User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2010/January

Dates

Would you please not use yyyy-mm-dd dates. They are hard to understand and of no use since auto date display enabling was disabled per the big debate about date linking. dd month yyyy or month dd, year are much easier to understand and more pleasing to the eye. Mjroots (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

yyyy-mm-dd dates are commonly used in citation templates. You can change them over for a particular article if you like. Rjwilmsi 10:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

In the 2009 Lakanal House tower block fire article, you introduced the yyyy-mm-dd format when the style of date used was clearly dd month yyyy. This resulted in a horrid mess in the references section. Mjroots (talk) 10:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"horrid mess" is ridiculous, but I take your wider point and have updated my script to use the predominant date format in the article, if there is one (falling back to yyyy-mm-dd otherwise). Thanks Rjwilmsi 12:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

{Very cool) Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

AWB bot GFs

Did my suggestion over at VP make sense? More to the point, is it practical to code, and would it be something you would spend time on? Rich Farmbrough, 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

Makes sense, but I'm not keen on having to do everything twice, maintain two versions of general fixes etc. Rjwilmsi 14:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to avoid with the permission flags read from the wiki. It should be a one-off cost per general fix to implement. Another advantage is that if a given fix stops being good for bots (either through a coding error or a change in the way the wiki works, or a realisation of a problem) it can just be turned off centrally. If I get a chance I'll look at the code. Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

So something like this calling:

AWBChangeArticleText("Fix temperatures", Parsers.FixTemperatures(ArticleText), true, BotPermission.FixTemperatures);

the called code would be

void AWBChangeArticleText(string ..... , boolean BotPermission) {

  if (bot && ! BotPermission) return;

  ....

And of course there would be code to read the config page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC).

AWB spaces

How is replacing a space with nbsp; (e.g. here) a fix? --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's per Wikipedia:MOS#Non-breaking_spaces but the main point of that edit was to add a date to a BBC News citation. Rjwilmsi 19:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

When using AWB please check your edits as ref 3 already has date in title. Regards --palmiped |  Talk  16:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be 1940: Dunkirk rescue is over - Churchill defiant and the date be set separately? Rjwilmsi 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the reference to use that. Certainly, we shouldn't have American-format dates ("June 4") in a British-subject article, and the MOS says not use use date ordinals. Rjwilmsi 17:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence

		The Mandarax Barnstar of Excellence
		I am pleased to award this MBE to you in recognition of your continuing dedication to maintain and improve AWB. Your contribution statistics are impressive, but you're also indirectly responsible for a much larger number, as your work on AWB has helped many other users to be more productive. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Code from a script you made for expanding months

I have been approached a couple of times with some issues with my edits regarding the expansion of months (for example Dec. to December) and although I have been trying to watch my edits a few have slipped through. I can't remember exactly were I got it from back in February but I think it was from you. I could be wrong though so if you don't know what I am talking about just let me know. I think that for the most part it works very well but there are just a few specific cases were I am getting hung up and in most cases I believe that the script could be made to catch them. Although I am ok at regex I am not near the level you are and it would take me a very long time to figure these out. Below are a couple that I have found that I think could be corrected by adding some logic.

• Do not expand the month abbreviation for websites. For example if it looks like jan.html, jan.com, jan.org, etc do not expand it to january.
• if the word wife predates it inferring a name. For example my wife Jan.
• if the Month abbreviation falls into an article relating to comic books, magazines, newspaper articles or certain other topics the date should not be expanded.
• If the month abbreviation falls in a quote template.
• If the month abbreviation falls in a cite template, in most cases it should not be expanded. Kumioko (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you got that script from me. Rjwilmsi 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks, if you want to see it I added it to a sandbox--Kumioko (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to keep bothering you with this but now I think that the logic might actually be in AWB and not in the script. I turned the script off so I could try and fix the problems but I am still getting the results back using just AWB. Would it be possible for you to look at AWB and see if this logic is in fact coming from AWB. If it is then these suggestions might be applicable to AWB and not the script.--Kumioko (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Example articles where the changes are made? Rjwilmsi 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

One is Roland R. Wright, in fact I just did in the last 20 edits or so and the month in question is Nov. I think this one could be expanded but I left it alone anyway. Thanks again for the help and please let me know if you need another one.--Kumioko (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

