User talk:Magioladitis

Working as intended?

In the light of WP:COSMETICBOT, would you mind having a look at this Yobot edit to see if the bot is working properly. I wouldn't think that removing a space from the end of each of three lines of text (two of them are alt text) counts as a "substantive change". Cheers --RexxS (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

RexxS thanks for the heads up. I'll look into it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: any idea which error was not fixed here? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: This version is what CheckWiki ran on. The problem is error #25, section header hierarchy problem. Section headers went from ===The pressure vessel=== to =====Manufacture=====. Ironically for RexxS, it is an accessibility issue. Don't tell Mandarax I used ironic, using it wrong is one of his pet peeves. AWB fixes some #25 issues. What isn't fixed is later done manually... usually by me, sigh. Bgwhite (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Misusing that word is litterally the worst thing anyone can do. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, there is another CheckWiki error, but it's not detected because parenthesis were used instead of brackets or spaces. It's an external link without http://. Bgwhite (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so the bot ran on a snapshot taken while my pal Peter Southwood was fiddling with the section headers; then by the time it actually ran, Peter had inserted the level 4 header ====Aluminium====. There was no error #25 left to fix, so it just did the tidying. Got it - and thanks to all for the good work you're doing. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Washington Monument ref

Magioladitis: You made some minor changes to Washington Monument, but I had to revert some pages in ref HSR (Historic Structure Report) that you changed from hyphens to n-dashes. This ref uses page within chapter numbering, so page 3-18, for example, means page 18 within chapter 3, it does not mean pages 3 to 18. Check the ref. — Joe Kress (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: to check this please. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Joe Kress I've dealt with this before, just wish I could remember the details. The {{tp}} template is only for page numbers. So, technically you are using the wrong template and Yobot is doing a valid edit. The better solution might be to use {{sfn}} with |loc= set. Set it to something like |loc=Chapter 3, p. 18?? Bgwhite (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This happens sometimes with cite xxx (e.g. {{cite journal}}) templates as well. For those, our usual recommendation is that editors use the |at= parameter instead of the |page= parameter, ideally with an HTML comment explaining that the hyphen should not be changed, to avoid overzealous editors "fixing" the hyphen to a dash. "p. 3-18" is an unusual construction, so it's best to note it in an HTML comment. I know that makes extra work, but it gives you a chance of having the correct notation survive for a while. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Jonesey, I now remember the solution was the |at= parameter for the case I dealt with before. Bgwhite (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I did not use any template such as {{cite book}}. But even if I did, no page within a template would be useful because I refer to a different page or pages within this book every one of the twenty or so times that I refer to it within the article. Instead I use the template {{rp}} to refer to a page, a range of pages, figures (the book does not use page numbers for figures), and pages within appendices. I did use the comment "page within chapter numbering" for some but not all occurrences. I added the fuller comment "This ref uses page within chapter numbering, so page 2-15, for example, means page 15 within chapter 2, NOT pages 2 to 15. Chapters 1, 3 and 4 all have a page 15." at the first occurrence only. I suspect a more succinct HTML comment such as "one page, not a range" or the fuller "one page, not a range, page within chapter numbering" at all occurrences might be better. I do note that whenever I use ranges of these complex page numbers, e.g. "2-7–2-8", no editor has tried to change them. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reordering footnotes

Bots should be careful about reordering footnotes. If the pre-bot text is

"direct quote from a source in quote marks"

Yobot in some circumstances will reorder the footnotes, which is incorrect. For an example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_law&type=revision&diff=753449623&oldid=753336538 -- the quote is from Black's, and the reorder makes it look like it came from Garner.

Recommendation--if the character immediately before the first <ref> is a " (or only ". ) then don't reorder the footnotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.169.56.27 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

References

There is a discussion about this. somewhere central. Bgwhite may remember where. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Jonesey95 What was the outcome of the proposal? I started reading it a few weeks back and then stopped as it was starting to make my blood pressure rise. Bgwhite (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to go do your reading for you? Hold on while I do that, then I'll come back to rub your feet while explaining what I found, then I'll send a birthday card to your mother-in-law.

And... I'm back. No resolution yet. The RFC started on November 19, and comments were still coming in on December 4, with one more today. Editors are having a hard time agreeing on what the discussion is really about, or should be about, instead of addressing the question. My prediction is that the perfect will be the enemy of the good, resulting in no consensus, which should mean that the status quo is preserved. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Jonesey95 My mother-in-law's birthday is June 6, 1966. Human souls, tortured dead puppies and ice cream (it's very hot where she lives) are her favourite things. Now for the big question, what in the world is the status quo? Sigh.... Bgwhite (talk) 06:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Yobot being silly again

Magioladitis, please stop Yobot making silly edits like this.

