Jump to content

User talk:GoingBatty

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 41.254.31.59 (talk) at 16:36, 26 May 2014 (→move page: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Any sections older than 14 days will be automatically archived to User talk:GoingBatty/Archive5. Archives prior to 2011 were compiled by manually and can be found at the right hand side of this page. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

continuation from WT:Notability_(geographic_features)

text from WT:Notability_(geographic_features)

 == Suggestion that BattyBot self-revert changes to add the WP:Notability (geographic features) notability tags. ==

  1. For one, this has not been a guideline since January 2013, so I think that the changes made in December 2012 have been erroneous for over a year.
  2. BattyBot is second-guessing the original post, which may have really intended WP:GNG notability, and BattyBot doesn't change the date that the tag was added.  BattyBot doesn't have the judgement to know if a topic like a church is better listed as a building or as an organization.
  3. Editors are implying that the changes BattyBot has made show widespread interest in this essay, so the changes are confounding the level of interest in this essay.
Unscintillating (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been running BattyBot to set one of the parameters of Template:Notability to link to this guideline. Before more mass reversions, let's see whether the consensus is to remove the parameter from Template:Notability (which makes reversions moot) or the page is promoted to guideline status (and a subset of the edits should be reverted), or something else. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:59, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: Using {{Notability|Geo}} shows the following text: "The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for geographic features." If it is determined that Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) should not be a guideline, then there may need to be a change to Template:Notability. I have not initiated a protected edit request, as the RfC has not been completed. However, I just created Template talk:Notability#Request for comment to help advertise the RfC and share my thoughts. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 16:28, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Unscintillating: There are over 61,000 articles tagged with {{Notability}}, and trying to resolve the issue for each article will take an incredible amount of time and resources. The goal of BattyBot's task 13 is simply to add a parameter to {{Notability}} when appropriate. Doing so creates a link to the specific notability guideline that applies to the article, which will hopefully encourage editors with a specific area of expertise to read the guideline and either improve the article and remove the {{Notability}} template or send the article to RfD. I have programmed the bot to look the infobox to determine which {{Notability}} parameter to use - see User:BattyBot/Notability. (Based on the discussion at WT:Notability (geographic features), this logic needs to be modified.) The bot does not add or remove {{Notability}}, as the bot does not have the logic to determine if the article has demonstrated notability. The bot maintains the original date to make it easier to find who originally added the {{Notability}} template.
Having said that, let's look at the bot's edit to the Brunswick, New York article. The bot would either add a parameter to the {{Notability}} template or do nothing. The article has {{Infobox settlement}}, so the bot simply changed {{notability|date=November 2010}} to {{Notability|Geography|date=November 2010}}. I believe this was a good edit, as it appears that Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) applies for this article. The article length, number and quality of the references, date of incorporation, and population will all help a human determine whether the article has demonstrated that the town is notable, but have nothing to do with this bot task. It appears you've stumbled across an edge case, as the {{Notability}} template was added in this edit in the middle of the article instead of at the top. Maybe the editor should have instead added {{Notability-section}} (which redirects to {{Importance-section}}). I hope you will continue to use your expertise in this area to follow through with resolving the issue in this particular article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ...

i made a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarafa_Baghajati mr @Magioladitis tagged my article with both category and orphan tag...

i added categories but still not sure why the orphan tag..the article is rich with links from outside wikipedia and also linked to pages inside wikipedia also ... and after his tag i made sure you can reach the article from other wikipedia pages also as :

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%BCdiger_Nehberg

2-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohamed_Said_Ramadan_Al-Bouti

3-https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaretha_Lupac_Stiftung

4-the german version for the article : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarafa_Baghajati

5-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yusuf_al-Qaradawi

so i think the orphan tag isn't needed anymore ...hope you review the article and remove it if you find it adequate so i can keep adding information to it .

thank you Wikipedian13579 (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hey thank you he removed the orphan tag himself thank you again

Wikipedian13579 (talk) 21:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedian13579: When determining if an article is an orphan, links from other language Wikipedias don't count. After you added links from Rüdiger Nehberg, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, and Mohamed Said Ramadan Al-Bouti to Tarafa Baghajati, you could have removed the {{orphan}} tag yourself. I made some improvements to Tarafa Baghajati. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 01:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you so much man for your improvements i really appreciate it you really made it better thank you again

Wikipedian13579 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wholesale exemption of citations from MOS requirements?

