User talk:Shubinator/Archive 34

User

Talk

Scripts, Templates, & Bots

Contributions

Email

Awards

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

DYKcheck and Good Articles

Shubinator, sometime in the next two weeks (the RfC on the proposal just closed; see WT:DYK#Implementation of RfC), Good Articles will be eligible for DYK. Can DYKcheck be revised to check these articles as well?

The article must have become a Good Article in the five days before nomination. The time period is calculated the same, presumably, as a 5x expansion would be: the initial edit expanding the article acting as the start of the five days, just as the awarding of the Good Article status would be the trigger point. (I'm honestly not sure whether the placement of the "Good Article" template on the article page, or the "GA" template on the article talk page, would be the triggering event. Maybe you should report on both in the results? Or I suppose we could enquire as to the preferred method, or even that the earliest of the two is what counts.)

Previous appearance in DYK is still a disqualifying event, as is previous appearance in ITN, so you should also do all the usual previous appearance checks you do for ordinary DYKs. The change simply adds a new method of qualifying for DYK, which is still subject to the other disqualifying events. The only difference is that there doesn't need to be a 5x expansion. I'm actually not sure about the 1500 prose character minimum that current DYK new and expanded articles are both subject to; I think that if the article rates being a Good Article despite being shorter than 1500 prose characters, it is deemed worth promoting to the main page.

How soon do you think it would be possible to add the new checks to DYKcheck? Thanks for letting us know, and for a wonderful tool. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Follow-up: there's currently a discussion about implementation at WT:DYK#Implementation of RfC. Among other points, it was suggested that the GA check be made using the article talk page, since people sometimes try to claim GA for their articles by adding the icon to the article page, and also that a check for previous TFA (Featured Article) main-page posting be made, for those articles that had been Featured Articles, but since failed to meet standards, and are now climbing back up the ladder by becoming Good Articles. Also, I seem to have been wrong: 1500 prose characters still seems to be the minimum for all articles. You would do that check (and the expansion check) regardless, so I didn't need to mention it in the first place. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately this week I've been busy and next week I'll be traveling, so I doubt I'll find the time to implement this soon. I'm most worried by how to detect when an article became a Good Article. The 5x expansion check is expensive (takes a lot of time), and I'm guessing the Good Article check will also eat up time. Will look into it more later. Shubinator (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Done. The code here is intricate, especially with articles that have gone through Good article reassessment, so it would be great if talk page stalkers could give the new functionality a spin to see if you can find bugs. Also feel free to suggest changes to the wording and other refinements. Shubinator (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Well done for creating the DYKUpdateBot, a great tool! Thanks, Matty.007 16:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

September 11 server maintenance appears to have halted DYKUpdateBot

There was scheduled OS maintenance on willow a couple hours ago. Neither DYKUpdateBot and ‎DYKHousekeepingBot seem to have survived the experience. Would appreciate a restart when you get the chance. --Allen3 ^talk 00:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Shubinator (talk) 07:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Eurocup Trophy.JPG

A tag has been placed on File:Eurocup Trophy.JPG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Silvina Moschini empresaria.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Silvina Moschini empresaria.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

08:00 12 October 2013 run for DYKUpdateBot

FYI, DYKUpdateBot missed the 08:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC) update. Manual update has been performed. Past performance indicates the bot will most likely recover for the next run (now scheduled for 17:03 (UTC)), but if you get a chance to check things before then it would be appreciated. --Allen3 ^talk 09:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Another data point: The most recent update to Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count was performed by an IP. Similar symptoms to those seen during the MediaWiki update at the end of August. --Allen3 ^talk 10:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DYKHousekeepingBot hasn't run since 08:50 today (that IP run Allen3 mentions), even though prep areas have been built and new hooks added in the intervening five hours. Thanks for anything you can do to get it functioning again. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Another interesting data point. I performed a manual update of Wikipedia:Did you know/DYK hook count today. Several minutes afterward, the update was reverted by the IP. Looks like DYKHousekeepingBot is both logged out and seems to be stuck in October 12th. --Allen3 ^talk 18:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Ack, sorry I didn't see this earlier, I've been busy and neglecting email. I've restarted DYKHousekeepingBot and it seems to be functioning, and (for the record) DYKUpdateBot recovered on the 17:03 12 October update as Allen predicted. Shubinator (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for restarting the bot, Shubinator. Glad to see you again. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bot error?

I've fixed it, but what happened in this edit? --Geniac (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Odd. Looks like a connectivity problem caused the bot to think the page was empty. The bot simply takes the text that was there before, appends it, and sends the updated text back to Wikipedia servers. Thanks for catching this! Shubinator (talk) 07:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

End of month glitch

Hello Shubinator. Would you review the question I posted at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Byrd Spilman Dewey and opine if you can imagine a way to fix the glitch I eluded to which apparently affects the information displayed by {{DYK talk}} for hooks posted on the last day of the month that are removed at 00:00 on the first day of the following month? Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Replied there. Unfortunately I don't see an easy way out. Shubinator (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2013 (UTC)