User talk:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report

Green[edit]

I like the idea of the shades of color based on the percentage, but I think the shades of green don't differentiate well. I think RfAs in the 95%+ range should be a lot darker. NoSeptember ^talk 14:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, NoSeptember. I've made a little tool for you that lets you experiment with the gradient colours - it's available here. If you could tell me which combination of values you like best, I'd be happy to implement it. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 14:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this?--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 01:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nice, but I'm wondering if 56%/57% is a good place to change colours radically - that kind of percentage is usually firmly in the "unsuccessful" region. Then again, it might not be possible to create an attractive looking gradient with the current gradient-generation code. The code is available here; if someone is good at these things, I would really appreciate if they could come up a compatible alternative. :P Cheers, Tangot a ngo 10:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this is the best I can come up with under the current code, although it might be refined through further tweaking. Why don't we just do this semi manually, and set 0-70% as red, do a short red-yellow between 70-80%, and then green from 80-100%?--digital_m e^{(TalkˑContribs)} 16:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, setting it manually is okay too. We just need an array of 100 colour values, fashioned like a PHP array :) I'm sorry my math skills aren't good enough to make my own gradient-generation code - I'd have to study up on how RGB colour values work. (Which I might do ;)) - Tangot a ngo 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries[edit]

I think the edit summaries provided by the bot when updating this page could be made more useful. Perhaps whenever there is a suspected duplicate vote or an RfA can not be parsed, a note to that effect could be included in the summary. NoSeptember 12:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that suggestion. :) It's now implemented in the live version of the bot. Cheers, Tangot a ngo 05:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I just saw it in an edit summary, and including the RfA count is nice too. I'll use that feature in future months to measure busy and slow periods at RfA just by scanning down the history log. Looks good. NoSeptember 18:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I like it. ; - ) FloNight ^talk 18:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the word "failed" doesn't seem right in this context. It may be perceived as indicating a failed RfA or something. Maybe the word "Error" would work better, since it is formating errors on the subpages that create parsing problems. NoSeptember 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with you. Fixed :) (Also, for the bureaucrats' noticeboard, the bot will now leave "x OVERDUE" in the edit summary if any RfAs are open past their closing time.) - Tangot a ngo 12:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error[edit]

Looks like a page that got moved to RfA space (?) is getting listed on the summary page as the page in userspace. "hydrogen Monoxide/Kakofonous4Admin 12 0 0 " Enigma ^message 03:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed Enigma ^message 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Any idea why Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ben MacDui has not been in the template since 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)? — Athaenara ✉ 08:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it myself (diff)—hope that's OK! — Athaenara ✉ 08:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same active RfA was removed again (diff). — Athaenara ✉ 10:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]