User:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Mega 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

October 2009 - September 2010 inclusive

Previous Next


French communes

You've added the remaining infoboxes? Awesome, I've been trying to get somebody to do it for yonks. Well done! Can you update Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes/Status then? I knew you were working on the French communes, I didn't really look to see what it was you wer edoing, I assumed you were just cleaning up existing infboxes and links. Now that is good news. Himalayan 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll add an infobox settlement to those tomorrow perhaps as they aren't compatible. Would you support an update of the french communes infobox in a standard layout like the Italian comune box? Himalayan 20:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you absolutely positive you've added an infobox to all the others? Good grief your edit count is going to be gigantic... 1,000,000 + edits Himalayan 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are technically minded, admittedly I am not in regards to computer coding, you may want to converse with User:Fritzpoll. I am pretty sure he could give you some lessons although you do run smackbot so you obviously have some level of knowledge in regards to coding bots and are far more likely to understand them than I would. If we could utilize your sheer power on here into something much quicker than even AWB into a much more effective and efficent bot for some of your bigger tasks and you can get the WP:BAG group behind you I am pretty certain you could achieve some quite astounding tasks on here. The biggest problem in regards to standardisation articles on settlements on here and getting some consistency was that the people running bots are not willing to run them for long periods and consistnetly like yourself . They would typically do one country and then go into hiding. What we need is a bot to run making things consistent through every country on here like you have been doing with AWB so far but to speed up the process and allow you to get things done faster and more efficiently. It is for instance going to take me months adding infoboxes to Romanian communes for instance, with a bot would probably take a few days max... Himalayan 20:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I do French reasonably well if there are articles pressing for translation, let me know. I know there are pages/projects etc for articles needing translation and I watch them, but often nobody gives much idea of how important they are. You can check e.g. Battles of Latrun, Trun, Orne, Léon Gard, to see that I have half an idea how to put into the English WP and try to follow the WP style guides (which change underfoot) as I do. I hope you will see from those that I don't just copy paste I reorganise and sort it out to suit an English speaking audience, but another set of eyes always helps.
I can do a bit of Latin too, which I did at Symphonia and again followed up cross reffing and deciding that the Latin was better placed at Timpani, before this was only in Latin and I am not saying my translation is brilliant only that at least now it is English not Latin, and is linked to for example the elm tree because that is what it says. I know that links in quotations are kinda frowned upon but sometimes that is all one can do (or make a huge circumlocution to repeat oneself).
This does not really belong on Rich's talk page, more really on Himalayan's, but I put it here first for visibility of all three of us. My very best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 07:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, definately don't transfer infoboxes from Romanian wiki! Heavens no!! The best thing would be a bot to add infoboxes using the statistics website. As for the old translation project, Jen and I gave it an overhaul, most of the old pages are stale and inactive and should be deleted. Himalayan 11:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken pages

Thanks for the pointer — the thing is that, while they're too big now, they weren't too big when I created the subpages. People have expanded the templates to the point that they're too large now. I'll fix the problem. Nyttend (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's been around longer than these county template subpages: I've always split several states' lists into multiple subpages, because I encountered the too-many-templates problem when I first started creating these subpages. By the way — I archive my talk page at the end of every third month, so your comments aren't being deleted. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

pas de legumes reference section

The Pas de légumes article still has a problem with references, and I really cannot see what to do. Are you able to help at all? Thanks Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

thank you! Cg2p0B0u8m (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally disputed

Why didn't you just redirect Template:Totally-disputed to Template:Disputed? I have done that now. If that was a mistake, please let me know. If you agree, you can add it to SmackBot. Debresser (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It used to combine both POV and Disputed. Now I redirected it to Disputed only. Averything better than have a Tdeprecated on it. Do you perhaps want to restore the original template? Debresser (talk) 11:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I never liked that template, combining two separate ideas in one. However i would be inclined to simply put {{Article issues|POV+{{{date|}}}|disputed={{{date|}}}}} if I were to go against consensus and flout TfD. Rich Farmbrough, 11:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
Agree with your dislike. Wait a second. Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_January_22 decided to delete it. Why don't you just do that? It is anyway not transcluded anywhere. Debresser (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok. We wait. How much more can we wait? It has been redirected, Tdeprecated, and in general kicked and beaten from January till now. I say it's time you delete it. Believe me, nobody will shed a tear. And if they do, send them to me. I'll find them some tissue. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Totally_disputed. Debresser (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pages using deprecated templates

