Jump to content

User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2010 April

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Manual requests for SmackBot

Another useful bot, CorenSearchBot, accepts manual requests to check a page at User:CorenSearchBot/manual. Could you do something similar for SmackBot to allow users to request a SmackBot test of a page they have worked on? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Have been looking at this sort of thing. But General Fixes are currently mainly on hold, because there are a couple people object to a couple of them. Rich Farmbrough, 11:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC).

Coalition Casualties Update

http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx

1707 killed(US:1032, UK: 279, Others: 396)

8,938+ wounded(US: 5,393[1], UK: 3,545[2])119.152.83.251 (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Soapy Smith

Please be careful when using automated tools, because you broke a template in your recent edit of Soapy Smith. I have fixed the error. —Notyourbroom (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, it was manual. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC).

AWB

I tried it out yesterday. I am afraid it seemed to me to be the kind of tool that only seems obviously easy to use to those already familiar.

I couldn't figure out, for example, the automatic find and replace, or the automated prepend feature.

I'll keep trying... Geo Swan (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps

Would you care to move {{Inuse}} to {{In use}}, {{Increation}} to {{In creation}}, and {{Newpage}} to {{New page}}? Debresser (talk) 06:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I cared. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 4 April 2010 (UTC).
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

Amish school shooting @Amish response with forgiveness

Rich, your smackbot apparently found dead links and when I tried to correct one by substitute the archive.org link [1] and deleting the dead link notation between the {{}} for reference 17, it still shows as a dead link. Maybe if you'll tell me why I can ask http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jared_Hunt to work on some others, as he worked on the original article and his bio notes he likes to fix references. BTW, grammatically, maybe the section title should be "respond" --Beth Wellington (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It was 17 when I edited it????--Beth Wellington (talk) 08:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a mess, but I need to work on the Montcoal disaster, not this. Just happened by to look up a reference for my blog post on Fred Phelps, who is coming to Blacksburg. See: Shout out to the Naughty: Fred Phelps May Be Coming to Town. Just as he picketed the memorial service for the Sago Mine disaster, now he's also threatening to come to WV for the Montcoal disaster.

Do you have suggestions for what the Amish article needs, besides the dead links fixed?--Beth Wellington (talk) 09:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops, it appears that Mr. Hunt hasn't been on Wikipedia since maybe 2006. He started off going great guns, but something must have happened. Maybe I'll look through the history and find someone else later, but for now, I'm on to my other projects. Cheers.--Beth Wellington (talk) 10:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AWB bug input: template doc subpages

AWB bug input: Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#Issues_with_Template:Xxxx.2Fdoc_pages_.28part_II.29. I've addressed the {PAGENAME} issue. What, if anything is AWB needed to do over the DEFAULTSORT? Rjwilmsi 17:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I am uneasy about this, but to conform to the current doc pages, not add a DEFAULTSORT. The header template {{Template doc page transcluded}}/{{Template doc page viewed directly}} => {{Documentation subpage}} adds this code: {{DEFAULTSORT:{{{defaultsort|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}} (and that is after I added the parameter to allow overriding). This seems to me unfortunate as it stops custom DEFAULTSORTS being used unless you know the template has an override - and anyway the top of the doc page is an odd place to put it for either the doc or the template. Arguably we could make things better by replacing the cliché

<includeonly>{{template doc page transcluded}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc page viewed directly}}</noinclude>

with

<includeonly>{{template doc page transcluded|defaultsort=Title Cased Template Name}}</includeonly><noinclude>{{template doc page viewed directly|defaultsort=Title Cased Documentation Name}}</noinclude>

Rich Farmbrough, 07:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Dead end

In this edit I had to restore the spelling "dead-end", to avoid problems with categorisation, although I think it should be "dead end". We also have Wikipedia:Dead-end pages. Should they be moved to "dead end"? Debresser (talk) 09:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Debresser. Just noticed your inquiry. If I'm not mistaken, whenever the phrase is used as an adjective, the hyphen should be used, as in "dead-end street" and "dead-end pages". If the phrase is on its own as a noun, then no hyphen should be used, as in, "That street is a dead end".
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. If that is correct, then I off course have no further questions. Debresser (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Look up dead-end or dead end in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
I believe that is close to the final word - for me the important thing is avoiding ambiguity, even spurious ambiguity which makes stuff harder to parse. So as there are end-pages of books, I would tend to hyphenate "dead-end page" to distinguish it from "dead end-page". Similarly "light-green jacket" is not a "light green-jacket" or even a "green light jacket". The Wiktionary examples, incidentally include both hyphenated and unhyphenated noun forms. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
Thanks. Also a good argument. Debresser (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

STOPnote from 5 April

I left the following STOPnote on SmackBot's Talk page back on the 5th...

