User talk:Kanashimi

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 23:24, 23 December 2020 (→‎More cewbot errors: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Cewbot 5 approved

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 5 has been approved. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Multiple issues" for underlinked orphan

Hello. Is this edit as intended? The article has an orphan template, but perhaps that doesn't count. Certes (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. {{Orphan}} goes invisible a few weeks later, so I think it is more clearly for only one template with {{orphan}}. Of cause, this can be discussed. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That sounds like a reasonable behaviour. Certes (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cewbot edit

FYI, Cewbot made this edit which is a bit broken due to incorrect syntax already being in the article. IDK if you can prevent this kind of thing, but just in case. -- Pingumeister(talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The parser treats the {{multiple issues| as unfunctional wikitext. The parser do the same thing as mediawiki's parser. So it is a little complex... --Kanashimi (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please don't vandalize — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.51.44 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the parser do the same thing as mediawiki's parser. So the parser itself is not doing things wrong. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot not working on WP:Vital articles

When the page Elizabeth I was moved, on this page: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People, the bot failed to add the level 3 in parentheses after the article. Can you please try to fix that for me please? Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French railway stations

Hi Kanashimi - I don't know if User:Anthony Appleyard has got back to you with the details for this. The articles to be renamed are those shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Captain+scarlet&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2020-05-30&end=2020-05-30&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions between 10:34 and 10:53 (plus the corresponding Talk pages, of course). They all need to revert to the name they had before the move. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for sorting this out. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's my honor --Kanashimi (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another template for the bot

{{copypaste}} shouldn't be lumped in with the {{multiple issues}}. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed: User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration --Kanashimi (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with bot edit

Hi there! Could you please review this bot edit? Although there are two maintenance templates in {{multiple issues}}, your bot removed {{multiple issues}} with an edit summary "Remove {{Multiple issues}} for only 1 maintenance template(s)". Could you please fix the bot? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. {{Orphan}} goes invisible a few weeks later, so I think it is more clearly for only one template with {{orphan}}. Of cause, this can be discussed. You can also add the template to maintenance template list. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Orphan#Visibility explains "The template message is visible on all pages where the date parameter is set to either the current month or the previous month (currently June 2020 or May 2020). It is also visible on all pages where it is used inside the {{multiple issues}} template." Therefore, I added Orphan to the maintenance template list. Thanks! (I'm not watching this page – please use {{ping|GoingBatty}} on reply) GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Request Banner handling

Reference: this edit

Hi. Currently, the bot is adding merge requests into multiple issue templates. This should probably not happen, as the two areas are totally unrelated and require differing processes to resolve. The visibility of the shorter-lived Merge Request Banner needs to be maintained separately to garner the necessary profile to draw people into the discussion. Can this be fixed? Let me know, and thanks for your work. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. I have remove the merge templates from User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration. --Kanashimi (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and changes. Appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VA template

Just want to tell you, the VA template the Cewbot is inserting in the talk pages does not show the topic. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting. I have try some improvements on Template talk:Vital article. But it was not accepted. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shafiʽi

Just want to warn you, you might want to look at the latest edits by Cewbot. On the level 5, People: Religious figures page, it thought that Al-Shafi'i was no longer a Level 4 article. It did the same thing with Prithviraj Chauhan a few days ago as well. Saturdayopen (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. The edit of Al-Shafi'i is because it was moved. If no revert made, the bot will add it later, as Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan shown. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot A-class

I don't think Cewbot should be rating articles as A-class[1]. A-class, where it exists, is the result of a Wikiproject review process. When removing GAs, it should default to B class, which seems the usual practice for manual downgrades. Best, CMD (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will change the default behavior of bot. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot wrongly tagging as "class=Dab"

Hi Kanashimi

Bot error: [2] My fix: [3]

Please can you tell the bot to use "class=diambig"?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total articles

Quick question: how often does the Cewbot update the total article count on a page? Saturdayopen (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the task of vital articles? It should be once a day. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know how each topic has “Total Articles: [# of articles on this topic]/[# of articles this topic should have]” in big letters? I’m not sure the Cewbot is updating that. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot will automatically update the summary table if there are summary table marks. Please refer to Wikipedia:Vital articles for the example of summary table. --Kanashimi (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the reason why I was asking if the Cewbot was updating the total article count within the page is because I was adding articles on the People: Politicians and leaders pages under the assumption that there were still thirty-eight people that still needed to be added. Had the total article count had been updated, I would have known that there were already 2,408 people. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saturdayopen: I am sorry that the bot will only update counter with the pattern "(000 articles)" in section title. If there is a summary table, it will be updated too. The bot will not update {{huge}}. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot and soft deletions?

