User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2009 June

Previous · Index · Next

Admin

See 1, 2 and then 3, if you want to have a good laugh. Hint: it has to do with a certain person we stumbled upon in a recent discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind warning. Keeping detached is one of your more admirable traits. Anyway, I did my best to convey the message in as neutral words as I could, and have succeeded to a certain degree, which should keep me save. Debresser (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Have another look at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:William_Allen_Simpson where the discussion has gone astray, but has been forcefully reversed to its course. You might have a look at User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson#Invitation also. I can't help feeling elated that justice is being meted out, as I percieve it. Debresser (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can congratulate me. Now he's putting me on WP:WQA. :) Debresser (talk) 11:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC) So far without any success. He isn't really trying either. If he does, I'll show argument after argument how it realy was "a lot of unfounded accusations", and he will be looking very badly indeed. Debresser (talk) 15:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

I have a suggestion. SmackBot could leave educational edit summaries like "Please use capitals for names of months", "No comma should used between the name of the month and the year", "Please do not use dates when tagging templates, just the month and the year", "Please use only the current month and year when dating a template" (see e.g. [1]). This may be some work, although I think it shouldn't be too hard. I feel sure this would be beneficial. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge templates

All the merge templates (see here) could use {{DMCA}}. If that can be done (you never know, substitution and all), please do the three editprotected templates, and let me know there's no problem and I'll do the rest of them. Debresser (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Why don't you answer about this one? Debresser (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with you changing the templates to use DMCA. If you wnat me to do the last three, not a problem. Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC).

The more I have a look at them, the more I wonder if it can be done. They seem to have certain provisions for use in various namespaces. I'd really rather leave this up to you. Debresser (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC) You know I {{Nudge}} you only in the interest of the "cause". Nothing personal. Debresser (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I did one. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

I saw you did {{Merge}}. That one I could have done myself (if I were an admin). But what with {{Mergefrom-multiple}} e.g.? Debresser (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is they aren't consistent. Maybe when we have resolved the naming situation it will be clearer. Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Intuitively I would say that will not be the case. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Colloquial

Did this edit of yours perhaps include a mistake, changing from Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing to Category:NPOV disputes? Debresser (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed Ffixed. Rich Ffarmbrough, 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

With "since" and editprotected

• {{Expand language}}

Ffixed. Rich Ffarmbrough, 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Honvédség

Yes i plan to expand article.--98.111.139.133 (talk) 17:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Sockadmit

Template:Sockadmit has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. DisturbedNerd999 (Delete!) 19:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost: 1 June 2009

• From the editor: Browsing the archives
• Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
• Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
• News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Temp 5

Please let me know ASAP: User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5 is for all templates that take a date parameter, not just those that sort in a dated category, right? Debresser (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

That was very nice of you, making this list specially for me. But you somehow failed to answer my question: if a template takes a date, should it be in the list? In other words: should SmackBot know about it? BTW, I do advice you to update the master list accordingly, since there are many changes. Debresser (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I have copied most of the changes. Yes if it takes it of the form date=July 2009 and it can be applied at any time (the sooner the better). So it is not apporriate for tdeprecated, although for other reasons SB will skip those pages. Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

"I have copied most of the changes." That pleases me. Anything to be learned from asking why you didn't copy all of the changes?

Probably not. I just didn't cut and paste the whole thing because it's been put in human format, and I have added other templates since. Rich Ffarmbrough, 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Could you put them on my talkpage, please? Debresser (talk) 18:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to see if I understand you correctly. "It can be applied at any time " would also exclude "Attempted de-ophan in ..."? Debresser (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

basically if an attempted de-orphan has been left undated, is it better for SB to date it or not? I would say yes for the do-orphan template as was. However if an ordinary orphan template is there it would be worng for SB to add a de-oph attempt date to it. Rich Ffarmbrough, 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Don't forget that the difference between an "orphan" and "de-orphan" template is only the |att=November 2024. "Orphan" should be dated, off course. "De-orphan" with an empty |att= shouldn't, just delete it. Debresser (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it should have the orphan part added. Mayber the two templates shoudl be merged

Rich Ffarmbrough, 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

But it is one and the same template. That's the whole point. "De-orphan"doesn't exist. It is {{Orphan}} with the |att= parameter. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah well it did exist. {{Do-attempt}} ? Rich Ffarmbrough, 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Csense

I updated the documentation page for {{Csense}} a little. Please finish it, if you can. And tell me, please, wasn't I supposed to see some text when hovering with the mouse over the link, other than Wikipedia:Common sense? I also updated the documentation for {{Fix}}, removing mention of |from=yes. Debresser (talk) 20:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That is the correct mouseover. Csense is not used so I can;t get excited about the documentaiton unless theres a problem? ~~

• Shouldn't the date parameter in the template read |date={{{date|}}} in stead of just |date=?
• Do you have any "See also"'s that you think should be added to the documentation page
• According to the documentation at {{Fix}} the title parameter should be displayed upon mouseover. Why doesn't that happen?

Probably. Rich Ffarmbrough, 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC). I guess

|class = noprint Template-Fact

is breaking it. But that's css, not to hot on that. Rich Ffarmbrough, 21:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

I see you fixed it. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge FJC

I introduced a "normal" date parameter to {{Merge FJC}}. That was my first time. Does it look ok? Debresser (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. Except possibly use DMC not DMCA, becsue these pages aren't in articlespace? Rich Ffarmbrough, 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

You're right. Would dropping the "A" of "DMCA" do the trick, or does that template work differently? BTW, can DMCA take more than 1 category? In other words, can I combine two DMCA's into 1? Debresser (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Check but they should be identical in usage. No they can't be combined. Rich Ffarmbrough, 23:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

It works. Now waiting for the queue. :) Debresser (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The queue did what it was supposed to do. I refined the template and "shalom" (used both for "hello" and "goodbye", in this case the latter). Debresser (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Metamaterial

Rich - I think I was able to establish from the history of the page Metamaterial that you left the "expert needed tag." I re-wrote and expanded the whole introduction for this article. I'd like you to take a look and "hear" what you have to say. You may respond at my talk page or at the article's talk page.

And, please feel free to let your bot roam free through this article. If it does editing fixes I am all for it. Better the bot than me.
(or is that - "Better Ye than Me...") Ti-30X (talk) 05:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Ffarmbrough, 11:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

The micro sign

Hello! I noticed you replaced all instances of µ with µ at R10000 as part of a clean up. May I enquire as to why? Is it required by WP:MoS, some other policy or guideline? Thanks! Rilak (talk) 08:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the principle; "Use the simplest markup to display information in a useful and comprehensible way." Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

OK, thanks! Rilak (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Since cat

There is a "since" category in Naoki Miyanishi, probably because {{Expand Japanese}} needs a null-edit. Debresser (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The reason is the editprotected {{Expand language (non-Latin script)}}. Could you please change all instances of "since" to "from". Debresser (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, the good thing before was that I would move fixed things higher up on the talk page. That would save me the trouble of checking all sections to see if there is anything new. Debresser (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

You have another problem. See this diff. Debresser (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm SB would catch that second time around. Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

That I realised. But why do it? Debresser (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well the rule that spots there is a month followed by year as a default argument is case-insensitive - so it still works. The rule that replaces malformed month names is applied before that, and only to date= constructs. Cahnging the order of the rules would create more complexity, but maybe I will add another simple rule dealing with case only. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

Drug categorization: consensus sought

Should the 2nd, 3rd and 4th levels of the Category:Drugs by target organ system mirror the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System exactly, or be consolidated when possible?