STOP Re: Hatnotes !

The note's since been erased, but I haven't been notified of any action taken. Was the bot repaired?
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would need to investigate whether this is still a problem for SB, I think not though. I will drop a note at the AWB pages. Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC).
Thank you, Rich!  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  02:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Feature request for Template:Failed verification

Rich,

Since you've worked on the template in the past, could you please consider adding links to talk page to Template:Failed verification. Otherwise, could you comment at the discussion.

Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 07:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

Antineutrino edits

A "bot" has apparently reversed some of the edits I made to antineutrino. I've been trying to merge it with neutrino--Robert Treat (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

checkY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 20:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC).

A question on AWB settings

Hi Rich,

I was wondering if you could help me.

On the Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings page, I have noticed a number of scripts written by you.

I clicked on one, Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings/Full date unlinking, which reveals a page of code.

I'm not quite sure of the next step.

Could you tell me how to import this code in AWB in order to make use of the feature?

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the quick response, Rich
One more question, if I may, can I use more than one of these scripts at once, e.g. ‘Full date unlinking’ and ‘/Removing caps in headers’, at the same time in AWB?
Regards -- Marek.69 talk 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, that sounds a little complicated (and likely to introduce errors)
I think I will stick by running them one a time to begin with.
Thank you for all your help Rich, its much appreciated :-)
Kind Regards -- Marek.69 talk 00:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot and legitimate orphans

SmackBot recently tagged SATA International destinations as an orphan [2]. However, in the case of articles such as this, their status as an orphan is entirely legitimate (the airline article, rather than the list, should be linked to). I'd actually removed the tag earlier in the day. How can situations like this be avoided? (See the discussion I've started at Wikipedia talk:Orphan#Airline destination lists.) Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned you in a bot request

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

SmackBot

What exactly was the point of most of this big edit? Is there not a general principle that if it is just editorial style changes that does not affect the view of the article, then such changes should not be made as it makes it difficult for editors to keep track of changes? -- PBS (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well it's fairy modest, but your point is well made I will ponder it. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

Smackbot XXV

Task approved. Snowolf How can I help? 03:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot

Hi Rich! Thank you for checking my new (and first) article. I added now links to diferent pages in Wiki so it would not be orphan anymore. "Stockholm Lisboa Project" page. One more question I don't know how to handle is . I created first the page with small caps on "lisboa" and "project", this was wrong. Then I created the page with big caps "Stockholm Lisboa Project" and moved the other to this. How to delete the first attempt with small "l" and small "p"?

Thank you! Regards Sergiosbox (talk) 06:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to leave the redirect to Stockholm Lisboa Project. Redirects are cheap - so cheap that they cost less to leave than to delete in some ways. {{Orphan}} refers to pages with no links from other articles. Adding sensible links to other articles is a Good Thing[TM], however. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot

Hi, I was wondering if you could change:

Rationales:

  • This will reduce the confusing templates
  • Both otheruses templates redirect to the above latter templates

TIA174.3.123.220 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Already does this in passing. Note that it is {{Other uses}} now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
No mass change in this way should be made while the RFD is open. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
That's not what is being asked for here if you read the botreq. Rich Farmbrough, 03:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
I didn't know there was a botreq; I was just following up on the IP's edits. The IP has already asked at least one other bot operator to do a mass change, which would not be appropriate while the RFD is open. I know you would check before actually doing a 15,000 page bot run, I just wanted to leave a pointer since I have already mentioned the same thing to some other bot operator. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Too Short

The Too Short Template {Too Short} keeps giting confused by Smack Bot that it means Lead Too Short which it doesnt. And it removes the Too Short Template and puts

such as this edit Have any way to stop this STAT- Verse 07:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is exactly what {{Too short}} means. Maybe you are looking for {{Expand}}? Rich Farmbrough, 07:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
No in case u didn't know there is a rapper named Too Short and his template is Too Short which resalts in this
STAT- Verse 07:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Of course there is a rapper called Too Short.. sigh.. thanks for telling me. Lets dot this one out. Rich Farmbrough, 07:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
 Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot formatting citations

