Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 6 as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Archive 5 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

  Check Wikipedia   WMFLabs   List of Errors   Discussion

#46[edit]

  • #46 seems to detect a few internal links inside image description: there was 5 articles on frwiki in the list with that problem. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 16:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Can I see the examples? Bgwhite (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Forgot to put the link... The 5 articles done in the list: fr:Billet de banque (: au premier plan le [[5000 francs Flameng]]), fr:Lyricon (à vent [[Computone]]), fr:Moteur avec cylindres en ligne (en ligne de la [[Honda CBX|Honda CBX 1000]]), fr:Multi One Design (Environnement (MOD 70)|Veolia Environnement]]), and fr:Pollution sonore ([[circulation automobile]]). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 17:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
    Also in itwiki. Both when the "true" link is at the bottom it:Ampelio eremita and when it isn't it:Ascari del Cielo. Thanks! --AlessioMela (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
    Both cases follow the pattern. There is an image tag at the very beginning. There is a bracket error in the articles, but checkwiki shows the error in the image tag. I know why it is happening in the code, but I haven't found a way around it. Bgwhite (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be happening again on frwiki (fr:Antihéros, fr:Insulte, ...) but I don't find anything wrong in the articles, even somewhere else. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 09:21, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

#10[edit]

  • Hmmm, this shouldn't be happening. Looks like it is counting ]]] as having two ]] possibilities. Will look into it. Bgwhite (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Matěj Suchánek, interesting case. The problem going on is: [[metr za sekundu|[m/s]]] was followed by a statement with a broken bracket, [ran/[[minuta|min]]. If it wasn't followed by a broken bracket, checkwiki would not say this was an error. Normally I'd say this is a rare case and checkwiki correctly said there is an error on the page, thus this is a real low priority. However, the problem in the code is similar to the problem in the code for #46 error report above this report. So, a solution in one probably fixes the other error. Problem is, I've yet to figure out the #46 error after many hours. Bgwhite (talk) 08:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Error #39[edit]

NicoV Magioladitis After looking at some of the articles in a list of #39 errors not fixed by a bot, I've noticed some "false positives". I use quotation marks because it is actually errors with mediawiki that is causing the problem.

Newlines don't function in <blockquote>, {{quote}}, {{cquote}} and {{quotation}}. I have the checkwiki code skip these for error #39. After looking at the new list of articles, <ref>, [[Image: and {{bq}} also don't work.

<skip several hours>

I have the bug bookmarked and brought it up. Low and behold, the patch that was submitted in December 2011 was finally accepted. Final changes were made today on enwiki. Turns out Visual Editor was assuming newlines worked the same everywhere... silly VE. So, VE started the move to finally fix the problem. Hey, who knew, VE was actually helpful for the first time ever. According to the log, it only took 8 1/2 years to fix.

I've verified that {{quote}}, {{cquote}} and {{quotation}}, <blockquote> and {{bq}} now treat newlines correctly. I've verified that <ref> and [[Image: still barfs on newlines.

I need to add the ref and various image tags to #39's code and remove the currently skipped templates in #39's code. Bgwhite (talk) 05:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Bgwhite this means that now AWB can replace p tags inside blockquote with newlines? -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Magioladitis. I'm confused. It doesn't work on Aristole#Geology, but it does work below.

a

b

c
Bgwhite (talk) 06:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Asked a question at User talk:Kaldari#bug 6200 and quote templates. Bgwhite (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment was made at bugzilla bug 6200 about the problem. Also bug 55674 for newlines in ref tags. Bgwhite (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
6200 marked as fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

We can re-enable search inside <blockquote> since bug fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

Hi, I know that you're always looking for more work since it's so easy to use Labs ;-)

I'd like to suggest adding some statistics for Check Wiki to give us some information on how errors evolve on each wiki. Would it be possible to add a table with the following informations ?

  • One line for each error
  • Several columns for each day for a month : number of articles detected for the error after the daily scan, number of articles marked as fixed for the error during the day, eventually number of articles marked as fixed during the day but that were detected again

--NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 10:21, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Though I am not sure if Bgwhite has enough time to implement it. --Meno25 (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I know, it's just wishful thinking, no emergency and no problem if it's not implemented. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Include pages in namespace 104 on arwiki[edit]

Please include pages in namespace "ملحق" (NS:104) on Arabic Wikipedia (arwiki) in the lists generated by Checkwiki script. This namespace contains lists and years pages. Pages in that namespace are counted in the number of articles (magic word: {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}) and AWB's Auto-Tagger already tags articles in that namespace. --Meno25 (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Meno25, I'm going to wait on this for a bit. I've held off on 104, commonswiki and File namespace. I'm using code optimized to run only grab Article namespace from the dump file. Changing out will cause a severe decrease in speed. I'll have to some other changing around to insert the code, but everything else is setup for it. For example, there are if statements that say only Article and 104 namespace can check certain errors. Bgwhite (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Thank you for the explanation. Take your time. We are not in a hurry. --Meno25 (talk) 12:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Ideas for new errors[edit]

Time to start thinking about what new errors should be added to Checkwiki.

Ping: Magioladitis, NicoV, Meno25, Crazy1880, LindsayH, GoingBatty, Matěj Suchánek, Josve05a, ChrisGualtieri, Graham87. I think that is everybody. If not, add them to the list.