Please see Category:Pages using deprecated templates, to improve the explanatory text I have added as necessary, and to admire the result. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've replied on Category_talk:Pages_using_deprecated_templates#Circumvent.3F. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyway I added the {{Empty category}} template yesterday, and that should help keep prospective deletions at bay. Debresser (talk) 13:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

String manip functions

Totally agree with you there. There are conversations basically saying don't let the editors have too much power, I will find them if you want. So this is a deliberate decision not to let us be able to do that. I have tried by hook or crook to do a regulare expression or a contex-free grammar and it simply will not let you. Hence my struggle at [[Infobox: Hungarian settlement] etc. Full disclosure: I have been a profesional software engineer since I was twelve years old, I have half a clue how to do this stuff. If you look at User:SimonTrew/reverse you will see exactly the problem. That would, without being stopped, reverse any set of letters. In fact it is meant as a test that we can reverse names from Eastern name order. But it DOES NOT WORK because it says template loop detected, which is of course the entire point, to let the template call itself. SimonTrew (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes

Hi. FYI, as you have had interest in this in the recent past, there is now an RfC under way on this issue at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I tried to work some of your thinking in to a re-work of the proposal that appears below the comment of supporter # 21.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
i dunno if this is any use to you, but User:Mjroots told me the YY etc format was done for date linking. Now, I understand, it is deprecated. {{cite}} still recommends it. So one is between a rock and a hard place. SimonTrew (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I know what you mean, but no one is going to be castigated for using the wrong date format. More a question of just getting on with it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
I've been so castigated! Rich--is it possible to have your bot change dates to dates where months are spelled our or abbreviated, and to change all dates in an article (it now only changes some, leading to lack of uniformity in formerly uniform format articles). Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for merging with no partner

Please don't check this category for a few days. I'm using it for detection of something else. So far it has been empty, BTW. I'll update you when I'm finished. Please let me know ASAP if there are complications and I should not have done this. Debresser (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that next time then. Thanks for the advise. I anyway check it on a daily basis. And I don't think there are many other editors who do this. Debresser (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Plan aborted and category empty. Debresser (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


It says in Help:Job_queue#Typical values:

During a period of low loads, the job queue might be zero. At Wikimedia, the job queue is, in practice, almost never zero. In off-peak hours, it might be a few hundreds to a thousand. During a busy day, it might be a few million, but it can quickly fluctuate by 10% or more.[1] The job queue length is reported at Special:Statistics.

Yesterday night I checked the job queue every ten seconds for two minutes, and it jumped from 9 to 24 and 243 thousand, back and forth. Would you have an explanation for that? Debresser (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it's probably broken! Each job is supposed to represent 500 page builds so 242000 means rebuilding every page in WP several times - even touching something like DMCA or Asbox should only invalidate 1 million pages => 2,000 jobs. I have been a little unhappy with the explanation of this statistic for a while. Rich Farmbrough, 13:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
But then I didn't read it properly. Template changes are 1 per job, HTML cache invalidations are 500 per job. So that level of activity might be reasonable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
I had read it the same way as you. Still, that explains only how there can be that many jobs. Not how they can fluctuate that fast. Debresser (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Repeating your experiment I suspect there are three job queues, and you get a random one - it defiantly seems tri-modal. What do you think? Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
Where/whom to ask? Debresser (talk) 13:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Village pump technical. Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
Thought so. Posted. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
There is an answer there. Debresser (talk) 01:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
There are new nswers there and a discussion about wjther to remove it at all. Debresser (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

{reflist |refs=

I noticed here that SmackBot added {{reflist}} to a page that already had {{reflist |refs=}}. That caused all the references to appear as cite errors. I think I have seen SmackBot make the same edit to other pages.

Maybe SmackBot could be "taught" that {{reflist |refs=}} equals {{reflist}}. (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I told it to ignore those pages, but I regenerated the rule-set for October... I think the WP:AWB developers may have fixed it now. Rich Farmbrough, 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC).
Hi Rich, on 14:03:52 in this edit SmackBot broke the new |refs= thingi again. Sebastian scha. (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm I upgraded AWB to no avail. I'll have to go back to skipping these articles. Rich Farmbrough, 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC).


