User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2007 September

Previous · Next

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 35	27 August 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Helicopter parent"	News and notes: Court case, BJAODN, milestones
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Some posts you may be interested in

User_talk:Kaldari#Re:smackbot.2Fbot_request

You'll probably want to read those...

Reedy Boy 14:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

Is just great. I'm guessing you have heard that before, but I just wanted to contribute a spurious gush of grateful affection for it, nice work. Jdcooper 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Rich Farmbrough, 14:52 29 August 2007 (GMT).

Hear, hear! Nice job on the bot. It does what a bot oughta.--BillFlis 22:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite wonderful.--Duncan 21:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot and birth date formatting

While changing the format of the infobox on hockey players' pages, please use {{birth date and age}} instead of {{birth date}}. It just makes it a lot easier to figure out how old they are, and I bet that's what most readers are looking to find out anyway. Thanks. --Muéro^(talk/c) 18:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is good, however I will need to do a separate pass that only includes living people. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17 30 August 2007 (GMT).

I agree with this, and actually could you provide the regular expression you use on smackbot that can be used in AWB? I do a lot of work on ice hockey articles and it would be useful IrisKawling 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep will do. Will drop you a note when I upload the XML. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33 2 September 2007 (GMT).

Here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44 2 September 2007 (GMT).

SmackBot and template:recentdeaths

I would like to interest you in including (and modifying appropriately) SmackBot and {{recentdeath}} to date any and all recent death templates on articles.
My hope is that, eventually, all "recent death" tags are removed after a month. -- Yellowdesk 18:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC).

Smackbot and template:current-related

I thought this would interest you. I'm not sure if it is operating as intended.
It does not affect article/template appearances. -- Regards, Yellowdesk 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
McGill (Montreal Metro) Smackbot dating, August 2007

AfD nomination of January 0

January 0, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that January 0 satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/January 0 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of January 0 during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Blacklist

A template you created, Template:Blacklist, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you have no objections regarding the deletion, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 04:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Three matters

SmackBot problem

G'day Rich,

I'd like to say "I'm sorry for stopping your bot", but that would be insincere.

Your bot keeps popping up in pages I've been working on turning USA into U.S. I think you've managed to hit about 6 of these pages in the last few days. Given how many pages there are on WP, I'm forced to congratulate you for the thoroughness of your search algorithm. But I digress.

I know this is entirely subjective opinion, but I really don't like this change. I know that what I personally like or dislike is irellevant to this discussion. The reason I'm mentioning it so you have an understanding of where I'm coming from (whether you agree with me or not). So I'll get to the point. (All right, I'll get to my point.)

When I saw the first one of these changes. I shrugged my feelings off. With the second one, I went searching and discovered that there is an unresolved WP debate about the name of the country between Mexico and Canada. I fairly quickly discovered that the "only" reason that (in the WP environment) that WP continues to refer to this country as U.S. is because opinion about whether it should be called U.S. or USA is fairly evenly split, so there is no concensus one way or the other. So, whatever happened to be there before the debate started, was left alone. I gather that "whatever happened to be there" was U.S.

So, I understand that you can use this result to justify a position that says "It should be U.S."

But, if you were to do that, my opinion is that you would be missing the point. My opinion is that the concensus is: given that there is no concensus, things should be left alone until such time as there is a concensus. I quickly and freely admit that this is (only) my opinion.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that your opinion is: there is no concensus, so the previous "official" opinion stands - this previous opinion was: "It should be U.S.", so that's what I'm going to use my bot to implement.

So, the way I see it, there are two opinions/positions:

• There is no concensus - leave things alone. (a.k.a. "My opinion")
• There is no concensus - the previous policy stands. Hence I'm going to use my bot to implement the previous policy. (a.k.a. "My interpretation of your opinion", which is, I guess, also my opinion!)

Now, I'm prepared to concede that I've got it completely wrong. So please, enlighten me. I'm looking forward to reading your reply. Regards, Pdfpdf 13:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Winans

Thanks for your efforts.

However, in my newness to and ignorance of WP, there are a few things you've done that I don't understand. I really would appreciate it if you would explain them to me:

• Wikify dates (where month and day both present). I don't really see the point of this. The only reason I can think of for doing this is so that WP can cross-reference back to all events that are related to that date. Is that the reason? Are there other reasons too? If so, can you point me at them please?
• Date fragments delinked. As you might expect, I can't see the point of linking date fragments either. However, in this case you seem to agree. But if it's desirable to link full dates, it seems inconsistent to not link fragments. Obviously I'm missing something. Can you enlighten me please?
• Cat sort order. I presume that's the stuff you did down the bottom?
• Headers. I gather "it's not the done thing" to have links from Headers? (e.g. you turned "===Vickie Winans===" into "===Vickie Winans==="). Can you point me at the explanation for this please?

Then there are a few things I disagree with. I haven't changed any of the above, but I've changed a few of the following:

• Note that the section header is "Recording artists and groups within the family"
  • There is no such artist/group as "Delores and David Winans". There is, however, an artist/group called "Mom & Pop Winans".
  • Similarly "Ronald Winans Family & Friends Choir", and "BeBe & CeCe Winans".
  • (Regarding "Angie & Debbie", I don't know, and to be honest, don't really care - in and of themselves, I don't think they're particularly notable. i.e. they're only notable-by-association.)
• As for changing "*dec28th.com, official website of Marvin Winans, Jr. " into "*December.com 28 December.com, official website of Marvin Winans, Jr.", well, I don't think I need to make any further comment.

Cheers, Pdfpdf 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD January 0

You hadn't expressed an opinion last time I looked. What is your opinion? Cheers, Pdfpdf 10:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the prompt, and more importantly, useful, reply.
As "they" say, "You learn something new every day. Sometimes, some of it is useful."
Best wishes, Pdfpdf 11:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Timezone

LOL! Yes, you're right. I'll look into it. But somehow I doubt that it will come down much. As it is, we're only about 5% of Australia's population, and Aus+U.S.+U.K is about 400million, so we're only 0.25% of that. I'd still class 99.75% as "almost 100%"!! Thanks for the laugh, Pdfpdf 11:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bianca Ryan

The bot was reverted: one, "USA" is the accepted global and local norm; two, "U. S." requires a space to be technically accurate. —ATinySliver | talk 13:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:Mos says U.S., and yes you're "right" about the space although a thin space would be preferable. The space (or at least on space) is observed in the names of many biographical articles, where the subject is known by their initials, see J. R. R. Tolkien for example. Rich Farmbrough, 18:09 6 September 2007 (GMT).

