User talk:MauritsBot/Archive 1

Templates

Resolved

Blocked because you were breaking thousands of pages by putting interwikis on templates without noincluding them; e.g. {{Clade}}, {{Attribution}}, {{User ang-3}}, {{GSE}}, {{Floor}}, {{Euronext3}}, {{Efron}}, {{Gallery}}, {{User fr-5}}.... Hesperian 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki.py does not function well in templatespace. Please do not run the bot there. –xeno ^talk 04:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking and reverting the bot. It will not run it again in templatespace. --Maurits (talk) 17:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. –xeno ^talk 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

File: vs. Image:

Resolved

 – Interwiki bot no longer applies cosmetic changes. –xeno ^talk 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remove this from your list of edits. It is helpful to use image: instead of file:, if that is what they are, because it is more descriptive. Thanks. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, blindly replacing WP: with Wikipedia: does nothing and should not be done. For example, you changed the link WP:RS to Wikipedia:RS, yet both are redirects. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• FYI, The bot's name was mentioned here: Wikipedia:ANI#File: vs. Image:. –xeno ^talk 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the questions and reactions. From Wikipedia:ANI#File:_vs._Image: I conclude that the image: namespace has been deprecated by file:. As for the second question, I do not see the problem. Indeed, it does nothing, however, it is more clear. Therefore, I will keep running the bot as it is. Note that I do not run it as a stand-alone (which is not without reason disencouraged even in the script itself), but only in combination with interwiki.py. Kind regards, --Maurits (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Users often use "WP:" or "Wikipedia:" for a reason, WP often in conjunction with other short forms. Wikipedia:RS looks silly, for example. Technically, an interwiki bot should not be making editorial decisions in the Wikipedia: namespace. –xeno ^talk 15:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that most users use "WP:" instead of "Wikipedia:" because it is easier to type in. However, if there are any other reasons, I am of course willing to eliminate this rule from the bot. Kind regards, --Maurits (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

As explained above. It's en editorial choice, for ease of viewing both in the displayed text, and the editing window. Kindly do not expand "WP:" to "Wikipedia:'. –xeno ^talk 16:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll exempt 'wp' and 'wikipedia'. Kind regards, --Maurits (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. You might consider WT as well, but it isn't widely used so I don't think the bot would run into it that much. –xeno ^talk 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that won't happen often. In hindsight, I am a little bit surprised that the bot runs automatically into other namespaces than main anyway. I'll find a way to fix this, because it shouldn't. Regards, --Maurits (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It seemed to stray back into templatespace as well, but only one edit and not an erroneous one. –xeno ^talk 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed it. Probably all interwikibots are affected by this bug, although mine seemed to excell because I ran it singularly in that namespace for a while. The problem might be bigger than our short analysis until now showed. The best thing to do is re-programming interwiki.py so that it handles other namespaces correctly (but that sort of technical skill is not my cup of tea...). --Maurits (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with templates is the bot doesn't always find the /doc subpage. Fixing that is definitely beyond my level of expertise^{if one could even call it that} with Python as well. best regards, –xeno ^talk 22:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Please also take out changing Image: to File:. Image is not "deprecated", the Image namespace was moved to File namespace with a mapping of Image, similar to the WP mapping above. It is and likely will forever be editor preference to use either File: or Image:. As the Wikipedia:Images page states, both are equivalent and both can be used. It is not the part of a bot to enforce style issues onto editors against their wishes. Myself I have a strong preference for using Image, if it is an image, to emphasize that it is an image. While I don't go changing what other editors use, I certainly don't want anyone else changing that either, although I equally certainly have no control over any other editors, but I especially do not want a bot changing them. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The "File:" prefix may be used interchangeably with "Image:":

Is there a reason you're continuing to push this despite ANI saying it was not a big deal? I'm not sure where you're getting this "personal preference" stuff from. "Image:" is used in most cases because until a few months ago, there was no other option, not because people prefer it. The reason "Image:" still works is for backward compatibility, not so users can mix and match depending on how they feel. What you are claiming is not supported by any policy or style guideline that I'm aware of. Mr.Z-man 02:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? It is a big deal. Image is synonymous with File for backwards compatibility, but it also allows it to be used for personal preference. I strongly recommend using it, because it emphasizes that what you are adding is an image. It is totally personal preference to use File or Image, and the purpose of a bot is not to change things that don't need to be changed. The software was changed for the convenience of not creating three namespaces for files, but that doesn't mean that all the Image uses need to be changed to File - as the release notes state, Image still works. You want a guideline, I'll write a guideline. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Other than yourself, who is it a big deal to? Mr.Z-man 03:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a question is that? There are over a million user accounts. No one can speak for every editor. If it bothers one person, you can be certain there are others as well, and the edit serves no purpose other than to annoy. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

