User talk:Bluebot/Archive Nov 06

Section blanking

Bluebot recently added an {{uncategorised}} tag to the article Edelweiss [1]. However, the only reason that it was uncategorised was that a vandal had previously blanked a large portion of the article [2]. Should Bluebot perhaps check some recent versions to find out if an article has been categorised, or is this too rare a situation to make it worthwhile? --Stemonitis 17:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Reverted wikilink to a redlink

In this edit to Danis Tanović the Bluebot reverted a fixed link to its previous redlinking form. Jonathan F 00:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

untagging?

This [3] appears to remove a cat, only to say there are no cats. And this [4] has a tag. Have you gone mad? William M. Connolley 22:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Apparently you have "gone mad". A stub is not a category! The reason I removed the stub in the first example is because I think it is too big to be a stub, but at least use the correct stub in the future. Martin 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, OK, I'll withdraw the mad bit. I wasn't sure how bot-ised this was. Anyway, it was in a sci-stub category, but maybe you're right. KH is probably better as a climatologist William M. Connolley 10:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of complaints

Also, quickly looking through the talk archives reveals more than 8 complaints. While this may have been true at one point several months ago (115,000 edits), it seems misleading to leave it up now to me. The whole section has a tone that dismisses and discourages any negative feedback. Grouse 12:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have removed the whole section, I wrote it ages ago and forgot about it. Martin 13:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs

Your bot is sticking the uncategorized template on many articles that already have categories—namely, they are in sorted stub categories. This is not helpful behavior. Grouse 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the same thing. Please could you stop your robot from doing this? I'm reverting its behaviour for Zero crossing and Mel frequency cepstral coefficient.--mcld 12:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tags are not categories, and do not categorise articles properly, I don't see what possible problem there could be. I see you also added a category to Zero crossing, this is exactly what the tagging hopes to achieve, thanks. Martin 13:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what way do they not categorize articles "properly?" Equally I do not see what the possible problem is with the way these articles are already in stub categories. Calling them "tags" instead of "categories" does not make them categories any less.

This behavior of the bot seems broken in general. For example, it just tagged Bathurst Manor as uncategorized, yet it already has a category! It looks like it is not behaving properly when the category is imported from a template. I think it would behoove you to slow down a bit before changing thousands of pages in a way that has already drawn several complaints, until there is a consensus on the issue here. Grouse 13:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus at Category:Category needed to tag uncategorised articles. The example of Bathurst Manor is a genuine mistake, the only one I have seen. By "properly" I mean that stub categories/tags do not categorise articles in an encyclopedic way, they are essentially maintenance categories, I am very surprised that anyone could consider them otherwise. For the time being I will just do totally uncategorised articles. Martin 13:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion on a category page that few people have participated in is not official policy or even a guideline, and I don't think it is grounds for automatically changing so many articles. You have already had more objections here than there are people supporting the "consensus" on the other page.

I disagree with the assertion that stub categories do not categorize articles in an encyclopedic way. For example, the article that first led me to this bot was Edwin Black. It is in Category:American journalist stubs. If one were to accept your suggestion that this is not a "proper" category, then the remedy would clearly be to add Category:American journalists. But what would be the point of that? Category:American journalist stubs is already a subcategory of Category:American journalists. Anyone looking through Category:American journalists will already be able to find Edwin Black, and vice versa. Grouse 14:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just not true at all, no one would wade through often 1000s of stub articles to find what they are looking for, as an example I have already categorised Edwin Black properly, this should make it more clear. Also, of the people who complained other than you 1 withdrew his comment, and the other proceeded to categorise their article anyway. I have been doing this for a while, as have others, it is a successful project, please don't try and stall it. And as I already said, I am ignoring stub articles for now, until all the others are done, which will be a long time, and then I will only proceed after further discussion. Martin 14:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say no one would wade through 1000s of stub articles to find what they are looking for, yet your solution is to add all these articles to the parent category. In this particular case, the parent category has even more articles. Additionally, that would be an objection against subcategories in general—that one must go through the subcategories in order to find an article. It's just the way subcategories work.

You should not confuse acquiescence to adding more categories on a few articles with consent to automated tagging of {{uncategorized}}. I will not revert your changes on Edwin Black, but that does not mean that I thought that placing {{uncategorized}} there in the first place was correct.

You should remember to WP:AGF before accusing me of trying to "stall" your overall project. I simply object to putting {{uncategorized}} on thousands of articles that already have a stub category, which results in needless extra work for other editors. I believe it is official policy that such a project needs to be approved on WP:BRFA first. I cannot find the discussion; can you please point me to it?

I suggest that further discussion on whether stub categories are "proper" categories occur on [[Talk:Category:Category needed]]. Grouse 15:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"your solution is to add all these articles to the parent category", No! my solution is to try and get them categorised properly!

"I will not revert your changes on Edwin Black", why on earth would anyone revert adding categories, that would be vandalism!

"I simply object to putting {{uncategorized}} on thousands of articles that already have a stub category" I have said twice above that I will not add the uncat template to stubbed articles without explicit community agreement at some time in the future.

