User talk:Yobot

This is Yobot's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11: 21 days

Please edit this page only if you want to stop Yobot . For comments and questions about its actions please use Magioladitis' talk page.

Government Aircraft

Could you help me revert move of "Government Aircraft" to "Japanese Air Force One" because it is breaking the links, as the "Government Aircraft" refers to many. Someone vandalize the page and moved the page name from Japanese Air Force One to Government Aircraft.

Nippon-koku seifu senyoki which means Japan Government Exclusive Aircraft not "Government Aircraft" is refer in english callsign of Japan Air Self Defense Force as "Japanese Air Force One" and Japanese Air Force Two during on official business, and Cygnus One and Cygnus Two when operating outside of official business.

Thanks.

Keijhae

Haiti-related articles

Resolved

Yobot, is reverting the "WikiProject Haiti" back to "WikiProject Caribbean |Haiti=yes", and it happened on the Scouts d'Haïti, Haitian parliamentary election, 2000 talk page etc. Haiti now has its own primary project. BattyBot was doing the same thing. Hope we can resolve this. Thank you. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savvyjack23 Fixed for both bots. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Savvyjack23 (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Savvyjack23 please when reverting, if possible, only revert the part you disagree and not the entire edit. Thanks, Yobot (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Yobot, those were accidentals (not many I am sure) that I have reverted back. I am still cleaning up after your edits. Thanks. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made this change so Yobot could revert all the changes. GoingBatty (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bug

The bot tries to get rid of ancient HTML 3 and "transitional"   constructs. I'm too lazy to check if both or all was correct, it's now obsolete. So far it's a good plan, but the bot replaces these constructs with {{clear}} instead of {{-}}, and that's a difference: {{-}} is an inline element like  or  , {{clear}} is a block element like <div> or  also in HTML5. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Be..anyone I was wondering the same. Let's @Bgwhite:. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure FWIW. –Be..anyone (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Be..anyone: per Wikipedia:HTML5#Other_obsolete_attributes what the bot did is totally correct. I agree there are hundreds of cases where the template is misused though and we could remove it from many many pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That page contains a double fault in the relevant line (rest not checked): was never okay, the valid variant was . But of course both should be replaced, also clear="all" or "both" (quoted attribute value), and > instead of /> at the end.

The replacement is good, but that's what {{-}} does, {{clear}} is very different. For (or right) it's similar, {{clear|left}} (or right) is not the same as (or right), check the source.

The block element <div> used by {{clear}} is not always allowed where the inline element is allowed. Nobody (= not me, I can test at most six versions of four browsers on two Windows versions) knows where this could cause havoc, if something old still working with any HTML5 browser is replaced by something that's seriously invalid. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Be..anyone: I am not HTML tags expert. Maybe Frietjes or Bgwhite know better. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on the differences between block and inline elements. try asking User:Edokter or User:Redrose64. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, block elements break the text into blocks - lists and tables are block elements. Inline elements may be used within running text without breaking the flow, such as the ... italic and ... boldface elements. In HTML5, the distinction has become a bit blurred, and most elements are now categorised as flow content, and the erstwhile inline elements mostly now form a subset of that, known as phrasing content. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it really matter in 99% of the cases? No

Did 99% of the editors who put   know why they put this instead of block option? No

What is the main difference to readers? {{-}} puts in a blank line, where clear doesn't.

How are the vast majority of the   being used? Block (ie before section headings)

What is easier to understand for the average editor looking at the code, {{-}} or {{clear}}? Clear

Do 99% of the editors who put {{-}} or {{clear}} choose which one for being block or inline? No

Choosing one over the other would matter if we were creating are own websites. In the end, it really doesn't matter here, especially when  , {{-}} and {{clear}} are already being used improperly. There already have been arguments over this in the past, including where {{clear}} should only be used. Bgwhite (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good example is to look at the first 10 transcluted articles for {{-}}. How many should be {{clear}} or even there at all? All 10. Bgwhite (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For those not yet aware, there is discussion that is very much related at Wikipedia talk:HTML5#What's found. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's resolved unanimously as carry on as before, because style="clear:…" isn't supposed to be used on inline elements. Redrose64 had the relevant CSS2.1 reference, thanks. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Girish Jhunjhnuwala

Can you please help me to revoke deletion request for Girish Jhunjhnuwala profile page. I have included more references in the article, from various news and government websites like: [1] [2] hope these provide sufficient evidence of special notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny.mosaic (talk • contribs) 07:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cite->citation unneeded "fix"

