THC Science

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Illinois Public Access Opinion 16-006	Review it now
1914 FA Cup final	Review it now
270 Park Avenue (1960–2021)	Review it now

Shortcut

WT:TFA

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

TFA title templates on Unused templates report

@WP:TFA coordinators From pages 35 to 37 of the Unused templates report there are maybe hundreds of that should be removed from the report and be marked as transclusionless. The report has gone haywire of late and makes it difficult to navigate easily. If someone can add a fix to this, please do so. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: - Presumably these can all just be ignored? Almost all of them appear to be subpages of Template:TFA title, which looks like a moderately useful template. As there are literally several thousand of these old subpages, going through and tagging all 4000 of them as transclusionless seems like a colossal waste of editor time when the only real benefit gained is removing some spurious entries from a humongous database report that is absolutely loaded with spurious entries. The cost-benefit relationship for the fix here is negative. Hog Farm _Talk 23:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They can for sure. But when trying to look through to reduce the backlog, the inclusion of these makes the list of pages for the report unnecessary long and before the inclusion of TFA and other groupings of project-related templates, the report stopped being contained on a single page. Check out Wikipedia talk:Database reports for the respective section where I started the original discussion. But there should be a way to mark them transclusionless without going through all of them. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: The "templates" are simply the titles of the articles for each date. Adding additional wikitext might break code that reads the content of those pages. Ideally that report would have a way to specify title patterns to be ignored instead of trying to get everyone to add a category to everything. Anomie ⚔ 14:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCleanerMan: Looks like all your problems are because people have been screwing around with the code generating the report. Special:Diff/1094301933 (June 21) changed it to output in multiple pages. Then Special:Diff/1099233551 (July 19) removed a bunch of categories it had formerly looked at. The addition of all the TFA title templates came after Special:Diff/1103682761 (August 10) removed all the existing title-prefix exclusions. So, yeah, when someone goes and deletes all the existing exclusions then obviously you'll get a bunch of junk in the report. 🙄 Anomie ⚔ 14:34, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anomie. I'm pretty sure we agree that the pages are junk, so why keep them around? What is the value of Template:TFA title/January 4, 2020? These unused templates are being reported as unused templates because they are in fact unused. We previously made specific exceptions based on title when generating this report and I personally no longer want to support such exclusions.

In the few cases I've checked (e.g., Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:TFA title/January 4, 2019 or Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:TFA title/February 3, 2018 or Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:TFA title/March 31, 2017), they have exactly one incoming link from this unused templates report and no transclusions and no page views. Is there any reason these pages are still needed?

WikiCleanerMan, please stop spreading this conversation to more talk pages, somehow we're up to four of five separate discussions now. And please stop saying the bot is malfunctioning or has "gone haywire"; the bot is accurately reporting that certain templates are unused. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These pages seem harmless, and deleting them would serve no purpose. I suggest to create a more usable fork of the report so pages that should be ignored can be ignored. —Kusma (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to see you around these parts, McBride. I know people occasionally used pages like Template:TFA title/January 4, 2020 as a double-check on what title the bots were using for that day's TFA. Whether they're still used as a double-check, I have no idea. - Dank (push to talk) 15:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you too. :-) It seems like it would be easier and more accurate to check Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2020.

Kusma: Deleting the pages would de-clutter the template namespace, which is intended to be used for templated content. It would also reduce the size of the unused templates report by removing unused templates. If nobody can find a reason to keep these pages around, deletion is the most appropriate course of action. If you would like to volunteer to write or maintain a database report, we're always looking for volunteers. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"De-cluttering the template namespace" is among the lowest priority activities I can think of around here (and these pages are neatly sorted, all of them subpages of a given page, so they can be easily ignored), but to each their own I guess. We have always used the template namespace for large amounts of things that are not templated content (Main Page stuff etc.) and if that is inconvenient now we should rather move all of this stuff out of the template namespace than make the history unreadable for non-admins and difficult to use for admins. —Kusma (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MZMcBride: You're incorrect about us agreeing about the pages being junk, the only "junk" is your report uselessly including them. The pages exist so that tools can easily get the title of the day's featured article, without having to parse whatever random wikitext is in pages like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 4, 2020. This includes user scripts and external tools that won't show up as transclusions. Anomie ⚔ 12:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if all this is a bit outside of what TFA coordinators usually do.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Further discussion should be at Wikipedia talk:Database reports I guess. —Kusma (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFA bot semi-protection