Please read the more thorough description of this issue at WT:PHARM:CAT and post your comments there. Comments are much appreciated! Thanks ---kilbad (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot -ERDLator

Additional links to other article have been done. Please review. I believe orphan template issue resolved. Thanks. Jrcrin001 (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles needing coordinates

I updated Category:Articles needing coordinates from June 2009. Both stylistically as in content. The thing is that the page of {{Locate me}} claims that {{Locate me}} is deprecated. In connection with this I have 2 questions:

1. Is the new Category:Articles needing coordinates from June 2009 fine?
2. If {{Locate me}} is deprecated, why isn't it tagged with {{Tdeprecated}}?

Debresser (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a can of worms. Locate me goes on talk pages. There's is a whole new category structure. I was looking at it today. Rich Ffarmbrough, 21:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

Perhaps {{Locate me}} used to be in articles and on talk pages alike, and then somebody renamed all instances in articles to {{Coord missing}} because it became "deprecated"? That was my though, when I noticed this before. Debresser (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I contacted one of the editors of this template. We'll see what comes out of that. My guess is things wil stay precisely the way they are, in the end. Unless you want to mix in, of course. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

According to his answer I was right. So we can change all templates if we want. Anything needs to be done to add the {{Tdeprecated}} template? Debresser (talk) 17:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

No I don't think so. But the co-ord templates I will not do anything with until I have thought things through. Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

I have done some thinking also. {{Locate me}} is indeed a template that is made especially for talk page headers and used only there. {{Coord missing}} is used only in articles. The difference in their usage is big. {{Locate me}} takes a date, and sorts into Category:Articles needing coordinates (or a dated subcat of it). {{Coord missing}} doesn't take a date and sorts into other categories, which are luckily also subcats of Category:Articles needing coordinates. I've updated the text of Category:Articles needing coordinates and its dated subcats accordingly. I've also updated the explanations on {{Locate me}}, {{LocateMeLong}} and {{Coord missing}}. Debresser (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

afaik, The Anome had a bot of his add {{coord missing}} to any article which had {{Locate me}} or {{LocateMeLong}} on its talk page. I'll point him to this conversation fwiw. {{coord missing}} has been added in a fairly systematic way to, currently, circa 162k articles. I don't think sleep would be lost if the locateme templates were marked as deprecated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good thing, that bot. I had wondered if something like it existed. Interesting that the other way around doesn't exist. I can think of a reason why not, but of better reasons why yes.

We could deprecate them, even remove them. No problem. Template documentation and category pages can be updated. I personally don't think that that is a good idea though. I even would welcome that other bot I mentioned just now, adding a lot more of these templates. On the other hand I agree that if {{Coord missing}} would become visible, that {{Locate me}} becomes redundant. Which is why I stressed on your talk page the point that my work in this area has been to reflect status quo. Debresser (talk) 00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The clearest argument against persisting with a banner on the talk page is that it takes two edits, one to add coords to the article, another to remove the {{Locate me}}. A bot could be employed, I suppose, but it would represent make-work, I think. The idea of making {{coord missing}} visible has been floated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates, notably at #Arguments for and against visible {{coord missing}} tags, but also in previous and now archived discussions. {{Coord missing}} was once visible and was made invisible after a couple of complaints. {{orphan}}, which has recently added its banner to 160k or so articles, stands as something a precedent, although I feel something less disruptive would be more appropriate. Meanwhile apologies to Rich for stealing his talk page...I think Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates would be the place to take this discussion, as & when you wish. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Since {{Coord missing}} isn't on any talkpages, and {{Locate me}} isn't in any articles, and the documentation is updated to clearly show this usage, and we have established that at present {{Locate me}} is not deprecated, and there is no compelling reason to do so until {{Coord missing}} becomes visible, I don't think this is of any immedeate concern to us now, and I propose to drop the thread. Debresser (talk) 12:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

PD-self

Could you please change {{PD-self}} to the following code? Copy from edit window to preserve formatting!

{{imbox | type = license | image = [[Image:PD-icon.svg|52px]] | text = ''I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the '''[[w:public domain|public domain]]'''. This applies worldwide.''<br/> In case this is not legally possible,<br/> ''I grant any entity the right to use this work '''for any purpose''', without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.'' }}{{File other | {{DMC|User-created public domain images|from|{{{date|}}}|All user-created public domain images}} }}{{free media}}<noinclude> {{Documentation}} <!-- Add categories and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! --> </noinclude>

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 07:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

Deprecated template

I noticed {{Section rewrite}} is officially deprecated and not in use. Shouldn't it be deleted then? If so, what is the correct way? Should it be nominated at wp:afd, or can any admin delete it since it has been officially deprecated? Debresser (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

SmackBot is replacing the inline {{syn}} with the banner {{synthesis}}.[2] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone re-re-redirected SYN to synthesis, thus confusing the bot. Rich Farmbrough, 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Are you sure? I could see no redirect in {{syn}}'s recent edit history. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No {{SYN}}. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

My suggestion is: delete {{SYN}}. Nobody is going to use all capitals anyway, and better removing it than changing it between {{Syn}} and {{Synthesis}} every few months. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Lawson

Hello Rich, If you are feeling game, I have a saved a list of sources for adding in content on Charlie Lawson which are in the bottom of my sandbox. You are welcome to appropriate them as you wish. I have been trying to get my hands on an expensive rare book on the subject but no luck so far. Keep up the good work!
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Query

Rich, when I look at an edit like this from an experienced editor like yourself, I don't doubt that it's correct. But I gotta ask you—how did you know that that needed to be changed? I mean, a) how do you know what it should actually be, and b) how did you come to see it? I'm just curious. Unschool 03:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I did a major clean-up of ISBN numbers in 2006/7 with the help of a number of editors. I recently stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia and discovered that they have got out of hand again since (the software I wrote at the time has been partially lost). I scanned a recent database dump for these errors and fixed them. Rich Farmbrough, 07:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

Too abstract

I saw here that you added a dated category to this template. That seems to me like a mistake, since {{Ambox}} doesn't take such a parameter, so I removed it. Debresser (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I fixed up the template to take a date properly. Though it has only 2 uses. ~~

I saw it has only 2 uses. 1 with and 1 without a date. Why do you add <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags to {{DMCA}}? Debresser (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

They aren't needed. Maybe they hint at the catgoriness of DMCA...Rich Farmbrough, 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Smile. BTW, I added a date to the one that previously dodn't have it. Looked it up in the history. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You made a few more mistakes in the template. Fixed. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

MW 1935

May I suggest that this edit was a mistake. There are no monthly categories for Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements, just yearly. The previous version seems correct to me (if it worked). Debresser (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

They are broken down by year, into monthly cats. But that template is probably wrong adn maybe should read Category:Articles_containing_potentially_dated_statements_from_before 1990

I am sorry. From 2005 on they are categorised per month. Before that only per year. Before 1990 there is only 1 all-inclusive cat. I see you made the change, and I think that was a good, idea. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

rp template

Please note that {{rp}} only takes a "date" parameter if the "needed" parameter is also specified. Adding "date" parameters to {{rp}}s that actually have the page numbers listed as was done here is not necessary. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The bot didn't add the date parameter, just changed "Sept." to "September". That is a good idea in any case. My mistake. Debresser (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes it did, after the first occurance. I will look into it.Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

Templates and dated categories

I finished checking all templates from User:Rich Farmbrough/temp5 and updating that same list. I added {{DMCA}} where I could, and updated many a documentation page. I hope my updates to the list have been usefull to you and your bot. I won't be needing the list any more.