Hi; I've noticed that SmackBot changes "year" fields in citations to "date". However, User:RjwilmsiBot changes "date" fields in citations to "year". I see potential for conflict so I'm cross-posting this to both bot's owners. - JRBrown (talk) 01:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

checkY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
Follow-up to that regarding this edit: in some cases, the use of |date= for a year alone, without day or month, can break {{harv}} linking (it doesn't always do so, I can't yet determine the circumstances). Also in your changes to that article, I see no sensible reason for any of these changes, except for the DEFAULTSORT one.
In particular, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of railway-related articles which use the {{stnlnk}} template (or one of its five aliases such as {{rws}}), so has this been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways? --Redrose64 (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
The cite templates have special code to deal with Harvard referencing. They use the date field if no year field is present, and combine it with the author name. There are some 700 articles where the year is not set to a plain year, about half of these use Harvard referencing in a template, some of the rest use it in text format. In any case it is a little odd to have "year = 2007g ", although that is a slightly different matter, this can be handled by the ref field in a number of ways (1. ref=Godd2006g, 2. using CITEREF, 3 modifying cite php or allowing page variables - which are the best because they would avoid leaving gaps and all the other problems associated with manually maintaining a sequence), or by having a new field (remember in these cases you might need a date field AND a year field, in all other cases it is a Bad Thing to have both).
In the case of of rws/stnlnk there are three things going on here;
  1. there is a template name that is not particularly readable. I thought, for example, that RWS might be Victorian train company I hadn't heard of, or the Railway Society, maybe they had a link, or some special reference work. Similarly Stnlnk, although I was pretty sure it meant "station link" I expected it to be an external link, or possibly something to do with a railway use of the word "link" (as in Alençon Link perhaps).
  2. the template name is a short-cut - basically it save typing and reduces errors
  3. the substituted code is a slightly verbose [[Xxxxxxxx Yyyyyy railway station|Xxxxxx yyyyyyy]] construct - but one we encounter a lot, not just with railway stations. This is possibly the critical point on my mind at the moment.
This is why I haven't done anything substantive at the moment. Options are varied and with various pros and cons
  1. do nothing - pros;easy, cons; readability
  2. move all templates to Stnlnk or Station link or Railway station link - pros; easy, cons still not intuitive for new editors
  3. subst all templates; pros; easy, action of link readable - con; wiki code slightly cluttered
  4. create or find a generic "back extension" template something like {{X|Display bit|extra bit for link}} {{City state}} is a little like this. Pros; easy, wiki-wide, reads forward. Cons, might need special handling for separators, still adds learning curve.
  5. Ask for a MediaWiki extension, something like [[Basingstoke|| railway station]]. Pros, highly readable, low learnign curve, fits existing syntax. Cons, people might have trouble with ||, might take several years to happen.
Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
I know what the citation templates are supposed to do with dates to allow Harvard ref linking; the point is, it doesn't always work. If |date= contains all three components of a full date, it works fine. But if the day is unknown and therefore omitted, sometimes an incomplete |date= works but sometimes it doesn't, so it's safest to omit |date= and instead use |year= (and |month= if you have one).
Consider this; refs 5, 26, 42, 64 are "Oppitz 2003". The Harvard ref (which here is done using {{sfn}}) correctly creates a link to #CITEREFOppitz2003; however, clicking any of these four does not move to the "Sources" section. Examination of the wikicode shows that the {{cite book}} has |date=2003; but examination of the HTML source code shows that the generated anchor is <span class="citation book" id="CITEREFOppitz2010">. I have absolutely no idea why "2010" has been used instead of "2003"; what I do know is that if I change |date=2003 to |year=2003, as here, the generated HTML anchor becomes <span class="citation book" id="CITEREFOppitz2003"> and the shortened footnote now links correctly: #CITEREFOppitz2003.
Also, please examine the first diff that I gave: by changing |year=1976 to |date=1976 you changed this:
  • Conolly, W. Philip (1976). British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer (5th ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 0320 3. EX/0176. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
to this
  • Conolly, W. Philip (1976). British Railways Pre-Grouping Atlas and Gazetteer (5th ed.). Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 0320 3. EX/0176. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
that is, |month=January is now ignored.
I would still like to see consensus obtained from Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways before further removal of {{stnlnk}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
OK cite book is bugged I will fix that presently.
The month point it one I have become aware of, and will be avoiding that problem.
AS I indicated above I am not looking to do anything much with stnlink in the short term.
Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
Fix for cite book at {{Cite book/sandbox}}. Doing some extensive testing. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot uncommenting template

