User talk:CricketBot/substubs

Longer list[edit]

This list has got rather longer in the latest version because the List of cricketers now includes players without Test or ODI caps, and even some non-players. I'm inclined to think it's useful to list them here too, but I could restrict it to just the Test and ODI players if people prefer.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to take it that ones that have dropped off the latest list are "done"? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the "Done" list. I found 35 that had been done but not moved across. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch?[edit]

Yesterday I moved Robin Jackman from the To Do to the Done list. However the date/timestamp at the foot of the page continues to read 13 April, and viewing the page's history shows no update since that date. Is something broken?

JH 08:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The date/timestamp merely reflects the updates to this particular page - which contains the contents at User:CricketBot/substubs/todo and User:CricketBot/substubs/done. However, when updates are done to those pages, that is reflected here by reloading and not by actual editing.

Hope that made a bit more sense. The bottom line is, Jackman is listed as done, and a good stub it is too. Sam Vimes | Address me 09:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That makes sense. JH 09:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update[edit]

I wonder - would it be possible for to repeat the CricketBot search that created the list? I suspect a lot of "to do" substubs have in fact been "done". -- ALoan (Talk) 18:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I'll try and get round to it soon, but no promises because I don't have much time at the moment.

I think I might do away with the "Done" section, because it often doesn't get updated, and it's hard to do automatically.

Stephen Turner (Talk) 09:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - no rush; it would just be nice to see how far we have got. I agree about the "Done" section. Could the bot perhaps be set to repeat the search say once per month? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the "Done" column because it gives those of us who do a few of these encouragement that we are making progress, albeit achingly slowly. Johnlp 13:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it too, but the problem is that lots of them get done without being added to the Done column. And then I have to go through by hand and try and see which ones were on the previous Todo list but not on the new list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the least I can do is offer to help: if you tell me when you're likely to run the bot, I'll make a copy of the existing To do list and stick it in my sandbox, and then I can do the comparison at my leisure (whenever that might be). BTW, a related problem is that some substubs have indeed been expanded, but not to anything that might resemble a finished article, often with only an extra paragraph, or less than that. I hesitate to say that we need a list of stubs, or a list of substubs plus stubs that goes up to about 1000 characters... And then there are those like John Morris (cricketer) where an enthusiastic (and to-be-encouraged) editor has put in acres about his flying career, but almost nothing about cricket. Johnlp 13:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just moved him - his article is not a sub-stub any more anyway! -- ALoan (Talk) 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the edit history give tell you which are "done"? Diff the original list to the current list, and there you are. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because lots of them change size as well. And some are added. And some have changed their names. Here is a real diff from an update. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]