Should we deprecate Template:Tdeprecated-inline? Or even nominate it for deletion? It is not in use, and because it has none of the features of {{Tdeprecated}}, I don't think it has any use. Debresser (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that e.g. the templates in Category:Deprecated citation templates should have been deprecated with {{Tdeprecated-inline}} rather than with {{Tdeprecated}} as they have been? Debresser (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added the whole category part of {{Tdeprecated}} to {{Tdeprecated-inline}}. Do you think that was a good idea? Debresser (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't see why not. Rich Farmbrough, 23:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Good. Does that answer pertain to the previous question in this section as well? Debresser (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}<!--Don't categorise /doc pages -->
   |{{DMC|Templates deprecated|from|{{{date|}}}||Deprecated templates}}
| [[Category:Pages using deprecated templates]]

With this code, transclusion of a deprecated template onto another template will result in the second template being categorised by DMC, not into Category:Pages using deprecated templates as should be. I checked this. To fix this, the code should be something like:

| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}<!--Don't categorise /doc pages -->
      |{{DMC|Templates deprecated|from|{{{date|}}}||Deprecated templates}}
| [[Category:Pages using deprecated templates]]

Where {{{1}}} is the same pagename entered by the editor. Will that work? What will happen if the editor didn't use a capital as the first letter of the template name? Debresser (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


| {{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{BASEPAGENAME}}<!--Don't categorise /doc pages -->
   |{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{#ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}<!-- only for the deprecated template itself -->
      |{{DMC|Templates deprecated|from|{{{date|}}}||Deprecated templates}}
| [[Category:Pages using deprecated templates]]
Rich Farmbrough, 14:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

Thanks. I didn't know about that #ucthing, but I see the idea was basically correct. Will you make the edit? Debresser (talk) 14:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Access dates

Agree with your <sigh> at Wikipedia:Mosnum/proposal on YYYY-MM-DD numerical dates#Comment. When I first started citing web pages (after I started citing books), I checked Template:Cite web/doc, where for |accessdate= it states "Full date when item was accessed, in the appropriate date format for the article", and I've been under the impression that this is a first-accessed date. However, at Template talk:Cite web#Discussion of second problem, Happy-melon tells me "Accessdates represent the most recent time when the link is known to have worked"; and nobody has shown me where to find a definitive guide one way or the other. Any ideas?

Re your statement "Shame most sites now hide the real creation date of their pages"; I usually do a "view source" and check the hidden code at to or bottom. Here I often find page creation date and author. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Templates merge

I created {{Tfm}}, {{Tfm2}}, {{Tfm-inline}}, {{Tfmnotice}} and documentation pages. And tested the whole thing. You are invited to have a look. I shall wait for your "Ok" before adding them to Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Header.

In connection with this, I would like to ask you to update {{Tfd}}. Nothing major, just capitals and the word "please". But that still would be nice, in order that all templates and docpages look alike. Here is the code.

 |text='''This [[Help:Template|template]] is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]].'''<p>Please discuss this matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:{{ucfirst:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}|this template's entry]]''' at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion|templates for deletion]] to help reach a consensus.
''<small class="plainlinks" style="line-height:1.2em;">[[Wikipedia:Maintenance|Maintenance]] use only: Place {{tlx|Tfd}} or {{tlx|Tfd-inline}} on the template(s) nominated for deletion. Then [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/{{#time: Y F j}}|action=edit&editintro=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/editnotice&section=1}} edit the Tfd log] to create the discussion entry.  E.g.:''

''{{subst:Tfd2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|text= Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~ }}''

''Please consider notifying the [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} author(s)] by placing {{nowrap|{{tlx|Tfdnotice|{{PAGENAME}}|{{#ifeq:{{{page|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{PAGENAME}}||{{{page}}}}}|subst=yes}} ~~~~}} on their talk page(s).</small>''
}}<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
|<div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA;">‹ The [[Help:Template|template]] below {{#if:{{{1|}}}|(''[[Template:{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}]]'')|}} is being considered for deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:{{ucfirst:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}|templates for deletion]] to help reach a consensus. ›</div>
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, please, not here! -->