Whether citations are subject to the MOS, and particularly WP:MOSNUM and MOS:DATEFORMAT, is being questioned at WT:CITE#MOS rules apply to citations?. This derives partly from my attempt to mention at MOS:DATEFORMAT that year suffixes are valid. The response seems to be that they should not be mentioned, as MOS should not apply to citations at all. You might want to take a look. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J. Johnson: Thanks for the info. I hope Trappist the monk is also watching this conversation, as Trappist is the one implementing the CS1 error functionality in the citation templates. BattyBot is not designed to remove year suffixes (e.g. 2003b) from citations. If you see that it is, please let me know ASAP so I can fix the bot. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this because the implication is that MOSNUM and DATEFORMAT do not authorize any modifications of dates used in any form of citation. And if you wanted to cleanup inconsistencies in citation dates, sorry, you are not allowed to modify a "citation style", even where it is undeclared, undefined, or even inconsistent. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@J. Johnson: It will be interesting to see what consensus is formed, and what impact it makes to Help:Citation Style 1 and Help:CS1 errors#bad date as a result. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CS1 has explicitly adopted the MOS number formats, with a few listed exceptions. However, that will only hold if editors consider CS1 to be a style rather than a toolkit to use to implement any style at all. A different issue is that limitations in the template causes errors to be issued for some legitimate dates (for example February 29, 1700, in the UK).Jc3s5h (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Quite honestly you deserve this after the "talkpage" issue .... Think I'll join ya haha! :)

Happy Editing :)
Regards, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 00:12, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chug, chug, chug...aaah! Bartender, another round for Davey & me! GoingBatty (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Take a look at three articles that I created today Ann Heberlein, Johar Bendjelloul and Bengt Dalqvist. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@BabbaQ:  Done! You may want to add the |trans_title= to the Swedish citations. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Helénè Sparrow page: impressed you found it so fast. thanks for adding the Orphan note. I've now added links to it from several relevant pages, read the text about 'what is an orphan' (in that order so have not noted the new links in the pages they come from - sorry), and removed the orphan notice. MerielGJones (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @MerielGJones:, would you like to tell that how many links your have created? Remember, it should be more than 3 if you don't want that orphan tag anymore, normally one link is enough, but those who uses a program for editing the articles, they will have the option to tag that article with a orphan tag, unless you have linked with more than 3 articles. OccultZone (Talk) 03:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 4 links. MerielGJones (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@MerielGJones: I try to run BattyBot against Category:Pages with URL errors every day, which is how the bot found the Helénè Sparrow article. I've made a few more minor edits to the article. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template idea

Hey, GB! It occurred to me that the album infobox template currently yields a dupe link and a redundant grammatical error. At chronology it should render album chronology, not repeat artist name chronology. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GabeMc: I think in most cases you're correct. However, see the second example at Template:Infobox album where there are two separate chronology sections. Wonder why the first example at Template:Infobox album renders "Chronology chronology" instead of "Nirvana chronology", but it looks fine at Nirvana (Nirvana album). GoingBatty (talk) 01:34, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the Nirvana album, shouldn't that be album chronology and then singles chronology? Its repetitive to state twice in such a short span the artist name with link, and its odd it link to singles and not albums. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GabeMc: Agree with "album chronology" when there's just one artist involved. It appears that the album infobox shows a list of singles, not a chronology. GoingBatty (talk) 02:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm not explaining this right, but if you look at the infobox at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, you'll see that it links to the Beatles twice, which is not MoS compliant. Also, if I added a singles chronology after the album chronology it would look inconsistent, as the album chrono renders the Beatles Chronology, but the singles chrono renders singles chronology.
Studio album by The Beatles
The Beatles chronology
Singles chronology GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GabeMc: I think you're explaining it just fine. I agree that the Sgt. Pepper's article (and most album articles) would look better with "Album chronology" instead of "The Beatles chronology", since The Beatles is already wikilinked earlier in the infobox. GoingBatty (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so can I count on you to fix this problem? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GabeMc: Sorry - Template:Infobox album is protected, so I can't edit it. I suggest you start a thread at Template talk:Infobox album to see if there's consensus for the change. Once there is consensus, you could then add an {{edit protected}} template to have an admin make the change. Good luck! GoingBatty (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised you don't have the template editor right, but sure I'll start a thread! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Script bug created unnamed parameter error?