I have added all templates using a dated category to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. I would appreciate it if you could update that list with any further templates using a dated category you may find. I made that list for future reference. In short perspective it may be used to see which templates still need to be standarised (with either {{Fix}}, {{DMCA}} or {{DMC}}). There is many an editprotected template there that caneasily be standarised, and a few that need more thorough attention.

Since all tasks in furthering the standarisation of dated categories and their templates are now either to editprotected templates or above my technical abilities, apart from the proposals for category standarisation, I'll have to restrict myself to following your progress in these. Debresser (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

On Crusoe (TV series), SmackBot changed a US flag template (United States) to a warning template (). A bug? Andyross (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes sort of. {Us} redirected there. I made {Us} the same as {US}. Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Progress box

Nice work on {{Progress box}}. I wonder how hard it would be to merge in the functionality of {{DeletedMonths}}. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 01:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

I couldn't figure out how you did this, so I tested it and whatever you did does not appear to work. I just added an article to Category:Articles to be expanded from December 2006 which caused {{DeletedMonths}} to show it at Category:Articles to be expanded by month, but the {{Progress box}} on that page did not detect the deleted category with an article in it. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 23:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added the functionality of {{DeletedMonths}} to {{Progress box}}. Anywhere you add {{Progress box}} you can now delete {{DeletedMonths}} from (if it is there). This way they are not both on the same page using expensive parser functions running through the same old categories to see if they exist. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 08:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I hade a look at Template:Splitting progress. The "All articles" link is redlinked because it uses "All Articles" with a capital. That is a small oversight: don't just add "All", but also turn the capital "A" from "Articles" into a regular letter. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the capitalization issue. --Pascal⁶⁶⁶ 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - Bot is making mistake

See this edit for an example of a mistaking edit that needs to be fixed. I have seen many of these already, not thinking it was the bot who made this mistake. But then it became a little too often, and I checked who did this, and guess whom I found? Debresser (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother searching for the mistaken edits. I'll clean them up. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I fixed this. But keep your eyes open for anything similar. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Template:Section rewrite

I just noticed that you deleted this template with the rationale "redirect to deleted template." In an above section, it is correctly stated that the template was deprecated, but it was not a redirect to a deleted template. Please advise. Thank you. —David Levy 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Its use is continued by {{Cleanup-rewrite}}, and it has no incomming links apart from the discussion here, but it was not a redirect. He probably meant that it was deleted as a deprecated template. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deprecation is not a speedy deletion criterion. To ensure that future transclusions (by users unaware of the deprecation) function properly, the standard practice is to either label the template "deprecated" (as this one was) or redirect it to the template that has superseded it. —David Levy 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And then we keep it indefinitely? Mind you, I'm not arguing, just asking about what the procedure is. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. —David Levy 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, I'm sorry I made the suggestion above to delete it. Now let's see what Rich will have to say. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual procedure is that it is TfD'd, deprecated, orphaned, dated and deleted. The reason for the incorrect edit summary was that I was also deleting a redirect to it, with the obvious consequence. I must say that this does seem to be a cyclic "lets have a section version of everything" and "lets consolidate these section versions into one" phenomena, similar to many others on WP, which is one reason haven't much worried about template cruft, although I have got some ideas for combating it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

It does sound compellingly logical, that sequence ending with "deleted"... Debresser (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual procedure is that it is TfD'd, deprecated, orphaned, dated and deleted.

When it comes to longstanding templates superseded by others, that isn't the procedure with which I'm familiar. Historically, there have been widespread concerns regarding potential future transclusions and past transclusions viewable in old page revisions. This is why, for example, long-superseded templates such as {{cleanup-date}}, {{attention}} and {{attention (on talk page)}} redirect to {{cleanup}} and long-superseded templates such as {{mergewith}} and {{mergedisputed}} redirect to {{merge}}.

And that sound even more logical. :) Debresser (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the incorrect edit summary was that I was also deleting a redirect to it, with the obvious consequence.

What was the actual rationale? —David Levy 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I await your response. —David Levy 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Join the club. :))) Debresser (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC):::

That it was deprecated and orphaned. Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

That isn't a speedy deletion criterion (for reasons noted above). Please restore {{section rewrite}}, {{sectionrewrite}}, and any other templates that you've deleted under this rationale. Thank you. —David Levy 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I await your response. —David Levy 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say undelete them if you like. But I have done so. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Thank you. Have you deleted any other templates for this reason? —David Levy 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware. Rich Farmbrough, 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Thanks again! —David Levy 08:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot June 2009

SmackBot changed a "fact|June 2009" template coding to "Fact|June 2009|date=June 2009" earlier today in this George Washington article edit. I removed the extra "|June 2009" though you may wish to make a change so SmackBot only inserts "date=" in such situations. —ADavidB 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your useful bot work. A minor observation: noticed today that SmackBot doesn't appear to know that {{Fact}} invites dummy parameters; I say this because those present in this appear to have caused SmackBot to see the pipe and assume a date was present. (I won't watch for a reply here but please use my talk page should you need to discuss.) PL290 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cat ASOF

I have added Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Do you think I could nominate Template:Cat ASOF for deletion? Debresser (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess it should be a soft redirect to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Should be migrated to {{Monthly cleanup category}}. Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

You mean you want to turn the monthly categories of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements into categories that are standarised with {{Monthly cleanup category}}? You'll excuse me, I don't understand the word "migrating".

Will you take care of that? Debresser (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. But looking in more detail it may not be worth it , or it may be better for Cat ASOF to call {{Monthly cleanup category}}, since it has special code for its slightly special hierarchy. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

I saw [[Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements {{#if:{{{2|}}}|from {{{1}}}{{!}} {{#ifexpr: {{{2}}} < 10|0}}{{MONTHNUMBER|{{{2}}}}}|{{!}} {{{1}}}}}]]. Nothing here that isn't regular in other maintenance categories. Or is there? That's why I thought we should delete it, after discussion, since no other maintenance category has a template to create its monthly categories, and Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month can do the same (and I have actually added a line there with precisely that purpose). Debresser (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

YEs that's the bit that's puts it in the parent cat for the year. Basically it says if a month was specified then put it in the year cat. If not in the over-arching cat. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

It does add a leading zero to the sort key, which is good when it's missed but f someone puts 09 it will become 009. This can be fixed with an #expr: in the right place. Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

I saw the use of <includeonly>...</includeonly> and <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags. I would have thought the page of Template:Cat ASOF should be empty, since all text is inside <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags. Nor do I understand the need for the <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags.

So the special thing is the automatic inclusion in the yearly category. Is that enough reason for a separate template? We regularly create monthly maintenance categories with Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month and just paste the previous month's page with editing the month and year. This would be nothing else. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Time context

I really appreciate it you update me about new templates, but in this case...

1. you can see in the history, that I made 2 recent edits to it, so it's likely I know about it.
2. the template does take a date, but does not use a dated category, so is not of direct interest to this standarising project of ours.

There are over 6700 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles needing context. Perhaps add a monthly category? Debresser (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate some direct reaction to the other points I mentioned above. And of course any further updates about templates with a dated category, or new progress on {{Article issues}} e.g. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) But

I did another datedAI yesterday. So only notability left. I have also updated the doc page you created a little.Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

So I see. Very nice. As soon as we make a little order in those categories that will allow for significant simplification. Did you notice who agreed to a template deletion proposal of mine, as well as to the category rename? Perhaps now you propose to rename one of the categories? Debresser (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German location

Hi Rich, I tried to update the above template so it can take account of the latest changes to fields in German Wikipedia (without throwing away the existing ones), but it's protected. How can I get it updated? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Smackbot problem

Everytime it edits savant syndrome a cite error occurs.--125.14.233.56 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clean up "et al."

