User talk:Dragons flight/RFA summary

Shortcut: WP:RFAsum

Screen colors[edit]

Dragonflight: I really like this page, but I have two things to note. First, at least on my monitor the green and yellow colors look the same (I mention my monitor because it has slowly over the last year started getting darker and is also now slightly off in colors). The other thing is that I think for any vote less than N (with N somewhere between 10 and 15?) you should leave it colorless as the vote at that time is too low to really show any trend. ^Blank ^Verse 20:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The colors are actually subst versions of {{bg-yellow}}, {{bg-red}}, and {{bg-green}}, so they can be changed there, but let me say that there is a really prominent difference between yellow and green on my screen, so it may just be you. Telling it not to color on small N is a simple enough thing and I will probably do that. Dragons flight 21:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with not coloring until it hits around 15 total votes. As for the colors, there's a very distinct difference between green and yellow on my home and work systems. Sorry, BlankVerse, but I think it might just be your monitor. ;) Carbonite | Talk 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. I figured that might be the case. Still, it would help if you adjusted the intensity of the yellow so that it is somewhere between the light green and the darker red. I'm pretty close to updating my whole computer system, yet again, and I guess that I will have to upgrade my monitor as well. I've gone through an Apple II, the first Compaq Deskpro, a fairly early Dell, a no name clone, and a cheap eMachines already. ^Blank ^Verse 22:41, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you do know your signature is green and orange, right? Just wondering. Dragons flight 00:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrat color zones[edit]

Since you started this page I'll mention my recommended tweak: The 70%-85% yellow zone should be adjusted for bureaucrat nominees. While not policy, tradition seems to be that 90% approval is the floor for approving bureaucrats. NoSeptember ^talk 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know it hasn't been ;-)? It's not like we are swimming in successful bureaucrat noms. What would people recommend for that case? Dragons flight 21:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend that for RfBs, yellow should be 80-89%. I think it's unlikely that a RfB would be successful with 80% support, but I suppose it's around the same chance as an RfA with 70% support. Carbonite | Talk 21:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current nominations would be more understandable to viewers had this change been made :-) NoSeptember ^talk 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually... the change was made, but the code had a bug in it, and since there haven't been any high preforming B-noms during the last several months there was no way to notice the bug. Should be fixed now. Dragons flight 17:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It is working great. NoSeptember ^talk 18:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The count[edit]

I notice the bot doesn't always get the count right. Under Oppose vote #5 of Cool Cat's Rfa, someone has a list of 4 questions, and those are being picked up as four more votes. NoSeptember ^talk 05:33, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bug with second nominations[edit]

Aaron Brenneman's AFD does not show up. I strongly suspect this is a bug due to the page name being non-standard since it is his second nomination:

{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aaron Brenneman (second nomination)}}

One way to fix this would be to use a heuristic regexp like /\((?:second|third|[0-9]*(?:nd|rd|th)?) nomination/ Or you could simply parse the user name from the page content. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-03 07:05Z

It's not because it's a 2nd nom, that is handled fine, it's because he refactored the organization of his nom all to hell. Dragons flight 13:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

percentage[edit]

Page says that 70% should be yellow, but in fact it's displayed as red. >Radiant< 17:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is fixed now. Dragons flight 00:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently closed RFAs[edit]

Would it be possible to show recently closed RFAs in the same table as regular RFAs (same with RFBs)? Your bot would need to keep a list of RF*s that it's processed as well as when they were removed, then just show them for another 12-24 hours past that (extra points if you automatically detect a "successful" vs "failed" RFA/RFB and indicate that somehow). =) —Locke Cole • t • c 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ratios[edit]

