Wikipedia

User talk:Cyde/Archive022

< User talk:Cyde
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Cyde in topic Where is the CFD for your bot's recent changes?

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

Gibraltar Spain border crossings

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any point in a category for this as there is only one of them. --Gibnews (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Probably not? Be bold and get rid of it. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

CFD cited by Cydebot not found?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Where was the CFD cited by this edit? I can't find any CFD related to this particular change or to any more general discussions about this sort of change. - 194.158.79.70 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

That was a speedy CFD, so there was no discussion per se. It looks like the only thing that was changed was the dash, I guess to bring it more in line with how other categories are named? It's an extremely minor issue. --Cyde Weys 17:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've looked into this, and I am really very sorry to say it appears you / CydeBot have not followed the speedy CFD process correctly and the current results are wrong:
You created a renamed category (Category:Andorra–France border crossings)
You deleted the original category (Category:Andorra-France border crossings)
But from speedy CFD#7, and the settled consensus it cites, you should have redirected the old category, instead of deleting it.
Could you undelete and redirect the old category, please? Thank you. 194.158.79.70 (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Did you see Wikipedia:CFD#Redirecting categories? This category merits neither of the criteria for having a category redirect, so I think I'll leave it deleted. --Cyde Weys 19:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, indeed, and CFD#7 says such renamings must conform to MOS:DASH—did you see MOS:ENDASH#En dashes in page names? The reason behind this is that category names containing a hyphen can always be typed easily on any device, but this is not true of category names with an endash which cannot be typed as easily or even at all on some devices. It would therefore be helpful, especially for those readers whose devices are not endash-friendly, to have the old category name Category:Andorra-France border crossings as a redirect which is easier to type. 194.158.79.70 (talk) 23:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
And did you see the reasoning on the CFD page, which states that categories don't conform to the same redirect guidelines as articles? Readers type in article names; they don't type in category names. --Cyde Weys 23:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Despite the differences, I don't see a real problem in following speedy CFD criterion 7 and MOS:ENDASH, and making a cheap redirect from the old category name that can be easily typed by everybody; based on my own experience and that of others, readers certainly do type in category names—that's partly why I'd like it undeleted and made into a redirect.
Also, for copyright compliance, what happened to the non-empty history of the category? It hasn't been attributed at all in the new category, either in an edit summary or elsewhere; the CC-BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL require the new category to have proper attribution. If it were undeleted and made into a redirect, the history would be available in original form without further work. If you really won't undelete the old category name, could you at least cite the history, e.g. on the talk page of the new one or via the edit summary of a null edit, please? 194.158.79.70 (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Anon, this is not Cyde's responsibility, really. Sure, it's his bot, but other admins use his bot to carry out administrative actions. It's me you can talk to about this issue since I activated the bot to have it perform this function. Prior to implementing speedy #7, we had a discussion about this, and I think the general tenor of the discussion was in favour of retaining redirects in cases like this. They have to be done by hand, though, and there's some debate as to whether we are going to convert categories to hard redirects rather than soft. I was kind of waiting for this debate to settle out on the hard vs. soft before I went and created the redirects, but if you're feeling the need for one right now I think it's OK to have one. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation, G. I managed to miss the prominent talk page notice that Cydebot was used by other admins, and should really continue this discussion with you and the others over at CFD, so I'll keep this brief here. I hope we do move to category hard redirects, and would be happy to await the outcome of the debate; I just miss being able to type these endash-renamed categories since my mobile device does not support typing endashes! 194.158.79.70 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'll defer on the first point to Good Olfactory, but Anon, what exactly are you referring to in the second point? What copyrightable content do you think is on that category page? --Cyde Weys 02:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

