Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
(10-22-2020, 01:24 PM)GethN7 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 07:27 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, sometime this weekend I'll dig into the archive, see what format things are in, and maybe start designing the "review" template.
Sounds good, Bob.
Well, I got a little start on things.
There are 5900 individual reviews, each in its own file. Each one has a "header" that looks like this:
Quote:Literature/GenerationKill 19th Apr 09 Troper/{{Alhazred}} whole series review 0
Top-notch military slice-of-life.
followed by the the text of the review, which can and often does have TV-namespaced WikiWorded links in it.
Complicating matters is that my idea for a template won't work right now, because we have the review pages set up as Flow discussion pages.
So I've started looking into Flow (now called "StructuredDiscussion") to see if I can somehow structure the reviews as SQL inserts that create flow topics on the relevant review pages. This is literally in the first few hour of effort, so I have no idea if this is possible or practical. But it is at least a direction.
(10-23-2020, 09:45 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 01:24 PM)GethN7 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-22-2020, 07:27 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Okay, sometime this weekend I'll dig into the archive, see what format things are in, and maybe start designing the "review" template.
Sounds good, Bob.
Well, I got a little start on things.
There are 5900 individual reviews, each in its own file. Each one has a "header" that looks like this:
Quote:Literature/GenerationKill 19th Apr 09 Troper/{{Alhazred}} whole series review 0
Top-notch military slice-of-life.
followed by the the text of the review, which can and often does have TV-namespaced WikiWorded links in it.
Complicating matters is that my idea for a template won't work right now, because we have the review pages set up as Flow discussion pages.
So I've started looking into Flow (now called "StructuredDiscussion") to see if I can somehow structure the reviews as SQL inserts that create flow topics on the relevant review pages. This is literally in the first few hour of effort, so I have no idea if this is possible or practical. But it is at least a direction.
Let me throw you a rope, Bob.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension...iscussions
According to this, we can de-Flow the entire namespace by asking our Miraheze overlords to do some backend stuff before we do anything else. As for the reviews, it would likely be much easier to ask Brent to mass import them like he did the other dump material (I'd like a copy too) as an XML file, which should save us a lot of hassle so all we need to do is clean up anything that looks weird afterward.
Actually, if I can figure out how to feed the reviews directly into Flow, that would suit the design I had in mind much better. But as you might suspect, I've been distracted for the last 26-plus hours by other issues.
(10-25-2020, 01:21 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Actually, if I can figure out how to feed the reviews directly into Flow, that would suit the design I had in mind much better. But as you might suspect, I've been distracted for the last 26-plus hours by other issues.
Flow is a strange bird and I had a lot of hassles forcing editing things by hand because it resists bot editing due to its structure. We'd be better off with a regular page with blog style comments at the bottom and the rating style system we used to use, only that data would parse far better on a plain wikitext page.
In case anybody missed seeing this:
Quote:Miraheze plans to upgrade to the latest version of MediaWiki (1.35) today from 20:00 UTC time to approximately 20:30 UTC. Please save your edits 5 minutes before hand.
That's a quarter-hour from when I created this forum post.
...then it's done, and probably partially responsible for the 503s I'm seeing right now.
Mm, yeah, it's been a while. Unless something's happened out of my sight, the last time was someone copying my page for The Secret Return of Alex Mack five or six years ago, wasn't it?
Meanwhile, on another topic entirely... has the auto-suggest feature in the editors stopped working for anyone else in the wake of yesterday's upgrade?
(10-28-2020, 01:11 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile, on another topic entirely... has the auto-suggest feature in the editors stopped working for anyone else in the wake of yesterday's upgrade?
I just updated the code, might take a day or two for the changes to propagate.
Edit: Works for me now.
I have pleasant news to report.
The plagiarism I reported (and Fighteer was who I reported it to) was done by some now banned turdblossom who considered TV Tropes' rules and policies a suggestion and as part of that, they stole content because they already had no respect for authority anyway, so why not?
