User talk:Euku
Add topicWelcome to Wikisource
Hello, Euku, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- Help pages, especially for proofreading
- Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
- Style guide
- Inclusion policy
- Wikisource:For Wikipedians
You may be interested in participating in
Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current Wikisource projects.
You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.
Have questions? Then please ask them at either
I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.
Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Giving bot another shove
[edit]The bot seems to have stopped trying. I believe that my attempts to add the archiving template inside a transcluded file was my issue, and I believe that I have amended the requisite parts. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- You are talking about Wikisource:Copyright discussions, right? This is one of the problems, but the other one is, that there is nothing to archive yet. --Euku (talk) 17:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Weird interaction
[edit]Hi Euku,
There seems to be some weird interaction between {{DNAU}} and {{section resolved}} there. SpBot clearly honoured the {{DNAU}} date, since the thread was open for over a year, but at the appropriate interval after a {{section resolved}} was added it archived the section to an archive with a date derived from the {{DNAU}} date. Is this a known limitation? A bug? Me being dumb? :) --Xover (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Xover! This page uses the parameter "timeout", i.e. archiving is done by two triggers: 1) if "latest timestamp older than 30d" OR 2) {section resolved} timestamp is older than 3 days. {DNAU} only matters for the first type, because it is nothing but a timestamp (after it is subst'ed). So, {section resolved} tells the bot to start its work. :-)
- Sure, but in this case it archived it into an archive page whose name was derived from the DNAU timestamp: i.e. to the archive for February 2030. I was surprised that it used the DNAU timestamp to determine the archive to use, and in addition that it accepted a timestamp from the future when determining the archive to use.The archiving was exactly as expected. It was I that changed the resolved interval to 3 days after it had previously been set as longer than the expiry interval; so I was watching for the archiving to kick in, which was how I noticed the odd archive page. --Xover (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, now I finally got your point. :) The timestamp that is used for reference is not the oldest one (as documented), but the first one. In 99,999% this is also the oldest one, except when you use DNAU. I remember that I changed this to the first timestamp because people sometimes used quotes somewhere in the middle without putting them in <no<nowiki>/wiki> tags. This would also archive the section into a wrong archive. But this happened on the German Wikipedia where the bot has its most users. The German {DNAU} (de:w:Vorlage:Nicht archivieren) isn't substituted and wraps a timestamp. So {Nicht archivieren} even blocks the manually set {section resolved}. But I can't do it on all the EN or common projects as there is no template.
- I just tried to implement a solution for such timestamp, but it is not that simple as I thought. Maybe I will continue this later... --Euku (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Anything we could tweak on-wiki that would make it easier to implement? Alternately, could it be simply to ignore any timestamp in the future when constructing the archive name? --Xover (talk) 06:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, but in this case it archived it into an archive page whose name was derived from the DNAU timestamp: i.e. to the archive for February 2030. I was surprised that it used the DNAU timestamp to determine the archive to use, and in addition that it accepted a timestamp from the future when determining the archive to use.The archiving was exactly as expected. It was I that changed the resolved interval to 3 days after it had previously been set as longer than the expiry interval; so I was watching for the archiving to kick in, which was how I noticed the odd archive page. --Xover (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2021 (UTC)