Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Nominations Viewer/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

VPC

Is there any way this Value picture candidates could also be added to the viewer? It's nearly identical to FPC so I don't imagine that it would be too difficult. VPC isn't exactly bursting with activity however, so don't worry about it if it's too much of a hassle. Jujutacular T · C 19:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay done. Not much of a hassle. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! :) Jujutacular T · C 19:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You need to WP:BYPASS FYI. Gary King (talk) 19:28, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Error - collapsible sections

I'm not sure if you know about this, but there is error with the nom viewer regarding collapsible sections within nominations. If you click on 'show', instead of opening the box it redirects to the top of page. Collapsible sections are essentially unable to be opened in the featured candidates list. See WP:FLC for examples (they use a lot of collapsible sections). No rush, if you already knew about this, just wanted to make sure you knew. Thanks! Jujutacular T · C 02:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks; posted at MediaWiki_talk:Common.js#Collapsible_tables_not_working_with_Wikipedia:Nominations_Viewer. Gary King (talk) 02:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it. The fix only applies to my script, though, so other scripts might still have this problem. Gary King (talk) 02:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Always such quick work :) Jujutacular T · C 03:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Support and opposition

Can I ask how it determines this. Is it just how many times the words "support" and "oppose" are written or is it cleverer than that? e.g. would it include struck words, capped words, or other participles such as opposing? I'm asking so I may refine my editing to show up correctly. So if I state Oppose and then later say "...because I feel this doesn't meet Criteria [whatever] I oppose", would that cound as two opposes? Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are the current rules:
  • Find the exact text "support" or "oppose" (case-insensitive).
  • Only count it if it is in bold, and only that text is in bold and not, say, the entire paragraph. A few extra bolded words around it is fine.
  • Struck and capped words are counted as votes, even though they shouldn't be. It's actually one of the todo items in the script ("TODO Count number of STRUCK supports/opposes for a more accurate count.")
Gary King (talk · scripts) 16:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the detailed explanation and excellent work in creating this script. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I second the thanks for the useful tool, but I'm concerned that the counts can never really be reliable. Hence they're likely to mislead reviewers and delegates scanning the list to see which to look at in detail. And, unless it's just my browser somehow (seems unlikely; have tried clearing Firefox cache etc), the counts have got markedly worse of late. Like showing no. of participants as 1 when there are several, or not showing any supports when there are several. Anyway, all in all, it seems clear that given the unstructured data they're based on, the counts will always risk being not quite right, even if not glaringly wrong as they sometimes are of late. Not everyone will realise they should be cautious about these counts, and even those that do are still, I suggest, likely to be regularly misled. With respect, I suggest this is a clear case of wrong information being worse than no information, and we should completely remove the counts of participants, supports and opposes. PL290 (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Show me some examples of where the counts are significantly off, then maybe I can do something about them. Some of them, such as the "Participants" count, are not using any pattern matching but instead check the page's history, so they will always more likely be more rather than less than what you would expect; but even then, they should be pretty accurate, as long as there isn't a nomination that has dozens of people editing it but leaving no comments. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Significantly off? How do you define significant? Two examples from a quick glance now:
My definition of significant here would be: showing any discrepancy. Hence the suggestion that we consider simply removing the counts, since (given the unstructured data) we can never be sure they're right. Better to let users expand the nom and see the true counts. PL290 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
The script shows 2 supports for the first example, and four participants for the second. I can screenshot it for you if you want. Gary King (talk · scripts) 20:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting accurate information from the viewer as well. Jujutacular talk 19:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Expand all / Show all function not working