Yobot correctly ensures that (1) headers are preceded by one blank line, and (2) are followed immediately by text (no blank line). However, when a header is followed immediately by another header one level deeper, then (1) and (2) conflict, so there is no obvious "correct" answer. Currently Yobot inserts a blank line, giving rise to (in my view) pointless edits like the one above. This is a matter for article editors to decide, and should not be done by a bot. The edit above also violates WP:COSMETICBOT.

Many thanks for Yobot, which usually does great work, and is appreciated, but sometimes it does do stupid things! --NSH001 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NSH001 There was a problem with the list generated for CHECKWIKI error #104. We are fixing it... Thanks for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NSH001 This was my fault. The edit was made because of CheckWiki error #104. We are trying to expand the scope of the error and turned it on yesterday. After some concerns from other wikis, we asked for and received clarification from a WMF programmer. Checkwiki's net was cast too wide and the code is commented out until everything is sorted. Yobot also won't try to fix this anymore and dexbot will work on it. Dexbot is better at fixing this issue. Bgwhite (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Magioladitis and Bgwhite, thanks for the prompt responses, and thanks for fixing it. I've noticed Yobot making this sort of edit for a long time now, usually as part of a much larger diff. So perhaps this is more than just a one-off blunder? --NSH001 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NSH001 in fact Yobot does not have a nice check method whether a error was actually fixed or not. This is the center of the 99% of the complains against Yobot. What we actually do is to ensure that the page that is edited has an error and AWB can actually fix it. This is very sensitive to CHECKWIKI changes i.e. to the code that creates the lists of pages that contain errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking this is part of AWB genfixes, so Yobot will still do it, even when it is correctly fixing some other CHECKWIKI error? In that case, it should be removed from genfixes. --NSH001 (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NSH001 which one exactly? The whitespace after the header? I'll ask @Rjwilmsi: to comment if they like. --- Magioladitis (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I mean. --NSH001 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

NSH001, Magioladitis has been asked many times to stop adding white space between headings and sub-headings, but he does it regularly, e.g. [1] SarahSV ^(talk) 22:16, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@NSH001 and SlimVirgin: T141346 is an open request. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You didn't mention that the MoS says (and did on the day you created that task): "There is no need to include a blank line between a heading and sub-heading." What has to happen for that to be removed from AWB? Pinging Rjwilmsi. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, SV. One can argue which is better (personally I prefer no blank line in this case, even though I'm a great fan of an ETVP ("Easy to visually parse") coding style, which often requires newlines - but the extra blank line in this case does nothing to enhance ETVP. (SV - There is more about ETVP on my talk page and on Nishidani's talk page. I would welcome your contribution to that discussion eventually, but not yet, please, as I want to concentrate on development first, and don't want (yet) to get diverted into long discussion.) But the main point here is that this the type of edit that should NEVER be done by a bot. --NSH001 (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

NSH001, thanks, I'll take a look at that page. Magioladitis, can you say what needs to be done to have that removed from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes? The issue is "Puts a single blank line between headers per WP:BODY and WP:HEAD." That doesn't mean put a blank line between headings and sub-headings, or between two sub-headings, and neither BODY nor HEAD have ever suggested doing that. WP:HEAD was changed a year ago to make that explicit. What needs to happen now to have the AWB rule changed? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

periods and references

Resolved

Thanks, Yobot, for your attention to Harry Kesten.

A stylistic point. When the text reads: "see the work in <ref>...</ref>." or similar, it is preferable not to change that to "see the work in.<ref>...</ref>"

2deff (talk) 11:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

2deff please read WP:REFPUNCT. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

bot's unexplained removal of "<br />"

In this edit, why did the bot decide that there's no need for a new line? I would undo this edit myself, but I'm afraid the bot will change it again. Thanks, -- -- -- 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please respond. -- -- -- 20:27, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

-- -- -- the break tag was removed from a list. Break tag was unnecessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The bot's edit was wrong in this edge case. The br tag is inside a multi-line reference, not at the end of a list item. I have added {{notatypo}} to prevent bots from repeating this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. By the way, I would appreciate if you would teach the bot to leave more detailed edit summaries (instead of just "WP:CHECKWIKI error fixes") so that we (amateur Wikipedians) shouldn't need to flood your talkpage with requests for explanations. -- -- -- 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@-- -- -- and Jonesey95: I used an even better template which is appropriate for this situation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:BAG