I'm not sure why "et al." is preferred over "et al", however here is one case where it is not correct: this edit broke a template that has "et al" in its name. I must say that use of the template seems very odd to me, but I restored it (I was there replacing linkspam). This is just FYI, no need to reply. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

listas

Please do not do this, it makes work for other people to fix. Gurch (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that I avoided most of the bands. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Or to be more accurate gave them a correct listas. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Minor Smackbot problem

Hi Rich,

A couple of days back, in this edit to Mono (software) SmackBot changed the wikilink to mod_mono to one for mod mono. Normally this would be the correct edit, but the name of the package and thus the page really does have the underscore in the name.

Can you add this as a special case to the bot's edit rules please?

Thanks Kiore (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bishampton

Thanks for your recent clean up of this Bishampton article. This tiny village stub has been subject to constant vandalism since it was created. The various IPs are probably used by one person. If you have time, could you too please continue to help the Worcestershire project team keep an eye on it. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot bug

In this edit[3], SmackBot destroyed the "year" unnamed parameter of template:update after. Furthermore, the "date" parameter it inserted is completely bogus, the template was put in the article already in March[4]. — Emil J. 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes not good. Steps taken to stop it happening. Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Infobox Software

It might have been better to discuss the move [5] on the talk page for {{Infobox Software}} ahead of time so it could have instead been done at the same time as the next update of the template itself. Now ~1,100+ cached pages have to be needlessly rebuilt since the template was changed. Tothwolf (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tothwolf. Thanks for your message. I wouldn't worry , 1,100 is nothing to the job queue. Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, but still, this is the time of day the servers tend to get overloaded anyway... Tothwolf (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline collaboration!

As you know, Penubag is working on a banner to advertise the Outline WikiProject. And he's almost done.

The banner prominently presents the "Outline of chocolate", which of course will become the most widely advertised outline as soon as the banner goes live. The first thing many editors will do after seeing the banner is look for that outline.

The problem is, we don't have one.

So that's our first outline collaboration!

I started a draft this morning.

It needs to be finished and moved to the article namespace before we can start using Penubag's banner ad!

Come join in on the fun. It's chocolate!

The Transhumanist 22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That Was Quick

I went back to correct the Newburgh Enlarged City School District as soon as I could get back to the computer, and you had already done it. Thank you. nbhtownclerk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nghtownclerk (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical

Template:Technical is made especially for talk pages. Nevertheless there are some (<75) instances where it is used in articles. I propose moving it from the articles to their talk pages. Could SmackBot do that? Do you think {{Cleanup-jargon}} should be added to the articles instead? If it's too much trouble for the bot, I can always do it with AWB.Debresser (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced all instances in articles by {{Technical (expert)}}. Could you program SmackBot to do this automatically in the future, please? Debresser (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to this template causes it to be invisible on the template page. Which makes it a little hard to know what it looks like. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical (expert)

Now Template:Technical (expert) is not made for talk pages, but the documentation claims it should be put only on talk pages. It is in use one 20 tak pages and 10 articles, which seems to show that I am not the only one with this opinion. My proposal is to delete that line from the documentation page and move all of them to the articles. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It even caries a category Article message boxes. So I removed that line. I replaced all transclusions on talkpages by Template:Technical. Could you program SmackBot to do this automatically in the future, please? Debresser (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK what I propose is merging the templates. I mocked this up in userspace. Um I'll look for it later. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Merge a talkpage template with an article template?? Debresser (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted Debresser's removal of the talk page requirement. This has been the consensus for a long time. The template is the same as the technical template but with the expert request added. So the same reasoning that puts the technical template on the talk page applies. I don't know where Debresser got the idea that one template goes on the talk page and the other doesn't. It's contrary to what is written in the guideline for the templates. (I also reworded the template to match the wording of the technical template which more accurately reflects the guideline and people seem to be ok with)--C S (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After some heated discussion C S understood that my reason was the word "ambox", which he promtly changed to "tmbox". I personally think it should stay an article namespace template, but if it will be a talkpage template, then so be it. It is not the same as {{technical}} in that it asks for expert attention as well. So I don't know whether a merge would be a good idea.Debresser (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've revived this discussion here, adding a new proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

In this edit I noticed your bot is doing what you have been reprimanded for doing on wp:AWB, namely removing the whitespaces in headers. Since there is no reason to do so, and Wikipedia default is otherwise (and I personally agree with that as being more clear), please tell the bot not to do this. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for reply

1. #Technical
2. #Template:Cat ASOF

Debresser (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fountains

Hi - Regarding The Fountains I added a PROD to it; it is totally unreferenced and it needs sources to show notability and verifiability. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

Hi RIck - boy, your bot is quick :) - I was in the middle of making a change to 59th (2nd_Nottinghamshire) Regiment of Foot (changing it from being merely a recursive redirect into a slightly informative stub (hm.. I should find out how to put in the 'Stub' notice) when it put it back to the original. Cheers, Csalmon (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot broke Infobox

Hi, I would like to report a problem with Smackbot. It recently broke the infobox on Republic of China by removing a "<br/>" tag (or maybe by replacing it by a line break) from the "footnote" field. See this edit. Laurent (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal

1. Rename Category:Cleanup by month to Category:Wikipedia cleanup by month to fit the name of the parent category Category:Wikipedia cleanup. (Analogously for the monthly subcategories, from Category:Cleanup from ... to Category:Wikipedia cleanup from ...)
2. Rename Wikify from ... to Category:Articles that need to be wikified from ... to fit the name of parent category Category:Articles that need to be wikified.
3. Rename Category:Category needed to Category:Uncategorized to fit the monthly categories Category:Uncategorized from ....
4. Rename Category:Articles to be split to Category:Wikipedia articles to be split to fit the names of the monthly categories. Or the other way around, whatever.

• Rationale. Most maintenance categories (not including those that are a subcategory of another maintenance category) follow the logical rule of format that the dated and undated category name differ only in "name"/"name from ....". This can be verified on this page. Extending this principle to the abovementioned categories is logical and clarifying, improves Wikipedia housestyle and simplifies template programming considerably.
• Note. This is not the place and the time to discuss the preferability of the word "since"/"from". That discussion will have to be delayed until after the simplifying of the template-category interaction has been finished, of which this proposal is an integral part. Frankly, I wouldn't have though it necessary to bring trivial and obvious improvements like these to a discussion, but recent misunderstanding have prompted some response and discussion has become recommendable. Nevertheless, I hope we can keep the discussion minimal and come to a speedy agree here. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I suggest

• getting rid of "Wikipedia" as proposed at the naming convention page by me, and elsewhere by W.A.S. and others.
• All should conform to one of the four standards - just one, not a choice form four:

1. Articles to be fooed
2. Pages to be fooed
3. Articles needing to be fooed
4. Pages needing to be fooed

Any all-encompassing cats should then be

1. All articles/pages to be/needing to be fooed

And the daughter cats named appropriately.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

This proposal of yours is a change to present guidelines, see point 2 here. Just taking notice.

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Update_administrateve_categories_section Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

I would not mind it if such a proposal were to be accepted, but myself feel fine with different standards for different categories. But, there should be uniformity within each category. Which brings me to the following point.