In this edit, SmackBot moved a template ({{dab}}) from inside a comment to outside the comment. Probably not a good idea .... --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, looking into it. Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC).
Seems to not be happening with the latest AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 04:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
Hm, yes it does. Bug filed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot - removing urls from dead link template

Any idea why SmackBot would have removed urls from two dead link templates in this edit? I think the url use follows the template correctly, and Wayback Machine archives do exist for these pages so the links serve a purpose. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes some idea, it's not deliberate. For some reason it is interpreting it as part of the date field, I think. This is odd because there are other examples in the same article where it does not do that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC).
Ok this is an AWb issue, it seems to count the |url= as part of the URL - since I told it to ignore URLS, the } is taken as the delimiter of a strange date field. Raising a bug. Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
Thanks Rich. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot removing blank lines

Hi Rich, in at least one article SmackBot has removed the single blank lines after section titles. As the WP MoS declares these lines optional and many editors, including myself, think that they make the article source more readable, the removal by SmackBot doesn't seem appropriate. Would you please modify the, otherwise much appreciated, bot accordingly? Many thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 09:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
Great--thanks much! --EnOreg (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Template subst issue

Here is a strange edit [3]. I'm leaving it here so as not to stop the bot. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

More: [4]

Yes I'm aware of it. Due to users fiddling with the line I think. I put a tempfix, but ha to regenerate the ruleset for other reasons. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC).
Either that or the start template was broken. Whichever it has now been fixed to avoid this problem. Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC).
Interesting to note how many links there were to these non-existent templates, maybe a dozen to 2010, 6 to 2009 and a few to 2008. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC).


I think that having a robot re-order the sequences of grouped citations is a bad idea

I think that having a robot re-order the sequences of grouped citations is a bad idea. That the choice of which cite to put first is a part of editor content and should not be automatically undone by a robot. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 11:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

SmackBot

Hello ! I saw that you've contributed to do the article on Kappa Opioid receptors and I wondered if you could tell me where they are situated in the brain (not in the spinal cord), in which part of the brain they are situated.

I am doing a work on salvia dovinorum and I talk a lot about Salvinorin A, so knowing where its agonist receptor (the opioid kappa) is located will help me a lot to know how Salvinorin A affects the brain !

And sorry for my english, it's really bad lol (I'm French ...^^)

please answer to b2o.marc of gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evendar (talk • contribs) 17:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your message. Unfortunately (or fortunately) User:SmackBot is a WP:BOT, an automated process, and has little or no understanding of these matters, yet. Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC).

Edit Request(Coalition Casualties Update)

1,733 killed(US:1047, UK: 281, Others: 405)[3]

9,967+ wounded(US: 5,629[4], UK: 3,608[5], Canada : +400[6], Germany: 166, Australia: 120[7], Romania: 44[8])

Please update War in Afghanistan(2001-present) article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 

119.152.61.170 (talk) 04:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Copied to article talk page by Rich Farmbrough, 04:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
Except it is already there. Rich Farmbrough, 04:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

institute for policy studies

Hi again Mr. Farmbrough. Apparently I'm involved in an edit war again with user annonymous who has been blanking information that I've been putting up. Is there anyway I can report this person to the Wikipedia administrators? Fellytone (talk) 16:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

checkY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC).

Articles with sections needing rewrite progress

Are you still using this template? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 15:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Articles with sections needing rewrite has been deleted, so no. Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC).
Great, I deleted the template. That's one more off the orphan list. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Central Intelligence Agency Office of Inspector General

thanks Decora (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Infobox journalist

Can you please comment in User_talk:Magioladitis#Another bot job? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge categories?