My point is that, as far as I can see, everyone who's commented on this either had no issue with it, or agreed that it should be done. Continuing to complain just brings more (negative) attention on yourself. Mr.Z-man 04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks it should be done I would argue does not know what they are talking about. I will certainly continue to bring it up until it is corrected. So far the bot in question has only made 18 edits. Yesterday it made no problematic edits, though I might also question adding a space between = and each heading as frivolous as well. Today it is back at it again, changing Image to File in Bill Clinton, changing <br> to <br /> and |biological control]]s to |biological controls]] in Cytisus scoparius after it was told not to bring the s inside the brackets. I really see no point in running cosmetic changes.py from a bot at this point in time, although after it gets cleaned up there are some useful changes it could make, such as today, while it problematically changed Image to File in Physician it also changed [[Doctor_of_Osteopathic_Medicine#International_variations_in_the_D.O._degree|variations in the D.O. degree]] to remove the underscores, and that is the useful sort of change that a bot can do - those get there by someone cut and pasting from the URL window instead of from the header and page heading, which requires two steps instead of one, plus manually putting in the # sign, so you see it often and it should be fixed wherever it is seen. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Problematic edits

Resolved

 – Interwiki bot no longer applies cosmetic changes. –xeno ^talk 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So far these are the items that have no benefit, and should be removed from cosmetic changes.py. There may be many more. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Expanding WP: to Wikipedia:
• Adding a space next to the header = sign

"Example: ==Section title== becomes == Section title ==

NOTE: This space is recommended in the syntax help on the English and

German Wikipedia. It might be that it is not wanted on other wikis.

If there are any complaints, please file a bug report."

And just how does one file a "bug report"? I would amend the above to "This space is recommended on the German Wikipedia only." There is nothing that I am aware of that recommends it on the English WP. WP:MOSHEAD States "Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional (==H2== versus == H2 ==).", meaning that a bot should not be changing this, although I would have no objection to changing unmatched spacings, such as ==H2 ==. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Changing <br> to <br />
• Changing Image: to File:
• Expanding ISBN numbers with a guessed spacing, such as 0356047113 to 0-356-04711-3

He's already stopped the first one. 2nd one is harmless, but perhaps unnecessary. br to br/ is actually correct, <br> is a deprecated piece of HTML, <br /> being properly closed. Image to File: seems to have consensus (yours being the only objection, but perhaps initiate a discussion at one of the village pumps, I would be interested in wider community input on this as I've asked previously at WT:AWB and received a conflicting response). I don't know enough about ISBNs to comment on the last one. –xeno ^talk 14:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ISBNs may be or may not be "correctly" spaced, but since they just get clicked on it is moot how they are spaced, and easier to have them all run together, but that is once again personal preference how they are entered, and it is not up to a bot to rigidly enforce one particular format. This isn't a dictatorship. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't HTML, and does not need to be checked for W3C compliance, it is wiki markup, which can be parsed by the software to change <br> to <br /> for rendering in HTML. For wikimarkup we get to use <br>, because it is simpler, and has the advantage that it stays on one line and is easier to read. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I still don't have an opinion on the ISBN, but on the second point I do believe you are mistaken. –xeno ^talk 15:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless these comments are made inline, calling one of them "the second point" is completely obscure. As I see it, there is pretty clear consensus against having a bot change Image to File, or having it done by AWB,[1] as it is interchangeable, not deprecated.[2] 199.125.109.77 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The second point being regarding fixing br to br /. You may wish to make your arguments at a more watched venue, such as Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Cosmetic changes (Wikitext cleanup options of pywikipediabot). –xeno ^talk 15:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I had no idea which one it was. My point stands, this is wiki markup, not the HTML that is rendered to the browser, and if <br> is used, it can be rendered in whatever manner desired when it hits the browser, and there is no reason for us to use one or the other, other than personal preference (and readability). As to getting "a conflicting response", to me that is a super red flag when you are dealing with a bot and should be taken as don't do it, as a bot should only do things that there is complete consensus for doing, such as explicitly stated in a guideline. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't want to spend my time on ruining the whole script and because Docu seems to agree on several point with 199.125.109.77, I excluded en.wikipedia from the cosmetic changes-script altogether. Regards, --Maurits (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The path of least resistance =) –xeno ^talk 12:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, call me weak ;). From my home wiki I know that this type of discussions can extent endlessly and since I have a busy time finishing my master's, it's the only option... if there is someone who wants to figure out the exact specifications for en.wikipedia and to program it as a separate module into the script (so that other language projects which do allow for such changes don't loose their improvements), I'll be glad to run it. --Maurits (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for not running your script on en.wikipedia. To take one example, inserting spaces in ==Heading== is regarded as trivial by many, but is a big deal to many others. I have seen quite a lot of articles (mostly science topics) where extremely talented editors have taken great care to get every character in an article correct, and the page has happily existed with no spaces in heading lines for many months. Unless there is a policy that spaces are required, I think it is totally inappropriate for someone to run a script and insert spaces. I happen to prefer "no spaces", but I wouldn't dream of removing spaces from an established article, nor should they be added without really good reason. Similarly, if an editor has taken care to use "WP:RS" (for example), it should not be changed to "Wikipedia:RS" (or anything else) unless wide discussion and consensus has been reached because such changes are guaranteed to irritate some hard-working editors. Johnuniq (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I regard this case as closed, my bot doesn't make these minor improvements anymore on en.wikipedia. Kind regards, --Maurits (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise, feel free to archive the above at your convenience. –xeno ^talk 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)