What should or should not be added will be determined by several factors:

  1. How easy is it to code up?
  2. Is it something that AWB or WPCleaner already can find.
  3. Is it something that AWB, WPCleaner or a bot can currently fix?
  4. Is it an accessibility issue?
  5. Is it a serious issue? Are the errors on the high or medium lists?
  1. High priority: error corrupts or distorts the content posted in Article
  2. Medium priority: improving the encyclopedic content or readability of the article
  3. Low priority: improving maintenance or MOS fixes

Some examples:

  1. Replacing <strike> with <s>. It would take a copy/paste to code up. WPCleaner finds and fixes the problem. It would be Low priority.
  2. Finding cases of url=http://http:// This is a common error I see. It would be High priority. It is fixed by AWB.
  3. Blank lines in bulleted vertical lists. This is an accessibility issue per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Blocked elements. This causes problems for screen readers.
  4. No blank space after the comma in DEFAULTSORT values. An example would be: Bush,George. The article would be sorted first for all surnames beginning with Bush. Currently not fixed by AWB or WPCleaner. Probably medium priority.

Bgwhite (talk) 01:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

How about putting the TOC in the standard position in the wiki-markup, which is also an accessibility issue? Not sure about automating this though. Graham87 01:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems that there are lots of new citation style errors, some of which appear in red text in the references section. Those might be something worth exploring. GoingBatty (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A few suggestions:

  1. An error to detect non-existent files (red linked files). We have a bot on Arabic Wikipedia that removes such links. However, the bot works on all pages of the Main namespace. Generating a list of pages for the bot to work on would be a good idea. See Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing deleted files.
  2. Detecting user signatures in articles (articles containing links to user pages). To be worked on manually. See Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles containing links to the user space.
  3. Detecting fat redirects (redirects obscuring page content). To be checked manually. See Wikipedia:Database reports/Redirects obscuring page content. --Meno25 (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The errors I suggested are covered by the Database reports on English Wikipedia. Database reports are updated regularly only on enwiki, Commons and Meta. Moving the errors to checkwiki means that the reports would get generated for other wikis too. So, maybe disable those errors for enwiki and enable them for other wikis. --Meno25 (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Meno25 you can request similar databases for other wikis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI is more about common syntax errors. We need to focus on that. If lists are already generated by other bots/projects we do not need to duplicate the job. Bgwhite's idea of unspaced DEFAULTSORT is a great example of what we are after. WPC's extended list is another good example. I have some minor suggestions:

I don't know if this is an error or maybe already monitored but:

  1. {{cite web}} without access dates.
  2. When only <ref>http://exemple.com/</ref> is used without title/description. This is to prevent link rot.
  3. When two (or more) refs with the same information has diffrent ref-name.
  4. When the time (e.g. 08:45 or 8 am) or the day (e.g. Moday or Saturday) is used inside |accessdate=.

(tJosve05a (c) 11:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I think new errors should be generic enough to work on most wikis, so avoid very specific errors (for example: {{cite web}} without access dates should be dealt by the template itself: put the page in a maintenance category if access dates are missing). Otherwise, some of WPCleaner errors in the #5xx numbers:

  • #502: Useless "Template" in {{Template:...}} (low)
  • #508: Non-existent templates (medium ?)
  • #511: Internal link written as an external link (medium ?)
  • #512: Interwiki link written as an external link (low ?)
  • #513: Internal link inside an external link (medium ?)
  • #517: <strike>...</strike>
  • #519: <a>...</a>
  • I like some of previous proposals: missing space after a comma in a DEFAULTSORT, doubled http, blank bulleted lined, non-existent files, ...

Some of them are probably hard to develop or require access to a lot more information, so they will be difficult to add (non-existent templates / files, ...) --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

NicoV I agree with you. My first suggestion is not good neither. I think the best suitable new additions are WPCleaner errors in the #5xx numbers. For non-existent file etc I disagree that we should do something about them. There are databases for those already. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
NicoV: #508 is already listed, see Special:WantedTemplates, the files are in Category:Pages with missing files.
I have once suggested a link to a year which has another description ([[2012|2013]], medium or high).
Some inspiration: de:Benutzer:Stefan Kühn/Check Wikipedia#Next features. Matt S. (talk | cont. | cs) 15:16, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

A few more:

  1. More than one blue link per * on a disambig-page. (Per WP:MOSDAB)
  2. Refs and reflist on a disambig-page. (per WP:MOSDAB)
  3. When an article does not have "nbsp" between e.g. 15 km, 2,5 miles and 3 cm)

-(tJosve05a (c) 16:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Moin, like a free space in a category as medium. Example: right: "[[category:xyz]]" and wrong "[[categorie: xyz]]". Stefan Kühn had had a code for the persondata-script. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Crazy1880, Error 22 should be picking those up. Bgwhite (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Bgwhite, oh, yes it did. In the german Wikipedia was the question, if ID 69 will check für "ISBN:", because the linked site only use ISBN. (example: ISBN: 978-3-7657-2781-8 > ISBN 978-3-7657-2781-8) Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Crazy1880, #69 checks for ISBN: and ISBN- Bgwhite (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Round 2[edit]

Ping: Magioladitis, NicoV, Meno25, Crazy1880, LindsayH, GoingBatty, Matěj Suchánek, Josve05a, ChrisGualtieri, Graham87.

