User talk:Gimmetrow

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Skomorokh (talk | contribs) at 00:00, 1 February 2008 (→‎Jim Bell GA review: le'd thoil). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Armenian Archepiscopal staff

Permalinks 		Armenian Archepiscopal staff

 

You are quicker than me (about IP adding it)! I did document it on my own user page but you reported it seconds later! Congolese fufu (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for adding my hook of the article Cliff Mapes to the current edition of the DYK section. What better way is there to start off 2008? Ksy92003(talk) 15:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hope your bot is not asleep

The Boeing 747 article has just been promoted to FA! We are waiting for the FA star to appear on the top of the article. What a way to begin 2008! Archtransit (talk) 18:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict, you add the star yourself. See WP:FAC/ar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
done (star added), thanks. Archtransit (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Botification

Just wanted to make sure you knew that yesterday's promotions haven't been botified; I'm going to archive some now to January. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for letting me know about the Song Il-gon article making the front page for "DYK", Gimmetrow. That's big news for the Korean film project we're trying to improve. Regards and Happy New Year! Dekkappai (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

I just wanted to add {{Random portal component}} . You can redo any of the edits I did .Bewareofdog (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that . I am very sorry.Bewareofdog (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for DYK

Thanks for nominating Stob Choire Claurigh for DYK and for the words of encouragement. It means a lot. Regards Mick Knapton (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

DYK is often late. Another adminstrator who is interested in DYK would help. Would you like to be that new administrator? Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at this time. Thanks. 13:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Who ya gonna call?

Yeah, I guess. Wightslayer doesn't care, so you could just state author's consent given. (The Elfoid (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

You're right about the tag you said to add. Get to it I guess...I'm crap with tagging images. WS won't care so whatever will let us keep it can be done. (The Elfoid (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

(Belated) Happy New Year! spam

Here's hoping the new year brings you nothing but the best ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The design of this almost completely impersonal (yet hopefully uplifting) message was ripped from Riana (talk · contribs).
Please feel free to archive it whenever you like.

Sorry

Thanks for catching my error at the Cooley article. Missread it. Regards. Dr. Dan (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUGS!

Still there... please have a look at Category:ArticleHistory error :/ Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The test I added isn't perfect; it will flag any articles on the mainpage in 2008. It's meant to be temporary. Gimmetrow 16:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry then; thanks. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"upper decker"

Hello, you removed my speedy deletion template on "upper decker", and changed it to a afd. The article is clearly a speedy deletion case. It's nonsense. Please do not remove other's templates. Thanks --Dan LeveilleTALK 03:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly legit to convert a CSD into an AFD. In this case, however, I was able to find where this had previously been discussed at AFD. 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Template replacement

Hi Gimmetrow - I hadn't forgotten; at WT:AIR we had agreed to wait a week to give people further time to object if they wished, but no-one has. I've just made the necessary adjustment to the main template, so at your earliest convenience could you please: replace every instance of ==Related content== {{aircontent}} with ==See also== {{aircontent}}{{aviation lists}}. Thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 05:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought that I should also mention that Template:Aircontent is a parameterised template, so there's always going to be data inbetween the "{{aircontent" and the "}}". --Rlandmann (talk) 09:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to apply any pressure or anything, but just pointing out that WP:AIR is quite an active and fast-moving project, and now that the template has been updated, the more time that goes by before the replacement is made, the bigger the potential mess from editors moving the "aircontent" template away from the bottom of the page, and from new articles being created where "aircontent" has never been at the end of the page... Any idea when you'll be able to get to this? --Rlandmann (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably within the next two days. 13:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - the test edit on the A-1 Skyraider page is spot-on. The output in this particular case is messy because of the {{Douglas aircraft}} navbox nested within {{Aircontent}}, but these cases should be relatively few and far-between, and we're undertaking a broad review of articles in any case (to replace the now-suppressed "Sequence" parameter with navboxes). Please "make it so" :) -- Cheers and thanks for your help! --Rlandmann (talk) 05:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There shouldn't be many articles containing both {{aircontent}} and {{airlistbox}}; if there are, then yes, it would be best to replace {{airlistbox}} with {{aviation lists}}, but it really isn't a priority.
What we're really trying to achieve with the section names is to replace any instances of "Related content" with "See also". There should be relatively few articles that contain {{aircontent}} that name that section "See also", but if any do, then they should stay as they are. Any articles that currently contain both a "See also" and a "Related content" should probably have "Related content" renamed to another "See also" for now: we can sort these out and merge the sections later (especially if you've got a way of telling us which ones these are!) --Rlandmann (talk) 09:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - it's been great to watch it at work! Sure beats doing it by hand :) We know about the "Sequence" parameter and are manually replacing these with improved and expanded versions of this information in navboxes.