Just curious, are you still active in the WP:BAG? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Zackmann08. Ofcourse, I am. I just approved a bot task yesterday. Why? Should I do something? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just got a couple of tasks in the WP:BRFA queue that have stalled. If you felt like taking a look... :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Sure. But tomorrow. I was about to go to bed. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good! Night. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Any chance you have some time to take a look at the BRFA now? :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Done :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Trial is complete. Let me know your thoughts. :-) --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

AWB improvements

Would it be possible to make the following AWB improvement regarding: 1) the List Filter screen, the 'Remove titles containing' box and the 'Keep titles containing' box; 2) the Skip screen text 'Contains' box and the 'Doesn't contain' box. When the amount of text in these boxes runs in to the hundreds/thousands of characters, it is VERY difficult to create or maintain this text correctly or even to envision it. It is also difficult to mass copy into/out of these boxes. It would be so much easier if AWB editors could optionally bring up a table to work on, such as found with the 'Find & replace' screen. This would be an expandable number of lines where one could put text and connect it up with Regex (mostly '|')--just like in the current boxes, but easier to handle. No 'find' or 'replace' columns, of course; other columns would go away also when not applicable here. Thanks Hmains (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC).

@Reedy and Rjwilmsi: -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Trailing white space?

I reverted Yobot at Decibel because it looks like it did nothing but remove an trailing space. And didn't leave a useful edit summary. Can that really be an approved bot activity? Dicklyon (talk) 07:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The bot failed to fix this. Changes to CHECKWIKI affected bot activity. I am on it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Distracting and unnecessary edits

I edited at User talk:Yobot#Expanding templates before seeing you asked for comments here. I have the same issue as SpinningSpark and I also can't understand the answer. Please stop these sort of edits. Thincat (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The bot failed to fix this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure it counts that there is another error that could have been (but was not) corrected. Anyway, your explanation made me chuckle! Thincat (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thincat Unfortunately, I have only 2-3 scripts for 114 CHECKWIKI errors. This save me time but it's not the best approach. The system works as follows: CHECKWIKI creates everyday lists of pages that have syntax errors, I load the ones that are fixable by AWB. This would imply that when the bot visits a page it fixes at least one error and at the meantime does other minor stuff. Two problems here: The CHECKWIKI fixes and the minor fixes are inseparable in AWB's code and very few skip checks in fact exist in my scripts. So, if, for some reason, the bot fails to fix an error, it my do a minor edit without actually fixing anything. Usually, this ratio is very low. In fact lower than the time it would take to rewrite a much better code. After the bot is done we clear the lists of pages and check which pages were left still reporting errors. These few pages are fixed manually daily. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm a retired IT person and I often used to write scripts for this and that. So, I can sympathise. Thincat (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Bot source code

I was going to fill out a new bot application, but noticed that it includes linking to the bot's source code. I had assumed that submitting the code was a later step, since 1) we can't really test the code until the bot is approved, right? 2) if the request is denied because the intended purpose of the bot isn't needed or for some similar reason, writing the code will be labor lost. It just seems strange that submitting the code is part of the initial step rather than a later stage of the process. GBRV (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure if this is a continuation of a previous conversation, but here are some thoughts: 1. BRFA reviewers want to see some evidence that you know what you're doing. Often, bot operators will create the code and test it in their user space to make sure their idea is feasible. BRFA reviewers who look at the source code may be able to point out opportunities for improvement in things like regular expressions. Crowdsourcing can improve code of that kind. 2. The purpose of the bot should be to carry out a consensus decision somewhere on the English Wikipedia, so it should not be the case that "the intended purpose of the bot isn't needed". It does sometimes happen, however, that a local consensus is overridden by a policy or guideline that the initial discussion had overlooked. Such is life.

All of that said, you do not have to submit source code with your BRFA submission, though it is encouraged. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for clarifying that. GBRV (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox book pages field

Hi,

Last year you mentioned about "pp." being present in loads of book infoboxes. It's taken me almost a year longer than I thought it would to get this done, but I thought I'd let you know that I've got JWB working, removing "pp." from all ~130 of the 500 infobox book articles I could access with the tool, taking about 45 mins of light work. There are apparently over 38,000 instances of Template:Infobox book in the mainspace, making this perhaps about 1%-2% of the total work. I'm going to see whether the author of WP:JWB can make the tool access the rest of the articles, but in the meantime have noticed that lots of them have very un-granular parameters, with lots of data chucked in there from lots of different editions. If we managed to fix this, the "pages" formatting could be fixed as the templates are migrated.