"official policy that such a project needs to be approved on WP:BRFA" I have permission to run all sorts of different tasks, mostly granted before the new system was set up, I am a member of the approval group, I write the software that many bot users run, and my bot has - by considerable margin - made more edits than any other bot on the whole encyclopedia. Martin 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I have permission to run all sorts of different tasks, mostly granted before the new system was set up" How were you granted this permission? I would like to know what the scope of the permission was. The only thing I can find is a place in Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Archive 13#Bluebot where introduce a bot with a much more limited scope, and when someone asks if the bot has been approved, you say, "Over 22,000 edits with no valid complaints counts as a decision for me."

I don't see that being a member of the approvals group is relevant. So is Tawker, but when he recently proposed a new bot he still brought it up for approval. Elsewhere on Wikipedia self-dealing is discouraged, so I would expect it would be in the bots approval group as well. Grouse 16:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have permission for a number of things, probably not explicitly this, but I am not too concerned, as it is monitored constantly by me, hence me re-starting it quickly after getting messages, monitored jobs don't explicitly need bot permission, though I suppose in theory it should not be done with a bot flag, but that is really a minor technicality. I must say I am starting to feel you are deliberately harassing me, as you seem to have lost interest in your initial point, which I quickly responded to by stopping tagging stubbed articles. Please stop wasting my time now and let me do something productive. Martin 16:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really must remember to assume good faith when discussing things on Wikipedia. If you clearly complied with the bot policy, we would not be having this discussion. I am trying to understand why you think you comply with the policy. The principle of not automating edits unless there is a consensus that they should be done in an automated one is a good one. This goes beyond a claim that there is consensus on an issue in the wider community (especially if no true consensus exists)—there must be a consensus that automation is the best way to deal with a problem.

I do not know how you can characterize me as having lost interest in the original point, since we are still actively discussing it at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#stubs and categories. But even if that discussion results in an official policy that articles must have non-stub categories, I think the appropriate way to deal with that would be editors adding new categories. I do not think that automatically adding {{uncategorized}} is useful, and that is a separate discussion. Grouse 17:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe this. I have told you three times now: I have stopped adding any tags to stubbed articles until there is community agreement to do so (I may never even seek agreement and just not do it altogether). As for tagging other articles, there is already agreement at Category talk:Category needed, and other editors are doing the same, it is a very successful project. All you have done today is harass me, despite me immediately submitting to your request to stop tagging stubbed articles. Please leave me alone. Martin 17:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that you might take a result from the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization as authorization to automate the {{uncategorized}} placement on stub articles. Is this not the case? If it is not, then I will consider the matter closed. Although I must again object to characterization of discussing these matters as "harassment" (and also violation of WP:AGF as you have been reminded a couple of times) it does fit with the general pattern here, which is dismissive of any disagreement or criticism. Grouse 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with Grouse and others that (a) "Category:American journalist stubs" represents a Category and that (b) the fact that an article is a stub means that it is recognized that it is incomplete, and that one of the ways in which it is incomplete may be lack of categorization. Notice that in most assessment systems, "Start" grade is AFTER "Stub" grade (that is, a stub is not considered even to be a start). If we start tagging stubs with "uncategorized", why not "needs references"? "cleanup"? and a dozen other boxes for the things most stubs are lacking? If we try hard enough, I bet we could ensure that the number of valid boxes on each stub was 5 times longer than the stub itself. I think these tags will be much more helpful on articles believed by their editors to be complete (as shown by the removal of stub tags). ubiquity 20:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stated 3 times that I am ignoring stubbed articles now. The reason we should add uncategorised by not unreferenced is that we are actually getting close to categorising all articles in wikipedia, and I wanted to get over the final hurdle. The fact that anyone considers a stub category as a valid category beyond its use as a maintenance one is very worrying. Martin 20:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for missing this. The exchange between you and grouse was so long that I found it difficult to follow in its entirety. But I still feel strongly that it is OK for a stub to have no category beyond its stub category. ubiquity 21:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedster (comics)

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but it looks we might have an edit conflict at speedster (comics) between myself and Ace Class Shadow. If you could chime in with your opinion on that article’s talk page, so that we can achieve some sort of consensus, it would be appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream 10:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

GymnWiki, a new gymnastics oriented wiki on Wikia

Hi Bluebot/Archive Nov 06, I noticed your edit to a gymnastics related article. There's a new wiki called GymnWiki specializing in gymnastics at http://gymnastics.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. If you'd like to contribute some gymnastics info that is geared more towards gymnastics fans than Wikipedia might be interested in, feel free to drop on by. If you want to add just a couple of sentences about your favorite gymnast that's all good too. Hope to see your posts at GymnWiki soon! Gforb 15:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Tagging

Hiya, I saw that you'd marked this article with the edit summary of "tagging", but in actuality all the edit did was to remove the stub tag (leaving the article uncategorized), and removing several hyperlinks. Are you sure that's what you meant to do? [5] --Elonka 22:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me, links should not be in headings, and it is too long to be a stub. Edit summary could have been more accurate though.Martin 23:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am so thankful and happy...

I thought of making an article "Shrinathji" on Wikipedia. I found it already existed as stub. I was so happy and delighted to see external web-site incorporated by you. "Shree Krishna Sharanam Mam:" chanting made my morning pleasant.

Thank you so much. I am doing non-sense now in the process of making an article. With the blessings of "Shrinathji", I will certainly be instrumental in creation of this article.

I look for your help and well wishes.

Thanks once again.

swadhyayee 03:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]