For the sake of simplifying {{DatedAI}} and {tl|Article issues}} it will be a big step forward to reach this last condition: uniformity within each category. This is what my proposal is about. You do not think it is a good and realistic proposal? Debresser (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK here's the thing. DatedAI and Article issues don't really matter much, because they are largely done. What it is useful for is for new work "going forward". E.G progress box should' just work with {Progress box|descriptor}}, but I had to build in special case handling. There are ways around it, for example reading the list of categories I made gives you the structure and you could automatically do stuff from there. Trouble is every non-canonical usage breaks a tool - the option to fix the tool is path of least resistance - 20 minutes coding vs. submitting proposals, or renaming stuff and getting jumped on by those who WP:DONTLIKEIT - but if it isn't fixed the next tool someone makes will also break, and one's own tool will be more complex and likely to break too. Moreover people will find stuff harder to "guess" - like infobox names. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

OK I just lost a long comment - possibly edit conflict. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Don't close the page until after you see your edit has been processed. That's what I always do. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you say. I would even support it. Still, in my opinion the simplification and symmetry that can be obtained by "just" obtaining uniformity within each category is very attractive and more easily obtainable. In my vision, this is a project that works in steps: each step obtaining additional standarisation. I know you agree with me in this respect, generally. I think my proposal is the next logical step. If you think otherwise, I shall wait for your steps, and hope you won't overstep. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it is not only about {{DatedAI}} and {{Article issues}}, but also about all templates that sort into these three categories, that can not use ({{Fix}} or) {{DMCA}} unless the categories are uniformised. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I want to make that proposal. Do you have any advice. What and how to say or not to say? Debresser (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the first proposal. By way of test. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:Articles_to_be_split. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In view of what I think will be the success of the first nomination, I now nominated a seond one here. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Since a certain uncivil editor has reacted to this last nomination by bringing an example from Category:CfD 2009-06 I have nominated that category for renaming to Category:Categories for discussion from June 2009, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have informed all that have been part of the previous discussions. The opponents have shown up right away. I have refuted their argumetns with ease. Now I'm waiting for a few proponents. It was nice that the first reaction was positive. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is fierce. But to the point. Interesting. The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:Articles_to_be_split will be closed soon. I think it will be closed on the alternative. Which is fine with me. Shall I go ahead and create those pages, or should I wait? Debresser (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Once it has closed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

I feel I can use some support at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Another concern of mine is that the closing admin of most discussions is one who does not seems to overly appreciate my proposals. Do you have any good ideas? Debresser (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 needs some more opinions. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll try and get there . Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

And please have a look at Category_talk:Pages_for_discussion as well. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:Articles_to_be_split is the only entry on the page that isn't closed yet. Although all 3 editors have agreed on the alternative. Please also don't forget to add your opinion to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Now WAS came back and "suddenly" changed his mind about that nomination that wasn't closed. Why wasn't it closed yesterday??? (frustration) Debresser (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You made the right decision there. Audacious. All templates and categories done. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor error

You moved the external links section to a wrong place here. Just to let you know. Happy editing, Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

"orphan"

Concerning this edit: The only pages in the article space linking to that article are two topics lists and a redirect page (if you click on "what links here", one of the two topics lists appears twice, with two different names, but it's actually only one list). Doesn't that qualify it as an "orphan"? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well technically it is an orphan, no doubt. The important question for this article is, is there somewhere it should link from. Else the tag is redundant. The next question is whether, in general AWB should spot and ignore lists in it's count, an it should. Slightly more deeply I have reservation on the concept of orphaned articles being useful. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

There very probably are articles that should link to this one, among those on statistics and those on epidemiology, and perhaps some on scientific experiments.

Do you mean that you have reservations about whether it is useful to label orphans as orphans? Or about whether the articles themselves are useful? If the former, the point would seem to be to call them to the attention of those who might know what links should be added. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

LegoBot reverting your changes

I noticed this at Copthorne, West Sussex. User:Smackbot made these changes. otherplaces3 template moved to the top and Mid Sussex template moved above the categories. Almost immediately, User:Legobot reverted them. I do not know who is right, I am just bringing it to your attention. MortimerCat (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SmackBot is "right" but this is just an edit conflict, not a reversion as such. Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

Reflist

In the two days I've been out of editing there have appeared 140 articles in Category:Pages with missing references list. This is about the daily average, which I estimate to be close to 80. This is clearly too much for any editor to fix on a daily basis, and I am pretty much fed up with it. Do you have any ideas? BTW, as to my questions and remarks above. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Together with another user we once fixed over a thousand of them. We even awarded each other a Barnstar for that. For what unexplicable reason did SmackBot stop fixing this? In my experience, over 80% of the cases are either new articles or old articles receiving their first references and can be fixed by a bot adding a references section. The other articles, where e.g. a references section exists but was rendered inactive by a remark or reference tag without a closing remark or reference tag, can be fixed manually afterwards. That is because I do that anyway, but the numbers will be a lot more reasonable. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that from now on SmackBot will try to fix this error category? There are now only 30 articles left. That would mean some 10-20 per day. That I can handle. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered something. Please make SmackBot fix only the articles, not anything else showing up here. We also have templates, category pages and help pages here, but those I prefer to fix manually. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The category is filled with over 60 articles. What's with SmackBot? Debresser (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah well the secret is it is not completely a bot, it needs to be manually started. And this applies to every run of every task. And despite appearances to the contrary I have other things in my life than Wikipedia. Rich Ffarmbrough, 11:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

I had no doubt. But your "secret" really comes as a surprise to me. Why is that? Your bot is one of the most active and helpfull around (if not the most). Debresser (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a certain time of the day you run this reflist fixed? I'm asking because I saw 40 articles again today, and I'd rather fix 15 after you run it. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There were 31 "problem" articles at that time . I run it by noon probably. And I re-run it several times a day, because all I have to do is click a couple buttons. But on m,y to-do list is auto running. Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Iwas very suprised your bot doesn't auto-run. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you still running this fix? Please don't forget it. Why isn't it automated? Debresser (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I use AWB. It requires at least two mouse clicks to set it off, eventually I might fix this. Rich Farmbrough, 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

We have lots of street cats here in Israel. Perhaps send you one? To set the mouse in motion. :) Debresser (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Wikipedia categories

The Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories) had recently been updated with a pretense of reflecting consensus on a subject discussion you initiated. But in fact it did not reflect consensus at all, but rather the opinion of the specific editor making that change. In this edit I changed that section to reflect consensus and reason. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Who would believe it? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#William_Allen_Simpson_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29

BTW, see also User_talk:Aervanath#Advice_needed for some more things this editor is doing without consensus. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See also this edit of mine. :) Debresser (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Update_administrative_categories_section and tell me if my behavior in this conflict has been as it should be? Please also advice me what to do if William_Allen_Simpson will return to making these changes of his. If you please write me on my talkpage? Debresser (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The page has been protected. See the end of User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson. To help resolve the stranded discussion, perhaps you could return to the discussion? Debresser (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning the protected verion was the one last edited by me. Now it has been reverted to a version of about half a year ago, with the contested text which was added 2 1/2 years ago by WAS. I have a feeling WAS will not be in a hurry to comply with the expressed wish of the protecting admin to discuss. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:William_Allen_Simpson. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:DMC & Template:DMCA

Can you please explain what these names stand for? This doesn't appear to be documented anywhere, and the question was raised at Template talk:DMCA. (Like Jack Merridew, I immediately thought of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.) Thanks! —David Levy 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Smackbot

Changing {{main|}} to {{Main|}} is not necessary, and defies a certain convention of using lowercase for template tags. -Stevertigo 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your recent edits to Template:Technical

Can you fix it so that the template itself (not just the docs) is actually visible when you view the template page? So people can know what the template actually looks like? Like in Template:Technical (expert), you can still see the tmbox.. know what I mean? -- œ^™ 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Rich Farmbrough, 15:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia Signpost: 15 June 2009

• Book review :Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• News and notes: License update, Google Translate, GLAM conference, Paid editing
• Wikipedia in the news: In the Google News, London Review of Books, and more
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemistry
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 12:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Last categories done

You can delete all categories with "since" in Category:Articles with unsourced statements and Category:Articles to be expanded by month.

