User talk:Mikemoral

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
(Redirected from User talk:The New Mikemoral)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Click here to append a message to my talk page.
Remember to sign your posts by adding four tildes (~~~~. ) at the end. Yes, even if you're not a logged in user.


2009 archive

2010 archive

2011 archive

Archive 1

Archive 2

Contents

Bills pile on California governor's desk as legislative session ends[edit]

I don't think I'll even come close to finishing this before it crosses the outer freshness horizon.

  • Unless someone causes me to stop, I'll likely continue at least until midnight UTC, taking a bite out of the thing and getting a much better sense for the overall size of the task; if I'm on a roll at midnight I might run somewhat past that.
  • If the piece can be refreshed or even refocused (Gatwicked), that would be good.
  • If we don't find a way to do that, we'll take our lessons from it and march on.

--Pi zero (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: If the task is too much to manage in such a short time, a refocus I could do is cover select bills as they are signed, or the general mass of new laws which could take effect if bills go unsigned by the Oct 13 deadline. Am alternative is to cover the laws taking effect in the new year, as a prepared story in a similar sort of article. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 21:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Which reminds me: we really have to change how we handle prepared stories. The current procedure was meant to save time at the event, but was set up before the age of review. To save time in the age of review we need "pre-review" to be part of the preparation, done before the event, so that when the event happens most of the review has already been done. Perhaps what I'm doing now is sort-of pre-review, for however we deploy the material hereafter. --Pi zero (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm thinking this would be best saved for a new laws of 2020 article. Only "emergency" bills can take immediate effect, iirc, so most bills would take effect Jan 1. The article was far too much to research and write to make it in the 72 hours post-Friday, and obviously a slight review nightmare. Plus a new laws of 2020 article would let us cover some of the already-signed laws, like the vaccination stuff which has been rather controversial here in CA (there was the "red liquid" incident), and some of the animal-related bills already signed. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll probably stop this review reasonably soon, at some good stopping point. --Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, I stopped. You can see what I did. Seemed pretty well put together; the difficulty, as you're aware, is the quantity. --Pi zero (talk) 23:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I got your message on my article,"Xenophobia Tears".[edit]

But what do you mean by the article must have two indepedent sources? I don't understand that term. And how do I register or apply for the next Wikimania to take place in Thailand? I didn't see any registration link, and the eventbrite website I was directed to does not have any special email for people who need to be financed to apply through (It only has a page for people who have the funds to pay for meals,tickets and so on). Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PoetryVacancy (talk • contribs)

@PoetryVacancy: Wikinews articles require that you show where you got the information from by citing your sources. Follow that link for more information about citing sources. Wikinews doesn't arrange Wikimania, you might want to check meta:Wikimania. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Broken urls[edit]

Happened to notice a case where a news site (CBC, I think) was still providing a source article at a different url, which you marked as a brokenURL and archived url. I think sometime recently (this summer?) I handled a similar case by simply altering the url of the citation. I'm not immediately sure what our philosophy on this should be, treating a move as a broken/archived case or simply a tweak to the url; is there a line between the two types, and if so what is it? Thoughts? --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Somehow I'd missed seeing this message, sorry. I think if we're updating the link to a source we should make it clear to the interested reader whether it was the original link used, or if we went back into the archives and changed a link to the source, even if the CBC or another source simply was updating their URL schemes. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 20:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. That makes a certain sense; I think I'm willing to be on board with that. I wonder if we really want to call it "archived", or something else, and if we want it different how ought we to do handle it without making that mechanism more complicated than it is (as it's already imho on the outer edge of how complicated one can handle reasonably). Though I do want to introduce semi-automation, I don't want to introduce things that can't be handled without that semi-automation. Some things to think about... --Pi zero (talk) 23:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pi zero: The solution to saying something other than "archived" would be "updated URL", or something of that nature. A small part of me wants to go through the archives and update deadlinks but that's monstrous undertaking, and would require some planning. There is a Python script, iirc, that checks links to see if they're valid still and could be a useful tool in that. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 02:50, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Found it —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 02:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Thx; marking that reference. Though I tend not to use those sorts of tools myself (I ruthlessly hold out for wiki-markup-based semi-automation), I do study such things with interest.