Hi, please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TFA Protector Bot 3. Legoktm (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, the RfC approved a 30-day trial of bot semi-protection. The current proposal is to run the trial over 60 days, with it semi-protecting every other day to give us a reasonable sample of data to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of the protection. If you have any comments/concerns/etc. please leave them on the linked BRFA. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth II

If her funeral is 18 September as seems likely, are there views about re-running her article as TFA on that day? In which case Rotavirus would be moved from 18 September to 27 September and Boroughitis (I am the FAC nominator on that one) would be bumped, at least for this month. Since all three articles are reruns, we stay within the "no more than two a week" limit on reruns. If the funeral is another day, it would become more complicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Graham Beards who was the nominator for Rotavirus, for their views. I'll also put a note at the Elizabeth II article.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I should ping Graham Beards and also DrKay.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extraordinary circumstances and having a well-maintained FA on the subject, I'd support the proposal, as I would for any other FA whose subject is newsworthy and subject to intense interest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like this plan, unless DrKay says it's not in shape to run (which I doubt); this is just the way TFA should be used and I'm glad to see the flexibility! I don't think Graham will care as Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Rotavirus was from Z1720--probably for diversity, nothing special about the date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated rotavirus for a non-specific date. I'm fine with QEII bumping rotavirus either to later in the month or to another month. Z1720 (talk) 00:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also seeing suggestions the funeral could be 19 Sept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it might be. I suspect we'll know in a day or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with any decision at this sad time. Graham Beards (talk) 07:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wehwalt, for this -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 07:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a great idea to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support Her Majesty running as TFA on the date of her funeral. The whole world will stop and watch the funeral of such an influential and worldwide respected Monarch. God save the King. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s do it. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFA on funeral day is a nice idea, even if it will not create the 8-million-readers+ interest of ITN yesterday. Let's write a blurb, and find a different image. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe File:Elizabeth II greets NASA GSFC employees, May 8, 2007 edit.jpg? It's a FP on the EN wikipedia. Sea Cow (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Once we have a confirmed funeral date, I'll do the necessary and we'll move forward. Does anyone want to draft a blurb?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt there may be the beginnings of one at Talk:Elizabeth II#An event to come, which may need work on, now. (Hard to tell.) Unless he disagrees, and to avoid the "too many cooks in the kitchen", I suggest we give DrKay the first go at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the fact that she is a very well-established world head of state with a well-written and maintained FA, I support this. Also, it was gonna get a second TFA sooner or later. @CLYDE FRANKLIN 22:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've never participated in TFA discussions before and came here from article talk page just to say that I really appreciate the idea to run it as TFA on her funeral day. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt it's 19 September.[2]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's done. I did a placeholder draft to have something to put in the slot here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:42, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please adjourn further discussion to the TFA blurb's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Hi, please see [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TFA Protector Bot 3]]. [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 02:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
+:As an update, the RfC approved a 30-day trial of bot semi-protection. The current proposal is to run the trial over 60 days, with it semi-protecting every other day to give us a reasonable sample of data to compare and evaluate the effectiveness of the protection. If you have any comments/concerns/etc. please leave them on the linked BRFA. Thanks!  [[User:Legoktm|Legoktm]] ([[User talk:Legoktm|talk]]) 06:02, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 == [[Elizabeth II]] ==
 If her funeral is 18 September as seems likely, are there views about re-running her article as TFA on that day? In which case [[Rotavirus]]  would be moved from 18 September to 27 September and [[Boroughitis]] (I am the FAC nominator on that one) would be bumped, at least for this month.  Since all three articles are reruns, we stay  within the "no more than two a week" limit on reruns. If the funeral is another day, it would become more complicated.--[[User:Wehwalt|Wehwalt]] ([[User talk:Wehwalt|talk]]) 21:50, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Revision as of 06:02, 11 September 2022

TFA title templates on Unused templates report

TFA bot semi-protection

Elizabeth II

Leave a Reply