The way this whole situation came about was that a few years back, when WP:AIR settled on its standard page content, we used to use a hand-coded navbox at the foot of each page, named "Related content" (no templates back then). Over time, the navbox lost its table-based formatting and became a plain text section, still retaining its original title. This, unfortunately, has led to an ever-increasing amount of bickering between WP:AIR contributors and a steady stream of other editors who feel that the inclusion of this section is a MOS problem. Anyway, the long and the short of it is that the job that you've kindly undertaken is part of separating out the "see also"-like material from the navigation-like material. Once you're done, the new "See also" section can be moved away to a more customary position on the page, leaving {{aviation lists}} behind and awaiting the replacement of the "Sequence" data. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the bot has finished its run - could you please confirm? --Rlandmann (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! --Rlandmann (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"too many fansites"?

Howdy!

a) What's the definition of "too many"?
b) I guess I'm an "inclusionist; I don't see any harm in having such a list on such a page. It's not going to mislead or divert any "normal" reader - they'll simply ignore it, and the sort of readers who want to read that sort of stuff would appreciate it being there.

Yes, I know "WP is not a link farm", but on-the-other-hand, WP is becoming the de-facto "one-stop-shop" for a useful filtered summary of what's on the web, (saving hours of sifting through Google pages of useless, irellevant, and/or duplicated information), and this list is saving the sort of reader who wants this sort of info a lot of messing around.

So I don't see the harm in leaving it there. Clearly, there's a significant body of people who would like the information to be there.
However, also clearly, you have a different POV. I'll be interested to read your opinion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally brought up the external links at Talk:Anastacia#Fansites. Listing one or two high-quality fansites is fine, but editors keep adding more, including sites which are closed, and non-English sites. WP:FANSITE discourages these. Gimmetrow 01:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But removing all of them seems, perhaps, an over-reaction? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so much for more information january 9 - Yes, so much indeed ...
(P.S. I wish you had put up that link to the page of links before I investigated all of those sites!)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know it existed, actually. Sorry. 09:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Not your fault; just expressing a forlorn wish. (I also wish I had $10,000,000 ... ) Pdfpdf (talk) 10:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Reflist

Thanks.
Is there an actual page that explains the difference(s) between <references/> & {{Reflist}}?
(I don't understand why WP has two "things" that are so similar.)
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I was wondering if you could program GimmeBot to update Wikiproject banners to the appropriate Featured status. Like when I promote a WP:FL, I or someone else has to go and do that, and I think it would be easier for the bot to do this when it is updating {{ArticleHistory}}. Just wondering!
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 02:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does that as far as it can. It should update them all to class=FA. While some project templates support FL as a class code, keeping track of which would be a burden. Gimmetrow 02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're referring to templates which have class=list. I can add that to the codes to update. It does handle class=B, class=start, etc. 02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry thats what I was referring to. Thanks for the changes, your bot makes life so much easier :-)
Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replacment of <references /> with automatic tools

Here in your edit summary you stated not to replace <code><references /></code> <code>{{relist}}</code> with AWB, can you explain to me why? I'm not experienced in references so I don't really understand the difference it makes. Can you clear this issue?--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 03:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. I see, thanks for clearing that up.--Sunny910910 (talk|Contributions) 03:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