An example of the comic book number issue mentioned above is Sam Kweskin. In this one the month abbreviations are a part of the comic issue number and should not be expanded. Sammy Davis, Jr. is an example of the cite issue I mentioned and Mickey Rooney is the wife named Jan that it tries to convert to January.--Kumioko (talk) 21:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The script is from User:Lightmouse – see this search. Not in AWB. I'm not going to help you with somebody else's unmaintained script. Rjwilmsi 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but as I mentioned the script was not enabled in AWB. So either AWB was still running the module with the enabled button unchecked or it has logic to expand dates. Either of which to me seems as though it should require some investigation. --Kumioko (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Neither. If the custom module is not enabled it's not run. On Mickey Rooney the script from your sandbox does not change the wife's name. Maybe you have some settings in your monobook? I cannot help you further with this. Rjwilmsi 08:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation bot

Hi, Rjwilmsi. I notice that your userid was linked in this edit by Citation bot. Is this is meant as an indication that you are the one running the bot while User:Smith609 is on wikibreak? If so, you might want to take a look at the complaints registered at User talk:Citation bot#Bad addition of author when editor present. Looks like someone added this problem to the bug list for the bot on November 23, but it was assigned a "Low" priority and hasn't been fixed yet. If there is anything you can do to influence getting this bumped up in priority, that would be great. It doesn't seem to happen in a high percentage of the bot's edits, but it has come up at least three times in the last day, and the nature of the mistake seems very obvious, so hopefully it is an easy fix. --RL0919 (talk) 05:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That means I invoked the bot on that page. I don't maintain the bot. Rjwilmsi 07:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. That's what I was afraid of. Seems like we have a bot with the owner on wikibreak. --RL0919 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

accessdate= and date=

In the past, I specified both |accessdate= and |date= when citing online news articles. I was told that including both wasn't necessary, and in fact, that dropping the accessdate was preferred in such cases. You've been adding |accessdate= to BBC News citations even when the existing citation includes the article date, and I don't think you should. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Both are available parameters and should be added if known or available. Rjwilmsi 19:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

There are many parameters available on the various citation-related templates, but not all should be used. The accessdate is primarily intended to establish the version of the page in question, but the date for an article on an online news site does a better job of that. Adding the accessdate is superfluous and adds clutter to the citation while not helping someone reading the article to find the source. — John Cardinal (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The {{cite news}} talk page has various discussion over the accessdate. The majority view seems to be to specify it. But note I'm not working just to add an accessdate to every citation. Rjwilmsi 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussions at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources went the other way (archived now, but shouldn't be too hard to find), but it wasn't a sweeping consensus in either place. We may have to agree to disagree about this, no big deal. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

John, whoever told you that was confused. The two paramaters have completely different functions. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. At that time, I read the comments on WP in various places, and I also read off-wiki information about citing sources, and I came to the conclusion that the access date was clutter when there was already an article date. This is most evident for online news sources, but also applies to other well-structured online sources. — John Cardinal (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Shimla

Looks like your edit today on Shimla made a refmess. :) Debresser (talk) 18:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to try it again, now that I have fixed the worst things. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That was surprising

Funny intersection: We're both editing snooker and albinism articles. :-) — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 23:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

location parameter in citation template

Hi, I'm still learning about the template, and am curious to learn why it's necessary or important to fill in this 'location=' parameter, particularly in the Chinese milk scandal article for The Times? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say it's 'important', but it's good for completeness. It's not added where the location is already in the source title e.g. New York Times. Rjwilmsi 10:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

DOI broken

Thanks for your edits; your additions and fixes are appreciated. However, I'm puzzled by this edit, where you added |doi and |doi_brokendate. Is there any value in adding a doi when it's inactive (particularly where there's a pmid and a url linking to the full text)? --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That's an edit by User:Citation bot. I invoked the bot on the page to see if it would fill in the DOI. I don't control what the bot decides to do. Rjwilmsi 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fr about placement of refs

I think we did everything it can be done as part of GF for this Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests#Placement_of_.5B1.5D_within_punctuation. Is it ok if I archive it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Westchester County Airport

hey just a quick heads up that it wasn't so much your/bot's edit I was trying to get rid of here but rather a series of vandalism that hadn't been fixed before you came through. Easiest to go back to last clean version - but no issue with your edits. Will it be re-done on your bot's next run? StarM 05:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reapplied the pertinent part manually. Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks, wasn't sure exactly how to do it. Great work with the bot to do the cleaning. Saw it on a number of articles on my watchlist. Have a nice day StarM 13:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Rjwilmsi/Archives/2010/January! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 01:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Venezuela