C, First, I am sorry I missed the very obvious notice on Cydebot's talk page (all questions about category changes). I should continue this discussion with G and others over at CFD. Sorry for coming to your talk page. Second, since you asked, I'll just add very briefly that I think it is a reasonable interpretation of CC-BY-SA 3.0 / GFDL that every page—including categories—should have a record of who originally created it, when it was created, and history of subsequent edits, i.e. after renamings, categories should keep full edit histories by merging any histories from under their original names. 194.158.79.70 (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What copyrightable content is on that page??? Keep in mind that copyright only applies to creative works. --Cyde Weys 13:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Copyright has nothing to do with it, 194.x.x.x is talking about WP:attribution, which should be respected... Why didn't CydeBot give the authors on the move? (FWIW I agree that the decision to move categories to use em or en or whatever-the-hell dashes rather than the easily typable - was ridiculous pedantry [I realize this was not your doing Cyde], and the soft redirects should be left in place.) –xenotalk 13:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What is there to attribute on a blank page? I think you guys are making an entirely too big deal out of it. Keep in mind the relevant edit of someone actually placing the sole article into this category is still out there, which I personally think is more important than who created a blank page. --Cyde Weys 13:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm no expert on GFDL/cc-by-sa, but I thought attribution was paramount. So there wasn't much to the creation, but there's also not much to pasting the authors name. Why did CydeBot put "Authors:" in the edit summary and leave out the authors name? –xenotalk 13:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't know, that's the first sensible thing that's been asked here so far :-P Cyde Weys 14:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I suppose pedantry is in the eye of the beholder ... :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

And yes, there is something wrong with the Authors code. This wouldn't be the first time it's broken, either. I just updated Cydebot from SVN and I'll be keeping a close eye on whether this fixes it, or if I'll need to fix it myself and commit the patch. --Cyde Weys 15:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Taxonomic links has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonomic references

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Template:Taxonomic references has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- Eastmain (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CydeBot again

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

CydeBot has been moving pages "from category Welsh self-government to Welsh nationalism per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 12." But Welsh nationalism was a category redirect to Welsh self-government, so RussBot is moving the pages back. See, for instance, this history. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

My fault, I didn't check the target category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

CydeBot minor edits

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I wish to complain about CydeBot performing minor edits to my userpage. I don't think such edits should be marked as minor. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I add to my article the category Catholic archbishops 20 th century. It works , but my archbishop Joseph Aloisius Kessler in the J group and not in the K. I have no idea how to correct it.Any help available?98.166.128.202 (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Here's the fix for your problem (thanks Good Olfactory). --Cyde Weys 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

MfD nomination of User:Cyde/Weird pictures

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

User:Cyde/Weird pictures, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Cyde/Weird pictures (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Cyde/Weird pictures during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MrStalker (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

What the hell was that?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

01:29, 30 October 2009 Cydebot (talk | contribs) deleted "Category:Sportspeople convicted of a crime" ‎ (Robot - Removing category sportspeople convicted of a crime per CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_6.)

MickMacNee (talk) 07:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Never mind. You should not be running this bot with zero notification to the creator, and with absolutly no way of finding out who initiated this agent of destruction without having to root through its innards, to find the person who doesn't even bother using edit summaries. MickMacNee (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! I'm sorry you have a problem with Cydebot. What suggestions do you have to improve it? --Cyde Weys 18:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

How many suggestions do you need? Read up.... that's four complaints in a month. The first had a period of argument and ended up with an admission that the bot was poorly constructed. The second has an editor (for the second time in the month) saying that they were unable to effectively operate said bot. The fourth outlines what the others have commented on - that without providing verification an anonymous person can mistakenly use this broken tool to do some real damage.