Debresser (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And another question. What category should these templates sort into: Category:Templates for deletion, Category:Items to be merged, or Category:Templates to be merged? Debresser (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Items I reckon it's small enough. Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
It's some 320 pages. Is that small enough? Debresser (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Can Template:Tfd1-merge be deleted? It looks as though it was made to assist in substitution of {{Tfd}}. Which is not practised (any more?). Debresser (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick a speedy tag on it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
Ok, I made something up and recommended it for speedy. Did you notice the other 2 requests in this section? Debresser (talk) 01:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It is late

And I know, the later it gets the harder it is to get answers from you. So if you could just answer my smal question in #Tdeprecated-inline and the bigger ones over here in this section. Now add to that my idea for a solution in #Merge templates and namespace, which I proposed to be tested oin Template_talk:Merge#Problem_when_using_with_templates. Debresser (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See you tomorrow night after Sukkoth. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

New page in your user space

You probably won't have seen this: User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Talk Archive Index Martin451 (talk) 10:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Algerian stub sorting

Did you finish this after? Himalayan 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks. Don't worry about Romania, this site has the 2002 census details. It is a task for a bot operator like Kotbot to do later.

I do, howveer, have a request with Colombian infoboxes. Can you go through the Category:Municipalities of Colombia subcats and ensure that the map is inserted into the infobox See Florencia, Caquetá. A basic edit like this. You'll find that all you have to do is add the actual image name, the infoboxes already have the caption ready. I think I only did the first one or two provinces manually starting with A.. Himalayan 18:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Rich, I understand you created the archive on Sir Howard Kippenberger, I'm his biological Grand Nephew and I was wondering first what it was that drove you to make this archive and second where you got the information? It would be a wonderful thing if I could learn more about my illustrious Grand Uncle and I'd like to give you my thanks for doing the work you have done thus far.

Allan Trainer --Radio-commander (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC).

French Commune

It would be great if you could comment here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Bot question

Quick question. There are certain phrases (such as "passed away") that Wikipedia suggest should not be used (in lieu of, in that case, "died".) I that a fix that a bot could make? Of course it would have to have the intelligence or oversight not to change the phrase if it is within quotes. Thoughts? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


Please have alook at User_talk:Debresser#New_dated_categories. So far I only checked 1-3. Debresser (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I finished updating everything. Please delete the redrects I listed on my talpage. Debresser (talk) 03:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I solved my problem by removing Special:Prefixindex/Template:In-universe/ and replacing it by an ordinary list. That also removed the /doc /sandbox and /testcases. :) Debresser (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Not that I wold be unhappy if somebody were to boldly delete the redirects in Special:Prefixindex/Template:In-universe/ and a good deal of the others... Debresser (talk) 06:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


Exactly. The person who created most of the Romanian commune articles did so by copying the statistics from crappy Romanian wiki which seems to relish getting things wrong. The current population figures are all false and unreferenced. This is why I began going through them adding infoboxes, references and correct population data. Hopefully Kotbot can do it. Himalayan 10:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could use Magnus's upload bot or whatever the TUSC account is to upload the district maps of Riga from Latvian wiki? Himalayan 14:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

John E. Hamm

... some of the changes recently have left me way behind...however, here is a link that may answer a question you left me. Could you fix some part of this as it relates to Dr. Hamm's article ? Perhaps a template link at the bottom ? United States Ambassador to Chile

John5Russell3Finley (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge templates and namespace

One of the problems of the three merge templates is that they automatically add the namespace to thename of any article to be merged. This is done in {{Pagelist}}. Because of that feature, an editor who adds the namespace himself, ends up with a redlink. See Template_talk:Merge#Problem_when_using_with_templates. How could {{Pagelist}} be updated so to avoid this. It would be good if {{PAGENAME}} would behave like a template: {{PAGENAME|Template:X1}} = X1. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