I, I have seen what you have done to edit on Cuba. Maybe you could help with Venezuela, the main Cuba friend. And I really need some help. Look especially at Human rights in Venezuela, Eligio Cedeno and Maria Lourdes Afiuni. Voui (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation bot

Can you explain why the User:Citation bot page says the bot is operated by User:Smith609 but when I click "User contributions" in the toolbox while viewing User:Citation bot I see a series of edits by your account?

Please see my questions about this edit at [[User talk:Citation bot#Capitalization error, logic question]--Jc3s5h (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot responds to requests to run, see its documentation page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC).

Broadbents

FYI: Talk:John Raymond Broadbent (1914-2006)#Another proposal. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Script misfiring

Thank you for running these date corrections, but please see this edit. Note the |year= should have been replaced, not supplemented by |date=. LeadSongDog come howl 14:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an interesting corner case. I'll add some logic to catch that one. Thanks Rjwilmsi 14:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

rev 6010 AWB updated. Rjwilmsi 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Watch out for the case where an alpha character is added to a date as part of Harvard referencing, for example, "|year=1988a" where the date is "|date=1988-01-01". In such cases, the year should stay. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

rev 6009 Includes a test for that to prove no change made by AWB. Rjwilmsi 20:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to block Citation bot

Please see WP:ANI#Citation bot. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB manual

Can you please help us update the list of general fixes in AWB's manual in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual#Options_2? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 11:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs reformatting first. See Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Dev#User_manual_update. Rjwilmsi 19:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Possible problem I've noticed that some of your edit summaries (e.g. and e.g.) simply read "m (using AWB)". Personally, I don't mind these cryptic summaries (I'll check the revisions anyway), but you or other editors might take issue with them. If you need to respond to me, please do so on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Error in AWB , now fixed. Thanks Rjwilmsi 17:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of year parameter

Pleas stop changing the "date=" parameter in cite templates to "year=". The "date" parameter is preferred – see for example Template:Cite book. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Date is used if you have a complete date. Year is used if you just have the year. A full date is preferred to just a year, but the references in question don't have a full date. Rjwilmsi 23:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Once-upon-a-time you would have been right. However, consensus changed some time ago. Date is preferred over any of the old, deprecated parameters. The preference is documented in the citation template that I indicated above. May I remind you of Rich Farmbrough's reply to your own contribution at Template talk:Cite book:

Year is never needed ... I would say simplicity here is a single date field, rather than a set of three fields whose correct use depends on what granularity we happen to have for the date of publication.

As ArbCom has frequently observed, it is never a good idea to change from one format to another merely for personal preference of style. Please seek a new consensus if you don't accept the one currently documented on the template pages. --RexxS (talk) 00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples at Template:Cite book use year. Year and month are certainly not deprecated. Where's the documentation supporting your opinion? Rjwilmsi 00:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Examples often take time to be updated.

Opinion 1: Template:Cite book, the section Usage, table headed 'Vertical list', 'Prerequisites', 'Brief instructions'. Please see row 'date'. The text is: †preferred (no wikilink). The key below states † This is the preferred field with its alternates listed below and the alternates listed below are of course 'origyear', 'year', 'month'. Perhaps you are finding a different interpretation for this text? If so, please let me know where your interpretation is documented.

Opinion 2: In WP:ARBDATE#Optional_styles. When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. So even if you feel that 'year' is an equal alternative to 'date', you should not be changing from 'date' to 'year' without a very good reason. These, of course, are just my opinions, but I'd be happy to seek a WP:3O if you prefer. --RexxS (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The preference is over how much information on the publication date is given, and the preference is for a full date. The alternative is to provide less than a full date, using the alternative fields. (However, I don't really see this of much of an issue. Take it further if you really feel the need.) Rjwilmsi 01:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok - I can can see how you can read it that way, but I hope you will accept that I read it differently. My reading does seem to be supported by the views expressed on the talk pages, where the simplicity of a single field is advocated as preferable to multiple fields holding the same data. I'll assume you don't disagree with my reading of the ArbCom decision. But I agree it isn't a big issue – no doubt somebody will tell us if it ever becomes one. --RexxS (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

cite video

{{cite video}} does not have a |year= parameter. Thus your recent edit of John Lennon broke a couple citations. I fixed that article but you may have other articles to repair. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, apologies. Didn't now that. AWB updated. Rjwilmsi 15:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The Times