• You may want to add Template:Transreq to your bot. Could you fix the category part in it? It seems real bugged. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• You may want to remove Template:English source from the bot, since it has been deleted after a Tfc. Debresser (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 is near its closure and you have not yet expressed your opinion. I'd strongly ask you to do so. Debresser (talk) 08:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Too late: closed as "no consensus". What now? Mind you, this may happen to tomorrows closure also, if you don't help out. Debresser (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I asked to closing editor to reconsider and relist it becase only 2 editors had replied. Debresser (talk) 15:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your closure of the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:Articles_to_be_split has been reverted in this edit. Debresser (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Rich? Debresser (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DMC/A

{{DMCA}} and {{DMC}} were merged and renamed. I wrote on the talkpage that I was not in favor of the rename. Was the merge correctly executed? It was done by an editor whom I know as an expert in templates, but you never know. Debresser (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I'm happy enough with this. I'm not keep on cryptic template names when other people do it. And bringing them together is good to, it reduces maintenance. I would be thinking about DMCAT which I had in mind for article and talk pages, and hence generalising, but this can be done when it is needed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

Ok. Since the merge was technically correct, then in my opinion that is a big unification. The name though is another case: a lot too long to be attractive for a template name. Debresser (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand it's only used by a handful of people, so cryptic is less of a problem, on the other it's only used in a handful of places so long is less of a problem. But the abbreviations still work. Rich Farmbrough, 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

I agree. I wrote on the talk page there that I am now in doubt how they work. Could you help out with a short explanation there? Debresser (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The merging editor explained, and I understood. I extensively updated the documentation page. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot question

Why did SmackBot remove my wikify tag here? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is part of WP:AWB general fixes or tagging. I don't know the metric used, but the article has an infobox, links, headers and categories. Rich Farmbrough, 17:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

But it needed a lot more. Oh, well. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oxford Leadership Academy

Hi, regarding the article Oxford Leadership Academy, we have been attempting to simply provide information about our company in a non promotional way but have had tags placed on the page. We have referred to similar articles eg McKinsey & Company and tried to compose the article in a similar way. we would very much appreciate some guidance on what should be added or removed in order to meet your criteria, so interested wikipedia users can find useful background info on the company and it's history. I look forward to your reply.Strategy2009 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Full Steam Ahead! - 06/18/2009

Several members of the WikiProject have been hard at work.

Buaidh has been building and refining the outlines on the U.S. States, the states' historical outlines, and the Historical outline of the United States. Lately, his edits have dominated the project's watchlist readout. (I think he's overdue for a barnstar or two. hint hint)

Penubag has been working on medals for all the main branches of the OOK, and has completed the OOK WikiProject's animated advert banner (see below).

Highfields has been filling in the currencies for each country on their respective outlines.

NuclearWarfare and Thehelpfulone have been busy with WP:AWB, posting banners and notices, and helping our sister project, the Index WikiProject, get established. Indexes work hand-in-hand with the outlines and are prominently linked to from the top of most of them. And the outlines, which serve as tables of contents, are only as good as the pages they link to.

Since we started integrating (linking) the OOK and its support pages into the encyclopedia and into the Wikipedia community, activity on outlines has been increasing. Though there's still much left to do.

But I digress. There are a couple more...

Welcome our new members! Stefan and MacMed

Stefan is building the Outline of sharks.

MacMed has joined our advanced wiki-tools team, and is currently adding links to outlines in the corresponding subject articles' see also sections.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and say "hi".

WPOOK's advert banner has gone live!

Penubag has finished this WikiProject's animated advert banner, and it is now being displayed on the Wikipedia ads template which in turn is displayed on about 2000 user pages. Each time someone access one of those pages, there is a 1 in 184 chance of them viewing this:

Wikipedia ads	file info – #184

If you'd like to display the banner on your userpage locked-on to the ad as above, use the following code:

{{Wikipedia ads|ad=184}}

(By the way, it's been awhile since we've barnstarred Penubag).

Watchers needed!

If you haven't already, please add the entire project's watchlist to your watchlist. Here's how:

From the edit window, copy and paste Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist.

Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu in Wikipedia's sidebar on the left hand side of the screen.

Check the watchlist every time you log on!

I forgot to mention this step above.  :)

The OOK is in 5 other Wikipedias?

I can't make heads or tails of 'em, but these links were on Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge:

• ar:ويكيبيديا:مواضيع أساسية
• fa:پورتال:فهرست موضوعات پایه
• pl:Przegląd dziedzin wiedzy
• pt:Portal:Conteúdo/Esboço do conhecimento
• zh-yue:基礎課題表清單

Resurrected from the grave yard...

I discovered an AfD discussion on possibly the first article named "Outline of", which was called Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics, and which was created 4 years ago. Of course they deleted it. But now it has many friends, and so it has risen from the dead.  :)

See the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 7#Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics.

A diamond buried in project space

• When G716 found the page "Learn" tucked away as a subpage of the Probability WikiProject, he thought "This deserves to be in the article space", and moved it to the encyclopedia. See Outline of probability.

Recruiting

Recruiters needed. Drop me a note if you are interested.

Advice from the mentors

• Astatine-210, Strdst grl, and Willscrlt - link to the outlines from the corresponding subject articles' see also sections - this is underway by MacMed (non-country outlines) and User talk:NuclearWarfare (counry outlines).
• Astatine-210 - add a link to the outlines to the disambiguation pages of the corresponding subjects - good idea. Since "Outline" is just the type of page, not the subject, I think these might qualify for inclusion on disambiguation pages. We need someone to look into the relevant guidelines on this.
• SimonTrew - provide a badge (userbox) for WPOOK members to add to their user pages - Penubag will have one for us soon.
• Zachary crimsonwolf - create a card explaining outlines, and send it to everyone you know, and make it viral (by including a request for the recipients to send the card to everyone they know) - this task has been split in three:

1. Creation of a "thank you for your interest" card which introduces (explains) outlines, to send to queriers, new participants to discussions, those who seem to be confused about outlines, etc.
2. Creation of a thank you card / invitation to the WPOOK, to send to users we see working on outlines, including a request for them to invite others whom they think might be interested

• weebiloobil - contact Wikignomes - OK...

3. Creation of an invitation to Wikignomes, with a brief rundown on the types of tasks there are for them to do on the outlines. The invitation will include a request for them to invite anyone they think would enjoy working on outlines.

• weebiloobil - add examples to Wikipedia:Outlines - more examples will be added as suitable outlines are completed
• weebiloobil - add a picture to Wikipedia:Outlines (it doesn't have to be relevant), to provide atmosphere and to break it up visually and add a splash of color - will do, and we'll add a caption to make it relevant, with a link to the outline on that subject. Thank you for the idea.
• Zachary crimsonwolf - ask Jimbo Wales to bestow the award(s) for the country outlines contest, once you get it going first - we'll give that a try
• Zachary crimsonwolf - ask everyone in the project to inform their acquaintances around Wikipedia about the OOK - will do, as soon as the cards
• UzEE - collaborate with all the WikiProjects you share scope with - we've placed a banner on their talk pages, and have placed task notices on some. We'll be posting more tasks, and plan to create a section on contents system development and maintenance for each WikiProject page itself.
• SriMesh - if you can't get outlines added to next year's WikiCup, then create your own WikiCup-like contest - there's 6 months left to this year to address reservations and work out the details at WikiCup. In the meantime, there's the 200-WikiProject contest, which needs input.