Apologies, but I've reverted your removal of "prodigy"; please see the talk page re ample evidence within the text. Also, I'm a bit confused by your removal of "date fragments" (WP:MOS says month-year is fine, since they are legitimate links, and then you add a month-day fragment that is eschewed by WP:MOS); explain? —ATinySliver | talk 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, apparently this has changed recently (and is under dispute). None of the links or lack thereof really bothers me one way or the other... ;) —ATinySliver | talk 00:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Spetember"

Please instruct bot to fix: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Current_events_as_of_Spetember_2007 -- Y not? 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A bunch of other similar typing errors across WP also fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 12:48 7 September 2007 (GMT).

Mentorship

It would be nice if you would mentor me in Wikipedianism. Thanks, Laleena 21:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

replied on users talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:04 7 September 2007 (GMT).

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 36	3 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
WikiScanner tool expands, poses public relations problems for Dutch royal family	WikiWorld comic: "George P. Burdell"
News and notes: Fundraiser, Wikimania 2008, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 04:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot

that was odd ;) Voice-of-All 14:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:27 7 September 2007 (GMT).

Hoax user

Hi, I'd like to know if you could help me to find out if a user is hoax used by another user. Thanks. --ClaudioMB 18:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Claudio, there are some people who can perform a checkuser: but there will need to be a good reason for doing it - see the top of that page. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51 7 September 2007 (GMT).

Template_talk:Unreferencedsection#Deprecated

Response at Template_talk:Unreferencedsection#Deprecated Jeepday (talk) 12:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

whatslinks rather than maintenance cats

Just a ping - I've replied to your comments at Wikipedia talk:Maintenance#Using whatlinkshere rather than categories for maintenance lists. BTW - I'm not sure if you know, but Dragons flight has been away since Aug 31. I don't know when (or even if) he may return. I've sent him an email asking him to comment. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragons flight has replied via email (sounds like he's probably not returning). His suggestion for this is effectively to add a new namespace for undisplayed categories (Hcategory:), possibly including them in the HTML output but using a CSS style that typically makes them not shown. I suspect the devs are not likely to consider either creating a new namespace or alphabetizing whatlinkshere output for this high priority. Would you be OK going ahead with this without any MediaWiki software changes? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot

Thanks for making User:SmackBot. I always forget to put date fields on my cleanup tags, and it always makes me smile to see that the bot is there to fix them for me. spazure (contribs) (review) 09:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good. Nice to be appreciated. Rich Farmbrough, 12:42 9 September 2007 (GMT).

"Current" and unknown template causing "year" articles to be linked

I cannot figure out why all of the "year" articles (such as 1981) recently have been linked to {{current}}. It must be some recently modified template, but I don't know how to read template programming to figure this out. Can you? I want to cause the change to be reversed. Some probably 2,000 articles are now linked to {{current}} because of the change. -- Regards, Yellowdesk 20:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have found it; a redirect created from the {{Current-year}}. I reversed the redirect, but I still don't understand how the links were created. Less than obvious. -- Yellowdesk 20:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot and defaultsort

This edit seems a bit odd. How does the bot determine when to use DEFAULTSORT? --- RockMFR 21:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

YEs it seems a little dubious. It's an WP:AWB general fix, I'll raise a bug. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59 9 September 2007 (GMT).

Adding refs didn't work as expected with broken table

[1] Adding a ref section to a page with a table that wasn't properly closed put the ref section above the table for some reason. Probably not a reason to stop doing it, but food for thought. - Peregrine Fisher 16:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, if all the articles were "correctly" formatted the task would be much simpler. Thanks for the note. Rich Farmbrough, 16:26 11 September 2007 (GMT).

FYI re blacklist

I have asked again that books-by-isbn be removed from the Meta blacklist. Feel free to comment. --KSmrq^T 17:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 37	10 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Interview with Jimbo Wales
An interview with Jimbo Wales	WikiWorld comic: "Godwin's Law"
News and notes: 2,000,000, Finnish ArbCom, statistics, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 20:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Thanks, Rich.

I've been going with both the print-publication standard of calling numbered, statement-specific citations "footnotes," and with WP:CITE:

"A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document to comment on a part of the main text, or to provide a reference for it, or both. The connection between the relevant text and its footnote is indicated by a number or symbol which appears both after the relevant text and before the footnote."

...which goes on to suggest three headings, one of which is "Footnotes"

The other page I've been going with is Wikipedia:Footnotes, which calls itself "Footnotes" and itself uses the derivative subhead "Notes" for its own footnotes, rather than "References."

So, where do we go from here? I know at WikiProject Comics we often use a separate "References" section to list things like comic-book databases, where we just give the one link for each easily searchable database rather than a plethora of footnotes, one for each issue we're citing that is in the database. --Tenebrae 20:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, right. Forgot about the font-size part of this. Go to Stan Lee or Spider-Man, for instance, and you'll see why WikiProject Comics, at least, finds the smaller font most workable! --Tenebrae 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So in that case, should this be automated after all? I'm not sure I'm following. (Then again, I'm bleary-headed from editing!) --Tenebrae 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That many?! Holy cow.

So the bot only affects those articles without a "Footnotes/Notes" section currently? Is it turning inline links to footnotes? --Tenebrae 20:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a little beyond me, but it sounds like you're saying that if footnotes with superscript numbers already exist, that the bot will leave those be. Cool. Could I just ask or suggest that the section these things go into be called "Footnotes". I know that would make things way easier on WikiProject Comics, since otherwise we'd have several instances of articles with two sections called "Reference".

I appreciate very much your talking to other editors and getting input on all this. And let me just say again how good it is to see SmackBot when it does things like update "cn" templates to "Fact" templates. That's a particularly good one, and I, for one, thank you for all your work coming up with these. --Tenebrae 04:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I see exactly what you're saying now. Thank you so much for taking all this time and answering my questions, and I hope I've haven't delayed things too badly. I have to say I really admire all the work you're putting into Wikipedia on the technical end. Continued good luck with SmackBot! --Tenebrae 14:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot and references

For some reason, when adding {{reflist}} to the Christopher Pittman article, the bot also removed one of the "=" from the chapter heading, but only on side of the word. If I'm being unclear, I apologize, but hopefully it will be apparent when looking at the edit history. Probably not a big deal, but I figured I'd let you know. [2], Cheers, JCO312 16:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is becasue References wwas a level 3 heading when it should be (SB assumes) level 2. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07 12 September 2007 (GMT).