I've spotted this type of edit in a number of places. Where can I find the discussion about it? It renders a horrible and meaningless "London: The Times" in the refs list. There is no such newspaper. --Dweller (talk) 09:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you need the newspaper name to be under the work= parameter. I've updated the article you reference. This is explained at {{cite news}}. Rjwilmsi 09:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That is mighty confusing. Is there a bot we can get to move all incidences of misplaced newspaper names from publisher to work, both the backlog and ongoing? --Dweller (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at it. Rjwilmsi 09:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. As User:The Rambling Man will tell you, I hate (and am rubbish at) the citeweb interface. --Dweller (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Service award update

Hello, Rjwilmsi! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:15, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk header|search=yes

I think your last commit killed cases like talk header|search=yes. Can you please check? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

rev 6020 unit test to show {{talk header}} is matched by TalkpageHeader regex. Rjwilmsi 14:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We need to catch all paramaters of talk header. This means:

{{talk header|noarchive=no|search=no|arpol=no|wp=no|disclaimer=no|shortcut1|shortcut2|shortcut3|shortcut4|shortcut5}} -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The regex already does. But what's inserted removes all the parameters. Is that what's wanted? Rjwilmsi 12:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No, we need to retain the parameters as is. (Inf fact only in the =yes case). -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

rev 6040 Done. I'm now bored with talk page headers ;) Rjwilmsi 13:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this fix perform the rename or not? It should. I know it's completely boring. Hopefully we completely fixed that. Thanks for all the effort, Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename from what to what? Rjwilmsi 08:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The final target should be "talk header" followed by the parameters if they are any. PS Check AWB bugs. I have one for you. :P -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi ... I noticed that you deleted the italics from a newspaper in a cite. Was just wondering what the basis was for that, as I thought italics proper for a newspaper. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The template automatically makes it appear in italics. Adding the italics manually breaks this. Rjwilmsi 08:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ahah. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Italics in the work parameter

Hi Rjwilmsi, I just wanted to point out something about the template. It automatically put the work parameter in italics, but sometimes this parameter should go in normal font, for example Allmusic, which is an online database; and the only way to make it appear in normal font is to put the word in italics. I don't know if there is another way to put it, if this is incorrect and there is an other way please let me know. Regards. Frcm1988 (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Allmusic should be in italics when cited. It's a collection of articles and other content and thus any specific article/page title should be in quotes and the name of the website in italics. The fact that a database exists is irrelevant. — — John Cardinal (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Where does it said that the title of websites should be in italics? According to the MOS, italics are used for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, paintings, films (feature-length), television series, and musical albums, webistes are not listed.Frcm1988 (talk) 15:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

{{cite web}}, {{cite news}} etc. Rjwilmsi 15:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Im sorry but I can't see where does it said that websites should be in italics. Can you please point where is that guideline? Thanks. Frcm1988 (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Says so on {{cite news}}. {{cite web}} will also automatically italicise |work=. Probably {{cite web}} should say this. Rjwilmsi 16:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact that it automatically italicise the parameter dosen't mean is correct, by that logic every webiste title should be italicised also in the article's body and that also includes references from MTV, ABC, VH1, and other webzines regardless of the fact that these are not printed and they not are considered "works of art or artifice".Frcm1988 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have understood your opinion. You have added to the discussion on the {{cite web}} talk page, let's continue with others there. Rjwilmsi 17:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AWB

Which options do you select to consolidate refs like you did here? This is a very helpful option for articles nominated for GA/FA! Royalbroil 13:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It's part of the general fixes. The article must already use named references for AWB to add more named references. Rjwilmsi 13:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Royalbroil 14:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating

Hi,
Several of my pages have refs referring to different sources but where the text of the refs happens to be identical. So it gets consolidated.
I fixed this problem some months back by giving the distinct refs distinct names.
Now the latest pass has declared distinct names not to be good enough; it's just going to ignore the names.
So what is the current recommendation to stop these processes from breaking things that are correct the way they are?
Cheers, 15:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Varlaam (talk • contribs)