{{FULLFULLPAGENAME}} is on the other side of the scales of what I am looking for. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I've checked the other templates from its documentation page, and even had a look at Category:Wikipedia metatemplates, but I found nothing that does what I am looking for. Would you be willing to write up such a template. I had a look at it, but am afraid that that is still above my abilities. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I think I was looking for {{PAGENAME:Template:X1}}, which renders X1. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Now {{Pagelist}} could be rewritten from
-->{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|,| and}} {{{delim|}}}[[:{{{nspace|{{NAMESPACE}}}}}:{{{3}}}|{{{3}}}]]{{{edelim|{{{delim|}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{3|}}}|{{#if:{{{4|}}}|,| and}} {{{delim|}}}[[:{{{nspace|{{NAMESPACE}}}}}:{{PAGENAME:{{{3}}}}}|{{{3}}}]]{{{edelim|{{{delim|}}}}}}<!--
. And so forth from 1 to 20. And that would spare the abovementioned editor a redlink. Debresser (talk) 02:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

See Template talk:Pagelist that I tested it and it worked. Debresser (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I am so proud. Debresser (talk) 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Date formats

Hi Rich, if you're interested, can you change the formats for other Snow Patrol articles too? No problem if you cant though. Thanks for doing it on Up to Now, I had no idea the comma wasnt required, and I checked WP:DATE to make sure. Suede67 (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. But what those articles actually need is the british date format, eg - 1 January 2009. I did not know this before and added lots of dates in other format - December 31, 2008. Can AWB do this quickly? I got AWB permission myself and have been trying to figure out how its done. Suede67 (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Respect!!! And I was thinking of doing it all manually sometime. Suede67 (talk) 04:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Just noticed that though the other tour articles you took care of, this one still remains, Taking Back the Cities Tour. Can you get to it? Thanks. Suede67 (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Suede67 (talk) 20:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


In connection with the new Tfm templates and the update of the old Tfd templates, I would like to ask you to update {{Tfd}}. Nothing major, just capitals and the word "please". But that still would be nice, in order that all templates and documentation pages look consistent. Here is the code.

 |text='''This [[Help:Template|template]] is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy|deletion policy]].'''<p>Please discuss this matter at '''[[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:{{ucfirst:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}|this template's entry]]''' at [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion|templates for deletion]] to help reach a consensus.
''<small class="plainlinks" style="line-height:1.2em;">[[Wikipedia:Maintenance|Maintenance]] use only: Place {{tlx|Tfd}} or {{tlx|Tfd-inline}} on the template(s) nominated for deletion. Then [{{fullurl:Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/{{#time: Y F j}}|action=edit&editintro=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/editnotice&section=1}} edit the Tfd log] to create the discussion entry.  E.g.:''

''{{subst:Tfd2|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|text= Your reason(s) for nominating the template. ~~~~ }}''

''Please consider notifying the [{{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|action=history}} author(s)] by placing {{nowrap|{{tlx|Tfdnotice|{{PAGENAME}}|{{#ifeq:{{{page|{{PAGENAME}}}}}|{{PAGENAME}}||{{{page}}}}}|subst=yes}} ~~~~}} on their talk page(s).</small>''
}}<includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion|{{PAGENAME}}]]</includeonly>
|<div class="boilerplate metadata plainlinks" id="tfd" style="background-color: transparent; padding: 0; font-size:xx-small; color:#000000; text-align: center; border-bottom:1px solid #AAAAAA;">‹ The [[Help:Template|template]] below {{#if:{{{1|}}}|(''[[Template:{{ucfirst:{{{1}}}}}|{{{1}}}]]'')|}} is being considered for deletion. See [[Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#{{{2|Template:{{ucfirst:{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}}}}|templates for deletion]] to help reach a consensus. ›</div>
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, please, not here! -->

Debresser (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I aksed what category these templates should sort into, and you said "Items, I reckon it's small enough". It's some 320 pages. Is that small enough? I have also asked input on Wikipedia_talk:Templates_for_deletion#Category, but nobody ever writes me anything there. Debresser (talk) 05:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would say 320 is reasnably small, will fit in 2 pages. Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Date format

I see in the discussion you seem to oppose the motion to eliminate YYYY-MM-DD. Yet, you are using a script that removes them - and even changing to the European style on US-based articles. See this --JimWae (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I only supported them in access-dates, and maybe some tables. Even there linking is deprecated. A little research is swinging my opinion on using numeric dates at all, basically that humans cannot be trusted to enter them correctly. Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