The bot left a vary bizarrely formatted addition at this diff. I see that other pages seem to be fine, but you might want to look at why this was so strange. AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem wasn't related to the bot at all, except, that the bot revealed it. The issue, was a malformed {{Cite web}} template, left either by a broken template, or, a user somewhere [3]. The bot did exactly as it should have, it added a {{reflist}} tag. Your diff even showed as such. Anyhow, HTH. SQL^{(Query Me!)} 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. the reason was a strange unclosed "ref" tag in one of the tables. SQL has fixed it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34 12 September 2007 (GMT).

Yeah, I've been trying to exclude the commented out ones :) For some reason, I'm having a lot of trouble doing so... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 23:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

For reference sections, please use {{reflist}}. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, and, might I add, great work! :) I looked over a bunch of the bots edits, and, they seem pretty spot on :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am switching over to {{reflist}}. I have some reservations about the small type, but they are better addressed at the template talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 10:58 12 September 2007 (GMT).

As an aside, I'm working up another list as we speak, since there's a new DB dump available... Do you prefer the current way of posting it, or, is some other way preferable? (I.E. txt file via e-mail, etc...) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 11:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, no problem! :) It doesen't take very long to run it (8-10 hours total, and, it's on a dedicated machine right now), I'll hold off till you're ready :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 11:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Rich! And I should add that I agree... great work! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Just finished up! There was a bit of a bug in my new sorting app, which, caused everything to be duplicated :) I'm just about to post the (non-dup) results... Turned out to be about 16,000 again.... A sampling showed about 1 in 40 to be incorrect for some reason or another (mostly those dang tags in comments, but, a lot less of those this time round) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There we go! New lists are up (only 4 pages this time.... I decided to do 5000 per list). SQL^{(Query Me!)} 19:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why use {{reflist}}? Some people object to the reduced font size. Gimmetrow 16:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, including me! I think this is best addressed at template talk:Reflist though. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50 13 September 2007 (GMT).

References section

Hi. Thank you for adding References sections automatically. At least that is what I thought I saw your SmackBot do today. What a great idea. -Susanlesch 03:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Must agree with the above. You have made more refs appear then we normally do in weeks of work. Brilliant! I looked at the list .... many of those articles were going from "start" to "B" etc. Very clever. Victuallers 09:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		1. Clever idea 2. So much valuable work for wikipedia 3. References added "by magic" (ie fixing oversights). Smackbot is good at housework.... but today it polished the silver. Victuallers 09:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Probabilities and Time Zones?

Re User:Pdfpdf#Time footnote: Have I adequately addressed your concerns?  ;-) Pdfpdf 10:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot thanks

Nice work with the reference-section-adding task. I'd wondered if this was possible, it's a great thing to be doing... I had no idea so many articles I watch needed such a section. --W.marsh 13:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

Just FYI, the edits I've seen that have the summary "Add references section (testing) and/or general fixes." all seem to be legit, helpful, and properly done. And may I, as a fellow bot owner, say "Wow!" Well done :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 02:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Rich Farmbrough, 13:41 14 September 2007 (GMT).

References sections

Is this happening to every page without a Refs section, even if they don't need one? --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Rich Farmbrough, 20:18 13 September 2007 (GMT).

Apparently it did at least once. :) Ok, that article is perhaps a bad/good example since the section is titled "Bibliography and References" and so the bot came up empty when it (presumably) scanned for "==References==" or its bot'ish equivalent. May I suggest that it be "trained" to check for a "Bibliography" keyword and/or combinations of the two?

-- Fullstop 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ps: nifty feature btw. Well done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fullstop (talk • contribs) 03:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The focus is on adding the {{Reflist}} not so much the section, where there are references in the article which can't bee seen. I will look at the combinations of Notes, Footnotes, References and Bibliograpy. Rich Farmbrough, 06:53 14 September 2007 (GMT).

The reason why the bot's addition of the {{Reflist}} tag was rather strange was that the Sraosha article (see link above) doesn't have any <ref>s, leave alone refs that can't be seen. The article has only one source, hence no reason for refs.

ps: on an unrelated note: could the bot be made to patrol categories and {{db-catempty}} them if they remain empty for, say, a month or more?

-- Fullstop 12:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it had tags, albeit in a comment. Possibly. Rich Farmbrough, 12:13 14 September 2007 (GMT).

Would it be possible to not add Refs section to List of the largest arch bridges? Referencing is done there using another way (links in rank section) and i do not want to argue with bot. --Jklamo 12:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a <ref> in the commented out section of the table. Incidentally the process is two-and-a-half-pass, not just obstinate. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40 14 September 2007 (GMT).

SmackBot: typo

Hello, this edit by SmackBot was a typo. Possibly it wasn't the only one. Conscious 05:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, looks like the only typo, as Category:Current events as of Spetember 2007 is empty now. Conscious 05:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - version control error. Rich Farmbrough, 05:57 14 September 2007 (GMT).

A request

Could you run your bot over the Manchester article? The refs were recently updated, but all the spaces in the ISBNs were removed. Your bot is probably the best way to fix & check them. Thanks and regards, Mr Stephen 19:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

the ISBNs loook OK to me. (Also my ISBN script is on a dead drive, and outdated.) Rich Farmbrough, 19:28 14 September 2007 (GMT).

Faster than a fast thing! Thanks, and bad luck with the drive. Mr Stephen 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Special:Newpages alternative

Assuming one gets a good database extract, how would you look through it with a script to determine all of the articles started by [or, equivalently, first edit in the article's history, as I know some articles predate the current database] a particular user? Alternatively, a script that (somehow) goes through a user's contributions and checks each of those articles might be faster. Special:Newpages only goes back to Aug 23, 2007, and I'm curious to see a complete list of articles I've started. Any ideas? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi you can run this off the database dump with full history, but this is hundred+ gig now. So you would be able to use "stub-history" which is not horrendously bug, and just records who + when + bits about the changes. Incidentally I have done this per [[4]] in the past. Rich Farmbrough, 20:12 14 September 2007 (GMT).