Suggestion #1 - lose the bot and do some actual work. What did you think the $7.5 million dollars was for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.177.148 (talk) 22:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You must read Reddit

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

There was a Reddit post:
http://www.reddit.com/r/wikipedia/comments/a2oqx/wikipedias_list_of_unusual_articles_say_goodbye/

Featuring:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unusual_Articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Featured_pictures

I noticed you deleted both pages. I was able to find them at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unusual_Articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_pictures

I understand why the pages were deleted and why they live where they do, but is there no way to delete a page and leave information on where to find the correct page?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blurback (talk • contribs) 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I do read Reddit. I'm sorry to break the links like that, but cross-namespace redirects really should not exist like that. There's a reason we have different namespaces, to separate the encyclopedic content from everything else. For what it's worth, in the future, try not to post URLs that are redirects. --Cyde Weys 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Cyde, cross-namespace links from article to Wikipedia namespace are OK. Please read Wikipedia:CSD#R2 you cited: Redirects from the article namespace, to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces.
Please note that at least one of the redirects you deleted has 5000 visits per month, most of them people coming from outside Wikipedia, who are no longer able to see what they should. Nikola (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply. I'm not questioning why you deleted the page, that makes perfect sense, my question: is there a better way to make corrections? Correct the content and guide people to where they should go. I am not an expert Wikipedia user and as it happened, I saw a deleted page and thought it was gone forever. I think it's safe to assume the majority people going there did not understand what happened. Some sort of message would be valuable, along the lines of 'this namespace is reserved for encyclopedic content, Unusual Wikipedia Articles has been moved to the correct namespace *here*'. I think it's fair to say that content must be priority but usability shouldn't be ignored all-together. --Blurback (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC).Reply

There's a larger discussion going on at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 10 that you may be interested in. --Cyde Weys 19:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

None of that answers my one simple question. Why can't a redirect be deleted, leaving a bit of context of why and where it can be found? Most of the debate seems to be if such redirects should be deleted. I agree with you, poor redirects are bad for the encyclopedic content, but I think your inflexible, curt responses make your opinion unbecoming. Which is unfortunate, because you are correct. Overall, most people are unhappy with the redirect deletions because users can no longer find the content they expect, and this is especially problematic if the page is popular. But if such context was there, the page can be deleted and novice users are no longer lost.
Reading admin discussions are depressing. I see two sides, people arguing for bad practices and those guarding good practices while everyone else be damned. Both sides degrade the spirit of a collaborative community and discourage new members from participating, especially this one. -Blurback (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
What you're asking is akin to asking "Why can't someone die and still remain alive?" I know you don't like curt responses, but there it is. If you delete it, it's gone. The redirect alone is the slimmest possible amount of context that could possibly remain. Well, that's not entirely true — you could always check the deletion log of the page, but that's asking far too much of your average dispassionate reader.
No, the only proper solution to this would be if cross-namespace redirects had never existed in the first place. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Category:X2

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Cydebot seems to have deleted Category:X2, in spite of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 5 having concluded that it should be kept. It doesn't really matter since it's only a test category and can easily be recreated, but I'm just pointing it out in case this is a symptom of a more serious bug.--Kotniski (talk) 13:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The closer deleted it and then changed his mind about the close, so I don't think there's any technical bug to worry about. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that was me - just call me Mr Indecision :) --Xdamrtalk 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

General discussion on cross namespace redirects

edit

If there is ever a general discussion about cross namespace redirects please invite me to the party. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Category for Television category

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have created Category:20th century in television (and Category:21st century in television). Could the categories like Category:20th-century television series debuts and similar be directed there rather than to the main category Category:20th century Hugo999 (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

automatic "fixes" are not welcome

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

See this diff. I have no problem with removing the category, but obviously the bot made additional changes that screwed with that page's formatting. Who knows how many other pages have been messed up because of this? Please fix this bug before continuing to use this bot. ~ PaulT+/C 17:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've updated to the latest version of PyWikipediaBot (actually, I did that two days ago, but I just got around to responding to you now). I'll keep my eye out for any more changes like this. You're right, it shouldn't be happening. --Cyde Weys 06:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Bot not running

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Based on the contributions, it appears that the bot has stopped running. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm looking into it now. --Cyde Weys 21:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ack, kind of got distracted with something else during the interim time there, but I just got back around to looking at the bot ... and the necessary fix was trivial as trivial can be. The bot got logged off somehow, so I had to type in my password again to log it back in. It's running again. --Cyde Weys 05:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Planning Discussions Now Finished Regarding DC Meetup #9

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Planning — for the most part, anyway — is now finished (see here) for DC Meetup #9.