I see now there were other date format problems in that article, but you changed both text and accessdates to DD MMMM YYYY in a US article. Some people have been removing YYYY-MM-DD despite the vote being in progress & opposition being almost 2 to 1. I think doing so is very premature. I do not wish to see all usage of YYYY-MM-DD virtually banned. Btw, it is not established YYYY-MM-DD is ISO. I myself prefer YYYY-MMM-DD (which gives JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY,...) and set my computers to use that, since (especially in Canada) ##/##/YYYY is completely ambiguous - and I do not like to widen fields (and reduce what else can fit on the screen) with needlessly long monthnames in tables & such --JimWae (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Deleteme now

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Deleteme now requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -- BigDom 18:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC) {{hangon}}

Italic title?

What, assuming that you know, is the policy on the use of the italic title? I saw it for the first time this evening on The New York Times article, but do not see it on any other newspaper article that I have looked for. In theory, this could be used on any article which is a title, including books, magazines, albums, yet I have never seen it used before. Was its use in error? I am very curious about this, and hope you can clear it up. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems ripe for misuse. I do not know how one would justify its use for certain kinds of titles but not for others. I think consistency in titling is something for which we should strive. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Books prefers an italic title. However, this being a newspaper and not a book, neither Wikipedia:WikiProject Media nor Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism offer any guide. Perhaps, in the absence of such guidance, the editor concerned took his example from WP book practice? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is guidance on this. [1] says "Formatting, such as italics or bolding, is technically achievable in page titles, but is used only in special cases. An example of such an exception is to produce italics for taxonomic names of genera and species." and further down that the only currently agreed use is for flora and fauna. Rich Farmbrough, 05:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

That would indicate that the italics should be removed from The New York Times article. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 13:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
NYT was taken care of by another editor. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Sometimes it's just funny how you come walzing in over everybody's heads. Like in Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:FR-in-universe. Thanks for that one BTW. Now perhaps you'll copy that {{Tfd}} also? BTW, I have written the Tfd guys to their talkpages, and they are waking up. We'll probably rename it to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, and we'll have both Tfd and Tfm sort there. Category:Items to be merged will be let for anything that doesn't have its own deletion discussion. That seems more of a symmetry to me as well. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this edit ok? Debresser (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the {{Tfd}}. I just now noticed that all my template merge template were missing a parameter for the template to be merged with. So I spend some time adding that and updating the documentation pages. Debresser (talk) 02:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Is it intentional that your bot is making edits like this? It capitalised the first letter in the two templates (which appears to have no visual change) and added 1 line of whitespace above the stub templates. Are so minor of edits really necessary? I could understand if these were all being done while dates were added to maintenance templates, but that is not the case here.--Rockfang (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "...there are a bunch of categories that need nudging.."? I don't understand.--Rockfang (talk) 01:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Is there any eason it should use substitution in the line "Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:Tfmnotice|Tfm}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s)." in {{Tfm}}? Debresser (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, since it contains a heading and you would find yourself editing the template otherwise. Rich Farmbrough, 05:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC).
Oops. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Took me a good few hours to fix that, and to update the documentation pages. I also reworked a few more Tfd templates (including difficult ones with really messed up documentation pages). I'd like to think I've got everything the way it should be by now. Debresser (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuation of discussion you participated in

I got to the root of the problem and suggest a change to the talkback template at Template_talk:Talkback#Proposal. Debresser (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Debresser (talk) 14:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

re Negro

Hi Rich Farmbrough - I had a quick query about an AWB-assisted edit at Negro (this edit). I'm not sure whether this was your intention, but that edit seems to have changed "[[02-24-04]]" to "4 zzz24zzz 2" in one of the references. I'm afraid I'm not well up on the current consensus on date formatting, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention anyway. --Kateshortforbob talk 13:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Sorted. Rich Farmbrough, 13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Need protected edit now

Could you please do this edit to a template I am using now? Debresser (talk) 13:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

New dated categories

I have two updates for you on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot (talk · contribs)'s edits

Why has SmackBot removed division of periods in the big figures in this edit while MOS states that big figures must be divided into period (international system)? Thank you in advance, Srinivas 13:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, I hadn't seen the article. I just saw the edit and asked. Sorry for troubling you. Srinivas 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