There is a current discussion going on about the Aza Toth nomination at WT:RFA where there is much discussion of percentages and votes needed to change those percentages. When I look at RfAs, I find looking at the ratio is more helpful than looking at the percentage. 75% is a ratio of 3 to 1 (support to oppose) while 80% is a ratio of 4 to 1. When you see someone has 15 oppose votes it takes but a second to know that they are toast if they have only 45 votes and are doing ok if they have 60, and it can be quickly determined how many new votes the candidate needs to succeed. Just looking at the percentage it is not so obvious. I would think a new column showing the current S/O vote ratio (carried to one or two decimal places) would be useful. Anyone else agree? NoSeptember ^talk 17:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA bot summary tables[edit]

Hoe does this work. I've cut and pasted to my page, and it doesn't seem to reload. Regards, Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 07:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Put this on your page and it should work: {{User:Dragons_flight/RFA_summary}}. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70 v 75[edit]

There is currently a bit of a row at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Current nominations for bureaucratship over perceptions that the candidates think the lower bound for discretion is 70% and not 75%. According to the statement at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship#If you disagree with consensus:

In general, candidates with over 80% support are likely to succeed, and it is unusual for those below 75% to succeed

the "yellow" should be 75-80%. I actually hadn't looked at the actual policy in forever, while I look at this page relatively often. Is the 70-85% range used supposed to be the outer bounds of "questionable"? - Banyan Tree 19:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow is intended to indicate RFAs that could go either way, given several more days of voting. I agree that if a vote is about to close, then bureaucrat discretion is normally 75-80%. Yellow is meant to highlight cases where additional attention is mostly likely to be useful and hence uses a large range. Dragons flight 22:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. If you don't mind a suggestion (and having no sense of how much work I'm suggesting), a neat tweak would be to narrow the "yellow" band nearer to the nomination close. For example, at close minus 24 hours, the yellow would actually mean 75-80%. - Banyan Tree 22:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Topic On Extra Spaces[edit]

Well, we argue that there is no limit to how much formatting it takes to improve readability. You can improve readability infinitly. There's a arguement, called {an Ancient Greek's name} Arugement that I can not remeber the name, but ... YEA! Here's something for you: If you look at the HTML version of: $Dragons flight$, you'll see that there r no spaces between in the raw link. OH MY GOD, ITS SO HARD TO READ! WHERE ARE ALL THE SPACES!?!?

Please leave one if you'd like more clarification on this issue. You could also contact me iooiioioo@hotmail.com [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNUL hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up].

thanks

24.70.95.203 19:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

noinclude?[edit]

Is it possible to add a <noinclude></noinclude> block around the intro text, so the page can be directly transcluded to other pages? That would be very useful... Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good idea. I would also eliminate headers that show in a user's TOC and repeat the update time in the transcluded section for maximum usefulness. See my sample version reflecting these changes. NoSeptember ^talk 13:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem making such changes generally, but I would ask that you contact the dozen or so people that are already transcluding this page and attempt to see how a consensus of people would like to see it displayed. Dragons flight 06:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine. With the new page in project space (see the "Shortcut" topic below), we could even give people a choice of 1) transcluding a noninclude version from this user subpage or 2) transcluding the new page in project space which would have all the non-changing introduction text included. NoSeptember ^talk 11:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counting problem?[edit]

Why does your bot count an oppose vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pagrashtak even though the vote was struck off? Jedi6 -(need help?) 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the way that votes are counted by the rows of pound signs (#) in each section while excluding anything that has more than one pound on a single row which would denote a comment under a vote while still maintaining the format. If this is how it's done (and please correct me if I'm wrong) then it would be a fairly simple task to also set it to ignore that had a pound signed followed by a nowiki tag and a pound signed followed by a space then a nowiki tag of course it might be an issue getting it to properly terminate at the next linebreak. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 07:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut[edit]

Listing WP:RFAsum on WP:WP redirecting to a user subpage could cause trouble if folks think that it's perfectly normal to create mixed case shortcuts to user subpages. As a workaround I've created WP:RFASUM to a proper Wikipedia:RFA summary page, behind the scenes it of course only includes your page. I try to keep WP:WP clean in a certain way, no offense intended. Maybe rename it to "Wikipedia:Request for adminship (summary)" for a better sort order near WP:RFA - I saw that that was your idea too late, sorry. -- Omniplex 15:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too many Neutral votes[edit]