--NBahn (talk) 02:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Category: Wiccans

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This popped up on my watchlist for some reason. I am baffled. You wouldn't know how I wound up there, would you? - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Float left bug.png listed for deletion

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Float left bug.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILYsock(TALK) 07:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cydebot and rugby union "players"

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hi

I see that your bot has done a rename of one of the many categories that were discussed for renaming, after the wikiproject consensus of rather using "rugby union players" than "rugby union footballers". Apart from the ones mentioned at CFD, I think there are some that weren't specifically mentioned there. Any chance of the bot doing the manual labour...? Sahmejil (talk) 22:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I do hope not. As you know, Sahmejil, I'm happy to help with nominations (and have done lots more here), but I think it would be a very bad idea for the bot which does CFD-work to start doing category renamings outside that process. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Thanks BHG, you seem to have caught them all with that second nomination! I wan't suggesting circumventing the process, just enquiring about the abilities and availabilities of (this) bot. Thanks again for your help to WP:RU - Sahmejil (talk) 22:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Unreferenced BLPs

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello Cyde! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 397 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

  1. List of African-American astronauts - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category:Cities, towns and villages in Pernambuco

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I just want to know what exactly your robot did in the Category:Settlements in Pernambuco, proposed deletion?? are you joking me or just moving... (Angenhariaus (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC))Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Scam of readers via wikipedia content

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please read and help Free Wikipedia articles are on sale as printed books for 50 dollars each in Amazon.com with no prior warning Kasaalan (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Possible rename of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please note that I have nominated Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for rename. I happen to know that you have a bot which keeps track of this category, so please make sure that, should my proposal pass, your bot will know how to handle it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cities, towns and villages in Brazil

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Please explain to me why you have completely disrupted the standard naming convention for cities around the world? Where is the consensus? Who authorised you to create Category:Settlements in Rio Grande do Sul etc? It is extremely irritating now because everyother one of the "Category:Settlements by country by contain no articles and are mostly all categorized as Cities, towns and villages in within them.. I spent absolustely ages sorting out Brazilian cities and making them consistent with other countries. Unless you can show to me some sort of consensus I ask you revert every one of the changes you made until an adequate discussion can be held. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you have any questions about category changes, please see the categories for deletion working page. That is where other administrators instruct Cydebot on what to do. Look through that page's history, figure out who told the bot to perform the specific task you have a question about, and ask them on their talk page. Cydebot runs automatically off the working page with no human intervention whatsoever, so if you bug Cyde about why a particular change happened, all he's able to do is point you to the administrator that listed the task in question on the working page. If you do this yourself, you'll cut down on the turn-around time by a great deal. --Cyde Weys 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

no, you usually include the CFD link in your edit summaries. I see none for Brazil.. Could you kindly find me the CFD discussion? ‡ Himalayan ‡ ΨMonastery 01:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

There is a link on the category page. Click on the redlink here. It will link you to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 2#Settlements in Brazil. In that discussion there is a link to a previous discussion; the decision to change to "settlements" was made in the previous one, with the latter one being more of a pro-forma follow-up to the previous discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Categories

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

When replacing them, you should put them in alphabetical order. Thanks. RandySavageFTW (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cydebot currently uses an "in-place" replacement system, as you've pointed out. It used to separate out the category list, parse them, sort them, remove duplicates, and write that back into the article, but it failed horribly with any pages using any sort of more complicated parser or template syntax to manipulate when categories appear on a page (e.g. noincludes, category names being passed as template parameters). It is probably possible to heuristically find category blocks at the bottom of articles that are free of any other syntax with a good degree of accuracy, but I just don't have the time to implement that at the moment. It's been on my to do list for awhile. --Cyde Weys 20:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Meryl Streep