I just now noticed Category:Too long article in {{Very long}}. Shouldn't that be merged with Category:Articles that may be too long? If you think it shold, you could either do it, or I could nominate them at WP:CFD for a merge. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just the "all articles " version. But it seem unnecessary to have it in the template, like the other "all articles" categories. Rich Farmbrough, 11:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC).
I see. Are you up to tackling them already? At least I think it should be renamed from Category:Too long article to Category:All articles that may be too long, don't you think so? Debresser (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I adjusted the template. Rich Farmbrough, 11:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC).
In the best possible way, if you ask me. Debresser (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the categories of Template:Very short?? Debresser (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned this recently created template, in use on 1 article precisely, can be nominated for deletion. Debresser (talk) 12:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Replaced, there. Rich Farmbrough, 12:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC).
Nominated on Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_25#Template:Very_short. Please add your opinion there. Debresser (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Should I remove that nomination, now that you have redirected it to {{Expand}}? Debresser (talk) 12:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Just close it as speedied. I deleted two fo the redirects and redirected the other two. Time for some sleep. Rich Farmbrough, 12:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

Citation requested at Bazooka article

Dear Rich, You left a citation note at the Bazooka article at the Korean War section for a reference on the Chinese copying the 3.5-inch. I thought that was incorrect but I dragged out a copy of Janes Infantry Weapon 1976 and it states the Chinese did indeed copy the 3.5-inch as the Type 51. I left a reference and I hope that is adequate. I can find nothing else. Jack --Jackehammond (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Rich, Could you go to this Bazooka history page. It shows my account inserting a vandalism comment which I did not do?????? Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot

SmackBot has completely blanked the Paramore article except for issue tags, twice. One of those revisions is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paramore&oldid=358276715. Thought you should know. Katharineamy (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, there is an AWB bugfix for this I think. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

Floruit

Hi. I see that you have been linking floruit or fl. in a large number of articles. Please note however that the linked article Floruit says that this term should only be used when the birth and death dates are both unknown, which is more often true for persons who lived centuries ago. For persons who are still alive or who lived more recently, the birth (and death) dates are often in the article (or else can be found quickly with Google). So it would really be better to check whether the fl. is appropriate before linking it. If not you could substitute the birth (and death) dates, as I have now done for Stanley Norman Cohen in Cohen (surname). Dirac66 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I did kinda write that, so maybe I have to take responsibility if it misleads, it is certainly the case however that you can write fl.1453, d. 1496. (the birth or death dates are unknown) The purpose of the current exercise is just to provide the link, in case readers are not familiar with fl., however it might be worth revisiting by using "what links here" of Floruit and scanning for birth and death dates. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC).

Blanked Thailand

This Smackbot edit: [5] ruined the good article Thailand. −Woodstone (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, was an AWB bug, now fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 07:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC).

Unsigned

Hi Rich. I noticed that Template:Unsigned has been changed recently. Do you think you could implement the same changes to Template:Unsignedip? Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:ISO 639 name zh-tw

Hi, this edit is more than fixing typo's but I have no idea if it is correct or not. Since you created the template, could you have a look? Garion96 (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Linked dates in [[File:]]

Rich,

By my reckoning, there must be at least 9,000 files/images which have linked dates or date fragments. Can you run SmackBot over these to delink the occurrences? Cheers, Ohconfucius ¡digame! 09:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Pages with full dates only, about 5000 of them. Will do the runs for days of the week and months of the year RSN. Rich Farmbrough, 16:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC).
I'm pretty sure the "date=" parameter in {{Information}} is supposed to reduced to ISO 8601 format rather than words. I don't see a mention on the English template, but on Commons it's explicitly requested, and I think a bot changes them there, because Information on Commons translates it into the native language. You may want to have SmackBot use ISO format on at least the date= parameter (or the whole description if the bot doesn't know what's in a template and what's not) so that useful files are already prepared for moving to Commons. (I know it would be probably be a lot of extra work to distinguish Commons-usable free images from unmovable non-free images unless the bot is already working on that, so just reducing them all to ISO 8601 is easier.) --Closeapple (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can demonstrate consensus for that I am more than happy to do it. Just needs a BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC).

Re: ISO 639 codes

Hi, thanks for your advises and suggestions to me! According to the lang-code used in Chinese Wikipedia, the related templates here become more and more complex on facing to the non-Chinese users, and I found that they may not standardized enough and even would possibly make confusion on some of other fields.

As the "yue"="Cantonese" is an easy definable code, we, the most of Chinese wikipedians, believe that "zh-hk" is for the different way/style of using phrases to describe a same object in Chinese, where not based on pronunciation but the writing system and culture differences, as well as the "zh-cn", "zh-tw", and "zh-sg". So, why using "zh-hk" for "Cantonese" again? Do English users think that Guangdong/Hongkong/Macao people only can speak their mother tang? It should be related to Mandarin Chinese and not fully associated with other dialects spoken in Chinese areas.