Cleanup templates

Thanks for the tip, but when did I "subst" a cleanup template? I would appreciate to see an instance of when I have. I subst user warning templates, but generally know when and when not to subst. Regards, Gilliam 21:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Here. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 21:41 14 September 2007 (GMT).

Ah yes that's a typo. Thanks for the correction.- Gilliam 21:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot malfunction

Resolved

Smackbot is malfunctioning and placing references that are incorrect on multiple pages including Buck Shaw Stadium and McAfee Coliseum. Gateman1997 16:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Buck Shaw Stadium has this reference and McAfee Coliseum this one (the same) .

http://www.champcarworldseries.com/News/Article.asp?ID=12147

http://www.champcarworldseries.com/News/Article.asp?ID=12147

Rich Farmbrough, 16:36 14 September 2007 (GMT).

Just an FYI, SmackBot isn't a vandal bot. Also, I went in, and, replaced the {{reflist}} tag for ya, and, cleaned up the references there (Applied citation templates: {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}). As an aside, if the article cites references, it really should display them :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

List bugs

Resolved

Heh. OK, I got the comment bug licked.

The solution turned out to be:

<?php $carticle = preg_replace("/\<\!\-\-.*\<ref\>.*\-\-\>.*/i", "" ,$carticle); ?>

I'm going to re-run the list. Is SmackBot done yet? If it's not, I don't know if posting a corrected list will mess it up or not... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

K, new list is up :) You're doing great! Only 564 articles this time! :) Also, I'm curious, what do you think, about removing {{reflist}} or similar, from articles that don't need it? Not so much a 'do you want to do this with smackbot', but, a 'do you think it's a good idea?' :) I've noticed quite a few, in the last couple script runs... SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikifying dates

Resolved

Thank you for your recent edit on the article that I created and that Reedy Boy also made some contributions. I see that you wikified the dates, forming links to the year and date.

I am not opposed to this. It is very commonly done. However, why is it done? I heard that wikipedia likes to link things so that it will place high on the google and search engine list. If so, this is manipulation. Are we unknowingly helping a scheme? I don't want to create controversy but am merely curious. If someone wants to look up an article of the year, it's easy to look it up without a link. Archtrain 16:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Rich_Farmbrough/FAQ#Dates explains what is going on here. There is no "scheme" that I am aware of, except one to stop search agents following outgoing links, to prevent people from gaining google-rank "spamming" their URLS onto WP. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Smackbot typo

Resolved

recent edit summaries by smackbot include "Unreferenced to refimprove where appprpriate and/or general fixes." Can you change that to "{{Unreferenced}} to {{refimprove}} where appropriate and/or general fixes." to make it clear that it's templates you're modifying, and also to correct the spelling of appropriate? Thanks — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Course, or something similar. Rich Farmbrough, 18:36 15 September 2007 (GMT).

"References" style

Resolved

Hi, SmackBot has recently touched Guitar pick article and has changed

== Reference ==

to

==References==

That seems to be odd, as all other headers on this page are formatted with spaces (== Header ==), and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(headings)#Spaces generally says that any style is good, as long as it's consistent on all of the page. I believe that it's wrong for SmackBot to break style on one single header it touches. I'll fix that manually, but just wanted you to know. --GreyCat 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your AWB feature request

Hi. Just letting you know that the feature you requested has been added. Regards, Jogers (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot spelling

Hi! I'm just here to point out this diff, where Smackbot wrote 'appprpriate' instead of 'appropriate' in its edit summary. Thanks for your hard work! --Masamage ♫ 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

thanks, already fixed as noted above, :-) Rich Farmbrough, 15:00 16 September 2007 (GMT).

supersripts

I don't think it's a good idea to change

x² + y²

to

x² + y².

If one wishes to write

x^{2 + a} + y^{2 + b},

then the "2" in the superscript should look the same as the "2" in the superscript in

x² + y².

Michael Hardy 01:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, also, and more "in your face" is the treatment of x²+y⁷. I have requested that this particular feature be removed, or at least reined back in AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58 16 September 2007 (GMT).

plural references

Resolved

SmackBot seems to be changing the "Reference" section to "References" even when there's only one reference, which seems grammatically incorrect. I don't see support for that change in the Manual of Style, either. --Delirium 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I dug up some "consensus" buried in a separate MoS page (not the one on references of course). Still is incorrect, but not worth arguing over I guess. --Delirium 01:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Has Wikipedia become an exercise in change for the sake of change using format or style as the reason? To change a heading that is factually correct to conform to a bot is inexcusable. similarly, changing "&" to "and" is an unwarranted change.

DonJay 01:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Archdiocese of MIami

Resolved

Dear Rich Farmbrough, you left a note on the page Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami saying that if an allegation is notable and attributable it can be included. I am wondering if you think the allegations I have commented on are attributable and notable. They are blanket accusations that do not name specific priests. I think that makes them unattributable. I am not sure what notable would be, could you enlighten me, I can not find a Wikipolicy on attributable and notable. NancyHeise 04:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:Notability. Of course the second is a guideline on subject matter in general, see also WP:BLP. Simply put, WP does not make "allegations" or indeed unsupported statements of any kind, but may chose to report allegations made by third parties - examples would be those made against Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton and OJ Simpson. They need not necessarily be true or even plausible, since we are not contending that they are either, simply that they were made by the given person. WP is also not in the business of giving or denying the "oxygen of publicity" to campaigners - we report on material mainly from secondary sources, that reflects the real-world. Whether this campaign, or your counter campaign are notable I do not know, but it seems that your arguments are that it has made a disproportionate impact, which would tend to support inclusion.

Rich Farmbrough, 14:50 16 September 2007 (GMT).

I would like to ask you if it is notable that these accusations were never repeated in the local news media, either in South Florida Sun Sentinel, Miami Herald or local television stations? If the local news doesnt carry accusations that are clearly exaggerations, why should Wikkipedia? NancyHeise 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it probably is notable if the allegations themselves are notable. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54 16 September 2007 (GMT).

SmackBot tweak?