I have rename Category:Duplicate Articles to Category:Duplicate articles. Would you delete the old one? Debresser (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Boy, have we grown soft. Debresser (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I always find the message "You are re-creating a deleted category" having a serious cold-shower effect. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Why does Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories list Category:AIDS as having 1 file, while in truth it is empty? Debresser (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Same thing with Category:Swaminarayan 10F, but empty and Category:Fictional creatures 1F, but empty.
Perhaps some issue with {{PAGESINCATEGORY}}. Getting hung on files. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


Is that the way DEFAULTSORT should work: 0*001 instead of 1? See I Royal Bavarian Corps. Debresser (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirects

I look strictly from the technical side of things. Nothing undecided in this case. The mammal case is harder. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC) And I don't know where to ask. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Category:Royal Netherlands Navy mine warfare vessels was itself a subcat of Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Netherlands. And it has the unusual name in that the country should be at the end. So I removed the redirect and speedied the cat. Debresser (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that Category:Mine warfare vessels of the Netherlands had no content of itself. Took me some time to figure that one out. Category:Mine warfare vessels of Canada helped a lot. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Do you want me to be bold in connection with these mammals? Debresser (talk) 23:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Is working fine. I also changed Category:Primate articles needing photos to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of primates. The accepted structure is Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of .... Want to delete the empty cats? I have speedied them. Debresser (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Category:Systems Biology ahould be either a hard or a soft redirect, but not both. How did that happen? I removed the hard redirect, as I understand that cats should be only soft redirects. Debresser (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • The bot that handles category redirects leaves those cases alone, on the premise that the hard-redirect is not doing any harm as long as the {{category redirect}} template is also present. Removing it doesn't do any harm, either, though. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I dropped a note to User_talk:MSGJ#Problem. Debresser (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
He replied. From his reply I understand that with a long term view it is better to not change the {{WikiProject China}} code. I propose turning the soft redirect into a hard one for the time being. See also Template_talk:WikiProject_China#Category_change. Debresser (talk) 11:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
A hard redirect doesn't work. Didn't know that. Do you have any other ideas? Debresser (talk) 11:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Didn't know about {{Related category}}. Thanks.Debresser (talk) 11:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, Category:Wikipedia_non-empty_soft_redirected_categories is down from 24 to 4, of which 3 are because of that file bug. Debresser (talk) 00:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I got rid of them by adding the categories to File:GreenJoe.png and then removing them. That forced a recount. Now only 1 category left. Debresser (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


Amazing work, you work fast!! Himalayan 10:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you still creating empty articles

I do know your good faith and good work here. I am still suggesting it is not a good idea to create hundreds of thousands of essentially empty articles. I perfectly understand if you disagree but can we take this for consensus before SmackBot makes a million more

I edited, added, a few of the French communes. I know they would probably go not notable. But until people can read them in English I say let them stand. But to create hundreds of thousands of essentially blank articles does no good to a reader or an editor as far as I can see. Perhaps I am confused as to your motive. But it does no good to me. And I am trying my best as I know you are.

Best wishes. SimonTrew (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You asked me to give you an example, I don't know if this is a good or bad one. Trun, Orne was botted not before I edited it but after SmackBot came in. I have no worries if it is fixing up details. But a non-bot had to write that first, however brief.

It is a French commune. I know you are very busy and I thank you for it. I know the article is brief but it at least has some content not entirely empty, UűI am not sure what more info you want to point you in the right direction (by my lights) I am not sure what you are missing here. Cos I know you are a good editor and said so, but I just think empty articles are unhelpful. Iwill try to find what I mean by an empty article but better savew this now before I lose it. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK I think I found one that you may see my point. Tura, Hungary Sod's law my partner will add some content to it tonight but it is all in the categories etc etc etc but has nothing to say. SimonTrew (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be great if the bots could take the hard work out of just making the scaffolding, I will totally support you in that. I dunno if it is worse or better to scaffold up and have no bricks behind it. I think that definitely is worthy of discussion, but not sure where best to do it (and we should carry these with us when we do.) Somewhere on the translation space or something I would imagine, but cannot think of an obvious place to put it. I hang out sometimes in WP:CONVERT as in translating articles one must do the conversions, and User:Jimp will say where best to take it. He is a great editor as are you and he will suggest somewhere best to take it, cos it does not belong there as such, but it is to do with conversion. WP:MOSNUM is just a big edit war and I am fed up with it. Jimp tries to make it better not masturbate over style guides.

