Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/New articles

New images

It would be nice to have new images listed somewhere too. Rather than yet another page, I propose a gallery after the list of articles. I'll try that and we'll see if folks like it. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, on looking at it, it's perhaps disproportionately obtrusive. Unfortunately the gallery extension doesn't have any parameters for #of columns or for image size. We could just have a list, I suppose. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:20, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please put the images on another page: these galleries take forever to load on my dial-up connection. Title links with [[:Image:etc would work better here..dave souza 20:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Woops, just spotted this discussion after adding quite a few images. I agree that separate pages would be better for new articles and images galleries. I would be happy to make a new sub page for images and leave a title only link as Dave suggests if that is the concensus. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New sub page created for image galleries: Wikipedia:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board/New_images. I have worked up a draft version of the possible revision to the new articles page with image links only at: Wikipedia:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board/New_articles/Suggested. All comments welcome. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Having looked at them again, I think two completely separate pages would be best - one for articles and templates only, and one for images in gallery format. Combining them is overly complex, very risky for page breaking due to bad wiki formatting (getting commons links to work correctly) and probably unnecessary anyway. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Now done - see /New_articles and /New_images. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Abandon dating system, and User info

Unless anyone strongly objects, I think that we should abandon the system I initiated of listing each article under a date, and with the User who created it. Maintenance is becoming very time-consuming, and we need to constantly remove old business from the live To do pages/lists to the various Archive pages.

We could just list them under approx months, and if editors wish to know exact details it is easy for them to peruse the article history themselves.--Mais oui! 12:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, keep the dating system. Useful for reference. --MacRusgail 11:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Agree that the dating system is useful for reference. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Participation

Am I the only one that this page isn't getting used enough? I think tonnes of articles are being produced, but not being postd here. --MacRusgail 19:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm sure that there are tons of us that should be using it, but it just takes so much time (correct: there are many new Scotland-related articles initiated each day, very few of which are ever recorded here). I for one really do appreciate your contributions, but don't feel obliged to enter every new article. Personally, I have only been bunging things up here that I want a bit of peer review on. Look on it as a facility, not as an obligation! Keep up the good work.--Mais oui! 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ARCHIVING

May I suggest a section of this page be archived. It's getting rather long. Perhaps all before this year, 2007, be archived? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 05:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot feed

User:AlexNewArtBot - New Article Bot

Hi, I have made a new feed for the New Article bot. The bot reads all the new articles for a day and puts suspected Scotland-related articles into User:AlexNewArtBot/ScotlandSearchResult, the articles are suppose to be manually put into the portal page and/or removed if irrelevant. Or whatever you want to do with them.

The list of rules are in User:AlexNewArtBot/Scotland, there is also the log on the User:AlexNewArtBot/ScotlandLog explaining the rules that sent an article to the search results (the log is cleared every day, so try to look into the history of the log). Please contact me if you are interested in the fine tuning of the rules

That is all. Any suggestions are welcome. Alex Bakharev 01:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A promising start Alex, thanks. Looking at the first batch of results, there are a lot of superfluous entries. The regexp rules will need quite a bit of tweaking. I suggest meantime that all the usual suspects (you know who you are) add the results page to their watchlist and update Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board/New articles regularly with the valid entries. All you regexp gurus can adjust the rules at User:AlexNewArtBot/Scotland. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the threshold of the bot, how many points ? Maybe this could be made a bit more restrictive ? --Lysy^talk 04:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, it catches too many false positives in my opinion. It might be good to both increase the threshold and maybe augment the rules with some penalty point for suspected "negative" words. Would this be possible ? --Lysy^talk 05:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. I have increased the threshold number of points to 21, decreased the points for the Towns that are often people's last names (like Angus), gave negtive points for Canada, America and Australia. Please examine User:AlexNewArtBot/ScotlandLog and give any other suggestions Alex Bakharev 05:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed. I don't really think there is a bot needed for this. The author can just add the article manually. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)}^|^HISTORY 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this. Most new articles aren't added manually since most wikipedians know nothing of this place, let alone how to use the editing system fully (I don't - it changes every minute). --MacRusgail 20:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am too dense to understand all this IT talk. I would support a system of logging articles on Scotland or about Scots (just as I would with other countries etc). Regards, David Lauder 18:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland by the years

I don't know if this is the correct place to mention this at, but if it isn't then I apologize in advance. I created the List of years in Scotland article, as well as 1700s in Scotland and 1620s in Scotland. The reason I created a list of years article for Scotland was that I thought it would be fair to do one for Scotland due to the fact that two other constituent countries of the UK (those being England and Wales) already have such articles. However, I admit that the only amount of Scottish history that I know in detail is from the Union of Crowns in 1603 to the Act of Union of 1707. So I wouldn't mind if some of the Scottish history buffs could me out. Fuelsaver (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate source of new Scotland related articles

This page appears to have gone off the radar.

In the absence of maintenance of this page, new Scotland related articles can be found at User:AlexNewArtBot/ScotlandSearchResult

Best wishes --Haruth (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]