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This looks like an "off-by-one" sort of error. Could you check please? Cheers. Rodhullandemu 20:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on fixing this error, which resulted not from a Cydebot malfunction, but from my own typo in the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
This should be resolved now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cydebot

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

It's moving articles from Category:Swiss Americans to Category:American people of Syrian descent, for some reason. Shouldn't that be Category:American people of Swiss descent? --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on fixing this error, which resulted not from a Cydebot malfunction, but from my own typo in the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Seems to be fixed. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, it should be resolved now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Swiss and Syrian Americans

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi there. Thank you for the bot changes which for the most part are most welcome. I wonder though if the bot could be off by one in a list. Jean Piccard is of Swiss but not Syrian descent. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on fixing this error, which resulted not from a Cydebot malfunction, but from my own typo in the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
This should be resolved now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cydebot error

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Cydebot's currently moving all of the entries on Capcom Vs. Series games to a category labeled "SNK versus series video games" despite the fact that SNK had nothing to do with most of them. Just wanted to bring it to your attention so this error could be fixed. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

See the Vs. series section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 4 for how the decision was made. It appears to me that the reasoning behind this was that SNK, the company, did indeed make all of those games, so thus the new name is valid? If that is not so, please file a new CfD with that reasoning. --Cyde Weys 20:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

How does CydeBot recognize the end of the CfR tag?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I intend to change the {{cfr}} tag, although I want to be sure that it doesn't prevent CydeBot from copying categories. How does it recognize the {{cfr}} tag? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please let the other CFD bot owners what you're up to. Cydebot isn't the only bot that does CFD work. --Kbdank71 14:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's this part: <!--BEGIN CFD TEMPLATE--> through <!--END CFD TEMPLATE--> --Cyde Weys 17:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

CFD and soft redirects

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Cyde

this is a belated followup to a discussion I had with Od_Mishehu (talk · contribs) about CFDs which merge or rename a category to a target which currently exists as a {{category redirect}} (See discussion here_

Particularly in group nominations, this is not always spotted by the CFD closer, and in one case that I noticed Cydebot moved all the contents into the redirected category. I fixed that one, but it seems to me that it would be a good idea for the bot to check whether a target category is a {{category redirect}}, and skip any processing of any such entry in WP:CFD/W. The skipped category would then be spotted by the editors who maintain WP:CFD/W, who could fix it manually.

Would it be possible to modify the bot to incorporate such a check? It's not straightforward, because there are several redirects to the template, but it would be great if it could be done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Granted that there are several different redirects that people use, but it seems to me that one thing they all have in common is that the redirected category gets put into Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. Is that correct? So the basic logic would be, in the steps Cydebot takes before commencing an individual run, when it grabs the destination category page, it checks if the destination category is in Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories, and if so, it aborts that run. That shouldn't be too hard to do, and if that's all it takes to fix this issue, I'll go ahead and do it. --Cyde Weys 20:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, the effect will indeed be that the redirected category gets put into Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories. If the bot can check for a template-generated category, that would do it fine.
If this can be done without too much grief to you, it'd be great. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Darn, good point about it being more difficult to check for template-generated categories. Guess I'll just go for the list of templates to check (the main template and all of its redirects). And pardon the length of time it took to respond; I've been having Internet problems here at my house. --Cyde Weys 18:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hey, no need for any apology! It took me weeks to post you the message, and you got a fix in place within 3 days, which I count as mighty speedy. :)
But I hope your internet connection stops giving you grief. Mine has periods when it needs so much kicking that it feels having a football, and yours should not copy that bad example :)_ --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It's done