This gave me cause for concern: "I intentionally waited 16 hours to archive this." If I'd known that, I would have manually archived it. Intentionally waiting can serve to prolong a difficult situation. Marskell (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it right away can inflame the situation, so I make a judgement call and let it stabilize. Email if you want more detailed background. Gimmetrow 09:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, either Joel and I are closing or we're not. Are you seriously saying you'd leave something up that we'd both agreed should be closed? You can e-mail me esoteric specifics, but this doesn't need to proceed by e-mail. We should be clear, in public. Seriously, I'll manually do it, if you're telling me you're making a secondary decision on closures. Marskell (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to distinguish closing and archiving. I handle a few tasks by bot that become complicated if they are undone and redone multiple times. When I think that's likely to happen, sometimes I hold off on the archiving so it only has to be done once. Gimmetrow 23:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can understand that you don 't want extra work but our viewpoints on getting there are dead opposite. If a closing is being disrupted, archiving immediately is the best idea because it makes less likely that the person will edit the review again. This is an issue with very small minority of reviews, to be sure. Marskell (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bigger issue is related to this. Gimmetrow 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AH error

I can't find the error at Talk:Mezhyhirskyi Monastery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one. Items listed under "2" are flagged for a dykdate showing up as 2008. Most of those are dates from 2006 or 2007 in a format like "1 January, 2007" (with a comma) which confuses #time. Some, however, are legitimately from 2008, and I can't think of an easy way to distinguish "1 January, 2007" from "1 January 2008" in the template. I intended this check to be temporary, maybe for another week. Gimmetrow 01:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reflist2

I will try, I think it does it by default.--Kumioko (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reflist3

AWB makes these changes by default. It has worked this way for some amount of time. If you have a question about AWB, you need to take it up with the AWB staff. Thanks. Hmains (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am just a user of AWB and know nothing about any of that. I will continue to use the 'general fixes' as that fixes many good things that I have noticed. If you have a problem with AWB, take it up with AWB as I will not become involved in that. Hmains (talk) 05:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will not use a test version of anything and there is no requirement anywhere that I do so. In any case, you never pointed out any policy to me; you just stated your personal opinion, which is no better than anyone elses. Hmains (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The documention of reflist mentions two methods for references; it does not say there is anything wrong with using reflist: it says it is a choice. I make the choice to use whatever the production version of AWB provides, as this question is of no importance to me whatsoever. Hmains (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you have still failed to provide any reference in policy that says anything about the use/non-use requirement for reflist. So I suppose that means there is none and you are just pushing your own POV. Nothing more. Hmains (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is it other than personal taste then when you demand another editor do something that is not supported by any policy that you care to provide? Sorry about that. Hmains (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article checklist

Thanks again Gimmetrow!

One question though - the list you posted on my talk page seems very incomplete. Over the last few days, I've corrected many articles that had a template nested within the "See also" parameter that didn't appear on this list. Or does this list reflect articles that still may have problems? --Rlandmann (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but what I meant was, for example, that this article had (and has) a nested template, but it doesn't appear on your list. --Rlandmann (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:G6 tags

Basically I was trying to clear up abandoned, redundant and overly complex templates. G6 Housekeeping seemed the most appropriate tag for most of those templates. The following templates were used as part of various portals but are now redundant because the portals use more specific templates in the portal namespace rather than the template namespace:

‎

The following portals are easily replaceable using the generic Template:Portal e.g. {{portal|Basketball|Basketball.png}}. In most cases, the code being used in the templates was little more than — {{portal|portalname|imagename}}:

I hope that makes it a little clearer why I tagged all of these templates. If G6 is not appropriate, could you suggest a better categorisation. Thanks - Green Giant (talk) 13:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In such cases, please use {{db|reason}} (putting in your own reason in stead of the word "reason"), which will allow the admin to see the exact reason you think the page should be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FLC

Hi there Gimme, I have just archived one FLC. At the same time I have been cleaning up the FLC category and found a couple of unarchived ones: List of Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue cover models, and List of countries by murder rate Can you deal with them? Or do I need to do it manually. Thanks. Woody (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for bot updates on a regular basis at WP:FPORTC ?