Why is Cewbot making edits like this one? There's nothing in WP:NPASR which says a previous PROD is disqualifying. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, on the other side of the table, edit like this are just noise. I suggest both of the classes of edits be disabled. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the first one, it seems still no mark of keep|delete|merge|redirect before the bot edit the page.
For the second one, base on the discussion, @Czar: As a courtesy/aid for the closer, if would be really helpful for a bot to inform of the article's PROD eligibility, I think it is the case. Maybe you can give more description and tell us why it is needless. Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kanashimi, I disagree with the conclusion that a previous PROD makes this ineligible to be closed as soft delete. That's my basic objection, and everything else flows from there. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the guideline (bold is my added emphasis/underline is in the original):

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale.
— Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum

Which makes sense because if treated like an expired PROD, its closing procedure says repeat nominations are ineligible. czar 06:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, Ah, I was previously unaware of that clause. Thanks. I withdraw my objection. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an approved bot task for this? ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 04:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, the task was approved. I have add some information in User:Cewbot/log/20200206/configuration. --Kanashimi (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Task 1 Convert interlanguage link templates with local article to wikilinks

This is highly problematic. If an article is created, but later deleted (perhaps a person article that's deemed not notable enough), the ill link is lost and we have a red link instead.

Since the ill template automatically converts itself into a blue link when there is a page, and an "ill link" when there isn't, can I ask you why ill links were considered so problematic they needed to be cleaned out this way? What's wrong with having an ill link that looks and behaves just like a blue link?

CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reduces template overhead, makes it easier to read the prose when editing, and in general would be considered "cleanup". Primefac (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
The task will convert articles existing more than one week. For the articles created and deleted within one week, the links will not be converted. If you think we should preserve the foreign labels, perhaps the labels in wikidata is a better choice. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Cewbot's work is helpful for the reasons outlined by Primefac. CapnZapp: Can you point to an example of the situation you describe? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Michael Bednarek: On Kristin Scott Thomas' page, Alexandra-Therese Keining is mentioned - I added the link using {{ill}} to create a red link and a link to her article on Swedish Wikipedia, then someone created the page, the bot removed the ill, and now Keining's article is tagged for notability. But let's not discuss individual examples. Let us instead discuss whether we should have a bot fix something that should not be considered a problem. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnZapp: Would having the bot replace the inter-language link with [[en-wiki link]]<!-- Was: "wikicode that was replaced", date and time, link to bot task approval --> instead of just [[en-wiki link]] be helpful? It would at least give editors something to "revert to" if the en-wiki link turned red. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing. Is the question "why have the bot do it at all?" closed? CapnZapp (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:Consensus can change so can the consensus regarding a bot's task. So, while the original discussion of "why" closed when the bot's task was approved, there is always a way to re-open it. I don't know of any specific process to revisit an already-approved bot, but if there isn't, I would start by looking at the reasons it was requested in the first place. If those reasons no longer hold true, raise the issue in the "best" forum. Depending on who requested that bot, the "best" forum might be the relevant WikiProject, the bot owner's talk page, or even one of the village pumps. I haven't dug into this bot-task's history enough to know what the "best" forum is for this particular task. It might be right here, in this thread, on this talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any specific process... see WP:BOTAPPEAL, which leads to WP:BOTN. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed change: Have the bot add the recently-enabled |display=force to {{Interlanguage link}} if the English page exists. You eliminate the expensive parser function call, you don't have the "what happens if the en-wiki article disappears" problem. At least the bot is exclusion-compliant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are pages with many interlanguage links where |display=force or similar is already in use, such as List of villages in Rivne Oblast. Editors of such pages may not know how to exempt the bot from that page. If the bot is run against such a page, it should put a note on the talk page saying what it did and how to add an exemption. Disclaimer: I didn't check the code or the bot's edit history, so I don't know if this talk-page messaging is happening already or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put my BAG hat on and echo Michael above - is there a demonstrated issue or concern (other than the hypothetical "but what ifs") being posted that would impact the running of the bot? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Nothing that would warrant interrupting the approved weekly schedule. I think if anything does crop up in the short term, the affected pages can be added to the exclusion list. That said, I would strongly recommend opening a discussion about how to handle cases where the recently-added |display= parameter is set, since the bot's current actions effectively roll back the will of the editor who added it if there is an en-wiki page if it was added editorially, rather than as a work-around to the expensive parser function problem as it was in List of villages in Rivne Oblast. Right now, this may be hypothetical, I don't know of any cases where |display= is used editorially, but it's new and probably not widely known by users of this template so this could change at any time. No hurry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot seems very desirable to me. I have seen at least two articles with hundreds of {{ill}} that created too many expensive function calls. For example, see the monster edit mentioned here where I did what I think this bot is doing. Apart from errors or making pages slower to edit, weird syntax like {{ill}} is distracting for editors. There would need to be an extremely good reason to pad out wikitext with lengthy comments. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 6 approved