edit

Okay, the fix is in (see diff). Please pay a little bit closer attention than usual for a little while just to make sure everything is still fine. It seems to work in testing, but that's never been a guarantee of anything in the past (you guys always manage to come up with situations that I didn't think to test for). This commit brought to you by Nine Inch Nails - Year Zero. --Cyde Weys 19:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just as an implementation note, you'll notice that I opted for an explicit list of all category redirect templates to check for (including redirects to the main one). The reason I went this route instead of, say, checking for templates that redirect to {{category redirect}} was because it was simpler and because it's more flexible. If, say, we have other category redirect templates that function in different ways but still essentially mean "Cancel the move operation, something's fishy" in this context, my code can account for that. Oh, do double-check the list of category redirect templates that I used. The list consists of {{category redirect}} and all of its redirects, though for all I know, there might be other category redirect templates that I'm unaware of. --Cyde Weys 20:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I have just been looking through the code, and it looks sound in principle, though I can't comment on the accuracy 'cos I don't speak Python (prefer the Pathologically Eclectic Rubbish Lister). But I'm sure you more than know what you're doing.
I like the idea of it being extensible for future templates; that seems like good design idea.
Anyway, you don't say whether you have tested it, so I'm going to do a dummy run now and see what happens. I'll use category names which are obviously a test. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, test now at WP:CFD/W: Category:BHG's test category → Category:Redirect to BHG's test category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Test worked fine. The bot wouldn't move the category onto the redirect category, but did the job quickly when I deleted the redirect category. Good work! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah, I did test it, but I didn't use WP:CFDW for my testing (it's easy enough to modify the bot to point to a different working page; say, one in my userspace). --Cyde Weys 04:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, I should have assumed that you had tested it. Anyway, two tests worked fine, so we're in business. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

CydeBot BLP Prod

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Cyde, would it be possible to make User:Cyde/List of old proposed deletions for the new BLP PROD category? Thanks! (X! · talk)  · @604  ·  13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, it's definitely possible (and easily). Would it get use though? --Cyde Weys 14:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I know I'd use it... (X! · talk)  · @743  ·  16:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Cydebot preparation

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

I'm working towards a mass renaming of all subcategories within Category:Disused railway stations in England Category:Disused railway stations in Northern Ireland Category:Disused railway stations in Scotland Category:Disused railway stations in Wales - replacing "Disused" with "Defunct" - I haven't put in a formal request as yet, but current discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#Category:Disused_station suggests this will be a non-contentious move/rename.

Will Clydebot be able to help, and what prelimiary work do I need to do? Do I need to provide a list of the categories in some format? eg Category:Old name,Category:New name<newline>

Shortfatlad (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The simplest way to handle this would be to put it through the WP:CFD process. Link to the existing discussion where the consensus was established and it shouldn't be a problem at all. Just use the same listing format as all of the other proposed category renames and the administrators who handle the CFD process will handle everything else. --Cyde Weys 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hrm, I just read the linked discussion and you are already well aware of CFD, so never mind me telling you what you already knew. Just list the parent categories at CFD and make it clear that the renaming applies to all of the child categories as well (the entire list might run on a bit long). We can handle the rest. Now, if you're comfortable with running a bot (or maybe just parsing out the names from the parent category page using, say, regular expressions), just get the entire list ready in the format of WP:CFDW, post it somewhere, and link it in the discussion for the closer's benefit. --Cyde Weys 17:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. (That's what I wanted to hear - saves me a lot of work).
Bit rusty on regex - no bot experience - I'll make a complete list though.Shortfatlad (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't be that hard to semi-automatically generate a list of all the categories in question. For instance, I just selected the entire category list on Category:Disused railway stations in England and pasted it into Notepad++ (Notepad++ is quite good for playing around with regular expressions in a text editor). The regular expression for extracting just the category names is quite simple -- the part just before the name is always [+] and the part just after it starts with a parenthesis. This should be easier to get up and running than a bot framework, anyway. --Cyde Weys 18:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