Earlier today I did a hard refresh of my browser (Firefox 3.6), and since then, the "expand all" / "show all" buttons have disappeared (I have checked FAC and FLC). When I open these pages, the nomination at the top is open by default (with the "[hide]" button and nom summary missing), while the rest of the nominations are hidden by default, but contain the normal nomination viewer functions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm working on a new version of the script. I'll add the fix to that version as well when I release it. I don't yet know what the problem is, though; most likely the MediaWiki code was updated in some fundamental way, since my script is affected on all nominations pages. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The fix ended up being a very simple one. The reason I took so long to get around to it was because I figured that there was some fundamental change in the HTML that was made by MediaWiki (the underlying software), so I would have to go through my script line-by-line to find what was wrong. Turns out that apparently, a third-level heading (===) is now missing, so the "1 +" is no longer needed, which was used to tell the script to skip the first third-level heading that it encountered. I haven't kept myself updated on what's going on with templates used on featured pages and such; would you happen to know what happened to this mysteriously missing third-level heading? There must be a template used by all featured processes that recently removed one, which is exactly when my script started having this problem. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Aha, I found it. The "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" line on all pages, below the page title, used to be using <h3>. It now uses <div>. Gary King (talk · scripts) 00:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Yup, that fixed it. Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:FPC

Some changes have been made to the FPC header: [1]. Now the nominations viewer seems to not see the first 4 noms on the page (I'm assuming because of the heading changes). Is this a quick fix? Jujutacular talk 21:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess it is probably because of
if (nomType() == 'pictures')
   {
       noEndLineBreak = true;
       skip = 4;
   }
However, I'm not certain and am not going to start messing with someone elses script. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Fixed Gary King (talk · scripts) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again! Jujutacular talk 01:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

I have a query, is this script compatible with Featured Sound Candidates? —James (Talk • Contribs) • 3:42pm • 05:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I suppose I could make it compatible, though. I don't recall why I didn't already do so initially. Perhaps partly due to my unfamiliarity with the project and how candidates are formatted, and the low demand for that feature. It looks similar to WP:FAC though. If you want this, don't hold your breath, though, as I've got other stuff I'm working on, and I've technically been procrastinating on a major Nominations Viewer update for a month or two now while working on other scripts. I've been rewriting the script so it's taking a little while, while also adding new features (if you look at the source code you'll see the huge TODO list at the top, which I'm currently working through.) Gary King (talk · scripts) 18:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the belated response. That's fair enough, will the update include Featured Topics as that's a fairly large featured process by comparison. When the update does come out though, it'd be great, FS is very lively nowadays and a compact nominations viewer would be great! Do keep up the good work :) Cheers, —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:06pm • 12:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay I'll do FTC at the same time. I don't have an ETA for them though. Gary King (talk · scripts) 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Alright, cool. Thanks again Gary! —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:14pm • 10:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

FA nomination S&M (song) - summary values not shown

Hello, not sure if this is known already, but the Nominations Viewer doesn't show any summary values for the nomination of S&M (song) in current WP:FAC (maybe due to the special character in its title?). Thanks for contributing that nice tool. GermanJoe (talk) 06:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah this has happened before. I thought I fixed it before, but perhaps that was for a different special character. I'll look into this but can't make any promises because it's happened a few times, and I think I squashed it each time but sometimes the Wikipedia API changes, etc. and I also haven't touched the code in literally years so I might not be able to quickly find where the problem is with my limited time on here these days. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Okay problem fixed. Was easier than I thought I guess. Although, I think what happened was that I did this fix a few years ago and then it broke some other characters in the title. But, I suppose & is a relatively common character that's worth fixing in place of the other less common characters that might break the script. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. GermanJoe (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nominations viewer not working?

Hello, sorry to bother again, but it seems like the nominations viewer is currently not working (atleast for me and another editor). Could you check, if some recent development (like a VE-related change) has broken the script? It's a really great tool for FAC-maintenance to keep the overview for articles, would be a shame to loose it. I checked on WP:FAC and WP:FLC and am using FF 22.0 and vector.js with a few tool scripts (but nothing out of the ordinary really). GermanJoe (talk) 20:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay thanks, fixed. Yeah it was due to VisualEditor moving the edit button around (in the HTML code, anyway). I cleaned up the location of the "show" link, too. Let me know if anything else is broken. Gary King (talk · scripts) 01:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Working again, thank you for fixing. I'll watch it a bit and drop you a note, if something changes - not entirely sure, all VE-changes are fix as of now. GermanJoe (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Nominations_Viewer/Archive_1&oldid=1137427855"