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]
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]
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]
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 ? --Lysytalk 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 ? --Lysytalk 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. - PatricknoddyTALK (reply here)|HISTORY 19:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