Following is a list of errors that I think could be added. Some notes:

  • English database reports that Meno25 are not being ported to other languages unless somebody is willing to take on the task. Very few have been ported. So, if a report meets the "standard", I see no reason not to add it to checkwiki.
  • Most citation style errors would be a pain in the butt to code, too many articles that take too long to correct and are not really syntax errors. The one exception that I can think of is missing "url=" when the web address is given.
  • NicoV and Magioladitis, could you WPCleaner or AWB to the appropriate errors and columns.
  • Any errors not in the list that you think should be added? Any other comments?
Description Priority Coding Tools to detect Tools to fix Other
Useless "Template" in {{Template:...}} low Done WPC, AWB WPC, AWB #1 (#502)
Internal link written as an external link medium Done WPC WPC & Frescobot #90 (#511)
Interwiki link written as an external link low Done WPC WPC #91 (#512)
Internal link inside an external link medium WPC (#513) WPC
<strike>...</strike> low Done WPC, AWB WPC, AWB* #42 (#517). Obsolete in HTML5. Use <s>...</s> instead
<a>...</a> low Done WPC WPC #4 (#519)
URL without http:// high Done WPC, AWB WPC, AWB #62
Finding cases of url=http://http:// medium Done WPC, AWB WPC, AWB #93
Blank lines in bulleted vertical lists medium Accessibility issue per Wikipedia:Accessibility#Blocked elements
Putting the TOC in the standard position medium Done WPC #96 and #97. Accessibility issue per MOS Elements of the lead
No blank space after the comma in DEFAULTSORT low Done WPC, AWB WPC, AWB #89
Unbalanced ref tags medium Done WPC, AWB WPC, AWB #94
Detecting user signatures in articles low Done WPC, AWB WPC, AWB #95
Detecting fat redirects (redirects obscuring page content) low
<span class="plainlinks"> in articles low
Pipe in external link [http:/www.wikipedia.org|Wikipedia] low
Link to a year which has another description ([[2012|2013]]) low This error is often caused by VE.
Cases of {{cite web|http://www.wikipedia.org| title= medium
Move anchor in front title in heading
Detect non-existent files (red linked files)
Detect non-existent templates WPC (#508)
Detect refs <ref name=> low easy often detected as #56
Category with double colon easy AWB
More same parameters in template medium medium
Good :-). I've added the information about what WPCleaner can currently detect and fix (automatic or bot, at least partially). For errors I've already coded with a #5xx number, feel free to use an error number following what CW currently manages or keep the #5xx number. For other errors, I don't see any problem for implementing them in WPCleaner, but it will probably have to wait 2 months, as I will be almost completely unavailable for several weeks. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:05, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Errors added[edit]

Magioladitis, NicoV, Meno25, GoingBatty, Matěj Suchánek, Josve05a, ChrisGualtieri

  • #01 - Template with the useless word "template"
  • #04 - HTML text style element <a>
  • #42 - HTML text style element <strike>
  • #62 - URL containing no http://
  • #89 - DEFAULTSORT with no space after the comma
  • #90 - Internal link written as an external link
  • #91 - Interwiki link written as an external link
  • #93 - External link with double http://
  • #94 - Reference tags with no correct match
  • #95 - Editor's signature or link to user space
  • #96 - TOC after first headline
  • #97 - Material between TOC and first headline

Notes[edit]

  • Only turned on for enwiki for right now. Will start to expand after NicoV's return.
  • Just added #90 and #91. So, there will probably be some problems.
  • For #90 and #91, it will only search for articles written as an external link. Talk pages or special pages will no be searched. History of Wikipedia has examples on why it is done this way.
The description on #91 most be changes to The script found an external link that should be replaced with a interwiki link. An example would be on enwiki [http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry Wall] should be written as [[:fr:Larry Wall]] so it says fr.wikipedia.org in the extrnal link and not en.wikipedia.org. -(tJosve05a (c) 21:07, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
And #90 most be changed to e.wikipedia.org. -(tJosve05a (c) 21:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Another thing is that it should not say [...]/wiki/Larry Wall]. It should say [...]/wiki/Larry_Wall Larry Wall].(tJosve05a (c) 21:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Errors modified[edit]

  • #22 - Finds more cases of a space in a category
  • #19 - Finds headlines that start with one "=" anywhere in the article instead of only at the start of the article.

WPCleaner[edit]

Bgwhite I've updated WPCleaner (version 1.31) for the following errors for all wikis: #1 (previously #502), #4 (previously #519), #42 (previously #517), #90 (previously #511), #91 (previously #512). Still have to do: #62, #89, #93, #94. Old #62 and #89 have been disabled. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 21:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Nico. Do you want me to turn on the new errors for frwiki or wait? I'm sure Josve05a will have found a bug before I write this. :). New error #95 will be an editor's signature found in an article. Bgwhite (talk) 22:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, will 95 include UTC, CET, CEST etc.? Since this error might not only be used on enwp? (tJosve05a (c) 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
(BTW Bgwhite I'm 16 in 5...4...3...2...1...HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME!) (tJosve05a (c) 23:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I already wished you a happy birthday, which you already complained about. Now you want another... pfffft.  :) Time is irrelevant for #95 as I'm only looking for a signature. Bgwhite (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite Yes, I think you can turn the new errors on for frwiki, I'll check what has to be changed in the translation file. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 08:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, NicoV, (#91) WPCleaner changes [http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0403424/ Hurley on the [[Internet Movie Database]]] to [[:imdbname:0403424|Hurley on the]][[Internet Movie Database]]]. I see multiple issues with this. It removes the blank space, it leaves 3 bracket at the end (without the WPCleander reporing it. (Found on Colin Hurley). (tJosve05a (c) 10:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@Josve05a: It will be fixed in a next version. It's due to the incorrect syntax of having an internal link inside an external link. It can be reported by WPC if #513 is activated. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 19:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: If possible, start please the new checks for cswiki, too. I will modify the configuration file. Within a week, you can also enable skwiki.
@Josve05a: Happy birthday! You are now same aged as I am (for next 10 months). Matt S. (talk | cont. | cs) 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NicoV and Matt S., in theory frwiki and cswiki should start seeing the new errors at the next 0z run.... if the database is up. Today's outage was caused by a disc getting full. Bgwhite (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi! It's strange: I've modified the translation file in frwiki 4 days ago, but the old description is still displayed in WMFLabs for #1, #4, #42, #62. No errors are found. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite For frwiki, I've changed the translation file a few days ago: descriptions for new error numbers (#93, ...) have been taken into account on WMF Labs, but not the modified descriptions for old error numbers that have been recycled (#1, #4, #42, #62, #89, #90, #91). Is it a problem to have kept the old descriptions as comments? --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 09:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
NicoV, hmmm, I didn't see the message above this one. Sorry for that. The translation file and every other program has been bombing lately, so that was probably why you didn't see it right away. Between database problems and mounting problems, I'm ready to go screaming into the night. The frwiki dump processing is still running. Which is very amazing that it hasn't died yet.
Do you mean as comments in the translation file as you have done for the French one? I see no problems.
For #96 and #97 I've thrown in a little regex in the English translation file to account for templates being used with a space and no space.
For #95, I only have English "User" and "User talk". I'll get individual wiki's words in a bit. I'll get them thru the API. Bgwhite (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite For example, on WMFLabs, #1 is still displayed as "Pas de texte en gras" (the old description, which is commented out in the translation file) when the translation file has been changed 6 days ago; whereas the translations for the new errors (#93 and so on) are correctly used even if they have been changed later (only 2 days ago). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 16:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
NicoV, looking at the code, it grabs the first variable, commented or not. So, putting the commented lines second does the trick. Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot! --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 11:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Error #62[edit]