Fighteer apologized it happened and promised to address the matter ASAP.
Edit: Him being a man of his word:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?di...omment-340
I am honestly surprised -- but grateful -- that Fighteer dealt with this in a mature and professional manner. All my experience with him suggested he'd act completely differently.
But that does remind me that I really need to compare more of the pages I created for ATT with what TVT has. Just to be sure.
(10-28-2020, 01:24 PM)GethN7 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 01:11 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile, on another topic entirely... has the auto-suggest feature in the editors stopped working for anyone else in the wake of yesterday's upgrade?
I just updated the code, might take a day or two for the changes to propagate.
Edit: Works for me now.
Bug report: the autocomplete now interprets "(" as down-arrow.
(10-29-2020, 11:43 AM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 01:24 PM)GethN7 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-28-2020, 01:11 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Meanwhile, on another topic entirely... has the auto-suggest feature in the editors stopped working for anyone else in the wake of yesterday's upgrade?
I just updated the code, might take a day or two for the changes to propagate.
Edit: Works for me now.
Bug report: the autocomplete now interprets "(" as down-arrow.
I'll give it a look when I can, I've been without power most of today.
Edit: The bug is tied to the appearance of the drop-down menu. Press Escape to flush the menu and try again.
I just edited the third rule of All The Tropes:Three Rules of Three, to describe one difference between TVT's YKTTW and ATT's Trope Workshop.
The new part is in bold here, but in not-bold on the page:
Quote:Note: This is a TV Tropes rule that we don't really enforce at All The Tropes; around here, we will launch no trope before its time. But renaming this page "Two Rules of Three" doesn't seem right, somehow. If you absolutely must have a third rule, "Three Tropers vote to launch the trope without anyone saying it still needs work" is closer to how we actually do things at All The Tropes.
Should we make this official for our Third Rule? We're already doing it...
I just saw that -- I like it.
A code mod (or permissions mod) needs to look at
this one, please.
(10-31-2020, 02:55 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]I just saw that -- I like it.
And it's now official. Tropes Workshop pages now need three votes to launch with no objections, instead of needing to wait three days.
Hmmmmm...
DuckDuckGo lets you search particular sites, using those sites' search engines. For example, searching for "shoes" searches the entire internet for shoes, while searching for "!a shoes" searches Amazon for shoes.
They take requests for new bang searches. "!tvt" searches the other trope wiki, according to their list (category 'Research", subcategory "Reference (Fun)"). "!att" is currently undefined...
So - Should I ask them to set !att to All The Tropes and sort the tag onto the same list as tvt? If yes, which ATT: Miraheze or Fandom?
Is anyone else keeping an eye on NormAtreides' edits on the Donald Trump page? He's supposed to be nudging it into a more neutral viewpoint, but a couple of his recent changes are striking me as sliding a toe over into apologist territory.
(11-04-2020, 07:05 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Is anyone else keeping an eye on NormAtreides' edits on the Donald Trump page? He's supposed to be nudging it into a more neutral viewpoint, but a couple of his recent changes are striking me as sliding a toe over into apologist territory.
Aside from one or two, it's mostly borderline so far, but I'll keep an eye out.
If Trump loses, I'll be super extra vigilant.
(11-04-2020, 07:05 PM)Bob Schroeck Wrote: [ -> ]Is anyone else keeping an eye on NormAtreides' edits on the Donald Trump page? He's supposed to be nudging it into a more neutral viewpoint, but a couple of his recent changes are striking me as sliding a toe over into apologist territory.
I already told him "no Justifying Edits"... if somebody else thinks he's crossed the line there, please tell him.
I just had to restore a deleted quote -- the "I am the chosen one" caught on video by dozens of sources -- because he claimed it was unsubstantiated (and I did so with a link to a copy of the footage at the BBC). We should make sure he marks stuff like that with {{verify}}, not delete it, when he doesn't believe it.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12