Resolved

In the article Stella Hudgens, the template {{birth date}} was being used in prose at the beginning of the article. I don't know what the MoS says about doing that, but to the reader it looked no different and so I never changed it. SmackBot (talk · contribs) recently switched the {{birth date}} to {{birth date and age}} which doesn't look right in the prose and I don't think was intended by the bot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm... I would be inclined to remove the template - indeed I have. But I suspect this is a rare enough event, and not sufficiently bothersome to programme around. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45 16 September 2007 (GMT).

Thanks for that. I've never seen it used in such a fashion anywhere else either, but I thought you should know. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability and Verifiablility of Sharon Bourassa allegations on Archdiocese of Miami page

Resolved

See Wikipedia:Verifiability & Wikipedia:Notability. Of course the second is a guideline on subject matter in general, see also WP:BLP. Simply put, WP does not make "allegations" or indeed unsupported statements of any kind, but may chose to report allegations made by third parties - examples would be those made against Michael Jackson, Bill Clinton and OJ Simpson. They need not necessarily be true or even plausible, since we are not contending that they are either, simply that they were made by the given person. WP is also not in the business of giving or denying the "oxygen of publicity" to campaigners - we report on material mainly from secondary sources, that reflects the real-world. Whether this campaign, or your counter campaign are notable I do not know, but it seems that your arguments are that it has made a disproportionate impact, which would tend to support inclusion. Rich Farmbrough, 14:50 16 September 2007 (GMT).

If the Sharon Bourassa allegations were like allegations made against OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson or Bill Clinton, I would advise including them in the Wikipedia article. However, her allegations are different from these cases since they are heresay. She claims a group of straight priests are feeding her this information. This is not a direct allegation from a vicitim or a witness, this is heresay. We have no news articles of Archdiocese of Miami priest making these same allegations. In one of the references to these allegations http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/abbott/051129, Nancy Heise states she spoke to two members of Sharon Bourassa's group who beleived the priest making the allegations was Sharon's former pastor, Fr. Mulderry. His statement to Nancy is that the allegations are so ridiculous that he wonders how it could be possible for any person to know the sexual orientation and practices of all 400 Archdiocese of Miami priests. He states he has never told Sharon such a thing. Further evidence as to why these allegations should not be printed is that the local papers would not print them. The only people to print these allegations are blogs who carry Matt Abbott columns, this is a gossip column, not someone with a fact checker or an editor as required by WP:RS. Is it not obvious enough evidence that an allegation is an extraordinary claim when someone claims to know the sexual orientation of 400 priests? It was obvious enough to our local papers and television news. NancyHeise 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nancy, I have had a quick scout around, but I do not intend to research this case. Possibly "Matt Abbott, gossip columnist, has carried reports of Sharon B...'s allegations ... these have been syndicated on a number of blogs." Anyway my purpose in chipping in was to try and provide clarity on what can, in principle, be included in WP, not to make a judgement about this particular case. YOu should discuss with those who want to include the information why they think the allegations are notable. Rich Farmbrough, 18:52 16 September 2007 (GMT).

Thank you, your input was very helpful. I read the WP policy pages for notable and verifiable. The nutshell comments reflect my position on the exclusion of these allegations. I hope you will come to our assistance on this page again. We could use your help. NancyHeise 19:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: template company importance

Resolved

Apologies, I don't think I've done any others but I'll check. Thanks for fixing it. mattbr 19:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

About a bot edit

Resolved

I noticed that your bot tagged Protoss as having a plot summary that is too long. I'm not sure if it's a big deal, but as it is a character page and not a story, I'm not sure why it did that. Any thoughts? Larrythefunkyferret 05:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 07:39 15 September 2007 (GMT).

Please forgive my ignorance; I'm don't know what all your bot is capable of. Still, do have any idea what that tag is referring to? Larrythefunkyferret 06:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I'll go look for the tagger now. Larrythefunkyferret 22:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. There is a resistance among some Wikipeadians to to much "in universe" description as "fancruft". I sympathise with but do not share this view (although support stylistic measures to keep "in universe" and "out of universe" clearly labelled, and to avoid WP:OR - fan hypotheses). There is possibly some legitimacy in that a really extensive plot summary (as we once had for a, I think it was the fifth, Harry Potter book) could conceivably constitute breach of copyright. Anyway, perhaps the person who added the tag can enlighten you further. Rich Farmbrough, 10:12 16 September 2007 (GMT).

Smackbot mistake?

Resolved

Smackbot seems to have corrupted the "Categories" for this entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envi_%28Automobile%29

When I click on the link Smackbot added, I get the message "Wikipedia does not have a category with this exact title". In otherwords, you are linking to a non-existant category. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdemeis (talk • contribs) 13:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, the housekeeping task of creating the monthly categories is not automatic, but it is simple. The category in question was created on 30 August here by User:Harryboyles (thank you Harry). So you must have a caching problem I guess. Rich Farmbrough, 14:51 16 September 2007 (GMT).

If anyone had a caching problem it was Wikipedia because the link was being represented in red. But as of today, it's blue and works. -jdemeis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.27.79 (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ampersand, Wackcaplet and Spong

Resolved

I am sorry, Rick, to place my irritation, on what I consider unnecessary changes, on your page. I had found four changes of "Reference" to the plural on my watch list all with a single reference, and from your bot. I normally do not make critical remarks without suggestions and/& appologise for doing so. Would it not be possible to program the bot to action only after a count of References or links shows more than one?

As a person born in England I believe that one of the joys of the English language is that there are so many ways to convey a thought. Therefore I get "hot under the collar" when changes are made to a sentence that is already understandable, to my mind "nitpicking".

I have been making edits on wikipedia since 2005 and have originated over 100 pages. but my total edits are low compared with many user pages. I do find that a very much larger proportion of changes are a matter of taste, when comparing today with 2005. Thanks

DonJay 02:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It is doing the same with 'External link' -> 'External links', even if there is only one. Seems pretty unnecessary to me... Ninja neko 07:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Previously I have restricted this change to items with multiple entries in the list, however the standard for headings is to have plurals for notes, footnotes, references, external links etc. Rich Farmbrough, 08:52 17 September 2007 (GMT).