Error #39 (again)[edit]

Hi all. In Demons (novel) the section headed "Characters" employs paragraphs within a bulleted list. This has been coded per the advice given here, but Yobot (and, I think, other AWB-based robots) persists in making "corrections": [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and so on. Aside from destroying the logical structure of the section, this is also contrary to accessibility guidelines.

I note that the detection of error #39 has already been modified to accept the use of <p>s within certain tags, such as <blockquote>. Can this tolerance be extended to include <p>s within lists?

(I was uncertain whether to raise this concern here, with Yobot, or with AWB. If I've chosen the wrong place, could you please let me know, and I'll try again.) In the meantime, thanks for your collective good work with checkwiki: fighting the good fight, and at scale! — Simon the Likable (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Simon the Likable hi. Thanks for starting the discussion. I was not aware of this problem. Bots tend to revisit a page unless something is changed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Simon the Likable can you please check if you like my version? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This is both a Checkwiki and AWB issue, so having a discussion at either spot is just fine.
@Graham87: As this is also an accessibility issue, Graham is the one to ask. Current version of Demons (novel) uses * and : to create paragraphs inside lists. This version uses * and standard html paragraph tag. Is the current version acceptable or should the older version be used? Bgwhite (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
@Simon the Likable, Magioladitis, Bgwhite: The older version is better, but even there, the gaps between the list items would need to be removed. In the newer version, the HTML lists finish at the end of each paragraph (as can be seen by checking the HTML source). It might be easier to use HTML rather than wiki-markup to create the lists. Graham87 01:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry guys but on my laptop, both versions have the same visual result. I must be semi-blind or something. This happens to me after working on my laptop for several hours. Can someone explain me what are the visual differences? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Visually they are the same. On a screen reader, it breaks up the list. The first item on the list, the one with the <p> tags, with the : it appears as an one item list to a screen reader. Bgwhite (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Magioladitis. As Bgwhite has outlined, your solution is impeccable visually, but will not allow visually impaired readers good access using a screen reader. I have therefore reverted your change (reinstating the <p>s), but have also taken on board Graham87's point and removed the blank lines between list items. Thus, I think the current version covers both visual and accessibility requirements, and follows recommended coding practices in Help:List#Paragraphs_in_lists and now WP:LISTGAP.
This leaves open my original issue: checkwiki and AWB both regard this recommended markup as an error. Can checks for error #39 be modified to accept the use of <p>s within lists? (Or perhaps there is some other solution?) — Simon the Likable (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Simon; sounds good here now! Graham87 14:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys. Any chance that this is a Mediawiki bug and we should report it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I looked at source code for the latest version and Magioladitis' version. It does not appear to be a bug. In the latest version of Demons (novel), it is one long list made up of <li> tags. If a blank line happens, the list ends. In Magioladitis' version, it starts as a list. When the first : happens, the list is ended. The HTML tags to produce the layout for the : consists of <dl> and <dt> tags. The use of the dl and dt tags is standard HTML practice when text needs varying indentation. The source for this talk page is full of dl and dt tags. Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, both Checkwiki and AWB should not call this an error. Finding a solution is another matter. My brain isn't coming up with an answer. For the time being, I've added the article to a whitelist, so Checkwiki will not find a <p> error in the article. Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

ISBN-check[edit]

It would be very helpful if the check could recognize and ignore

  • ISBNistFormalFalsch=J
Example: de:Erich Burgener - {{Literatur | Autor=Bertrand Zimmermann | Titel=Erich Burgener | Verlag= Editions de la Thèle| Ort=Yverdon-les-Bains | Jahr=1987 | ISBN=2-8283-0024 | ISBNistFormalFalsch=J }}
  • http://xxxxx/isbn/282830024