See the list of steps in the dropdown for updating stuff after something is promoted/failed at WP:FPORTC - To archive a nomination. It's quite extensive, and tedious to do manually for whoever is promoting/failing/archiving stuff. Any chance GimmeBot (talk · contribs) could help out with the process? If you think you can help out, please post in a new section at Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 07:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Any ideas on a timetable on how long it would take before this could be ready? Cirt (talk) 12:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Reflist/vs references

Sorry for the delay in responding. I couldn't find a way to turn that one feature off, so I just cut & paste on the last ones that were done. I'll do a bit of reading over at AWB to see what their rationale was for making that part of the regular features. SkierRMH (talk) 19:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brisingr

I noticed you redirected the book's name to Brisingr, why is that? I don't believe that's its new title. ~ Bella Swan 03:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOCE in articlehistory

You caught me ten minutes before my wikibreak starts :D. That looks fantastic, although I'm not sure if it's necessary to separate copyediting and proofreading. Although it does make more sense given layout if you want to mention both. Perhaps we should use the date it was proofread, but call it "copyedited" - the process should probably be considered as a whole rather than in two separate stages. Great work though! Happy‑melon 15:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it important to credit the copyeditor/proofreader? 18:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot

Do you think you could get the bot to do Featured list removals? We're probably going to start having more of them, so that would be a big help. -- Scorpion0422 02:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be able to do it? -- Scorpion0422 02:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Working on a few things, and the code for that sort of process was rather geared around WP:FAR. I'm looking into it. Gimmetrow 02:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple edit conflicts during archiving/promoting; I think we're both done for the evening now, and I'll do more on Tuesday when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for picking up Vampire at FFA; I'm trying to catch up, and you're a step ahead of me all the way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sperm Whale needs an admin housekeeping delete. It was misnamed (caps) and never submitted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone else got to it. But the caps "Whale" is established for species articles. Gimmetrow 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GimmeBot Counting Incorrectly

I have confirmed GimmeBot is counting the number of Featured Articles, Featured Lists and Good Articles incorrectly through an exhaustive listing of every good article. See the discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#GA_count_is_out. Please can you look into this. Centy – reply• contribs – 17:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good work

I saw this comment and realized I hadn't mentioned lately how much I appreciate the work you do here. Raul654 (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Brenda Song template

Can you explain to me why you don't want "Stuck in the Suburbs" in her template? She was in it and it was a main role. Ospinad (talk) 23:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was there twice. 23:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Powderfinger awards

Very nice template work there. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Prepping for GimmeBot

Gimme, I'm slowly catching up. As you know, I regularly run through every FAC and FAR nom to make sure the talk page is prepped for GimmeBot (GA noms complete, peer reviews archived, talk page templates cleaned up, and so on). I haven't done this in weeks; there are too many now for me to catch up on. The good news is that, over time, I've found less and less errors that need fixing. Will you let me know if you find a horrdendous level of errors that stall the bot as you run through the next few times? If so, I'll try to go back and catch up on these as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it should be fine. I'm generally only getting stalled when I notice that failed GA nom templates have been removed. So I try not to notice, and keep my head in the sand. Gimmetrow 02:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, heck. I spoke too soon. I started checking from the top of FAC, and so far, every nom has a fundamental mistake (no fac tag, previous FAC overwritten, incomplete GA noms, etc.) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom needs admin attention; the previous FAC was overwritten rather than archived, so the old fac needs to be recovered, added to the nom, updated in the articlehistory, and updated in archives. Sometimes I do need the tools. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gimme, Talk:Judy Garland is a wreck. Maybe you can pre-botify it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preload idea

Gimme, you know how you are now loading the dead link checker on new FACs? Can you add it to previous FACs when you clear the redirect on failed facs, so they will be there the next time? I went through and added the link checker to all the FACs that were previous FACs, since they miss it on the pre-load. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a completely unclear message. Jet lag. I hope you can tell what I mean. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I never responded to this. Seems like it would be simpler to have some sort of toolbox template, you just add it and it includes custom links to this and whatever other tools show up. In the long run, I'm trying to move away from this move-and-clear approach to something more like the AFD system. I worked up a prototype which Geometry guy already implemented in GA/R, and it appears PR is next. Once that's up and running, every new PR and FAC and so forth will be a new page and it should be less complicated for users. Gimmetrow 08:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gimme, all that preload, subst'd, whatever stuff ya'll are working on is over my head; I'll just wait to see how the magic works when whatever is done. I miss the old PR page where I could browse every PR, but maybe I'm weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArticleHistory, DYK