Bot & Somerset

Hi Rich, Thanks for setting the bot to work (I'm seeing most of my watch list gain them. However on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset page a note has appeared saying:

:I noticed a Somerset WikiProject template on the article about Trevor Pinch, whose only apparent association with Somerset is that he took a degree at the University of Bath. Isn't this spreading the net a little wide? Are you also going to include Tom Jones and The Wife of Bath? --RichardVeryard 13:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Any idea why, when it doesn't appear in any of the Somerset categories?— Rod ^talk 13:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks I should have checked more closely before requesting the bot. Can we remove:

• Category:People associated with Bath Spa University (2 subcats)
• Category:People associated with the University of Bath (2 subcats)
• Category:Somerset cricketers (1 subcat)
• Category:Yeovil Town F.C. managers
• Category:Yeovil Town F.C. players
• Category:Bath Rugby

as they all contain people who may be only peripherally associated with the county. I can check Exmoor by hand but excluding those in Devon would be good.— Rod ^talk 14:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we also exclude those from Category:Railway stations in Bristol, Bath and South Gloucestershire which appear in Category:Transport in South Gloucestershire, Category:Transport in Bristol, Category:Transport in South Gloucestershire Category:Buildings and structures in Bristol or Category:Buildings and structures in South Gloucestershire? This is not as simple as I thought it would be but your bot is certainly speeding up the process.— Rod ^talk 16:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also can we exclude Category:Alumni of Kingswood School, Bath.— Rod ^talk 16:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Somerset template

Resolved

Template:Somerset was my first real attempt at a complex template & I couldn't get the importance component to work - so I went back to the basic one which just handles class - I followed the guidelines on project creation & used what I thought was the standard naming convention - any advice/help appreciated.— Rod ^talk 14:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Somerset doesn't seem to include the class & importance ratings & doesn't say that the page hasn't yet been assessed or am I missing something?— Rod ^talk 14:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Date format

Resolved

From your edits, I guess you know well about how to use dates on Wikipedia. So, I'd like to have your opinion about this propose. Thanks. --ClaudioMB 22:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Somerset

Resolved

Has been added to Talk:Trowbridge by your bot. Not sure why as it's in Wiltshire... Cmiag 19:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's in Category:West Country Carnival which is in Cat:Somerset. Thanks, will review this subcat. Rich Farmbrough, 10:12 18 September 2007 (GMT).

Internal link formatting

Resolved

Since you seem to have written the guideline on the subject [5], I thought I'd ask exactly what you meant by it; I've run into this debate a few times now, and would gladly have it resolved. Please see my talk page; specifically, is the guideline intended to be applied to links in which the apostrophe is part of the article title, or are apostrophes always supposed to be included in the linked text (even for simple possessive forms)? The question arose because I had formatted text as [[John Philip Sousa]]'s, and the other party maintains that the MoS requires [[John Philip Sousa|John Philip Sousa's]]. If my interpretation is correct, I have ideas on how the guideline text could be revised for clarification. MisfitToys 22:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I chose the example and wording was in order to make clear how it worked, and advise that taking the apostrophe inside makes it more readable, without issuing an instruction. This is because you otherwise get a colour change in the middle of the word. IMHO it is a bug in MediaWiki not to treat hyphens and apostrophes in the same way as letters here. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:49 17 September 2007 (GMT).

That strikes me as an odd position; not only does it waste text space by forcing you to repeat the title, but IMO the link actually appears gaudier with the apostrophe inside it. Anyway, if it's merely your opinion that it's a bug (it might be intentional), then I think the MoS should be worded to indicate the style used is a matter of preference. MisfitToys 22:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can confirm that this is a MediaWiki bug. Rich Farmbrough, 08:40 18 September 2007 (GMT).

Signpost updated for September 17th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 38	17 September 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Reader survey
Wikimedia treasurer expected to depart soon	WikiWorld comic: "Sarah Vowell"
News and notes: Template standardization, editing patterns, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 03:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Cleanup templates

Resolved

Thanks for the heads up, I wasn't entirely sure. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Big Brother 4 (US)

I changed back one of your edits, specifically the one that said "Correct caps in section header". The reason I did this is because it actually is "Power of Veto" with the "P" and "V" capitalized. That is the way it is supposed to be and that is the way it is on every other Big Brother page. Just thought I would let you know so that you don't change it back. - Rjd0060 20:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for letting me know. I did dispute with myself over that, but I lost. On a more substantive point, the article should really be at Big Brother 4 (U.S.) unless the "(US) is part of the official title of the show - do you know whether it is? Rich Farmbrough, 20:04 18 September 2007 (GMT).

It is not part of the official title, however it is like that because Big Brother exists in so many other countries. For example, there is also a Big Brother (UK). - Rjd0060 20:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I get it. That's the info I needed. Thansks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:25 18 September 2007 (GMT).

SmackBot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Brightman

Hello Rich,

I am the artist this page describes...I'm not really sure who posted it, but I wish to assure you that the information (I edited a couple of things) is accurate. The sites listed as sources are national sites that have posted various information about me, and some of the companies I endorsee.

Thank you for your time,

Jerry Brightman

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.25.89.211 (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 

Hi Jerry, I have changed the template to "inline" which means that the refernces given should be recast as footnotes. Incidentally my robot did not add the request for references, simply dates it back in Novemeber and changed it to refimprove recenty. I will probably be able to look at putting inline footnotes in soon. Glad to see you support Peavey, they are a great company. Rich Farmbrough, 09:08 20 September 2007 (GMT).

Lists

Resolved

Hey, I meant to ask, should I be letting you know, when new Reflist's are up (monthly, usually, somewhere around the 9th-11th), or, does SmackBot check periodically? :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

NP, thanks! :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, the next batch up, will ignore the Portal: Space :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ISBN-Check

Resolved

Hi,

I saw that you participated in the discussion of banning ISBN-check. I'd like to to make you attentive on a new tool: on the wikimedia-toolserver there is now IsbnCheckAndFormat. This tool checks ISBNs for correctness, formats ISBNs with dashes in the right positions and converts ISBNs from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 and vice versa. The tool doesn't use partner-links, but can be configured to use any OPAC you like. Here are examples of usage:

• correct ISBN
• incorrect ISBN
• link for Booksources-page

I think it would be a good idea to add this tool to the Booksources page. If you have any questions, contact me at de:Benutzer_Diskussion:°/IsbnCheckAndFormat.