[3] Bot changed a bunch of "cite" templates to "citation" (eliding a redirect), uselessly as far as I can tell. Edit summary says it's an error fix: if it really was one, I'd appreciate an explanation of the error. If there was no actual error fixed, then please consider this message to be a bug report, as having to look over large do-nothing diffs is rather annoying. Thanks. 173.254.228.130 (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It also removed a full stop after a reference, in the Awards section, a visible error.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a visible error. Per WP:REFPUNC, periods go before the reference. This was a Checkwiki error #61 fix, Reference before punctuation. Bgwhite (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the period fix, but that doesn't explain why cite was changed to citation, which didn't fix an error. The cite->citation change also made the period fix hard to find. 173.254.228.130 (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The later change was done in order to enable citation specific general fixes for bits. GoingBatty makes big use of these features. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite}} is a redirect to {{citation}}. AWB will rename redirects to their proper names. See WP:AWB/TR for more info. Bgwhite (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing working EL with nonworking IW link

Resolved

I made an edit on Nijazi Ramadani to fix a file cited from the Albanian Wikipedia. For some reason the IW link does not work and only the direct link will. Yobot changed this back to the nonworking version. (diff) Rather than simply revert the bot, like I'm tempted to do, I brought it here. Can something be done?--Auric talk 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auric hm... in my opinion the problem here is more fundamental, since Wikipedia can't be used as a reference to itself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auric I fixed the reference to be working but please reconsider using interlanguage links as references. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Auric: The initial problem was that there was a link inside a link, which never works. Remove the {{lang-sq|"Imazh i ngrirë"}} and instead you could use Albanian: ''"Imazh i ngrirë"'' --Redrose64 (talk) 17:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moving citations

Hi Magioladitis, re: this edit, it's important not to move references. Sometimes editors add these in a certain order because that order corresponds to material in the previous sentence or paragraph. I believe this has been raised with you before, and I thought you had agreed not to do it (though I may be misremembering). Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 22:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah (SV) feel free to move them back. I think the result of the discussion was that nobody can be sure of the "correct" order of the references that was the reason this feature was never removed from AWB. Anyway, since I am not expert on this are and the main edit was only to remove the unnecessary break tag, I do not have any strong feelings on any side and the bot won't revisit this page since the CHECKWIKI error was fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Magioladitis. But it's important never to move references just in case they are in that order for a reason. I recall someone discussing this with you, and I believe it was CBM, though I'm not sure about that. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions are at User talk:Magioladitis/Archive 4#AWB ref changes and User talk:Yobot/Archive 6#Please stop improper editing. Pinging Beyond My Ken, Dirk Beetstra, Afterbrunel. You said there that, because you couldn't see why the references were in a particular order, you decided to move them to make the order chronological. But to see why they were in that order, you would have to read the preceding paragraph or sentence, and the sources, and it's unlikely that you're doing that while making minor AWB edits. It really would be better to remove that feature from AWB. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 23:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin You just referenced a five year old talk discussion. Really? You ping BMK and CBM, who obviously doesn't like it and both who don't like Magioladits. Really? In FA articles, references are to be in chronological order. Why don't you ping people at FA or somebody who like it? I love how editors say they put refs how it corresponds to something in the sentence. 100% readers won't notice that and 100% of editors coming by later won't notice that, especially as 99.9% of all articles, including all FAs are in chronological order. This is about making a mountain out of a molehill and stiring up trouble. Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bgwhite, please give a link to where the FA criteria require footnotes be placed in chronological order. Such a thing would make no sense. Changing the order of refs violates WP:CITEVAR, and may make it harder for readers to see which part of a sentence is supported by which ref. For "Mary loves cheese, and John loves soup," ideally the first ref after the sentence tells you about Mary and the second about John. But the point is that referencing isn't something a bot should change.

(And Bg, it really doesn't help when you arrive to answer questions for Magioladitis and defend whatever it is, because it means the problems don't get fixed, so it's always rinse and repeat.) Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin and Bgwhite: since this is a general AWB issue I would prefer if the discussion continues at WP:AWB instead of here. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any merit in this complaint either. 100/100 people would agree with these edits, and even 10,000/10,000 would.. Maybe 1/100,000 don't. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe adding a comment between the refs will prevent AWB from reordering the refs (and provides an opportunity to explain the reference order to future editors). GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]