User talk:West.andrew.g

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for user West.andrew.g. Should you need to contact me in a more private manner, it is not hard to find my email address on my professional homepage. Though I am usually a good talk page watcher, sometimes professional deadlines and conference travel may slightly delay the process. If you are not a regular here, I will generally post talkback templates to your user page. If you are a regular, I operate on the assumption you've watchlisted this page. Thanks!

Final stats for 2017?[edit]

Hi Andrew! When can we expect a final update on the Top 5000 stats for 2017 as a whole? Not much should have changed over a couple days, but it would be nicer to deliver exact view counts to our readers when we push out the Top 50 report at WP:2017. Thanks in advance, and a happy year start! — JFG talk 23:44, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: They are posted now as per the talk page. West.andrew.g (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic, many thanks! — JFG talk 14:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I've added "Based on the raw data from West.andrew.g and prepared with commentary by: ..." at Wikipedia:Annual Top 50 Report. We couldn't do it without you!  SchreiberBike | ⌨  19:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Promotion machine[edit]

The year end report has been published at Wikipedia:Annual Top 50 Report. Many thanks for supplying the data upon which it is based - compiling the report would have been a literal impossibility without it. Now that it is published, we need to begin publicising it. In the past, you have mentioned emailing various internet outlets regarding the list. Do you have any informal list of such publications so that we can begin this progress. Thanks in advance. Stormy clouds (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Stormy clouds: Basically any popular Internet publication that has online "tip submission" or an email address to drop off suggestions. When doing the submitting, it might be helpful to have a couple sentences summary (call out the most interesting points). NYTimes, WSJ, WashPo, The Atlantic, Gizmodo, Slashdot, etc. etc. etc. We're obviously aiming to get lucky with some of the larger publications, but submission en masse like this is pretty quick and easy. West.andrew.g (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Dead links pages[edit]

Hi there. I've recently been fixing some dead links, and using Special:LinkSearch to find broken links. There are a batch linking from your 'dead link' archives, currently visible at the bottom (you will need to scroll down) of this set of results (dynamically generated). It is not essential, but is there a way to mark those dead links as dealt with or to otherwise de-activate those links? I can just ignore them if there isn't any sensible way to do this (I've been using 'nowiki' tags on some article talk pages, such as here, but that might have downsides of some sort).

  1. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 844
  2. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 822
  3.,%20PLAISTOW is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 821
  4. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 1025
  5. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 1025
  6. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 1024
  7. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 1024
  8. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 1024
  9. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 844
  10. is linked from User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 1024

I wonder if the links will show up from this page now as well? Poking around, it is actually quite useful to have a record of when those CWGC dead links were dead. Carcharoth (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Carcharoth: These lists of dead links are from a bot I wrote to perform research into link rot on Wikipedia. When that research stopped, consensus was to stop the bot as well, because it was making a lot of edits and no humans were really making an effort to clean up anything from its output. This was years ago. These are obviously static pages and now contain links that now may be (a) fixed, or (b) no longer appear on Wikipedia articles. If it makes things "cleaner" for you to not have them show up, feel free to just blank them from the pages where they appear. Honestly, any strategy you want to apply to these pages isn't going to offend me. West.andrew.g (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Will consider what to do at some later point. Carcharoth (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Your User:West.andrew.g/Dead links and its 1054 archive pages have numerous links with 2 or 3 consecutive apostrophes, which are treated as italic ('') and bold (''') markup. I assume that the apostrophes are actually part of URLs and need to be escaped as ' to avoid being treated as italic or bold markup. I edited a few archive pages and User:West.andrew.g/Dead links, making such changes, although the first one I edited, I assumed that the triple apostrophe was intentional bold markup, so I edited that one differently. I will stop now pending discussion. Please be aware that of 2,089 Unclosed quotes in heading lint errors, 1702 are in the User namespace, and of those, most are in your dead links archives, so I would like to know for sure if my theory is correct that these apostrophes really need to be escaped. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)