Hey! So I ran across an article where the {{dyktalk}} had been subst'd, and it got me to thinking that this might have happened a couple times. Is it worth looking for them and un-substing them? And/or AH'ing them? The reason I ask is because my bot then messed up the substed template, since it had {{{small}}} in it. Anyway, if you think there are a lot and they should be cleaned up, that's something I can do. If you think I ran across a on-in-ten-thousand, then I'll forget it. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYKtalk was routinely subst'ed until some months ago. If you're doing other things on the talk page, I don't see why you couldn't unsubst any DYK templates at the asme time. Can convert them to either {{dyktalk|1 January|2008}} or {{ArticleHistory|dykdate=1 January 2008}}. No datelinks, of course. Gimmetrow 05:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

auto-lemon

Gimmetrow—prompted by your note, I asked at Bugzilla. Tony (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to get things moving at the old 4582; that page has been around for well over a year, and it was a year ago that I posted the petition signed by 88 WPians. Pity I don't have more tech savvy, or I'd be more pro-active. At the moment, we have several quite different technical proposalsz—none of them has been properly followed through after initial, inconclusive debate. Getting more tech savvy WPians there would be good; or taking it somewhere high on the food-chain at WP. Any ideas? Tony (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fullstop seems to be working on something. I had one technical idea I haven't seen discussed. Gimmetrow 02:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks

Hi, Gimmetrow. I'm catching up with the talk page messages I didn't respond to during my "break", and wanted to thank you for the New Year's wishes and the award. I needed the time to recover my good faith in Wiki: I have. Your kindness and good thoughts were most appreciated. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

F1-column-heading-changing bot

Hi Gimmetrow. Thanks for offering to help me out. The results tables in the Formula One race report articles use two standard formats for the column headings. The vast majority (e.g. 1952 Swiss Grand Prix) define the column headings like this:

! Pos !! No !! Driver !! Team !! Laps !! Time/Retired !! Grid !! Points

However, a few articles (e.g. 2005 United States Grand Prix define them like this:

! Pos
! No
! Driver
! Team
! Laps
! Time/Retired
! Grid
! Points

(i.e. the same columns, just one per line instead of all on the same line). In either case, the required change is to change "Team" to "Constructor".

I think there are two ways to attack this. One way would be to look for the exact patterns described above, and replace "Team" with "Contructor".

A second approach would be to simply replace any instance of "! Team" in the article with "! Constructor" (I can't imagine there would be an instance of "! Team" in the articles except as a column heading). One advantage of the second approach is that it would also update the Qualifying tables which some of the articles have (e.g. 2005 Canadian Grand Prix). One caveat however is that in some of the Qualifying Tables, the column is labelled "Team/Engine" instead of "Team", so if you plan to use this "replace all" approach, then you'd probably need to do two passes, i.e.:

Pass 1: change "! Team/Engine" --> "! Constructor"
Pass 2: change "! Team" --> "! Constructor"

Here's a list of the articles that need to be updated. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're running AWB. You could probably do this with AWB yourself. Otherwise I'll get to it in a few days. Gimmetrow 09:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll have a crack at it with AWB. DH85868993 (talk) 08:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: EV image

Yep, I've made the logo. Do you want me to upload it?? Armando.Otalk · Ev · 3K 16:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing FAC

Why did you close the FAC for Golden Film? It finally received some comments that can easily be dealt with? – Ilse@ 17:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilse, please see WP:FAC/ar. I closed it because it had not garnered support in a month at FAC. Perhaps work with WP:FILM and renominate it after their suggestions? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review archive tidy