The bot appears to be miscounting the neutral votes on BrownHairedGirl's RfA. The bot reports the votes are 24/10/10 as of 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC), however at that time (and currently) the votes were actually 24/10/6. If it were counting replies to neutral votes as votes it would total 7 so I'm not certain what is getting it confused? Thryduulf 23:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few hours later and the bot is still reporting the neutral votes to be the same as the oppose votes (12 and 12 rather than 12 and 8). Thryduulf 18:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

I think it would be helpful to add link to the chronological lists of recent successful RFAs and recent unsuccessful RFAs, to make it easier to see what has happened to RFAs when they disappear from this list. I would go ahead and add the links myself, but I don't want to break anything (thanks, by the way - this page is very useful!). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting anomaly[edit]

The {{RfA}} template has changed and so your bot can't work out the formatting of the RfAs at the moment. Please try to change the coding of the bot to allow for this new change where the Support, Oppose and Neutral are bolded with a semicolon instead of the three apostrophies. Thanks. DarthVad e r 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed the Legend[edit]

I've listed the keys showing which colour means what. Thought it might look better, please revert if you don't like it.--Andeh 09:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've {{legend}}ed it. —Nightst a llion (?) 09:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That legend will be overwritten by the bot, so you should talk to DF and suggest he change the output code if you want this change. NoSeptember 09:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead text has been moved to User:Dragons flight/RFA summary/header and transcluded into the page. This will allow people to modify it in any way that consensus thinks is reasonable. Dragons flight 18:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we are on the topic, my preference would actually be to leave the text written out as is, but add highlighting to show the colors, rather than breaking off a little legend section. Dragons flight 18:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your the boss, it's your bot. :) --Andeh 23:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the "last update date" in the header, the bot will have to update it. The date could be moved out of the header and back on to this page of course. NoSeptember 23:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! Dragons flight 23:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the timestamp issue by passing it as a parameter to the header. Dragons flight 06:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake[edit]

On my RFA it says 1-0-0 but if you look at it the tally is really 30-14-5. I just thought I should bring it to everyone's attention.--Jersey Devil 04:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be fine now.--Jersey Devil 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

percentage colors[edit]

Maybe this is just fueling the fire, but with the decreased emphasis of the 70-85% "window of uncertainty", maybe another color is needed for 50-69% support? -- nae'blis 15:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Totals[edit]

The current and last versions, [1] & [2], have had the wrong totals for Pengo's adminship nomination. It looks like it's using the totals from Geni's bureaucrat nomination instead. At least, it has the same numbers and it started when Geni's first appeared so I assume that's the problem. -- JLaTondre 02:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not working[edit]

The bot seems to be broken; just to save others checking the history/Dragon Flight's talk/posting here, note that it's being discussed already at User_talk:Dragons_flight#User:Dragons_flight.2FRFA_summary. --kingboyk 11:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sections[edit]

I would prefer if the sections in there were subsections (===) instead of sections (==). It would go on my userpage better. What do others think? Grand master ka 05:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reason that my sample version excluded headings. Each user can insert their own headings in their user page as they like. See the noinclude? section above. NoSeptember ^talk 16:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to request the same thing. I was doing some tidying at Wikipedia:Watch, and noticed that the single-level header structure is quite confusing. Either eliminating the headers altogether (makes sense, no human seems to need instant edit access here) or just reducing to h3 (===), would be much appreciated. --Quiddity 01:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be bold and change it myself, but I don't want to inadvertently confuse the bot. --Quiddity 18:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken![edit]

It seems to be broken. What happened? Andre (talk) 05:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I guess someone figured it out. Andre (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last working 17 August 2007[edit]

As stated on the user page, the last update was 23:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC); the current time is 20:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC). -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bot stoppage time is shortly after Dragons Flight went on wikibreak. Here's to hoping for a speedy return. -- Satori Son 19:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]