Cewbot 6 has been approved! Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 6 and let me know if you have any questions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have clarified the approval, restricting it to the article space. This can be changed with further discussion and an amendment. Apologies for the confusion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot editing others' talk page comments

Should Cewbot be making edits like this one, which change other editors' talk page comments? It doesn't seem to be justified by anything in WP:TPO, except maybe, tenuously, through the "etc" in point 16. As that guideline says, "a broken post is preferable to one with altered meaning"; this edit alters the meaning of a post that wasn't even "broken" in the first place. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. In this case, I think a accessible link may be better, and the bot added the corresponding information. However, it is easy not to make edits on all talk pages. If you have good reasons not to do so, I will change the codes quickly. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are specified above – it's contrary to WP:TPO. Given the below comment on essentially the same issue, as well as ProcrastinatingReader's comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 6, I think this function should be limited to the article namespace (though there's probably no harm in the draft namespace being included too). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, issues like this are why I felt this should not be operated in talk spaces. Limiting to articlespace is best imo. Perhaps allowing usage in other mainspaces like the Wikipedia namespace would be okay too (eg if policy page links go out of date) but since things like WP:ANI are in the main space and not in Wikipedia talk I think there's too many holes in that idea as well. So perhaps just best to keep it to mainspace for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That having been said, I'm not sure how overly broad of an issue this is. I mean, it is fixing changed anchors, improving the context of archives for people browsing them later so they can reach discussions and follow them better. So it's overall a net plus. I think it merits some discussion on the pros & cons, but perhaps shouldn't be operated in these namespaces in the meantime. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a BAG comment, the close itself states that this bot is only approved for the Article space for this task. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: the close was updated after I wrote that ;p (Special:Diff/988503456) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Might be worth a certain someone to better update their clarification then! Primefac (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taking my BAG hat off (i.e. commenting on the edit type itself) I would say that fixing a link to a now-broken broken anchor would be a borderline acceptable change of a talk page edit - if someone is looking on a page for a section/anchor and it's simply not there, it makes it rather difficult to understand the argument (I know, I had this problem earlier this week when a link to a discussion pointed literally nowhere, either on the page or the archives). I'd rather have a link fixed (even if it is technically IAR) than it be broken. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader and Primefac: I cerainly don't disagree that there are some positives, but not that it's a net plus in all cases. In the case I linked to above, the editors's statement that they saw a particular image at Donald Trump#George Floyd protests is rendered simply incorrect insofar as they didn't see the image at Donald Trump#Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op, as the page now says. This isn't disastrous, but it's not hard to imagine other contexts where it might cause greater confusion – particularly cases where section titles are mentioned rather than used. What about, for example, a discussion about a section title that results in a title being changed? Editor 1 might argue that the section Foo#Bar should be changed to Foo#Bars; in the event that their proposed change was made would the bot change "The section called Foo#Bar should be called Foo#Bars" to "The section called Foo#Bars should be called Foo#Bars"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and a fairly valid reason for not having it approved for non-article uses. Basically, it would be a CONTEXTBOT issue, since there are cases where it would be helpful and cases where it wouldn't. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate there's no need to limit to just the mainspace: all content-related namespaces can be supported: mainspace, drafts, categories, portals, books and templates. As for template space, fixing links in navboxes and sidebars would be useful, but you would want to exclude DYK nomination discussions (which are annoyingly hosted in template space rather than project space). – SD0001 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot editing closed Afd discussions