A little fiddling gets me this User:Shortfatlad/cats - I can regenerate the list to whatever form is need eg {{cfr|OLDNAME|NEWNAME|see reason}}
I'll be double checking the list first anyway.Shortfatlad (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. That would feed into the bot perfectly. Of course, seeing as how big this change is, it is best to go through the proper CFD procedure first. You might as well go ahead and file it now. --Cyde Weys 22:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good. I can sleep easier. The topic is still in discussion on the relevent wikiproject pages - I'll go through CFD proceedure once I've got enough input to try to make sure the renaming suggestion is sensible enough.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Cydebot and CfD

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For all of the category changes, deletions, and renamings that your bot so dutifully performs, without which the CfD process would become utter hell. Thank you for creating, running, and constantly improving it. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is CydeBot's CFDW task down?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday at 12:42 UTC I listed 2 categories for renaming (I created the targets, so from the bot's prospective it's actually merging), and at 19:22 some others were added, yet CydeBot hasn't handled any of them. Is this task down? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yes my server is down at the moment. I'll have it back up in a few hours (when the people who live at the location of the server return home). --Cyde Weys 17:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, that's not right at all. The server is up and running. But it is bugging out on that CFDW task with the weirdly named category as follows: 

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/home/cyde/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia/cfd.py", line 160, in <module>
    main()
  File "/home/cyde/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia/cfd.py", line 107, in main
    deleteEmptySourceCat=True)
  File "/home/cyde/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia/category.py", line 429, in __init__
    self.oldCat = catlib.Category(site, oldCatTitle)
  File "/home/cyde/pywikipedia/trunk/pywikipedia/catlib.py", line 69, in __init__
    raise ValueError(u'BUG: %s is not in the category namespace!' % title)
ValueError: BUG: Wikipedia:Books is not in the category namespace!

I'll have time to investigate more thoroughly later tonight. This is such an edge case though that it may just require a one-off hack. --Cyde Weys 18:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where is the CFD for your bot's recent changes?

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago22 comments8 people in discussion

Specifically [1]; thanks. -- Avi (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