BTW, when I reading the source of templates, the customized name for displaying seems no more supported. For example, "{{langicon|es|The Spanish Language}}" will show as (in Spanish), where "The Spanish Language" after "es" is ignored.

For you to understand how we Chinese Wikipedians use it in usual, it to ensure that "zh-cn"="Simplified Chinese (PRC)", "zh-hk"="Traditional Chinese (HK/Macao)", "zh-tw"="Traditional Chinese (Taiwan)", and "zh-sg"="Simplified Chinese (SG/MYS)".

Regards. --Gzyeah (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Speech puntuation

This article's edit history has you as the only editor. What's the story here? Was it a redirect, or something? Woogee (talk) 01:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thought it was something like that. It just occurred to me I should have checked the deletion log.  :) Woogee (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rich

Added links to the Silver Star Families of America and removed orphan tag. Thank you for your help my friend. Steven1969 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

SmackBot

The note the bot left on Gert Potgieter contains a misspelling. "(add listas from aticle's DEFAULTSORT)" I assume it is misspelling "article" in all such notes.Trackinfo (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, goes to show bots are only human. (Fixed.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC).

Adding DEFAULTSORTS that match the MediaWiki default

By the way, please consider creating a manual review list of DEFAULTSORT edits. This has a one word title so was not needed. I have a, perhaps unfounded, concern that Quantum gravity may get a DEFAULTSORT of Gravity, quantum, without human review, or that the bot makes many unnecessary edits.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hellespont

Was (and is) a redirect to Dardenelles and had WPBio on it's talk page. Presumably some older version had biography of Lord Byron on it. Therin lies the rub, to follow or not to follow redirects? In this case SmackBot followed the redirect, and I too the WPBIO off the talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 00:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

Hellespont is ok because you fixed it yourself (thanks!) WPBio was added to Talk:Dardanelles by YoBot and ListasBot. If SmackBot followed ListasBot then I guess the problem lies there.

However, in the cases of Rockers Revenge [6] Ren Ng [7] and Steinunn Refsdóttir [8], it seems ListasBot did the right thing, but SmackBot still guessed incorrectly at a DEFAULTSORT. I wonder if this affected other articles in yesterday's run.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 04:47, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ren Ng

I added Ren as a Chinese surname, which may be wrong, I need to check. I will add Ng as a surname at some point, which can overrule the Chinese. Icelandic and Viking names will need treating differently, there are heavy hints for the former (the Iclandic name template for example). But I removed a very large number of items from the "articles without listas" category yesterday, and it is such a complex field I am relatively pleased with the outcome so far. Although there are still many more I can do, it is quite tedious, even bot assisted so I will likely not attack the problem again for a few days. Rich Farmbrough, 04:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

Good point. There remains some concern in my mind that when the bot goes beyond English-speaking countries, it may be making a noticeable proportion of errors that may be hard to spot and fix. I would guess that more than 5% errors would be too high, but my Mandarin Chinese is too poor to check, and I know none of the Norse languages. (My username looks Icelandic but is actually pinched from Old English.)

Anyway, I don't want to drag you into a new debate over things that I have no doubt you discussed elsewhere. Could you post a link to the relevant bot approval please?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 05:16, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There was little discussion, you will find more on the talk page of the listas category. Basically what I did was thin the list by insisting that the names be of the form Fred A. B. Bloggs, where Fred was a popular western first name, on this list I allowed AWB to have its way. Then I build another list of articles which should have an in-order DEFAULTSORT , DJ Bloggs, Blah blah (band), Xyz baronets, Milo XX and so forth. The sticking point has been "Arabic" names since these can have up to five parts, and we should in theory sort on the last, but we don't always have that bit, so they tend to be used unsorted, but no-one has bitten the bullet an actually given any of them DEFAUTLSORTS of listas (and some of the claimed Arabic names are actually Pashtun , but that's another story.) As a result since so many begin with "ab" the listas category has stayed pretty blocked. Rich Farmbrough, 05:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

  1. My concern is not the listas category, which is administrative and is worth as much bot muscle as you can offer, per Category_talk:Biography_articles_without_listas_parameter#A_little_progress
  2. SmackBot's work on DEFAULTSORT seems troublesome. The approval says "where there is an unambiguous sort key given to existing categories", and I am not sure that a category of all Chinese people (for example) is unambiguous (though I imagine easier than Arabic, especially where Persians, Turks, and Americans, for example, have Arabic names).
  3. Please don't add in-order DEFAULTSORTs.
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up List_of_English_Writers. Makes all the difference. Bmcln1 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Proper use of CfD tag

When tagging a category for deletion, please use {{subst:cfd}}, in stead of copying {{cfd full}}. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Brooklyn College APD

How can I link this to the Alpha Phi Delta National Fraternity Page?