Please archive. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Thanks

--Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι has wished you well! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the WikiJoy by sharing the joy someone else, Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for having 164,852 edits, and cleaning up vandalism, have this too,

--Kkrouni/こかるに/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please archive. Rich Farmbrough, 14:09 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Bizarre edit by SmackBot

Resolved

I just noticed a rather odd edit by SmackBot which, in addition to changing {{sources}} to {{unreferenced}} and introducing a {{main}}, also deleted a load of text. Very bad behaviour, but I've not stopped the bot because it happened quite a while ago. Hairy Dude 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure if this was an AWB bug or a history bug. Regardless, User:Rich Farmbrough/another user page does not trigger these changes now, so not a lot to be done. Rich Farmbrough, 14:22 17 September 2007 (GMT).

Seems it found the text "main article:" followed by a link and assumed it was at the start of the paragraph. The link was erroneous anyway, so I've removed it. I don't think the bot will make that mistake again on this particular page, but could still do it elsewhere. Hairy Dude 14:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

AWB bug report created. Rich Farmbrough, 14:13 21 September 2007 (GMT).

This should never have happened

Resolved

[6] Please exempt the portal namespace with immediate effect. Thank you. Separa 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I will see what consensus is before running against the Portal namespace. Rich Farmbrough, 17:33 18 September 2007 (GMT).

SQL is skipping Portal: Rich Farmbrough, 14:07 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Old bad Smackbot DEFAULTSORT edits

I haven't seen a recent one, but I've recently stumbled on a run of older bad smackbot edits, from a few days before and after September 1, where it was taking category sort keys and creating a new and malformed DEFAULTSORT statement. An example is this edit, which produced this DEFAULTSORT: {{DEFAULTSORT: |Rogers, Daniel}} . The " |" characters need to be removed, the pipe breaks the desired sorting.

However, it's clearly not a simple consistent common bug; if I randomly sample Smackbot user contributions from that era, I always find it working correctly when it adds a DEFAULTSORT.

I tried looking in talk archives to see if this had been brought up with you and didn't find it; I mention it in case it's still a lurking bug of some kind. So far, I've found dozens of bios in the sub-categories of Category:Delaware politicians that got hit with this, but I've no idea of the overall scope or any sense of what might be triggering it. You can find other examples of the problem by looking at my contributions; recent ones with edit history of fix defaultsort - no bar are 99% on articles that Smackbot mangled. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me. Studerby 22:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sutderby. Looks at first sight like they are articles where there was a space before the | - I shoul be able to fix this when I get home later today or tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 09:10 20 September 2007 (GMT).

Yeah, that definitely looks like it; I checked half-a-dozen and they all had that leading space. A particular editor, "Stilltim", did that routinely. He seems to have only edited Delaware bios and XX United States Congress XX articles since May, so that explains the distribution. In my experience, that particular extra space is pretty rare... Studerby 17:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

(almost) All occurrences from August have been fixed, including those that might give rise to the problem. I'm d/ling the sept dump, and will re-run against that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Your AWB bug report

Resolved

Thank you for your bug report. Could you give a specific example of an article where the problem occurs? I couldn't reproduce it in my sandbox. Thanks in advance. Jogers (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Normal replacement {{check}} with xxxxx fails in your sandbox. Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 13:43 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Do you use default settings? [7] Jogers (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much everything turned on. If you still can't replicate will document settings further. Rich Farmbrough, 13:50 21 September 2007 (GMT).

So you have the option to ignore templates checked too? :-) Jogers (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I marked it as "not a bug" for now. Please let me know if it wasn't it. Jogers (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I can see it. Thanks a lot! Jogers (talk) 11:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

You are right. The closing ref tag is seen as a part of the URL together with the {{check}} template. Jogers (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed the bug in rev 1715. Thank you for your involvement. Jogers (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:SNOW

Resolved

You should probably read WP:SNOW more carefully, it states that if there are policy-based objections, i.e. it's not a unanimous decision, then WP:SNOW-based decisions aren't a good idea. --W.marsh 20:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I can't see where though, nor how a policy-based objection is synonymous with a non-unanimous decision. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47 20 September 2007 (GMT).

"If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause." it was run through the process, but it was not a unanimous decision, so the page says it was probably not a good candidate. --W.marsh 21:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't follow (if it's got four legs and is called Tiddles it might be a cat, it's got four legs and is not called tiddles it is probably not a cat?), but never mind. Rich Farmbrough, 12:25 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Linking isolated years: such a fun topic

Hey Rich. I saw your comment in this thread that you don't see as much date fragment linking any more. I would love to stamp out linking of isolated years. Since two pages in my own watchlist just had all their years linked (perhaps by AWB users) if possible I'd like a thread to point to where this policy issue has been discussed. Do you have a favorite one to point to? Thanks, EdJohnston 11:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, this has been a bugbear for a long time. There is one user, who is highly placed in the community who has fought against de-linking years, blocking and using admin functions to revert, and stopping consensus at MOSNUM. We have lost good editors over this, which is why I am reluctant to press the point. Nonetheless I have de-linked many thousands of bare years, with maybe a couple of queries. The MoS has actually come on now saying

• Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Link to one of these pages only if it is likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic are possible ([[1997 in South African sport|1997]]), but cannot be used in full dates, where they break the date-linking function.
  

I would prefer it not to provide any support of Easter egg links (WikiPRoject albums deprecates these preferring the style "1999 (see 1999 in music).

The discussions run to many pages. If you wish to de-link more efficiently, there is some good monobook code around, mine is passable, but not to good with links adjoining other links. Rich Farmbrough, 11:40 21 September 2007 (GMT).

Proposal for a cooperative effort among several bot designers/code writers

Rich, would you kindly look at Betacommandbot and consider helping to assemble a small group of bot designers that can interact on the project of organizing the tagging of images. Among the things that will be needed is a running tally of image and media file template usage. In kind response to my request, arising out of ongoing discussions at WT:NFC Betacommand has recently put together a static tally here. The partially complete tally includes Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Non-free_content and Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/Public_domain. This will ideally need to be converted to a running tally of usages of all templates in Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All#Non-free_content and perhaps even the entire list of tags in Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags/All. Can you consider this? Do you know other competent bot designers who might be interested? This is, IMO, too important to leave to one user, because it has to do with complying with the Wikimedia Board Licensing Policy Resolution issued in March 2007. WP needs to get this more-or-less in order by March 2008. Thanks, Rich. I'll also leave a similar note on Misza13's page. ... Kenosis 14:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. IMO, tt should capable of being updated often enough to develop trend representations, for example, derived from a spreadsheet. Maybe once a week?, bi-weekly? Perhaps even monthly would be adequate. ... Kenosis 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Rich, this discussion is now continuing also at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Towards_keeping_track_of_image-licensing_template_usage. ... Kenosis 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot

Resolved

Hello, I would like a look at your bots' (Smackbot) script, if thats possible, thanks. Dreamy ^\*/_!$! 19:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

SB runs 99% on the wonderful program AWB, which is freely downloadable. Rich Farmbrough, 09:15 22 September 2007 (GMT).