--Tsor (talk) 09:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tsor, as usual, I'm confused. Why give a bad ISBN in the first place? I did a Google search and only two non-Wikipedia derived websites give this number and one of them is Wikipedia. Bgwhite (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Hello Bgwhite, this ist just a (bad) example. Sometimes we find in a book an ISBN which is formal wrong. Some guys use the template Vorlage:Literatur where they can mark such invalid ISBNs by "ISBNistFormalFalsch=J". There is another template Vorlage:Falsche ISBN which can mark such invalid ISBNs: {{Falsche ISBN|3-123-45678-9}} leads to "ISBN 3-123-45678-9 (formal falsche ISBN)". This template is used very often: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Linkliste/Vorlage:Falsche_ISBN
I will look for a better example for an invalid ISBN. --Tsor (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
PS: An additional column in the error-list "marked as invalid" would help. --Tsor (talk) 10:18, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Tsor, I'm slow, but I still fail to see what is wrong. It would be best to use a correct ISBN? A better example would help me understand. TMg, could you help me out.
There are whitelists in which articles can be added so they won't be raised as an error again. To many things can go wrong with "marked as invalid" button... Already a problem of vandalism by people clicking done when they have no intention of fixing errors. Bgwhite (talk) 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Here are 349 examples. --Tsor (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I just looked at the first one in the list, de:Charles de Melun and I don't understand why the ISBN is qualified as bad: the checksum is correct. Is it normal to have "ISBNistFormalFalsch=J" with an ISBN that seems correct? Edit: idem for second example de:Bussard (Einheit). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, you are right, in de:Charles de Melun ISBN is marked as bad but ist is ok. Same at your second example. I will have a closer look. --Tsor (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Please repeat your calculation. The checksum digit is false, if the first 9 digits are corect the checksum digit in the end should be a 1, so the ISBN should be 2902091311 and not 2902091312. --Cepheiden (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, you're just not looking at the version as was looking at, the page was modified since my comment and changed completely about the ISBN: a ISBN-13 with a coherent checksum was replaced by a ISBN-10 with a non-coherent checksum. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are right i didn't notice the edit. --Cepheiden (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I also looked at other, a lot seem in the same situation. There's also cases where the ISBN has indeed a wrong checksum, but the book can be found with the correct ISBN on the internet: de:Mare Imbrium and the corresponding book on google. I've spent quite some time on frwiki to fix ISBN reported by CW (still quite some work to do), but I've found very few situations where the ISBN with the incorrect checksum was confirmed as being the ISBN (it's usually fixed at some point). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 15:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, there are cases of ISBN's with false checksum digits used as the original ISBN (printed in book and listed in databases of libraries etc.). If someone cites this book with this ISBN we mark them as "formally false" like some libraries do. So what's the point here? --Cepheiden (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
My point was that I was surprised by the size of the list (349 pages), because as I said, I fixed a lot of ISBN on frwiki, and didn't find so much situations where the ISBN with the non-coherent checksum had to be kept. Given that the first hits in the search seemed to be mistakes, I was wondering if it was normal that you have so many page with ISBN tagged as formally false. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:26, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
This was more a reply to Bgwhite (like Tsor already did). --Cepheiden (talk) 17:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Just an example for the second point: http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780676978223 found in de:28 Stories über Aids in Afrika. --Tsor (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It links to "Page not found", the correct link seems to be at http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780676978230 (different last 2 digits ISBN). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 22:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Adjacent references ?[edit]

Hi, what do you think of adding a detection for adjacent references, like <ref>...</ref><ref>...</ref><ref>...</ref> ? This error probably won't be of any interest for enwiki because reference numbers are put between square brackets [1][2][3]. But on frwiki reference numbers are displayed without any decoration so adjacent references may look like only one reference 123, so we're generally using a template {{,}} between references. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

NicoV, could you get me some articles with the problem as test subjects. <maniacal laugh> Test Subjects </maniacal laugh> I take it I need to look for cases of: </ref><ref> and <ref name=ack /><ref ? I also saw your message above about adding to the done pages. Bgwhite (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, will try to find some... The subject was brought on WPCleaner's talk page for this modification, but the page is fixed now. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 07:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, I checked a lot of articles but I haven't found an other example yet... --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
fr:Utilisateur:Zetud/Pb Ref should have a list. --NicoV
Bgwhite, fr:Leetchi, with at least 2 problems in the introduction. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 07:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Error 3 on elwiki[edit]

I think WPCleaner catches the list found at el:Βικιπαίδεια:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia/Μετάφραση while CHECKWIKI script does not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem is only with the last line. Now that I updated the code, I noticed that all errors shown are connected to the last line. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

False positives for #87[edit]

Hi, with the latest full dump, there seems to be a lot of false positives for #87 (HTML entities without ;). Examples from the 25 first pages reported:

--NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 20:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

NicoV We turned off #87 on enwiki because of the false positives. I'm not sure how to fix this. The hard part is there can be letters or numbers after an entity. Any ideas? Bgwhite (talk) 22:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite Apart from the last 2, I think the only thing that could be done is filtering out the errors when they are found in special places (URL, attribute of a tag, timeline, image, ...). For the last one, I only see doing a case sensitive compariso. And for the &phis;, I don't know... Not very helpful, sorry. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 06:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

New error : empty titles ?[edit]

Hi, I was thinking about a new error for detecting empty titles, like the ones VE is creating on a regular basis (== <nowiki /> ==). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 18:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

NicoV, I did a scan for enwiki and came up with 83 articles. The VE edits all appear old. I wonder if they have fixed the problem in new VE builds? Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, apparently it's still not fixed, the last VE edit I found with this problem is from last night. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 09:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the list Bgwhite, I've added error #522 to detect empty titles and fixed all the occurrences. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And also, of the same kind, a new error for empty internal links, like in this edit ([[Boom Fm|<nowiki/>]] and [[Roger Blackburn|<nowiki/>]]). --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 10:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Unclosed center tags (error 102?)[edit]

Maybe it's time to add unclosed center tags as error #102? Errors 28 and 39 reduced and we need a need game to play with. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Code used for generating the lists[edit]