This is just one of the chapters.

Burg (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Floruit

Watch out what you are doing with AWB - you added an unneeded self-referencing wikilink in the Floruit article. :) LadyofShalott 16:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC).

mos collision

Hi, You recently edited Orca (disambiguation) to add a link to floruit. I think that is not a good idea. I think the correct MOS here is MOS:DAB which reads, "Each bulleted entry should have exactly one navigable (blue) link to efficiently guide users to the most relevant article for each use of the ambiguous term. Do not wikilink any other words in the line." I think the point is that a dab page is designed to get a reader to the page that they really wanted to get to in the first place, it is not like a usual article where wikilinks are used for arborization. 018 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with MOSDAB, and I agree that in the case of Orca loosing the link to fl does not cost much (although I can't seriously think someone would click fl. instead of "Quintus Valerius Orca", nor yet find themselves overwhelmed by the multiplicity of links). However on other dab pages not knowing the meaning of fl. could easily lead to the wrong ramification. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC).
I think there is a lot to be said with keeping the blue specific to the word in question on a DAB page. When I come to a DAB page lain out like this, it is so much easier to read and find what I'm looking for. You also appear to have used in inappropriate pipe on the same page. I undid it. I don't see any exception for states. 018 (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

not knowing the meaning of fl. could easily lead to the wrong ramification. I think in those ambiguous cases, if we expand the abbreviation in English, or explain it, it would work better than a blue link. Not everyone is accurate with a mouse, and an extra blue link could be seriously annoying to someone using keyboard navigation or a screen reader. Just my 2 drachma. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I also just have a hard time imaging looking for someone born centuries ago, not knowing what fl. means and getting confused by it. I would say that in the case of Constantine_I_(disambiguation), it is not necessary to link that fl.. In the case of John_Hart_(disambiguation), I can see the argument, but I wonder if the fl. dates are useful at all or if naming the single thing James L. Hart did would be more useful. 018 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Hi there. Do you have time to please look into this issue? There's a disruptive editor who goes against community consensus, and who apparently wants to engage me in an edit war. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot

SmackBot added tags to a page that has the {{nobots}} tag. I am not sure if this is a problem but it caused the maintenance tags to be transcluded onto Preamble to the United States Constitution. I have removed the maintenance tags. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 11:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, largely. {{Tl|nobots}] was never meant as a long term hack in article space, but we never really got to grips with transcluding content wiki-wide. Rich Farmbrough, 16:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC).

References section on disambig page

A little concerned about SmackBot adding a Refs section to a disambiguation page -- shouldn't he know not to do that? Disambiguation pages should never have references. Propaniac (talk) 16:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It picked up thisversion of the page which was badly broken (not MoS broken), so it was a timing problem more than anything. But it is a useful point to consider. Rich Farmbrough, 16:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC).

Minor SmackBot Error

In this edit, the line "|orphan =April {2010" was added instead of "|orphan =April 2010". I didn't feel like it was important enough to stop the bot though. :) Sorafune +1 00:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Another example: [9] John of Reading (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Already fixed, along with a small bunch of others. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 06:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC).
  1. ^ http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
  2. ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/19DC9D5F-1390-4F4E-866C-6365CEE48F0A/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto15march2010.pdf
  3. ^ http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/Index.aspx
  4. ^ http://www.defense.gov/news/casualty.pdf
  5. ^ http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/CorporatePublications/DoctrineOperationsandDiplomacyPublications/OperationsInAfghanistan/OpHerrickCasualtyAndFatalityTables.htm , http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/2694A118-83DE-4A91-A341-0B08BED4DC82/0/opherrickcasualtytablesto31march2010.pdf
  6. ^ http://www.citytv.com/toronto/citynews/news/local/article/8533--two-canadian-soldiers-wounded-in-roadside-bomb-attack
  7. ^ http://www.defence.gov.au/media/DepartmentalTpl.cfm?CurrentId=10110
  8. ^ http://english.defense.ro/misiuni/memoriam.php
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2010_April&oldid=1140433675"