It was listed for speedy renaming under criterion C2.C on 17 April and moved to processing on 19 April. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Black Falcon for handling it. --Cyde Weys 21:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. I was checking WP:CFD/S and WP:CFD/W when I noticed Avi's question, so I thought I'd save you the time of having to check yourself. :) Cheers, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The move does not seem to comply with C2-C. In fact, the established convention is against this. Two examples: Category:Jews by country, Category:American people by religion. I request that the bot move all the articles back and a discussion can be initiated if someone believes the move is justified. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I believe the rationale was that the ultimate parent is Category:Jewish people rather than Category:Jews, so they should all be changed to FOOian Jewish people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) I notified Mayumashu so that he could offer his rationale for listing the category under criterion C2.C, though it was most likely to make the category consistent with Category:Jewish people. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Please note that Category:Jewish people was also created by the same bot not long ago. Both can be moved back if that is the only rationale. —Ynhockey (Talk) 21:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Category:Jewish people was created as a result of consensus reached in a CfD discussion (here), so another CfD or a DRV would be needed to reverse that change. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just what GOF said, I listed this page for renaming as the parent cat was moved Category:Jewish people. Mayumashu (talk) 21:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
I imagine renaming the parent Jews one was to make it consistent with the other categories of Category:People by ethnicity? but it's true that this seems to overlook that Category:People by religion uses a different format, and the Jews/Jewish people category is a subcategory of both. I think it would be a good idea to have a full CFD on which convention should be preferred in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC) Didn't remember the cfd, as indicated by Black Falcon above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
These semantic games are a fun way to rack up edits without doing any work. But now that there are no American Jews, shouldn't you go through and get rid of all Category:Brazilian Jews and Category:Argentine Jews and the whole lot? This deserves a bit more thought and discussion. Joshdboz (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
No one "got rid" of anything or anyone; the only thing that happened is that American Jews became American Jewish people to standardize with Category:Jewish people. The categories for Argentine and Brazilian Jews will be nominated eventually, but it will take time to check, tag, and nominate each category. Also, I doubt that Good Ol'factory (or even Cyde) is very concerned about Cydebot's edit count. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
We both know that Category:Jewish people did not exist until a couple weeks ago, and that a discussion had addressed that specific question several years ago with a consensus for no change. The CfD discussion to which you refer above involved an extremely small number of people and made no mention of the fact that "Jews" is principally a religious term, and all our religious cats are in the form of British Sikhs, French Muslims, American Taoists, etc. Joshdboz (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Consensus can change and, as far as categorization is concerned, much has changed since 2004 and 2007. "Jew" is not only a religious identity but also an ethnic one, and almost all of the subcategories of Category:People by ethnicity use the form of Fooian people. Pointing to a CfD which was open for nearly a month (which is what Good Ol'factory and I did) hardly constitutes engaging in "semantic games", and I certainly have no objection to additional discussion to address any issues that were insufficiently addressed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Me neither. I'm just an administrative flunkey, carrying out some routine actions. Anyone can nominate any of these categories for discussion or re-discussion and I will be happy. But I don't see why the arguments that support dissenting opinions should be discussed here on Cyde's talkpage. That's what CFD (and, if necessary, DRV) are for. I love the implication that me or someone else is intentionally racking up the bot's edit count, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Oh, you know how it goes. Start off by assuming bad faith and impugning your "opponent's" motives. And you haven't met your Cydebot edit quota for this month yet! You have about 4,600 more to go for the month, so you better find some more large tendentious category changes we can rush through. --Cyde Weys 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
rhubarbrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbslavedriverrhubarbrhubarbrhubarbcydebotcankissmysweetrhubarbrhubarb Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Damn Cyde your good ; ) I for one don't see how talking about racking up edits is "assuming bad faith" - heck I'm all for it! I was merely speculating as to why such a massive cat shift would take place for little apparent reason and with little reflection. I'd be happy to start a discussion elsewhere. In the meantime, keep those edits coming or we'll never get to 2 billion. Joshdboz (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the snark. Looks like everything's proceeding smoothly through the proper process channels now, at least. --Cyde Weys 14:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Category:American Jewish people - now full CFD
The discussion on reverting the category Category:American Jewish people back to Category:American Jews has now been moved to a full CFD on this page. Davshul (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
In addition to the above, please note that a WP Deletion Review (DRV) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 3#Category:Jewish people has now been opened to revert the Category:Jewish People to Category:Jews. Davshul (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Ping

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I thought I knew what I was talking about but let me know if I don't. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

File:Pactelephone.png in now a SVG

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that it appears you made significant contributions to File:Pactelephone.png or one of it's predecessors and that it has now been made into a vector graphic at File:Pactelephone.svg when working with this logo please remember to use the SVG where it is superior, Thanks Koman90 (talk), Network+ 19:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Use of Cydebot for stub categories

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

It would be nice if you could modify your bot to use the correct edit summary for moving stub categories (see here - this catgegory rename was under an appropriate heading at the time). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I can't figure out what's wrong here? What edit summary were you expecting to see? --Cyde Weys 13:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

A reference to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2010/April/14, not Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 17. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Are stub moves even supposed to go through WP:CFDW? This is news to me. --Cyde Weys 19:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm unaware of any reason they shouldn't, other than the template issues - stub articles are categorized in stub categories using templates, and the bot has nothing to do with them; stub categories are categorized directly in stub categories, and using a template into other catrgories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Strictly speaking, I think they are supposed to go through WP:SFD. That said, we do end up processing one from time to time. I'm not sure what bot SFD uses, if any. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Since usually there aren't more than a couple of sub-categories, SFD doesn't use a bot; however, I think that this bot should be able to handle subcategories of renamed stub categories the same way it handles pages in other categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde/Archive022&oldid=1145850838"