A lover of Portuguese culture

Resolved

I'm really into the Portuguese language. just put a watch on my user page an talk page, and you are well on your way!! :)

learnportuguese 23:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your note,your talk page is interesting, É verdade I have no particular desire to learn Portuguese, over other languages. Rich Farmbrough, 09:14 22 September 2007 (GMT).

reply

Actually you didn't need to put a note in the edit summary because you made a new section. If you had had something to say about Cabo Verde and São Tomé e Príncipe, THEN you would have needed to drop that note in the edit summery. Just so you know for next time.

learnportuguese 15:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another bot?

Resolved

Hey -- There's a request on my talkpage, for a bot, that I think you might be better suited for than I... (I've got a system down, for reading and regexing the wiki to make lists, but, I'm not at a point with my framework, where reliable posting to the wiki is a good idea....) Anyhow, could I talk you into taking a look at it, please? :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 06:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As of month year

Resolved

I see you are piping as of month links to a page without month. Such a pipe was once recommended at Wikipedia:As of but the recommendation was removed in December 2006 [8] after there was no objection at Wikipedia talk:As of#Deprecated "As of" pages (?). I don't know whether there was a good reason for having the recommendation but I expect to continue making unpiped month links as long as Wikipedia:As of doesn't recommend against it. PrimeHunter 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's saved me a load of wasted work! Rich Farmbrough, 15:51 22 September 2007 (GMT).

Somerset wikiproject template

Thanks for your work on Template:WikiProject Somerset as a replacement for Template:Somerset. Would the new one cope with importance rating? also can we use "na" (for categories etc) & list as class ratings? If we do move or replace the existing one please tell me that we are not going to loose the 800 or so ratings we have done so far? Also if it does take importance ratings - how do we get a bot to update the numbers on the project page? Thanks again — Rod ^talk 07:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Cleanup Templates

Resolved

Thanks. - Rjd0060 19:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I really didn't realize there were some templates that weren't supposed to have the subst on them. Interesting. Thanks Again. - Rjd0060 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Little empire

Resolved

Please see WP:NN and in particular Wikipedia:Notability (music) for reasons why this article is unsuitable. Rich Farmbrough, 21:40 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Why was this deleted? Doesn't make sense, they are a rap group just like gunit or any other artist you have on wikipedia! Although not on the charts yet, they are an upcoming group on the rap scene. Why is it that we can't put informationa bout them so that others can see?

Gunit sold 4 million copies of Beg for Mercy - not quite the same as "we made two mixtapes", I'm afraid. Rich Farmbrough, 21:50 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Because there are millions of bands who have not made the charts yet. We delete many such bands every day, this one has been deleted several times, and will be again unless it becomes notable. Sorry about that. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Two mixtapes, they don't need to be 20000 million hit group, its a new group on the scene.People are allowed to find out information about them! All that work put into editing the wiki page gone because you felt like your special. Music is music whether underground or commercial!

It's not because I think I'm special, it's because the group is non-notable. Put the content on Myspace, or wikicities or somewhere. People can still google it. It was deleted when User_talk:Tamilan107 created it, by Mailer daibalo and has been deleted once today by Android79. Hundreds of articles get deleted every day, don't take it personally. Rich Farmbrough, 22:04 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Enough websites that shouldn't be there then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kam_%28rapper%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papoose_rapper (hasn't put out a commercial cd yet!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Tongues_Posse

They are working on their debut album, there should be some sort of rule against this. This can be used for people to get information on teh group!

let me know ^(Talk)

HAve you even read these articles? Papoose has featured on charting albums, Kam has worked with Ice Cube, Snoop, etc... NTP counts Queen Latifah and Busta as members... Rich Farmbrough, 22:13 23 September 2007 (GMT).

P.S. Generally, don't blank your talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:13 23 September 2007 (GMT).

And never delete something of someone-else's. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16 23 September 2007 (GMT).

Re: Category move

Resolved

Re: User talk:Black Falcon#Category move

Thanks for the heads up. I will update the template once the old categories have been emptied and the new ones populated. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the numbers. Thanks again for letting me know and for changing to the new categories. Do you know if the other maintenance categories that start with "Wikipedia articles ..." will be renamed to "Articles ..." as well? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I was aware of the suggestion to switch from maintenance categories to 'whatlinkshere' and will have a look at the CfD discussion. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

SmackBot

Changed {{nofootnotes}} to {{unreferenced}}--they're slightly different, thought you should know. If there's a reason for this let me know. Katr67 01:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Katr67, a bug. Now have definitive lists for unreferenced, refimprove and fact.... Rich Farmbrough, 09:01 24 September 2007 (GMT).

Imagawa Yoshimoto

In addition to expected changes, the bot seems to have moved link to ko:Wikipedia out of pre-exiting alphabetical order? Isn't this a curious-seeming POV for mere bot action? --Ooperhoofd 14:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• (diff) (hist) . . b Imagawa Yoshimoto‎; 10:03 . . (-23) . . SmackBot (Talk | contribs) (Date/fix the maintenance tags or gen fixes)

- - - - -

• cs:Jošimoto Imagawa
• fr:Yoshimoto Imagawa

+

• ko:이마가와 요시모토
• id:Imagawa Yoshimoto
• it:Imagawa Yoshimoto
• ja:今川義元
• pl:Yoshimoto Imagawa
• uk:Імаґава Йосімото

You must forgive my ignorance in this matter, but I believe it is conforming to the local pronunciation of the language name, transliterated to the western alphabet. See Wikipedia:Language order poll foe some discussions. It is an WP:AWB feature, so if it is wrong, it will be widespread. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11 24 September 2007 (GMT).

This is grand. Sometimes it's so much better to be wrong, because sometimes it's the only way to learn. I never noticed this precise detail before, but I will pay closer attention in future. Thanks for the unexpected smile on my face just now. You're right. I'm wrong. ---Ooperhoofd 15:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)