Is the code (or list of regular expressions) available? I believe I could suggest some improvements for cutting down on false positives and/or the number of whitelisted articles for some of the lists. Frietjes (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Frietjes check here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thank you. my first improvement would be to add the following on line 1132 of checkwiki.pl
$test_text =~ s/\{\{\{\|safesubst:\}\}\}//g;
this would fix all the false positives from RFD discussion tags in list 28 (i.e. remove these), unless that's already been fixed? Frietjes (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
my second improvement would be to change '<tr' to '<tr[^a-z]' in error_031_html_table_elements which would avoid matching '<transcript>' and other non-table tags that start with tr. Frietjes (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Frietjes, Magioladitis both changes implemented. The sufesubst change was also added to errors #34 and #43 as it showed up there too. Bgwhite (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It looks like the fix was to ignore all pages with {{{|safesubst:}}}, which is suboptimal :( I suppose the better thing would be to fix Module:RfD, but it seems as though there was a logical reason for adding it there. not sure if there is any other solution, but we shall see. it would be a shame to have to resort to such hacks since, technically, {{{|safesubst:}}} is a programming element. Frietjes (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite can we undo the 'safesubst:' hack? this change was just made, so in a few weeks, we shouldn't have any of these left. the fix for the tr tags is great though since it means we won't have to hack around Additive Manufacturing File Format, Event Programming Language, GPS Exchange Format, ... Frietjes (talk) 22:11, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Indeed, the {{{|safesubst:}}} stuff should all be gone now. Can you remove the hack related to it now? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Jackmcbarn, I actually removed it yesterday. Checkwiki did find redirects still at RfD from months past, but have never been closed. Look at the bottom of Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/034 dump. Bgwhite (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

#14 false positives[edit]

Two false positives at plwiki are reported. To remove such cases, you might check only for "<source ", not "<source", and skip code which is in a <source> by itself. ToSter (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The solution is again "<source[^a-z]". -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis, Error #14 doesn't use a regex. It uses the same subroutine used for checking imbalanced nowiki, pre, comment, syntaxhighlight, code, math, hiero, and score. The regex also doesn't solve the problem with the articles ToSter mentioned. The problem with the articles... there are valid, unbalanced source tags inside source tags.
Following scenario is in ToSter's articles, where the second source is not an html source tag.
<source> [text] <source> [text] </source>
Problem is... how does one differentiate between ToSter's scenario and a scenario where the first <source> tag is actually missing a closing tag, especially when editors don't always put extra parameters inside source tags. Bgwhite (talk) 07:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
We also have false positives on frwiki, which doesn't seem to fall into the above category:
  • fr:Apache Ant: a <sourcePath> tag is detected as being a <source> tag
  • fr:Vidéo HTML5: there are 3 self-closing <source /> tags inside a <syntaxhighlight> tag. The third one is reported.
--NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Error #43[edit]

There are many false positives for error #43 which include usage of the {{familytree}} template - at plwiki pl:Burbonowie might be an example. That's probably because the brace '}' can be used legally as a parameter. ToSter (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

ToSter, yes that is a false positive. However, {{familytree}} has been depreciated and should no longer be used. It has been replaced by {{chart}}. There will be other false positives, which is why on enwiki there is 043 whitelist. Bgwhite (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, it might be deprecated at enwiki but perfectly fine at plwiki - what is the reason for the deprecation? I know about whitelisting but that's the ultimate solution - it has the clear disadvantage that it would skip a real error on the same page and it has to be kept up-to-date. Isn't there any solution to this case? ToSter (talk) 17:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
three options, as far as I can tell: (1) modify {{familytree}} to allow it to use two new symbols as synonyms for { and }, while still keeping { and } around for backwards compatibility until they can be all changed. (2) replace any { and } with {{(}} and {{)}}. (3) add a line to the checkwiki.pl script to do something like
  content =~ s/(\{\{[Ff]amilytree[^\{\}]*)[\{]([^\{\}])/$1&#123;$2/g;
  content =~ s/(\{\{[Ff]amilytree[^\{\}]*)[\}]([^\{\}])/$1&#125;$2/g;
which would internally remove these from the family tree template before processing. note, that a couple more regexps are probably need for cases where the bracket is the last parameter, and probably need to be put in a loop to match multiple occurrences within the same family tree call. the same could be done for IPA, but for IPA, the open brace is equivalent to ae, so it's an easy replacement. Frietjes (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have implemented solution 1. ToSter (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
ToSter, I did the same here, but kept the old syntax until they can all be updated. Frietjes (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Article without title[edit]

Have a look at this page - a page without a title is reported. ToSter (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the date it was reported at, it seems to be simply a strange error. George.Edward.CTalkContributions 11:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Not an isolated incident... Happened here too. The reports seems to be refreshing, which explains why WPCleaner picks up nothing. George.Edward.CTalkContributions 18:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
George.Edward.C, ToSter, it is a new problem that showed up last month. I've yet to hunt down the offending article. It was causing the daily scan to crash, but I've worked around it. Bgwhite (talk) 18:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your work! It's much appreciated. :D George.Edward.CTalkContributions 19:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Unnecessary external links to WP[edit]

how about a check for this? Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be detected by #90. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
yes, you are correct. the one's that I found were very new, so weren't detected yet. thank you. Frietjes (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Stripping pre tags[edit]

Hi,

<pre> tags are stripped only if they have no additional attributes. In pl:dmesg there's a pre block:

<pre style="height:20em; overflow-y:scroll">...</pre>

It's not getting stripped by checkwiki.pl (get_pre() function) so false positives are reported (like #56 in that case). ToSter (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ToSter, personally, I'd remove the entire pre text. I don't see the benefit of a boot screen from a 6-year old version of Linux. Bgwhite (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, that's right :) but still the problem can occur in another place. ToSter (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
ToSter, it can, but it is not. Also, this is what the whitelist is for. Bgwhite (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Error #61 false positive[edit]

<ref > (changed to <ref> by BG19bot) is not an error and should not be changed. Whitespace is permissible here and even has advantages, as giving word wrap a safe place to break lines without introducing either syntactic or legibility confusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Andy Dingley. Why do people refuse to give the article's name? I'm not psychic. As the edit summary states, Checkwiki error #61 is for punctuation after references. Your issue is NOT a checkwiki issue. It falls under the general fixes section of the edit summary, therefore this is an AWB issue. You should have taken this up at AWB's talk page. Second, spaces in ref tags do cause errors... < ref>hi</ref>. Third, you are arguing over a space and a space that is your personal preference, not backed up by any doc. My guess, you have been blindly reverting the bot's edit without fixing the #61 issue that caused the bot to arrive at the page. Bgwhite (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
If you think that < ref>hi</ref> is the same thing as <ref >hi</ref> (in either XML or in wikicode parsing) then you really do need to fix your bot.
Whether something is a personal preference or not, a 'bot should not "automatically fix it" unless it is broken. <ref >hi</ref> is well-formed and should not be messed with by 'bots. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, luckily I am psychic even though Andy Dingley was unable to provide a diff. Frietjes (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
by the way, the net outcome was that error #61 was fixed. Frietjes (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I redid the bot edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

False positives for #2[edit]

Resolved

Hi, on frwiki, there are 5 false positives for #2:

--NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 13:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

NicoV, try this (something other than a space there). Frietjes (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
that fixed all of them except for fr:Antipaïne. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I fixed the last one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks guys ! --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 08:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Whitelists[edit]

I don't understand how the whitelists are handled - is there any guide on this? At plwiki, there is a whitelist for #58 but checkwiki still reports pl:Remixes 81 - 04. ToSter (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

ToSter, you have it sort of backward. The actual whitelist is a file. The articles are not listed in the translation file. You need to:
  1. Create a file with the articles. You can see the format with enwiki's #58 whitelist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/Error 058 whitelist. It needs to be in the format of: * [[article name]]
  2. In the translation file, you put the location of the whitelist. The line in enwiki's translation file is:
error_058_whitelistpage_enwiki=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia/Error_058_whitelist END
  1. The info from the translation file is updated everyday at 0z.
Bgwhite (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite, thanks! That's pretty simple but I can't see it anywhere on the project page... ToSter (talk) 23:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Coding TfD[edit]

Is this template something that would be useful to you guys? That is, if users were educated to flag problems with it, would it help you find currently missed errors? The TfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 November 17#Template:Coding. Comments are welcome! —PC-XT+ 06:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

AWB fixes/detects more of some errors[edit]

Possible new issue to scan for[edit]

The presence of empty rows, as I removed for instance here. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

that table is way over styled (fixed further). the use of double |- is fairly common. some editors feel it improves the readability. note that in this particular case the styles were way over specified, since the default is text-align:left, and the rowstyles were been overridden by the cell styles. Frietjes (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
one that may be useful would be class="wikitable" class="wikitable sortable"class="wikitable sortable" or style="foo1" style="foo2"style="foo2". basically, duplicate class or style declarations where the first one is ignored due to the presence of the second. Frietjes (talk) 16:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Add field with user edit[edit]

Hola, disculpas por escribir en español, se podría agregar un campo mas en el cual indique el nombre de usuario o ip que realizó la edición del error detectado. gracias buen trabojo.Sergio Andres Segovia (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"Hi, I apologize for writing in Spanish, you could add an additional field which states the user name or ip who made the edition of the detected error. thanks good work."
Seems possible but would require a lot of processing to find the particular edit. Frietjes (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Es una pena que requiera una gran cantidad de procesamiento, porque si se agregara ese campo iríamos directamente a las contribuciones del usuario o ip, y el que tenga el flag de reversor podría revertir las edición desde allí. En Wikipedia en español intentamos detectarlo con un filtro de ediciones pero arrojó muchos falsos positivos [8], saludos. Sergio Andres Segovia (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"It's a shame that requires a lot of processing, because if that field we would be linked directly to user contributions or ip, and an editor with rollback could reverse the issue from there. At Spanish Wikipedia, we tried to detect issues with an edit filter but it resulted in many false positives[9], greetings."
I agree that it would be useful. You might be able to get a bot to do this for you? for example, I know that some bots like 'BracketBot' will warn you when you have introduced unbalanced brackets. of course, there is a difference between warning a user about 'breaking an article' and warning a user about using deprecated syntax. maybe you can ask the operator of BracketBot (A930913)? Frietjes (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
There is also Bracketbot's brother, ReferenceBot. Both are done by A930913. The two main differences between BracketBot and CheckWiki is: 1) Bracketbot checks articles in near real-time 2) Bracketbot informs the editor of the problem they created instead of reporting the error to a master database. In theory, CheckWiki can also be run in near real-time on individual articles. I would need help from A930913. His bot code would run normally except call CheckWiki to test an article instead of using the bot's checks. Bgwhite (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Make a (web)script that I can ping with a pageid/title/diffid/oldid/user? ##930913 connect? 930913 {{ping}} 07:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

CheckWiki on nonWMF wiki[edit]