Can you give me an example article? Rjwilmsi 16:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you refer to the ref "Source: IMDb plot summary by Les Adams" in List of films based on war books — 1898–1926. If you refer to a different Imdb page for each reference then give the imdb page URL in the reference, otherwise nobody knows which plot summary you are referencing. You might even use {{cite web}} for that. Finally a riminder that you don't "own" any mainspace pages on wikipedia, so they cannot be "my pages". Rjwilmsi 16:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI + duplicated references

Since you are more expert than me in that area, maybe you would be interested to update the message to Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI#Reference_duplication_.28partial_AWB.29 to something more up-to-date. I think AWB 5.0 does the whole job perfectly or not? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Was this an automated edit?

Because 10-12-07 is not August 10, 2007. Just thought this ought to be brought to your attention. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not automated. August 10, 2007 was the date in the metadata of the URL. Rjwilmsi 21:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, now don't I feel stupid.... Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 21:51, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied userpage

Hello. I'd like you let you know that User:ErwinKnopfler has basically copied your userpage verbatim, plus a few additions. If you are already aware or if you're operating multiple accounts, then don't mind me. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 09:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for letting me know. Have created topic on WP:ANI. Rjwilmsi 09:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Autotagger

You may want to review this addition to AWB's manual.

There is a discussion in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 11. I requested to use autotagger to run through a list of articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters

I noticed you recreated Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters after it had been emptied and deleted. No templates sort here, so I think you should redelete it. Debresser (talk) 12:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of all non mainspace namespaces in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters, as you can see here. But I can not take on all the articles. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in having the category redirect. Users may search for categories on various criteria. Rjwilmsi 13:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a good argument, but one that does not apply to maintenance categories so much. Anyway it is not a big deal. In general, I noticed, the tendency is to keep category redirects, while I personally am more reluctant. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Using AWB/RegExTypoFix

The main reason I'm not using RegExTypoFix yet is that I just started using AWB yesterday, and still getting the hang of it. I did see and read up on RegExTypoFix, and that was going to be the next thing I explored in terms of using it to correct typos. May I ask what what methods you use to generate page lists for it to work on? At the moment, I'm simply doing wiki text searches for common misspellings, but wondered if there was a better way of creating targetted page lists to work on.

Also, I am having a problem in that AWB takes forever at the point where it says it's "processing page". Articles with 2K words take about 30-40 seconds, articles with 25K words take 20 minutes and longer! I can't for the life of me figure out what's causing it, and I've read all over the AWB pages, talk pages, manual, etc. All I'm trying to use it for is correcting typos, but after it loads the page and displays the edit differences in the top section, it sits "processing page" for ages before displaying the page in the edit window, and while it's doing that, I can't do anything else. I don't suppose you've got any suggestions as to what might be causing that?

Thanks. -- DMS (talk) 19:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:TYPOSCAN for an AWB plugin to get lists of pages with typos. To process a long page using RETF for me takes no more than a few seconds. Have you a reasonable specification PC/laptop, and how are you applying your typos? Rjwilmsi 19:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah...I thought I'd read something that made me think the TypoScan thing was a bit dead - I'll take another look there. This PC is less than a year old, mid-spec - I don't have any problems with anything else - pretty fast processing most stuff (large graphics, games, big spreadsheets, web browsing, etc). Not sure what exactly you're asking for re "how are you applying your typos"...? At the moment I'm just using the "Normal find/replace" function, which AWB handles as soon as the file has loaded, since it displays the changes right away in the top area - after it's done that, though, and before it displays the content of the page in the edit window, it shows a message at the bottom of the AWB window saying "processing page", and while that's running, I can't do anything in AWB. As far as I can figure, I've got it set not to do anything else except check for the items I've entered in "Normal find/replace", though it does clearly check other stuff, since it displays alerts in the "Alerts" box. Once it finishes "processing" and displays the page in the edit box, I can click on SKIP or SAVE as appropriate. It skips pages fast enough if it doesn't find the relevant text on the page - it's only when it finds the requested text that it suddenly sits doing something for ages. I keep thinking it must be some setting somewhere in AWB but I've gone through it all several times and must be missing something somewhere, I think. -- DMS (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been Approved. Please see the request page for details. Tim1357 (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)