Anyways, hope you've had a good 2016, and hope 2017 is even better! ‑‑Yodin^T 01:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Yobot_27

Task 27 has been approved for a small trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:02, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects

Hi Magioladitis, what is done with the text on this page using AWB? I'm unsure as to most of the cleanup that can be done with AWB and how to do so. Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 17:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for evading the block of Yobot by using your account for similar edits, for making mass changes without a bot flag, and for violations of WP:COSMETICBOT. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  SpinningSpark 10:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm adding here a list of related discussions at the request of a reviewing admin;

• User talk:Yobot#Expanding templates
• Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Yobot
• Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#General fixes and cosmetic edits SpinningSpark 16:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not cosmetic. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

But this, this, this, this, this... is purely cosmetic, and all from among your latest 100 article edits (and more recent than the one you give as "not cosmtic") and made during your bot was blocked for the same reason. That among these cosemtic edits are some which really are beneficial is not sufficient. Fram (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see redirect stripping ({{refs}} to {{reflist}}) as "cosmetic", but "functional, involving redirects". Now do we have a policy on that for 'bots? Because it ought to exist, and it ought to be separate from the policy on cosmetics. If it's not covered by that policy (and it shouldn't be, there are reasonable reasons to want to do it) then this isn't a good reason for a block. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain why it's not "cosmetic" and what are the reasonable reasons to do it? And no, WP:COSMETICBOT is part of the bot policy, and it specifically notes "Cosmetic changes (such as many of the AWB general fixes) should be applied only when there is a substantive change to make at the same time.", linking to Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes, where the third section is "Template Redirects (TemplateRedirects)". So this is clearly included in the policy as not being allowed, and Magioladitis, with his long history of bot use and bots blocked for violating cosmeticbot, should have been aware of this. He is free to try to change the policy (this was explicitly stated at the block of Yobot), he is not free to continue the same disallowed tasks on his own account when his bot gets blocked for them. Fram (talk) 17:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I removed many of the templates that are not needed to be changed. The reflists ones cause problems to bots that's why I replaced them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Especially, if we are to move to a phase where AWB won't do that, we will need editors to do it manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Any evidence, discussion, ... that that replacement needs to be made at all, and that it causes problems to bots? Fram (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

A cosmetic edit needs to be made by a bot to help out bots? That is entirely the wrong way round, the bots are here to serve the community, not other bots. Skynet has not yet gone self-aware. SpinningSpark 11:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram BG19bot added a duplicate reflist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Each Wikipedia uses a different set of redirects. Translations of pages often cause problems similar to the RE template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI and AWB use right now different pages to detect redirects of reflist and the worst is that both lists are maintained manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

B19bot did that for the rather stupid redirect "realist" to reflist". That doesn't mean that "every" redirect, like "refs", should be replaced. And what different Wikipedias do is really not anything I worry about; we have stopped automatic translation efforts before, people should translate pages manually and check the templates. All of this doesn't explain why you would change a perfectly acceptable, working template redirect to the actual template at a time when your bot was blocked for the same issue. You can hardly have been unaware of the problems with this kind of edits, so it really is hard to understand why you would actively seek to be blocked in such a way. Fram (talk) 11:36, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark Me, Bgwhite and @NicoV: are making a joint effort that these lists are unified. Last year not even the pages generated/detected/fixed by these tools were related. Recall that Bgwhite in fact modified a pre-exisiting code. Me too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have emptied Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects from all but the stub templates. This may prevent you from getting blocked again for this reason in the future, assuming that my edit stays of course. You are still responsible for your own edits though, no matter if that page stays empty or gets populated again. Fram (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram I gave an example above that an AWB bot got confused by newly created redirect. The result was a duplicated reflist. You may have missed it with all these comments. {{RE}} is also an example of a bad redirect when it comes from moving the article from onle project to the other. some other redirects were the word "references" in other languages. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it really so hard for a bot to check for template "or its redirects"? In any case, I answered about that "realist" redirect: that one is simply a stupid redirect, as it will confuse the heck out of anyone reading the page in edit mode. "Refs" for "Reflist" though is not better or worse, and used on hundreds of pages. And there are many similar examples of well-established, perfectly acceptable template redirects. Creating a page of template redirects which may not be bot-replaced would perhaps be a better solution: creating a page of redirects which may be replaced will still not catch the new ones of course (like "realist", which wasn't listed at the AWB list). Fram (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram Inside the core code of AWB I have incudes some of the common redirects but not all. It's impractical. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram I am not against any redirect. I think it's clear from my actions. Moreover, I almost never added anything in that list. My effort was to remove. We can keep "Refs" as a plausable redirect. I recall we had some problems in the past because |refs= is a valid parameter for reflist and I had problems to regex search for reflist templates with parameters. Anyway, it's approx. 200 pages. No big deal either way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Spinningspark and now what exactly? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

