User talk:Nickj/Can We Link It

Nice tool

Hi ! nice tool, thanks. I have tried it for Study Skills, I haven't had the occasion to test it horoughly but seems good. --Khalid hassani 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostrophe problem?

I seem to be having problems using the tool for St. Brendan's Island and I think it is having problems with the apostrophe. The output is:

The "St. Brendan\'s Island" article text was empty, or does not exist, or could not be retrieved. Maybe it's not a valid Wikipedia article? To search for link suggestions for more pages, click here.

--NHSavage 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi NHSavage, and thank you for the heads up! It was definitely a bug with apostrophes. I've updated it, and it should be fixed now - e.g. seems to show the suggestions okay, and save and apply them okay - but if you notice anything else wrong please let me know. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 06:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work, very useful

Tool works and is very useful. Used it for US article and it came-up with lots of relevant suggestions. Thanks Tom 16:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Though I haven't used it, myself, somebody used it *on* an article I wrote. Please use this tool with caution. The article I wrote was so overlinked it looked absurd. I grant that some suggestions were excellent, but linking to articles that have nothing to do with the article one is reading is just plain distracting. Jeffpw 16:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded! This tool simply works amazingly well — perhaps better than human editors in some situations. I think the {{wikify}} template should include a direct link to your tool. :)

Although I also agree with jeffpw — perhaps the tool should explicitly warn/notify the user about overlinking and relevant linking. -- intgr 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: non-javascript interface

It would be good to include users of non-javascript enabled browsers, such as links, lynx, w3m, as well as users who have turned off javascript in their browser. -Pgan002 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice job!

Very interesting tool. I've set it on my favorites and I'll be using it often. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 17:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes We Can!

Very useful! I discovered this yesterday and have tried it on a couple of articles so far – an excellent addition to the Wikipedia armory – which should, I think, be given more publicity.

But, how on earth does it work? Do you have an expanding database of all Wikipedia articles for it to search through? An explanation (in laymans' terms, please!) would be most interesting. Regards – Agendum 10:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Apostrophes

The same glitch was produced when I used the page a minute ago. The tool is fantastic, just added 30-40 useful links to the Palace of Versailles article. Thanks! —Dogears (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

&?

Hello! As I've mentioned before, your tool is great. However, it does not seem to accept articles which contain an ampersand (&), such as East Durham & Houghall Community College. I've tried replacing it with "&", but the tool simply states that no article by the name of "East Durham " exists. Just FYI! Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 13:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Special characters

As has been pointed out above, this script seems to have occasional trouble with special characters. I have just removed a stray backslash (escape character gone spare?). May I also suggest a link from this tool's page to the guidelines WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOS-L? Enthusiastic use of this tool may lead to serious overlinking. Thank you. — mholland 13:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Nickj,

I just wanted to say great job on the tool. I've been using it for a while and some of the suggestions it comes up with are pretty impressive.

On a somewhat related note, I'm the author of a very simple script called Tags which basically helps editors add frequently used maintenance templates to articles. A few minutes ago, I added an option to wikify an article using Can we link it (at this time, disabled by default) and I just wanted to make sure you didn't have any objections. Thanks and keep up the good work, -- Seed 2.0 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No objections at all - please feel free to include it or link to it in any tools you wish. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 09:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --S ^up? 09:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Erhm...

This is a very nice and incredibly useful tool, but one thought that occurs to me is that it would be quite easy to use this tool for link spamming. Have you considered this yet, and if so, have you taken any steps to protect against it? --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 20:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

trailing blanks

I noticed that if a pasted-in article title has a trailing blank CWLI won't find the article. Andyvphil 17:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good job!

Great tool! It's suggesting some good links I wouldn't have thought of. And I love the ability to click on the suggestion to see what the page being linked to really is. This is an awesome addition to the DEP arsenal.--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work! - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be working

Many of the articles I type in, it doesn't find. When it does find an article and I make my selections, then submit them, it never connects. Will this be fixed anytime soon? I'd love to use it, it looks like an awesome tool. --Skylights76 (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Me too. When it does find an article and I make my selections, then submit them, it never connects. It looks as if it will be really useful when it works though. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's working for me now. I've just used it on Clannad and it came up with some really helpful suggestions. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It's doing this for me right now. It provides suggestions, I select the ones to use, and then it spends 10 minutes or so attempting to connect, but fails. This is the first time I've used the tool, and it is doing this on both Firefox and IE. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

