Wikipedia talk:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive/Maintenance

message: Is there any way of creating a bot to do the rollovers? Its a huge job. Or atleast for people to break down the work, so that everyone doesn't have to spend 15-30 mins on a rollover. I for one am not fond of the ...--Steven 00:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is a way. I'm at the moment creating the bot for doing everyday checking of nominations. When this bot reaches satisfactory phase, I'll write the bot for rollover. I agree, it's a huge job, that's why I don't do it any more :-) Expect the rollover bot in next 2 weeks. One more manual rollover, at most. We can make a deal to split the job of next rollover... if the bot won't be finished yet. --Dijxtra 09:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems this process has been made way more complex than it need be.  Is it really worth having the same article up for so much longer than it should be? ¦ Reisio 03:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy and Ontime Rollovers 

message: Now, here's an interesting diff: . If something like that happens again, you know who's the suspect. Do we have admins among us? Someone to block him if he does something like that? I mean, I had quite a hard time finding what the heck happened here... --Dijxtra 16:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention! 

message: How an article is removed from the list states, "Articles need four votes per week to stay on the list."  A quick survey of the list shows several "needs at least X votes" that are not divisible by four.  The vote requirements and due dates for many articles seem arbitrary.
I'd be happy to correct the vote requirements and dates, if someone would like me to.  Then, someone braver than me can remove the articles that have failed to receive sufficient votes.  -Scottwiki 09:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah heck, I'll just make the corrections now.  No better time than the present ....  -Scottwiki 09:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind.  I've just learned that the four-vote rule was instituted recently.  That explains most, and perhaps all, of the discrepancies I perceived.  I won't make the corrections I had planned.  -Scottwiki 09:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rule requiring four votes per week is honored in the breach ... 

message: I've created an archive for /Removed, it was a whopping 539 kb long. If anyone feels like changing the structure of that page, now's the moment! Pruneau plum 10:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: /Removed

message: 44+ hightly modified sigs, argh...
#!/usr/bin/perl -w
use strict;
use Array::Uniq;
use File::Slurp;
my $var = read_file($ARGV[0]);
print"users = [\n\t".join(",\n\t",uniq sort map{$_='\'User talk:'.ucfirst((split /:\s*/,$_,2)[1]).'\}grep(!/Esperanza/,($var=~/\[\[(User:.*?)(?:\||\]\])/g)))."\n]\n";
→AzaToth 19:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Username grabber 

message: Just out of curiosity why does logging our maintenance to this page help? Gutworth 02:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why logging? 

message: With the current collaboration being North Sea, I ventured to notify all 10 WikiProjects that have that article within their scope using the  banner on their respective project talk pages, inquiring also if perhaps some regular member of the project could place the banner on the project page proper. Perhaps an evaluation of this initative after the collaboration has ended could take place to see if this is something to be added to the rollover procedure? __meco 22:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligent advertising?