Hi Kanashimi. I'm wondering if it's a good idea for Cewbot to edit closed Afd discussions, as it did here. There is a notice at the top of the page saying "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it." Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I've put this as a subsection of the section above, because it's the same issue. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it only modify main space

Thank you for every one giving good ideas above. I change the codes so the task should only modify main space now. I think, maybe we can rule out some prefixes and let the bot modify remaining pages? For example, !/\/(Sandbox|沙盒|Archives?|存檔|存档)( ?\d+)?$/.test(page_data.title) and !/^(Wikipedia:(Articles for deletion|Articles for creation|Database reports))\//.test(page_data.title) in the code? --Kanashimi (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is now erroneously changing links and anchors

I noticed this last night with a couple of articles linking to List of Boy Meets World characters, where an editor changed a few section headings in that article ([4]), only for those to be reverted later ([5]). The bot went on to change section links in William Daniels ([6][7]) and List of Girl Meets World characters ([8][9][10]) to what that editor had changed them to. All those changes led to broken links.

I also viewed some of the more recent changes the bot has made, to articles about numbers, and it seems to be doing the same thing ... changing section links to other articles and causing them to be broken. If anyone else has been watching this bot's recent edits and seeing further problems, please report them here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had to take a closer look at those numbers articles I mentioned. A lot of them are correct, but I did find one that led to a broken link ([11]). As I mentioned at the head of my comment, this was a case of an editor changing a section heading ([12]) and then being reverted later ([13]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reporting. I find this kind of vandalism almost made by IP users. The bot is ignoring the edits made by IP users now. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot 6

Hey. I took a skim over recent bot edits. Most look good, but two questions/points:

  1. Special:Diff/988520258 + Special:Diff/988520774 -- I think this was caused by the vandalism in Special:Diff/988518255, although it was reverted within a minute. Still, the bot changed the anchor at 18:01 (when it was already reverted)? Seems like quite a few times when the bot changes an anchor, then changes it back within an hour or so. Maybe worth adding a delay for this case?
  2. Can the bot handle outdated section links which use {{Section link}} rather than the wikilink syntax?

Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now the delay set to 2 minutes. As you see, it is very easy to change to another interval within about 20 days. For reading {{Section link}}, I need more time to write this function... --Kanashimi (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot should read {{Section link}} now. --Kanashimi (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Gati

Cyclone Gati Formed Upload File ??? Dam222 🌋 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete reccomendations

Hey, I've noticed that Cewbot is recommending AfDs for soft deletion even in instances with bolded keep votes (such as here) as well as discussion without bolded votes but where there are comments clearly opposing deletion (such as here). You've got a very useful bot here, but I think it would be a good idea to look into this. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reporting. For the first case, it is because the vote using <li> arounds it. May be I can detect these cases in the future, but there are also risks of misjudgment. For the second case, the bot do not have the ability to read comments, so it uses "Seems" instead of assert statement. --Kanashimi (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps you could program it to search for terms like “seems notable” or “many sources.” Granted, I know nothing about coding so this may not be feasible. Anyways, great bot and I hope my comments have been of use. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Thank you for your important! --Kanashimi (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A problem for Chinese Wikipedia template

Hello. I'm worried about those templates for Chinese Wikipedia. I guess it is suppose to be Chinese version of "Template:Infobox musical artist" (singer, musician, etc.; without "management/agent" parameter), as for "Template:藝人" must redirect to "Template:Infobox person". Can you reach its consensus first in zh:Template talk:藝人? 115.164.93.220 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The word "藝人" includes musical artists and actors, so it is not so easy to just redirects Template:藝人 to Template:Infobox musical artist or Template:Infobox person. --Kanashimi (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with bot

