Wikipedia is like a sausage; you might like the taste of it but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made.
Please use the input box below to post new comments.
For private or personal matters, please shoot me an email at email@example.com
Good evening (UTC). Today is 29 August 2016. The current time is 20:54 (UTC). (Out of date? Purge.)
I am a fellow Wikipedian, and this is where people can inform me of possible mistakes I made, ask questions regarding decisions I've made, and ask me for help. When posting on this page, please be civil and sign your comments. Thank you. —Intelligentsium 20:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
DYK review bot
Thank you for correcting your bot (on my talk) ;) - Perhaps teach the bot to recognize an emergency nomination: done last minute, with minimum length, - perhaps the bot could look for the word expand in the comment ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerda Arendt (talk • contribs) 05:58, 25 July 2016
- Hi, no problem! Sorry for any spam that goes out as I work out the kinks. Unfortunately an emergency nomination can take too many forms to be detected automatically, but the bot's reviews should only be seen as advisory. The human reviewer will be able to see and disregard any brainlessness on the bot's part! Intelligentsium 00:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
||The Technical Barnstar
|A barnstar for your development of the exceptional DYKReviewBot, which is greatly appreciated to assist in the DYK nomination review process.
– North America1000 23:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! Intelligentsium 01:32, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Your recent bot approvals request has been Approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — xaosflux Talk 03:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, and thanks for the review! Intelligentsium 23:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
||The DYK Medal
|For the development of the DYKReviewBot, for being so collaborative in the development process, and for the many contributions your bot will make to the DYK project in the future. Thank You and Well Done! EdChem (talk) 04:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! Intelligentsium 23:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
DYK Review bot down?
The DYK review bot has not had a run since July 24, 2016. I see it was approved on July 30. What's the status of the bot?
— Maile (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I'm actually moving right now so the physical bot is in a box haha. It should be back up in a few days. Sorry I haven't been too active on Wikipedia as I'm sorting things out. Intelligentsium 14:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- I totally believe the bot in a box story. Un huh. I was just about to suggest that once you get back over here, it might be a good idea to appoint a technology-savvy (not me, that's for sure) editor willing to be back up in case this stops running again. On the other hand ... I just realized nobody else seems to know how to re-start Shubinator's various bots. So maybe that's not a workable idea. Anyhow, I miss seeing it's detailed checks on nominations. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
- ? It runs on an old desktop so it doesn't have to go down when I'm travelling with my laptop. Actually during the review process I applied for an account at Labs so this could run on an external server. Could do it if you can find a "willing volunteer". Intelligentsium 10:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- Should it be an admin? It would need to be somebody who is reliably around DYK a lot. Reliability is a key factor, I think. That could be any number of people. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think it needs to be an admin (and in fact the code is open-source). However the bot should require relatively little manual interaction once running, except to add new features if there is consensus for them. Intelligentsium 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Two bot issues
- Part of the markup for an autoreview includes
<noinclude><includeonly>...</includeonly></noinclude>, which never renders at all
- Its edit summary still links back to the BRFA
Pppery (talk) 22:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the heads-up. I've fixed these issues. Please let me know if you see any more! Intelligentsium 23:00, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Problem with the closing "/noinclude" tag when the DYK template closes
Intelligentsium, we're just starting to see a problem with the new "noinclude" bot code when a review closes as either "approved" or "rejected".
What has happened heretofore is that, as part of the promotion, the DYKsubpage template, which has been the page's framework, is substituted. Part of the substitution involves clearing out comments and internal templates, and inserting "noinclude" and "/noinclude" tags at the beginning and end of the page respectively.
The problem seems to be that instead of pairing the internal "noinclude" and "/noinclude" that you've introduced as part of the bot's review, it takes your "/noinclude" as the end of the "noinclude" at the top of the page, and displays the rest of the page starting with DYKReviewBot's sig, even though we don't want it to. Is there anything we can do about this, so closed nomination pages won't display everything starting with the end of the bot's review?
You can see the issue at Template:Did you know nominations/Vic Lambden, which I've left in place for the moment. (See T:TDYK#Articles created/expanded on August 8; it's first under that date header.) I did some rough and quick surgery with another nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Melchisedec Ștefănescu, to fix it so it wouldn't display; I took out both the inner "noinclude" and "/noinclude" and also the "includeonly" and "/includeonly" to be safe, and that did the trick.
I'll let you look at this and determine the best way to solve this. It may involve changes to DYKsubpage (perhaps stripping out any existing "noinclude" and "/noinclude" before inserting the new beginning and ending ones?). Let me know once you've made the fix, and also whether similar surgery will need to be done to Vic Lambden and any other recently closed nominations. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Intelligentsium, I noticed at WT:DYK that you're already looking into this. The partially visible templates are beginning to proliferate on the T:TDYK page. Can you let me know whether it's okay for me to start hand-editing them to clean them up? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the detailed description, it was really helpful! This was due to a brain fart on my part for not considering what would happen after the DYK templates are substituted once a decision is taken. It's always OK to hand edit them to clean them up as the bot doesn't touch them after but as this may be a lot of work, it may make more sense simply to remove or comment out affected nominations.
- I have applied a fix, moving to a collapsible box rather than a noincluded bot review, per one of the other suggestions in the original discussion. However, it should be noted that while this keeps the nominations page more tidy than showing the reviews by default, unlike the noinclude solution, this does not address the issue of load time as everything in the hidden box is still part of the page HTML and thus still has to be rendered by the user's browser. Intelligentsium 04:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)