More outline tasks

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Drafts/Outline of chocolate draft - our current outline collaboration!
• Outline of psychology - someone moved a big chunk of this article to the talk page, leaving a big gap in the outline. Editors are needed to add subheadings and links.
• See also links - add {{main|Outline of x}} (where "x" is the subject) to the see also section of the corresponding subject article of each outline

New outlines in article space

• Outline of sharks - under construction in article space
• Outline of Hinduism (converted from "List of Hinduism-related topics")

New outline drafts

• Outline of chocolate
• Outline of Christianity

Main discussion pages

• Wikipedia talk:Outlines
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outline of knowledge
• Portal talk:Contents/Outline of knowledge

Keep up the great work

I'm impressed with the level of enthusiasm and work going into the outlines. I'm proud to be working with each of you.

The Transhumanist 23:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Error caused by general fix

Hello Rich Farmbrough, a recent edit you made to Sag Harbor, New York caused a disambiguation template to appear as normal text, rather than in its proper format. Your change deleted one of the braces ( { ) that appeared before otheruses4. The error has been fixed without reverting your other changes. Thanks. --JBC3 (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I also spotted this same error with your edits to Pretoria, Oklahoma City and Managua, and I corrected them. Tassedethe (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will review the all my edits for this error. Rich Farmbrough, 16:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC).

Hello again Rich, another edit, this time to Glens Falls, New York, changed the order of consecutive refs such that, had I not caught it, the wrong ref would appear to be a deadlink. I checked most recent batch of the (many!) general fixes you made, and in all but this one I found no problems! Take care. --JBC3 (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Adding nbsp?

Not sure if this is intended, and I figure it's easily reversed if it isn't, so I won't stop your bot. It's putting the nbsp; space in between units of measure and their abbreviation, ie: 50$nbsp;km. Seems unnecessary, perhaps it's from trying to make sure there's a space. Looks fine on the outside but my guess is that it's not optimal, so there you are. - BalthCat (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Durr, diff - BalthCat (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

fyi

something went wrong here. 66.57.4.17 (talk) 04:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 05:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

Magelang

Is a city - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Magelang&diff=298044631&oldid=297897195 and the reason for settlement? SatuSuro 02:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You have changed a considerable number of genuine Indonesian city articles city templates to 'settlement' (ugh) - any reason? SatuSuro 04:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 05:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

Fair enough - recent views of large awb edits wandering through the Indonesian project leave me sceptical and nervous - no offence to your work - just checking :) SatuSuro 06:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you please explain further...

Could you please explain why you added a Europeanized listas parameter to Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari?

Was this based on the advice of a robot assisted editing tool?

I am sorry to tell you that there are some robot assisted editing tools that routinely recommend Europeanized listas parameters for individuals where it is highly inappropriate. It is a maintenance nightmare, as it will be a lot more work to clean up after these rogue bots as it would be if the robot assisted editing tools stuck to the tasks which can be done by robots, and let humans figure out things that require human oversight.

Individuals with Arabic names should almost never have their name shoehorned into the European style of inherited lastname-surnames.

Over and above the problems with Arabic names, if you look at the Abdullah Kamel Abdullah Kamel Al Kandari article you will see that the DoD transliterated his name over half a dozen different ways.

I regard this as a very serious problem. I'd appreciate help getting the authors of these bots to be more humble and responsible in the tasks they try to make their bots tackle.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Humble is good. From memory , probably this one was due to Abdullah being a a name widely sued in the West as well as the East. I can review all the Abdullahs, probably only a few thousand. The obvious thing is to compare the DEFAULTSORT and the Listas, that will be done at some point. Rich Farmbrough, 05:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia Signpost: 22 June 2009

• Special report:Study of vandalism survival times
• News and notes: Wikizine, video editing, milestones
• Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia impacts town's reputation, assorted blogging
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 03:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Cites

This could just be me but SmackBot seems to be going through articles reversing the order of cites. I always put them in the order information appears but I realise there might be some rule I'm not aware of. Here's an example anyway, would be good to know either way A Rush of Blood to the Head‎ Cavie78 (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC).

Is this necessary?

Are edits like this really necessary? PC78 (talk) 22:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically yes, but fundamentally no. SB was responding to the OR template, which had been removed. It could ignore white space only changes but that would mean fixes like date=June2009 => date=June 2009 would be skipped. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

I finally got to whack somebody with a trout!

That was fun.  :)

The Transhumanist 23:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bug: moving {{Portal}} from the "External links" to the "See also"

When was smack bot approved to move {{Portal}} links from the "External links" to the "See also"?[6] WP:LAYOUT made the statement that the "See also" section is the "best place" for these links, but the guideline was not being absolute. For example, in the article Global warming, with the added portals links, the two templates hang into "Notes" section, disrupting the CSS dynamic columns.[7] ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:LAYOUT is right. These are not external links. The WikiBooks link under See Also, however, is an external link. Rich Farmbrough, 05:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

So when was smackbot approved to preform this operation? It feels like the bot is overstepping. WP:LAYOUT says its the "best place" for the portals links, it does not mandate that is has to be held there. I agree thought, use the {{Portalbox}} instead. It remains silent on {{Wikipedia-Books}} until the project matures, it's more half and half, the pdf download is still on-wiki, however to buy the print is not. It's reasonable though. Images come after the navigation links (e.g. {{Main}} and {{Seealso}}), this is because placing them before would confuse screen readers as it would oddly read the image captions then the navigational links. Slow down Rick, and discuss it first. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a minor clean-up that is part of WP:AWB general fixes. The reason the image comes before the Main (which might be better as Detail) and See also is to improve layout. Change it back if you don't like it but it seems silly to break layout for everyone in order to preserve ordering for screen readers. The Sister link already includes a wikibook link, to Climate change -- maybe you could swap them around. Or if the wikibook is not complete then comment out the link to it. We would not link to any other half-book. Rich Farmbrough, 06:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

WP:ACCESS mandates in "Section structure" that images go below the navigational links. Currently this concept is supported by WP:LEAD, which used to be a part of WP:LAYOUT until they deferred it.[8] How does it break layout? It sounds to me that you did it out of personal preference, in addition to disparaging to those on screen readers. Support you claim, because to say "silly to break layout for everyone" sounds very dubious.

There is a difference between the sister project Wikibooks and Wikipedia:Books. Wikipedia:Books are pdfs generated from articles on Wikipedia. They are compiled on Wiki, which removes it from being purely an external link. It's half and half because in addition allowing readers to download books, it also allows readers to purchase prints from the German company Pediapress. I swapped the two around using the "logical progression from on-wiki to off-wiki information" clause from WP:LAYOUT's entry to WP:PEREN.[9]

I'm approved to use AWB,[10] and you can turn off that feature. I'm looking for the bot approvals page. Your response fails to be satisfactory. Look, I know what you did was in good faith, but you're starting to sound tired. See you tomorrow. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Really this isn't a big deal. The graphic flowed into the next section, which was your gripe about having the portals there to begin with. Since you like quoting WP: space take your pick of WP:IAR and WP:SOFIXIT. Rich Farmbrough, 06:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

Template:Infobox_settlementIT

In recent edits to articles on Italian municipalities you have been changing {{Infobox CityIT}} into {{Infobox_settlementIT}}, which does not exist. (See Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_settlementIT for a list)

Would you mind reverting? Thanks. Ian Spackman (talk) 07:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Rich Farmbrough, 07:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 07:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

Great! Thanks, Ian Spackman (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

myasthenia gravis

Wot up hommie G. I edited myasthenia gravis page by adding cholinergic crisis. You delelted the portion...saying they are different. You are right, althought there is still outstanding discussion in autoimmune specialist community whether they should be bundled as sub types of myasthenia or not, as for now they are considered seperate. But lot of people have lot of confusion distinguising these two and understanding the concept of crisis since both of them are type two autoimmne reactions and both have the same symptomps. If we keep them seperate then we still need to mention edrophonium test to differentiate both of them, I will do that now. Le me kno if you O K with it. Thx. Never mind too late someone has already included edrophium test under diagnosis still it would be appropriate to mention that before any other test, due to its importance. I am writing this stuff on your page but I am not very fmiliar with editing Wiki so if I screwedup something or if this is not how you wanted people to reply to you then I am sorry and you can delete this. Keep it real and keep fighting the good fight.  — [Unsigned comment added by Ninad 1999 (talk • contribs).]