This edit created an unnamed parameter error. If it was done with a script, please check for bugs. Thanks. P.S. My scripts do this all the time; I need to keep a close eye on them to catch pesky little regex errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Thanks for letting me know about my mistake. Although I used WPCleaner to make the edit, the manual typo is all my fault. I apologize for this oversight, and thank you for adding the missing "=" for me. GoingBatty (talk) 14:18, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For helping newbies, fixing pages, guiding a number of experienced users, etc. OccultZone (Talk) 14:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: Thank YOU for making my day!!! GoingBatty (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues template

Thanks. I didn't realise that! Deb (talk) 16:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Yobot

It is quite obvious now that those(like 3 editors) who frequently complained about the bot, they have no idea about the bot. That how it works or what it has done for wikipedia. Their only concern is "cosmetic editing", which is pretty bad allegation. Bots are obviously made for making similar type of edits, but they should be also evaluated by their good contributions that they have made recently.

You have a great bot too, but be aware about tagging article with Orphan tag. PBS may object that as he had a consensus related with the issue. It can be read here. OccultZone (Talk) 01:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: While I have a bot task that specifically tries to remove {{orphan}}, I don't have a task that specifically tries to add the tag. While there was originally consensus to move the template to the talk page, there were subsequent conversations that doing so would prevent automated tools such as AWB and Twinkle to maintain the templates if they were on the talk page. Therefore, I think consensus now is to keep it on the article page but hide it in some circumstances. Not sure where it ended up. GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to George Ezra may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • In the summer of 2013 he played the BBC Introducing Stage at [[Glastonbury Festival]].<ref>{{cite web|title=George Ezra - Interview -- DSCVR ONES TO WATCH 2014|url=http://www.youtube.com/
  • noted: {{cite web|url=http://www.officialcharts.com/artist/_/george%20ezra/|title=George Ezra > UK Charts|publisher=[[Official Charts Company]]|work=Officialcharts.com/}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed - thanks BracketBot! GoingBatty (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Hello.. I don't understand what did u change in Chaker Khazaals' article? khjamjoum (talk) 05:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Khjamjoum: In this edit to Chaker Khazaal, I used the edit summary "Repaired 4 links to disambiguation page". Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia." For example, Nike could refer to a goddess, a manufacturer of athletic equipment, or missiles. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also fixed WPCleaner so that future edit summaries will say "Repaired 4 links to disambiguation pages". I've also made some more edits to the Chaker Khazaal article. GoingBatty (talk) 14:16, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Middle-earth/Pages

Is there any way to protect Portal:Middle-earth/Pages from the attentions of editors using WPCleaner? According to the blurb at the top of the page, it is supposed to include links to redirects and disambiguation pages. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@John of Reading: I can't think of any way to do so, although maybe NicoV can. I see you didn't revert my edit, so is it OK? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how it works on enwiki, but on frwiki, we have created some templates to mark some links to disambiguation pages as normal (fr:Modèle:Page h' for example). WPCleaner detects them through its configuration parameter dab_link_templates.
Otherwise, it's also possible to configure WPCleaner to issue a warning to the editor when editing a page containing a given template (configuration parameter general_edit_warning_templates). Example on frwiki: fr:Modèle:En cours, with its parameter "intro" containing an explanation. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 14:41, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't undone your edit, GoingBatty, because I'd like to solve the underlying problem first. Once that's done I'll go through the page, and Portal:Middle-earth/Related pages as well, restoring the links to disambiguation pages. Various editors have used several different disambiguation tools on these lists. I think the solution is to move them to the Wikipedia: namespace, as these pages have a similar function to pages such as Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Watchlist and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/Watchlist. Does WPCleaner skip the Wikipedia namespace? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@John of Reading: WPCleaner allows you to filter which namespaces you want to see. I have mine set to show pages in the Portal namespace but not pages in the Wikipedia namespace. GoingBatty (talk) 15:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll suggest that to the WikiProject. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Son of Batman soundtrack

Answering your question: Yes, it is released. I've already downloaded the soundtrack from Itune. --NeoBatfreak (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@NeoBatfreak: Thanks for letting me know. I updated the Son of Batman article accordingly. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

move page

Hello, Can you see this --41.254.31.59 (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoingBatty&oldid=610226474"