User talk:Wugapodes/DYKTest/Approved

I have been using your "approved" list today to build Prep2 and found it very convenient. I will make comments here when I find anything worth reporting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Aziz

Kamran Aziz was approved and then queried, but the tick symbol was never replaced by any other symbol so it remained in your approved list, despite subsequent discussion. I guess that would be difficult to avoid. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The bot currently only moves nominations one way, nomination to approved page. If it's on the approved page and it gets unapproved (tacitly or explicitly with a different symbol), it will stay there. That being said, a two-way system is something I hope to discuss once the transclusion problem is fixed. And checking for subsequent discussion without a symbol would be rather difficult--it's probably easier and less error-prone to simply place a new DYK symbol if you think it's not ready to be promoted. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return

Providing as an example this archived nomination, it would be useful if the link that currently says "( Back to T:TDYK . Article history )" were to link back to the Approved list page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That would be something in the nomination template I believe. I think that would indeed be useful though. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 16:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returning hooks to nominations page

I have used this "Approved" test page to fill another prep set and find it very satisfactory. For example, it makes such tasks as selecting picture hooks, quirky hooks or topic hooks so simple as compared to trawling through the nominations page.

However, there really needs to be a straightforward means of returning hooks to the nominations page. Template:Did you know nominations/Humphrey Brooke (art historian) for example has been approved but has since had an alternative hook proposed. I feel that hook needs consideration before this nomination is promoted, but do not know how to proceed to return it to the nominations page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth and Wugapodes: Right now, these nominations are still on the nominations page until promoted. It looks like the test page is a "mirror" of approved hooks, without actually taking the next step to remove them from the nominations page. It doesn't look to me like you did anything to the template you have linked above, so there is nothing on it that tells the bot to return it to the nominations page. If I understand all the dialogue that went before this test run, if a turn-around tick is placed on the template, the bot should return it to the nominations page. Why don't you try that, a turnaround tick and your explanation of why it needs more attention before promotion. Let's see if that removes it from this approved page. — Maile (talk) 17:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, for the time being, this page mirrors the parts of the nominations page with approved hooks. From what Wugapodes says, I think that the approved nomination will stay on this page until archived. However, when the system goes live, we will need a means to return hooks from here (no longer a mirror) to the nominations page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had been in favor of switching hooks between the two pages depending on their status during the original discussion, but the consensus seemed to be for it to be a one-way move even if the approved hook was later found wanting, so only a one-way move was designed in by Wugapodes. I'd be perfectly happy with what you're suggesting, but there may need to be buy-in first. Alternatively, of course, one can always move hooks by hand from the approved page to the nominations page; the bot won't move them back because it only moves hooks that have an approval tick as the last icon in the review. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it can be done manually. If an article gets as far as prep and is then found wanting, an "undo" instruction would bring it back here, whereas what is really wanted is for it to be returned to the unapproved page. The fewer manual operations this involves, the less scope for error. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall there being a clear consensus for a one way move, but in any case, I too think that having a two-way move is necessary. If we leave it up to the reviewer, we are going to have a good many issues with forgotten moves, and/or create a further difficulty for those folks who give nominations a second look, ie mostly prep-builders (ie Cwmhiraeth, and occasionally others :) ) in all seriousness, though, building a prep is quite hard work as is. If we don't move them at all, nominations which end up requiring >1 review will languish even more than they already do. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pink box

I am using the "Approved" test page every day when building prep sets. I find it very convenient and have not yet found any nominations listed here by the bot that have been included here in error.

The pink box at the head of the page titled "List of DYK Hooks by Date" is unhelpful and could perhaps be dispensed with. If I click on any date it takes me to the main nominations page, a place I don't want to go, because I am just interested in approved hooks when moving items to prep. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pink box isn't updated in this version of the approvals page. I've always found the table useful because it tells me how many approvals there are under each date, and this would still be true. The link issue makes it less useful; that wasn't something we'd thought about when I first mentioned updating the box to Shubinator. Would it make sense to link the numbers rather than the date—that is, to link the numbers in the first column to the nominations page, and in the second column to the approvals page? I'm not sure we'd want to bifurcate the table, since versions run on the Queues page and the Nominations page; this would be a third location, but the Queues page version would presumably need to link to the Nominations and Approvals pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used this page for the first time today: like Cwmhiraeth, I find it very useful, but agree that we could get rid of the pink box. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Updating page?

Hi, I've been using this page to quickly find approved hooks to build prep sets. But the page doesn't seem to have been updated in a while... Yoninah (talk) 22:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was noticing the same thing yesterday. Maybe the test is over, and we're going live with this? — Maile (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yoninah, Maile, the bot's designer, Wugapodes, has just edited Wikipedia for the first time in over a week, and the bot hasn't run the DYK functions in that time. I don't believe the bot has been approved for more than trial runs at this point, but in any case, until there is a new run (which could be at any time now), I'd suggest checking the Nominations page as well as the Approvals page, since the latter doesn't currently have any hooks that were approved in the last week. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry all, and thanks BlueMoonset for the ping. I've been busy with classes starting this past week and completely failed to notice the bot wasn't running. Apparently I forgot to revert back to a stable version after testing a new version, and every time it tried to run it raised an error. I've reverted back and it should continue running. It has not yet been approved, though I'll probably move forward with that next week once things settle down. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Missing itch

@Wugapodes: I was wondering why the approved nomination Flea (December 3) does not appear on the list? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwmhiraeth: looking at the page source, the reviewer used {{DYK checklist}}. The bot looks for "[[File:Symbol confirmed.svg|16px]]" in the wikitext, and since DYK checklist isn't substituted, it doesn't produce that code in the wikitext. The simplest solution is probably to tell users of the template to substitute it. Saves one more transclusion, minimal effort on the part of the user, and doesn't require new features from the bot. @Andrew Davidson: since you use the template what are your thoughts? Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 17:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK checklist is a Lua module, not a template. I don't think it would be appropriate to substitute it and I might not remember to do so. It might be simpler to ask users of the checklist to put a {{DYKTick}} in a "good to go" message after the checklist. But you can't rely upon that being done either. Andrew D. (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]