Archive please Rich Farmbrough, 06:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Worcestershire

Archive please Rich Farmbrough, 06:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

caps fix

Rich, I totally understand going through and fixing things like titles, subtitles, and templates that have the wrong case. But I'm confused, as I see you are also changing {{coord}} to {{Coord}}. Yes, Template:Coord is capped, but all of the documentation says {{coord}}. Are you doing those changes by hand or with a tool? tedder (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't go out of my way to change coord, it doesn't greatly matter, I am happy to leave them unchanged. I use tools extensively. Rich Farmbrough, 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC). 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good- I was just curious. I updated my "infobox schools" template to match the proper capitalization, hopefully you won't have to clean up after me as much going forward. tedder (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox education

Have you changed the Infobox: Education in the United States to the proper lower case? Several of the pages you have updated now have a redlink to an infobox that apprently doesn't exist yet and I'd hate to go through and fix them back if they will be working soon. The "Infobox: school" is OK, but not the "Infobox: Education in the United States." --JonRidinger (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 06:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Closing CfD discussions

Please add a closing edit comment when you close these discussions. It makes finding closes a lot easier. Thanks. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

np. Rich Farmbrough, 06:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Infobox Indian Jurisdiction

We see that you have moved {{Infobox Indian Jurisdiction}} to {{Infobox Indian jurisdiction}}. This infobox is transculed to thousands of articles of Indian places. Looks like the template move have broken thousands of articles like Chhota Gobindpur. Can we revert it back ? See also related discussion here -- Tinu Cherian - 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks . looks like it is working now :) -- Tinu Cherian - 11:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Push push push - 06/25/2009

Work is proceeding apace...

• Julian is working on getting a bot account (and he delivered this update as his trial run).
• Penubag is working on the Project page and upcoming contest.
• Buaidh is developing all of the U.S. state historical outlines.
• Tarheel95 is writing a proposal to add a link to the Main Page leading to the the OOK.
• Highfields is integrating the OOK into the encyclopedia by deorphanizing outlines by placing a {{main}} link in the see also section of the subject articles that have a corresponding outline.
• I've been trying to keep up with them.  :)

New members

• Minnecologies - developing Outline of forestry and is watching the big picture.
• Mnation2 - improving Outline of Lebanon

Hatnotes

The current consensus is that we can't place a hatnote leading to an outline at the top of a subject articles unless the outline being presented is of at least the same quality-level as the article.

What's next...

Improve outline quality by completing them.

Place hatnotes for the outlines of high enough quality.

Guidelines pertaining to outlines need to be updated. Outlines emerged as a class of pages only a few months ago, and most of the relevant guidelines don't cover them specifically. For example, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists is incredibly out of date.

Invite wikignomes, wikielves, and wikifairies (all 2500+ of them) to help on the outlines .

Identify 600 more subjects with coverage extensive enough to justify outlines, create rudimentary drafts for them, and post notices to the corresponding WikiProjects and subject talk pages to help build them.

Convert outlines titled "List of" to outline articles, and add them to the OOK. There are a few hundred of these. Conversion instructions are needed.

Add a description of outlines to About Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Basic navigation, and add tips about outlines to the WP:TOTD and Tips library.

Keep up the great work!

The Transhumanist 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Zii Labs: Smackbot deleting orphan tag on orphan article

See [11]. Smackbot deleting orphan tag on orphan article, where there are no articles other than redirects pointing to it. I'm just guessing, but since there are four redirects, I suspect you're counting them. TJRC (talk) 17:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC).

Odd Smackbot Edit (Unreferenced -> Refimporve)

I'm not sure what happened here: [12]. There were no references on the page, so the changes don't make sense to me.—C45207 | Talk 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

{{coord missing}} tags don't need dating

Please could you stop SmackBot dating {{coord missing}} tags? It breaks my bot's current workflow: I could fix it by recoding various parts of the bot, but it would be much easier if you just stopped SmackBot from adding the date tags. Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Spörer Minimum

Would you please review the following page again? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%B6rer_Minimum

I added the references which should have been there from the beginning and corrected the most serious errors such as the dates for the Spörer Minimum. If I get a chance I will review the other dates as time allows. In the case of the Spörer Minimum even last weeks New York Times got it wrong also.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/18/us/18eddy.html

And yes, I notified the NY Times of the error. Somewhere on the Internet there is another bad source which I will have to find and correct.

The 1976 paper by Dr. Eddy also makes the connection to the Little Ice Age. I included a link to a public PDF copy of the paper. Read the quotes by John. A. Eddy. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_A._Eddy

Michael Ronayne (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

The bot changes templates to sentence-casing. It changes Infobox Film -> Infobox film when the former is correct. See Ice Age (film). BOVINEBOY2008 13:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Invitation

Since you are one of the editors who has participated in the discussion about renaming Category:Pages for deletion to Category:Pages for discussion, I'd like to invite you to comment upon my proposals for this category here. Debresser (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback

Minnecologies has done an incredible amount of work on Outline of forestry and posted a note to me on my talk page requesting feedback.

I've posted my observations at Talk:Outline of forestry#Finished outline review.

Please take a look at the outline and let Minnecologies know what you think of it on the outline's talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia Signpost: 29 June 2009

• News and notes: Jackson's death, new data center, more
• Wikipedia in the news: Google News Support, Wired editor plagiarizes Wikipedia, Rohde's kidnapping, Michael Jackson
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Law of Chastity

You previously made some contributions to the article Law of Chastity, and there are some comments up for discussion on the talk page that you might like to weigh in on.

Archiveplease. Rich Farmbrough, 17:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Tomato Products and Human Health

Thank you for your assistance so far.

I have made some edits (some appear to take and some not), not sure how my footnotes got the way that they are. How do I get the message removed that the entry will be deleted in 7 days?

Tomatoproducts (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of my changes to references took, and some did not. I see you fixed the remainder. I very much appreciate your assistance as I learn my way through this process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomatoproducts (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Infobox Film}}

Why have you moved this template? The lower case "f" is contrary to guidelines. PC78 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I moved it to a lower case "f" and it conforms to guidelines. Rich Farmbrough, 01:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

Hmmm, I see the guideline has changed since I last looked at it [13]. I assume the change stems from this discussion? A pity it couldn't have been a bit more widely publicised. It might be an idea to mention the guideline change in your edit summaries when moving other infoboxes. PC78 (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I will try to include a pointer to the guideline for important infoboxen. Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot

Can you reevaluate Landmark Marketing. I went over it to make it sound less like an advertisement and added references. How can I improve? WahooCommerce (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)