who actively use the Reports page, and thus a single data point. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, you make a good point. I'll ask at WT:GAN. Like I said, I do plan to do the leg work to make the change trivial, so in a few days time changing it to how StatisticianBot formatted them should be easy. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- No immediate rush: your final exams are far more important! I'm looking forward to seeing the results when they're ready. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- One odd thing in your new output: the article name "Rodrigo Duterte presidential campaign, 2016" is being shortened to leave out the ", 2016" part of the name (and the same happens with the London mayoral campaign, 2016"; I haven't done a full check to see if other articles are being affected, but this happens in both places these articles are listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- No one ever taught me to procrastinate by doing fun things, so I kept working on it in my off time. Turned out to not be as big of a rewrite as I expected so that's always good. Anyway, BlueMoonset, you may want to check out the test page now; the links there point to the GAN page (so whatever the preference is at WT:GAN can be easily implemented) and the summary report at the bottom can also be updated now. I'm almost concerned at how well this is going. And the weird bug you mentioned seems to be fixed. Not quite sure what happened there. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 12:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- The new links look good; I haven't checked them all, but the Oldest nominations section has identical links to what was there as of the last StatisticianBot run, and random checks of links in the Holds, Reviews, and Second opinion sections took me to the correct section of the GAN page. However, these last three sections now have the wrong number of days: you had correctly been giving the number of days since the review started, and you're now showing the number of days since the original nomination. It's important that these three sections resume giving the number of days since the review started, while the Oldest nominations and Old nominations section continue to date back to the creation of the nomination (as they are doing now). I don't have time to look at the new Summary section update at the bottom just now; I'll try to get to it before tonight's official run, but no guarantees. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- No one ever taught me to procrastinate by doing fun things, so I kept working on it in my off time. Turned out to not be as big of a rewrite as I expected so that's always good. Anyway, BlueMoonset, you may want to check out the test page now; the links there point to the GAN page (so whatever the preference is at WT:GAN can be easily implemented) and the summary report at the bottom can also be updated now. I'm almost concerned at how well this is going. And the weird bug you mentioned seems to be fixed. Not quite sure what happened there. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 12:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- One odd thing in your new output: the article name "Rodrigo Duterte presidential campaign, 2016" is being shortened to leave out the ", 2016" part of the name (and the same happens with the London mayoral campaign, 2016"; I haven't done a full check to see if other articles are being affected, but this happens in both places these articles are listed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- No immediate rush: your final exams are far more important! I'm looking forward to seeing the results when they're ready. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, you make a good point. I'll ask at WT:GAN. Like I said, I do plan to do the leg work to make the change trivial, so in a few days time changing it to how StatisticianBot formatted them should be easy. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 01:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- Each nomination entry on the GAN page offers "(edit | talk | history | protect | links | watch | logs | page views (90d))" links, which is why it's desirable to link there: more potential information is immediately available. (In addition, the nomination and review initiation dates are immediately visible on the GAN page, while only one is visible on the other pages.) In addition, failing to use the links as they had been makes WugBot useless for another StatisticanBot task I had hoped it could soon be tasked to do, which is to update the pink "The oldest unreviewed good article nominations are" box near the top of the GAN page. These use the same links as had been in the Report page's "Oldest nominations" section: as you can see on Wikipedia:Good article nominations/backlog/items, the first five of the ten oldest are the ones that are visible, and the next five are placed in a commented-out reserve. Without those links, however, it's far better to manually maintain that page, since clicking on the link in the pink GAN backlog box takes you directly to an entry on that very same page. I strongly recommend that you go to the WT:GAN discussion page and see how people use the report and whether they'd prefer your innovations. I personally don't, but I'm only one of the people who actively use the Reports page, and thus a single data point. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: So making the bot category aware is going to talk a bit of reworking of the code, so in the mean time I set it up to link to the review page (if there is one) or to the talk page (if it's just a nom). Personally, I think this is a better solution as you can go directly from the report to the problem nomination/review. Still, I plan to make it count the number of reviews and give the summary at the bottom of the page as well so I'll need to rewrite it anyway, so if you think the previous method is better I can switch back at any point. Let me know. You can see how the links work at the test page or on the report page in about 30 minutes. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 00:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Wugapodes, I just noticed that the version of the bot that is running nightly and updating the Report page has that odd bug I mentioned above that doesn't show the ", 2016" in those two article names. I thought you'd want to know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure why that is happening, but the most recent version of the bot, which will run for the first time tonight, doesn't seem to have the problem based on the test output. I'll wait for that run and hopefully it will have resolved itself. If not I'll take another look
- Wugapodes, while the output on December 17 appears to be have been fine, there's something seriously wrong with the December 18 output. The entire Oldest nominations section is wrong, and the Old nominations section goes back and forth between correct numbers and very small numbers, though I think the entries are in the right order. Please fix it as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, the Old nominations section of the Report continues to be problematic: it is supposed to give how many days since the nomination was created, but if the nomination is under review it instead gives how many days since the review was created instead. Please give this your earliest attention; it's been a problem for five days running. (Note that the Oldest nominations section at the top has been fixed; this is the Old nominations section further down the page, which includes all nominations at least 30 days old, regardless of review status.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Will do! Thought that was fixed, I'll get right on it. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- @BlueMoonset: check out User:Wugapodes/GANReportBotTest. It looks correct, but since this has been a problem I've missed, another set of eyes would be a good check. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 04:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, the test page's Old nominations section looks fine. Thanks. I took a look at the Nominators with multiple nominations section—which isn't one I work much with—and thought that you might want to only go down to 3 nominations, which had been the minimum multiple for Statistician bot. The list of people with two nominations is really quite long.
- There is one typo in the description for the Oldest nominations section: after "List of the oldest ten nominations that have had no activity", there needs to be a space before the "(" character. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, wonderful, I thought the minimum it used was 3 but didn't have the source code s I just interpreted multiple as > 1, but I agree, 3 is better. I'll fix those and then make the changes. Also, you may want to look at some of the older revisions of the test page; I've been toying around with {{Graph:Chart}} to see if a chart of the last 90 days of stats could be included in the report. It's not very polished (and has a huge gap in November...), but you might find it interesting. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 05:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, the Old nominations section of the Report continues to be problematic: it is supposed to give how many days since the nomination was created, but if the nomination is under review it instead gives how many days since the review was created instead. Please give this your earliest attention; it's been a problem for five days running. (Note that the Oldest nominations section at the top has been fixed; this is the Old nominations section further down the page, which includes all nominations at least 30 days old, regardless of review status.) Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- Wugapodes, while the output on December 17 appears to be have been fine, there's something seriously wrong with the December 18 output. The entire Oldest nominations section is wrong, and the Old nominations section goes back and forth between correct numbers and very small numbers, though I think the entries are in the right order. Please fix it as soon as you can. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure why that is happening, but the most recent version of the bot, which will run for the first time tonight, doesn't seem to have the problem based on the test output. I'll wait for that run and hopefully it will have resolved itself. If not I'll take another look
WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.
For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
- First place – $200
- Second & Third place – $50 each
- Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.
Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address.
After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.
The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), and Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email).
Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.
If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Your BRFA was approved, please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WugBot. — xaosflux Talk 21:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on File talk:Conscription map of the world.svg. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
TFAR
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Heffernan v. City of Paterson --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Legobot (talk) 04:38, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
January 2017 at Women in Red
_Anna_lehrt_Maria_das_Lesen.jpg) 
| |
|---|---|
|
Women Philosophers & Women in Education online editathons  | |
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC) via MassMessaging