LinkBot

Hi there,

I understand your concerns of the LinkBot, particularly that may annoy people, but what if you create a page for subscribers, and only the subscribed people will get the suggestions from the bot? The bot should do suggestions based on pages recently edited by those subscribers. If you do that approach, the LinkBot would be very very useful. What do you think?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't find some articles

Hi, great tool! If used with care, this really improves an article. One question: I noticed that some articles are not found by the program, even though they do exist on Wikipedia. Any suggestions? (Example Genes, Brain and Behavior). --Crusio (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

watched pages

Nice one.. suggested quite a few good links, thankyou! A little note though - seems to take the 'watch' off of an edited page? LeeVJ (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ditto on all three points: thanks, links & where'd my watchlist go. Bazj (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree on all 3, but with another issue. The only page I have used the tool on is Farewell Farewell. Here I noticed the two boxes at the top, read the first few sentences and acted upon them; saved changes, then noticed sentence "Suggestions are available". Clicked on this, which started your tool; it suggested five links (presumably there would have been many more if I'd tried it earlier). Of those, two were suitable, three not but that's not a criticism. The two problems I had were that (a) it dropped the "watch" status as per the two users above; (b) on saving, the "null edit summary" detector complained, as per an unnamed user in the main page of this article. I clicked "Save Changes" again, without altering the "Edit summary", and it accepted it as you can see from the page history. Redrose64 (talk) 09:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fatal Error

Hi Nickj love the tool I was trying it out and looked up the Ulster Defence Regiment article but got this error just thought I would let you know about it.

Fatal error: Allowed memory size of 16777216 bytes exhausted (tried to allocate 524288 bytes) in /var/www/hosts/can-we-link-it.nickj.org/suggest-links/current_page.php on line 147

Maybe you could have a look at the code again see if you can sort it. BigDunc^Talk 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Still hanging

Hi-

I've tried using CWLI (and it's awesome with its suggestions), but it keeps hanging when I try to submit. What are the chances of porting it to toolserver? Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 11:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Offline?

Oh no - I love CWLI, but have received a page load error every time I've tried to access it over the last few days. Has it had its chips? Gonzonoir (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't find the errors

I can't find the errors at http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/suggest-links/suggester.php?page=Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics. Any chance you can help me out? Thanks very much, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Give it a try now - there were two issues there. One set of nested templates closed with two consecutive sets of curled brackets (}}}}); I just inserted a space between the two sets. There was also a reference that started with a double quote mark (") and ended with two spaced single quotes (' '). I replaced both with pairs of single quotes (''), which in wiki syntax makes italics. Should be working now. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I was going blind trying to find them. Your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Web-hosting

I'll be happy to donate a part of my web-hosting to the project: PHP 4/5, MySQL, PHPMyAdmin. Please, feel free to get in touch. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Danube Commission

Hi, Nick. When I use the above link in your tool, it takes me to the International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River. This is an old Redirect; there is now a good article about the Danube Commission, which I wrote and would like to find some links for. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bot inserting redlinks?

Hi - I had the issue today of using the bot, and discovering that two of the entries inserted were redlinks: Jill Gioia and Karine Hannah. Both seem to be deleted articles - deleted at least a year ago. Is it time to do a regeneration of the database it's using? --Alvestrand (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Relevant linking please

Nice tool. It definitely helps for the undeveloped and unwikified articles. However, can I remind users of this tool to be aware of the disadvantages of adding links to common terms and dictionary-definition type terms. Overlinking tends to have an adverse effect, especially in higher-quality articles. For example, do we really need links to "woman", "antique shop" , "mayor" and the like (refer to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvey_Milk&diff=prev&oldid=308812827 this diff)? Not saying that this tool isn't useful; just reminding users of it to be cautious. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, again, sorry about that :( I was binging on this, and got lazy by the time I used it for Harvey Milk (An article I really wouldn't want to mess up) and my judgement got impaired.----occono (talk) 17:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick. While I appreciate the novelty and technique in designing the trial tool, I think it oversimplifies the editorial skill that good wikilinking requires. If you'd like to get a sense of that, please see an experimental stub I prepared last month here (it's skewed towards the awareness of overlinking at the moment, which many editors believe is a much greater issue than underlinking—there will be a few underlinking exercises soon). You may also wish to read WP:LINK. Tony (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I stand 100% behind this tool, and actually think it needs to be improved in order to help it suggest more links. A tool is a tool, and editors need to be trained to use it. GA is the process/forum where such training should take place. Ling.Nut (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Very concerned that this tool will lead to WP:OVERLINKing. Linking requires editorial judgment. I'd be interested in seeing a test run, but I'm unconvinced a tool can replace the editorial judgment needed for good linking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)