Hi, is it possible to run an instance of the checkwiki tool (the lists of errors) on nonWMF wiki project? We would like to catch and be able to fix errors like you do. Thanks. --Wesalius (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Wesalius, yes it is possible. I have done it before. The key is getting a dump file of the wiki. I can then run the dump on my home computer. Bgwhite (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite I have a dump file ready. Could you please advice me on how do I get the lists of pages that fulfill different error criterias? I imagined there is some script like pywikibot that goes through the dump and looks for the errors...? --Wesalius (talk) 05:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Wesalius It is a Perl program that uses the MediaWiki-Bot Perl module, some Perl XML modules and Mysql/MariaDB. Source code is here. It would be easier if I could download the dump file and run it. Bgwhite (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Bgwhite Ok, I will get a fresh dump. And try to learn my way through Mediawiki-Bot during Christmas :-) Thanks for your help so far.--Wesalius (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite Is this dump working? Its produced with php /var/www/wiki/maintenance/dumpBackup.php \ plugin=AbstractFilter:/var/www/wiki/extensions/ActiveAbstract/AbstractFilter.php \ --current \ --report=100 \ --output=gzip:/var/www/wiki/WSdump2.gz \ --filter=namespace:NS_MAIN \ --filter=noredirect \ .

Wesalius, I downloaded the file and everything looks good. I don't work much on weekends as the wife controls me with a very short leash. I should have something for you Monday... Tuesday your time. I'll use the Czech translation file for the defaults. FYI... pinging doesn't work if you don't sign your message. Bgwhite (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Bgwhite How did it go?--Wesalius (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

"Fixing" ref tags inside comments[edit]

For most of the life of Shooting of Michael Brown, we have used list-defined references and commented out unused refs rather than removing them. The commenting technique we have consistently used is to change <ref name=...> to <!--ref name=...> and change </ref> to </ref-->. This method requires the least amount of effort. This has not been a problem until this bot edit, which used WCW according to its editsum.

We have no problem with the change to Vox.Feds, since it was commented incorrectly to begin with. For the remaining three refs, WCW apparently "fixed" the leading ref tags, despite the fact that they were inside valid comments. This requires us to (1) notice what the bot did, and (2) then clean up after it. We wonder why this has happened for the first time since we started using this technique in August, and we would like to know what we can do to prevent it from happening again. I'm watching, so no need to ping me. ‑‑Mandruss  08:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss First off, you should have contacted the bot owner (Magioladitis). Check Wikipedia only finds problems and doesn't do any of the fixing.
The issue Check Wikipedia found was a missing closing comment tag. In the first paragraph that was changed, at the very end... </ref>-- was changed to </ref>-->. This is why the bot arrived at the page.
The reason the bot changed <!--ref to <!--<ref is because it thinks a < is missing. In HTML/XML, there can be nothing between < and the first letter of the tag name. Bgwhite (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
@Bgwhite: Ok, I was relying on my 30 yrs in computer fields, which led me to believe that nothing inside a comment could be called a tag name because comments are supposed to be ignored by software. But that's neither here nor there, as the bot will mind its own botness unless we attract its attention with a coding error. Thank you. ‑‑Mandruss  09:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
(Btw, the editsum said "Fixed using WCW", not "Found using WCW". Based on what you said, the latter would be more correct, and perhaps Magioladitis would consider changing that if they read this. In any case, some rewording of the editsum might help prevent others from making the same mistake I did.) ‑‑Mandruss  09:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Mandruss Eeeks. That makes us similar old farts. 20 years in the computer field for me. I put up my first web page almost 21 years ago. Sniff. You don't have to get off my lawn. Bgwhite (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
LOL. Different worlds, I'm a retired mainframe dinosaur. ‑‑Mandruss  09:40, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Mandruss Hi. I used my bot account but it was a manual edit. No unclosed comment tag are fixed in bot mode. Feel free to improve. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Magioladitis Feel free to improve, as in improve the tool? It's a common misconception that anyone here who has any technical background can modify tools in this environment. Not so, by a long shot. The necessary skills could be acquired with a ton of time and effort, but it's impossible to justify that for the occasional (unpaid) need such as this one. ‑‑Mandruss  21:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Mandruss I meant: feel free to improve the article. :) You can help improve the tool too of course. :) But in this particular edit I only used the bot account to perform a manual edit. WPCleaner only helped me to spot the unbalanced comment tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Magioladitis If I understand correctly, then, you manually "fixed" the ref tags that were inside comments? In that case, we would ask that you not do that in this article, since it interferes with the article's convention as described above. We have a higher level of consistency than exists in most articles, and we like to keep it that way. It's not ownership, as it's consistent with many guidelines that recommend respecting existing article conventions. Note that you "fixed" only three out of about 75 commented-out refs, all of which use the same commenting method described above. ‑‑Mandruss  22:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Mandruss no problem. I already implied that my edit was not perfect. The vital part as to close the comment tag. The other part was incomplete and perhaps wrong. Feel free to correct my edit as long as you keep all comment tags closed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI vs WPCleaner[edit]

Josve05a will not move this discussion/section to Wikipedia talk:WPCleaner.

@NicoV, Bgwhite: Something is wrong. WPCleaner doesn't list any errors on svwp, even though there are. Itworks with enwp, but not with svwp. (tJosve05a (c) 18:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@Bgwhite, Josve05a: I see at least 2 problems:
Currently travelling without much net access, so can't do much. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 04:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
As of today, still the same error. Could someone in the know please handle it. Cheers, --Bulver (talk) 08:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Bulver There was a problem with the dumps. It rectified itself a few days ago as frwiki, plwiki, arwiki and itwiki have produced valid errors. Next time svwiki dump is produced it should produce valid errors too. Bgwhite (talk) 09:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Many thanks //--Bulver (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)