You can

• agree to not make automated or semi-automated edits until the Yobot issue is resolved and I'll unblock you,
• appeal the block and have another admin look at it, or
• stay blocked until Yobot is settled. SpinningSpark 19:07, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Official website

{{Official website}} is the new standard since it will use information from Wikidata. The conversion is the fist step to compare data between Wikipedia and Wikidata and find inconsistencies. @Ladsgroup: for more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

xaosflux See that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6 was done during Wikimania 2016 an it is a middle ground in order not to directly replace external links to official website with templates. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

This BRFA is a bit light in that no one linked to a discussion anywhere of why this should be done, or showing community support for it to be done. Has this since been documented? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

For moving data to Wikidata see also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KasparBot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux at that time was a bit straightforward to be honest. WP:ELOFFICIAL has not been updated. See for example that in 2015 Category:Official website not in Wikidata was created. We also have a tracking category for inconsistencies between Wikidata and English Wikipedia Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia. Dexbot is/was not only converting external links in English Wikipedia but was also updating/comparing things with Wikidata. This is a next step after interwikis were removed from the English Wikipedia and after Authority Control now obtains info only from Wikidata. Infoboxes also now use Wikidata items. This migration has, or should have, consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

These two tracking categories can't be maintained by not using Official website. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

xaosflux Are you, as BAG member, satisfied by this answer or you think I should wrote more on the matter? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

As far as Dexbot task 6 goes, I'd like to see a more thorough "Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):" documenting this task, and demonstrating its support. I never would have approved that task without it. I understand you may have had face-to-face or other types discussions, but that isn't helpful for everyone else. That the operator is "not aware of the details" of why they are doing these edits is also concerning. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ladsgroup, SlimVirgin, and Xaosflux: Dexbot's edits affect page categorisation.. so they are not cosmetic. It is an equivalent to adding a hidden maintance category to the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Dab redirects

Resolved

Fram if some of the redirects of e the dab templates are not in AWB's hard code, thet will cause AWB to tag as orphan, underlinked etc. disambiguation pages. Every time a new redirect is added a new AWB release will be needed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I have readded the dab templates, thanks. (Doesn't mean that they should be "replaced", but for the moment, if this prevents them from being tagged as orphans, unsourced, whatever, ... it should be kept until a better solution is found). Fram (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fram exactly. I am not replacing them. Problems usually occur when people use older versions etc. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote redirects

@GoingBatty:": I think you can comment whether removing the redirects from WP:AWB/TR will affect anything. I think it will affect hatnote merging for starts. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It would impact everything where AWB is hard coded to take action based on a specific template:

• • dating templates
  • rename template parameters
  • addition/removal of {{multiple issues}}
  • merging multiple dablinks
  • DEFAULTSORT addition/fixes
  • changes to {{uncategorized}} based on people categories
  • addition of people categories based on {{birth date and age}}
  • moving {{dead link}}
  • and lots more within WP:AWB/GF

It would also impact any users (or their bots) who are relying on template redirects to happen before their own find and replace entries. Will have to spend some more time thinking about this and replying on WP:AWB/TR talk page. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Fram, Xaosflux, and Spinningspark:. I would like also to ask @Anomie: if they still use this page for their bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

BAG membership

Hello Magioladitis, some editors have expressed concerns with your membership in the bot approvals group. We do not have any formal policies related to managing group membership. Once you are unblocked would you volunteer for a reconfirmation discussion? I think this would be better then having a no-confidence type proceeding as you could better present yourself. I would prefer any such discussions to be on hold until you are able to participate. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux no problem. As soon as I am able to edit I 'll comment. Where is the discussion exactly? I was not at home the last 2 days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

See WT:BAG. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo / Event: Hybrid Arts and Wikipedia

Talk on Hybrid Arts an Wikipedia

Saturday, December 17 in Athens... -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Photo / CorfuPedia meeting

Corfupedia meeting

A meeting of the educators participating in "CorfuPedia" took place in a book store in Corfu last week. I am the coordinator of this wonderful project. One of project's goals is also to increase female participation in Wikipedia. It's supported by "Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia" under a WMF grant. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)