Size of curation tasks doesn't daunt me. We have a bunch of gargantuan ones already. I whittle at them by hand, getting a little done while also getting a feel for them and thinking about aspects of semi-automating them. Part of my theory of how software should be developed for wikis (besides believing the goal should be to let assistants be written entirely in wiki markup) is that it must only be done by people deeply involved in the actual operation of the wiki, because only those people have the sort of contextual knowledge that must inform every decision made in such development from highest-level to smallest detail. Figures, from that, I should be continually doing some of such tasks myself. (An obvious example is updating wikilinks on each article, which mostly, though not exclusively, means using {{w}} for all wikilinks; if I expected to do the whole thing the way I'm doing it now —which I do not expect— at a ballpark estimate it ought to take another fifty years.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

When I get a chance later, I want to try running the script. Running Python scripts is about the limit of my technical expertise is reckon. Supposedly it outputs a text file of broken links, and it can go category by category, so monthly archives would be doable I'd think. Archival curation is a task that surely never ends. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 04:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I ran the script. There's rather a lot of pages in my cursory search. I posted the output file to User:Mikemoral/sandbox2. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 09:00, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I've been thinking about the potential for false positives with such a tool. Depends on how it does its check, but here are a couple of possibilities.
  • Any publisher that doesn't have a target either here or on en.wp. In the body of an article, we aren't supposed to allow a wikilink if clicking on it will cause a page-not-found message; but the publisher field is an exception: we provide a link there even if there's going to be nothing on the other end. If those count as broken links, there may be a bunch of them.
  • If by any chance the target of an #ifexist: magic word, when the answer is "no", counts as a broken link, that would mean that every {{w}} that doesn't link locally would show up as a broken link. That would give false positives for every page in Category:Pages with defaulting non-local links, which at this writing contains 7813 pages (including 646 categories) and, if we completed converting pages to use {{w}}, ought to contain most of the pages in mainspace plus change, likely about 20 thousand. Hopefully it doesn't count those, but we should beware the possibility it does.
Actually, most of the older archives would now only use {{w}} for the publisher links.
--Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Chiefly what the script is checking for is if webpages externally linked are getting 404 or other errors. The ideal way to run the script is to run it once weekly on all pages on the wiki. It writes all the pages returning errors to some database file (or something), then when you run the script it again, it will check all the links again and find what's still deadlinked, or now deadlinked. The problem I see with it is that it will have false negatives, that it finds links that don't 404, but redirect to the mainpage, or some nonsense page. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 21:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects for new categories[edit]

Hi Mike. I noticed you are creating the redirects first. As Pi zero pointed out a week or two ago, this creates a situation where a {{w}} link in articles don't have a valid target. Pi said best practices is to create the category first, populate it, and then create the redirect. I know you are creating the categories hot on the heels of the redirects, but in case you get interrupted in the work or whatever else could go wrong, I just thought I'd mention it. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. I'm trying to work out a workflow for making these hockey categories as there's rather a lot of categories that need making. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 02:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 13:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 06:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 01:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 10:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 10:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

  • Seven days left (Category(ies): Developing; added by 41.190.245.5 at 2019-10-16 16:57:35, epoch 1571245055) --Trigonidiida (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 09:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 18:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

  • Jaylen brown (Category(ies): Developing; added by Baozon90 at 2019-10-17 17:58:49, epoch 1571335129) --Trigonidiida (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 23:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 17:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

  • Setswana Wikipedia (Category(ies): Developing; added by 41.113.240.146 at 2019-10-18 19:40:14, epoch 1571427614) --Trigonidiida (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Setswana (Category(ies): Developing; added by 41.113.240.146 at 2019-10-18 19:39:59, epoch 1571427599) --Trigonidiida (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 02:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 20:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikinews recent additions 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[edit]

--Trigonidiida (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mikemoral&oldid=4524503"