When vital articles are removed, the bolded text remains. For example, Russian Empire. Can you please fix that? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Hi. May you give a sample edit so I can know how to modify? Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This edit removed Russian Empire while this edit got rid of the level 3, but did not remove the bold. Interstellarity (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: The bot basically do not change the style of items. It seems there is special meaning of bold. Do you know any documents mention this? --Kanashimi (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Vital_articles. This explains that on that page, the Level 1 articles is in bold italics and Level 2 articles are bold. On Level 4, all higher level articles are in bold. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: Thank you. I will check the code of bot. --Kanashimi (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says that Russian Empire is a level 3 vital article. See here. Can you fix it? Interstellarity (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am testing now... --Kanashimi (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should fixed. --Kanashimi (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles

Hi, Kanashimi. The way the bot is adding vital article templates on talk pages (sample [14]) has had me busy for weeks trying to tame the clutter it is creating. If you look at Talk:Chagas disease, you will see it uses the WikiProject banner shell (as do tens to hundreds of thousands of talk pages). Could you coerce the bot into adding the Vital article template to the bottom of the banner shell, like this? That would involve looking for {{WikiProjectBannerShell and its shortcut, {{WPBS . Much appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble bot made. I will check the code and try to solve this problem. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, and thanks for your contributions ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should fixed. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you get the bot to use the "topic" or "subtopic" parameters instead of the "link" parameter? Using the "link" parameter places an inordinate amount of articles into Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in an unknown topic pbp 17:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that the only way bot using the "topic" or "subtopic" parameters is to maintain a list by hand. In my opinion, using link will more precise and less change of {{Vital article}}. There is a related discussion in Template talk:Vital article#Allow `link` parameter. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, just no... Using the "link" parameter instead of the "topic" or "subtopic" parameter breaks categories and leads to articles being categorized in unknown topics when the topics are clearly known. As such, I've voted in opposition to use of the "link" parameter by bots in the discussion you speak of. pbp 04:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your bot has also been "deleting" the topic and subtopic parameters to add the link parameter; it's gotta stop doing that. pbp 05:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am testing codes this two days, otherwise it should only remove {{Vital article}} for those articles that are not vital articles anymore, as the bot did before. --Kanashimi (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see Cewbot is still not placing vital articles inside the banner as we discussed above. As an example, could you look at the clutter created at Talk:Transit of Venus by this edit? There is a {{WikiProjectBannerShell| On that page, and the vital article template should go inside it. As I mentioned above, I am having to spend considerable time cleaning up these talk pages. You mnetioned above that this had been fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not fixed. I modify the codes and it will be tested next several days. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot 12 December 2020

I reverted your bot's action on my talk page.

Your bot's mistakes:

  1. The hatnotes explicitly state both the original locations, and their respective archives. There is no need to "correct" the original location, since it's there deliberately. (Funny that it should only pick on ONE of these only, though – but thankful for small mercies).
  2. There are several more false "corrections". All of these change correct links to link instead to headers on my "Index" subpage, but this subpage is not an archive, but merely, as its name indicates, an index to sections on both my talk page, and on its archives.

The easiest way to stop your bot doing this is probably to get it to skip "pinned" sections.

Regards,

--NSH001 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is interesting to find these cases. I think using {{bots}} is a more general solution, as you have already added. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of {{bots}} should be thought of as a last resort only. Treating the "Index" file as if it were an archive file is a bug that needs to be fixed. Your bot should also skip pinned threads, since "pinned", by definition, means there is no archive – so your bot is likely to go wrong on these sections. Hope this helps. --NSH001 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you means User talk:NSH001/Index? Yes, I should not overwrite existed present section titles. I have fix the issue. Thank you for the comments! --Kanashimi (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot nonsense edits

What are edits such as this on Talk:China all about? Le Deluge (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Deluge: Sorry for this. I am tracking how to fix this mistake. By the way, it seems China is not listed in Category:Good articles? --Kanashimi (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It got delisted a few weeks ago, see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/China/1. Maybe we should revert to a revision from April 2006 and put the Big Star™ back on it (Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/People's Republic of China). *just kidding* davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many maintenance templates update?