Geometry guy and I have been discussing how best to clean up the peer review archives in preparation for implementing a new listing/archiving system. Essentially the only bone of contention is what archive syntax to use: we both appear to have a personal preference for "Archive N", but note that GimmeBot currently uses "archiveN" at FAC and FAR. I'd very much appreciate your comments on this little issue - the bot run is pretty much ready to go but I want to get it right the first time because I only intend to do it once! Happy‑melon 18:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I get a vote <smile>, please stick with the standard archiveN, for less confusion between the two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm actually neutral on this issue. One format is standard across most of Wikipedia, the other is standard at FAC and FAR. Geometry guy 18:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Why move them at all? I thought we discussed this. Gimmetrow 21:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are going to move them all: the question is, where do we move them all to? Geometry guy 21:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why in the world are you going to move them all. That's just insane. This involves like 5000 pages, and if there is another way to handle the issue, as has been identified (templates), then the task is unnecessary and the bot won't be approved. Gimmetrow 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread your question. I thought you said "Why not move them all?"! Templates will allow us to put new peer reviews in a sensible place, but the old peer reviews are all over the place. This is a one-off job with a script and I think it is worth doing. Geometry guy 22:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a huge waste of effort. I'm working right now to avoid doing a similar set of moves for some 100 pages. The pages are where they are, they're linked in the archives, there is no good reason to use the WP resources just to make the file names pretty. Gimmetrow 22:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are entitled to your opinion on the waste of effort. But it isn't just about making the file names pretty. At the moment peer reviews for an article can be found (abbreviating for brevity) at WP:PR/article, WP:PR/article N, WP:PR/article/Attempt N, WP:PR/article/archive N, and so on. The plan is that new peer reviews will always be placed at the next free archive page, using a standard format (either WP:PR/article/archiveN or WP:PR/article/Archive N). But if previous peer reviews of an article are at random other places, the next free archive page will be /archive1 or /Archive 1. This is confusing for editors, who will be interested to know how many previous peer reviews there have been: it isn't always the case that these are well documented by article history. Such a change also provides the possibility to automatically link previous peer reviews. I think it is worth the effort.
As for WP resources, by implementing your clever template idea at PR, GimmeBot will no longer need to move old peer reviews and fix links to them. I believe this more than justifies a one-off fix to maximize the benefits of this change. Geometry guy 22:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Church

Thanks for your helpful input on this article. Andrew c. inserted neutralizing language into the infobox that I do not have a problem with. Some editors continue to dialogue thinking that even this is not enough of NPOV simply because there are some people in the world who do not think Jesus founded a church. This is an extreme view that not even National Geographic, a non-religious scientific organization has embraced as evidenced by my reference to their book compiled with the advice of numerous reputable historians listed in the back of the book. At what point is it considered unreasonable dialogue for a person to reject such a reputable source? Is this article doomed to even be considered for FA because of this controversy? I see that the article on Islam is locked to all edits and it is an FA. Perhaps a subject like this needs some help to protect it from people who just want to spread POV and use the article as a forum for their own minority view as I believe some of these editors do. What advice can you give in proceeding toward GA and FA without spending all of our efforts defending the article against extremist, poorly sourced opinions? NancyHeise (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bell GA review

Yo, thanks for taking the time to review Jim Bell, I've responded to your initial comments on the talkpage. скоморохъ ѧ 08:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article's lede and it should now meet your criteria. Regards, скоморохъ ѧ 17:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've condensed the lede, won't you please now grant this GA? скоморохъ ѧ 00:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry External Links Removal

I am puzzled by the removal of ALL the external links regarding Heraldry with the exception of the Puncher Heraldry Program. Whilst there may well be too many to handle but the blanket removal was very indiscriminate. At the very least I would expect the authorities and major organisations to be retained. --Heraldic (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liturgical calendar (Lutheran) FAR closed?

I just thought you might like to know that the bot owned by you closed an in-progress FAR for the above article. I don't understand why because the article was actively soliciting comments and editors were addressing them. In any case, I thought that perhaps you would like to know. -- jackturner3 (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jack. Please see WP:FAC/ar. GimmeBot doesn't close FACs (the calendar was a FAC, not a FAR); Raul and I do. I archived it because it had garnered no support and several opposes after eight days. I suggest you contact the Opposers, as well as networking to find other editors who will review, and re-nominate when the Opposers issues have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Gimme, can you housekeeping delete this malformed fac? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Xena, Warrior Princess Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC) That is, the bad one, that was redirected ... I don't know how to link to it without it redirecting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it wasn't started from the fac template? 04:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Hard to tell; high maintenance situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else just told me I could tag those for housekeeping deletions and not bug you; how come you never told me I was being a pest?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gimmetrow&oldid=188268852"