I really appreciate Cewbot's updates to Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages contains too many maintenance templates. There have been updates every 7 days like clockwork, however I noticed there wasn't an update this past week... ~EdGl talk 22:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing FA without evidence of delisting

Please explain this edit, in which Cewbot removed the FA listing from Binary search algorithm (as far as I can see from the talk, no delisting has occurred) and instead gave it the obsolete A-class rating (a level that has not been used for mathematics articles for years and should not be assigned without following the proper process for projects that actually use it, if there are any such projects). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit does not "remove the FA listing"; only removing the featured template from the actual article, or removing the article from WP:FA would have that effect. I imagine this is part of Cewbot trying to fix another issue. (I do see the bot's edit summary, though, which seems to indicate some misunderstanding.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am trying to fix the trouble listed above. The bad edit should be fixed at last. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I suspected this may have been related to what I inquired about above. But more importantly, you still have many errors to roll back ... for example, this is also wrong. Daylight savings time is at FAR, but as of today, is still an FA. When articles are defeatured, FACBot automatically removes the FA from all WikiProject listings. Hawkeye7 can confirm if FACbot also strips it from the Vital article template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one that is wrong; could you please undo all of these recent edits, as there are probably more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cewbot should never need to remove an FA listing; Hawkeye7 does that with FACbot. (Sample here.) Then, there is no Class until a WikiProject re-assesses the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have now reverted all of them. Cewbot should never be assessing (WikiProjects do that), and it should certainly not be assessing A-class, as MILHIST is one of the few WikiProjects that has an A-class assessment process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the bad edits. However, there are classified categories for vital articles: Category:Wikipedia vital articles by class, so I think it is better not to remove the class directly as here shown. There is a related topic: #Cewbot A-class --Kanashimi (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Class until/unless a WikiProject assigns one. We can't use GA without a new WP:GAN. We can't use A-class without a WikiProject A-class review. We can't assume B-class, because most (or many) defeatured articles aren't. The Vital articles project will have to decide what they want to assign to defeatured FAs. My best guess would be C-class. But FACbot has no choice but to strip the assessment, but the default needs to be assigned by the Vital articles process. It cannot be GA, or A, and I don't suggest B either.
By the way, all WikiProjects have unassessed articles, so there's no reason that Vital articles cannot as well, until another WikiProject re-evaluates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this is an issue to be discussed, or we will get a classified article becoming unclassified... --Kanashimi (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to withdraw my earlier advice about B-class in respect to Sandy's greater experience in the topic. Plenty of unclassified articles out there, perhaps it may prompt someone to take a closer look at an article. CMD (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed many times at FAC, FAR and other places over the years. We really have no choice, since every de-featured article is different, although most are C-class. This has been a perennial discussion, and is a pretty well settled matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I understand now. I will modify the codes of bot. --Kanashimi (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot not merging duplicate issues

Someone inadvertently made several duplicates of article content, including an "unreferenced" issue template. Cewbot put all of the unreferenced templates inside a "multiple issues" template instead of conflating them. ~EdGl talk 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When there are multiple maintenance templates in single article, the templates usually has different date. So I prefer merge them instead of select one of them. And for the case of Jim Sivell (vandalism), we may get alarm in Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages contains too many maintenance templates. If we join into one template, we will lost the alarm. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot anchor fixing error

Hi Kanashimi! I came across this edit, which is definitely not desired behavior. Would you mind checking it out to see what went wrong? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting this. It is indeed a mistake. I have fixed the error later (see #Cewbot 12 December 2020), so it should not appear again. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More cewbot errors

A dab page is a vital article? [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It does seem to be listed in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists. Are dab pages meant to be listed in vital articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should distinguish which one to select... Giles Cooper (playwright)? --Kanashimi (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who is we? Someone at vital articles needs to go back in the page history to figure out which one it was. For bot purposes, the code might check that it is not tagging a dab page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will skip DAB. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the wisest choice for Cewbot; it is up to the Vital articles people to sort their messes, not the bot :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kanashimi&oldid=995991399"