Please excuse my typos once it is properly dark I can see the keyboard but at dusk the sun is straight in my eyes and I miss the keys sometimes.

My best wishes as always SimonTrew (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category redirects

I see that this template edit adds a link to Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories; did you notice that we already have Category:Wikipedia category redirects that has (or should have) exactly the same contents? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I say remove Category:Wikipedia category redirects in favor of the more correct name. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop

Can you please stop with moving articles as per WP:DASH as your moves are incorrect, and you will need to move them all back.

  • Australia–Singapore relations is correct
  • Australia – Singapore relations is incorrect
  • Australia – New Zealand relations is correct
  • Australia–New Zealand relations is incorrect

Many of the articles which you have moved were at their correct namespaces, and you should be moving them back to conform with the endash policy (pain in the arse it is to understand I know). Any probs, contact me, cheers --Russavia Dialogue 16:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes np. Correct title, not correct namespaces. Rich Farmbrough, 17:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC).
Sorry, yeah correct title. I think there was a recent CfD where the closing admin also did a heap of changes such as above, and I was thinking you may have seen the result of that discussion and acted on that? Anyway, it's all so confusing sometimes. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 17:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
A whole bunch started out where I was putting them, but have been round the houses. Really this was a preliminary to making sure that the correct redirects were in place. Of course the first one I hit was a Greco- which takes a hyphen. There are also a bunch of German– which should be Germany– .Rich Farmbrough, 17:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC).
As a quick side note to this discussion, after your move of Afghanistan–Tajikistan relations, the talk page seems to have not been moved with it. I'm a little unsure how to do this myself (or what in general is going on with the whole dash thing), but hopefully you can fix it. Thanks! Otebig (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Gah! Yes I can fix it. (Restoring the status quo ante.) There have been some SQL errors on page moves recently. Ho hum. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC).

Luckily I was able to get the message typed out quickly enough before you managed to do a heap of moves unnecessarily. FYI, here's the CfD I mentioned; all but 4 of the cat moves was in fact incorrect. --Russavia Dialogue 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I deduced the alphabetisation of the country pairs had occurred. And I was in a discussion aout category redirects arising from this. But it's hard to pick up the whole story - although I should have known better from year-ranges vs. date ranges, I think another discussion about article renaming gave me the wrong idea. Rich Farmbrough, 20:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC).


Hi Rich. I started a thread here that I'd like to get some feedback on if you have the time .. thanks. — Ched :  ?  20:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

A New Smack Bot Feature?

Hey Rich

You may have seen my bot request for User:Brunobot, who was supposed to fix templates that end in breaks. However, i had the idea that I could give the regex find/replace to you so SmackBot could fix the templates while it fixed other problems. That way a bot would only have to visit the page once. Tell me if you are interested. Tim1357 (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Whitelines and whitespaces

  • What I had to go through to get the right amount of whitelines. In the end the solution was to add a break in the right place. Just that to find the right place... Debresser (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Did you notice that if I write {{tlx| Merge | OtherArticle }}, there are spaces before but not after the parameters?
{{ Merge | OtherArticle}} See?
Perhaps a flaw in {{Tlx}}. I shall have a look. Debresser (talk) 18:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I played a little on Template:Tl/sandbox, but to no avail. Do you know what needs to be done? Debresser (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The strange thing is that it cuts of the whitespaces only after the parameter, but not before. I know about the non-breaking-space, of course. Is their nothing to be done to solve this elegantly? Debresser (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlinking template

Is there a template that "unlinks"? Enter "[[Whatever]]", exit "Whatever"? Debresser (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That could be usefull as a safety measure in templates that take unlinked pages only, like {{tl|merge|[[User_talk:Debresser]]}}, rendering

{{merge}}. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I have noticed that in general the idea here on Wikipedia is: let people break the rules and then fix it on a case to case basis. Not: let's build in a few safety measures, just in case people will break the rules. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The break is a problem, of course. I have updated the documentation pages of {{Str left}}, {{Str right}}, {{Str rightc}} and {{Trunc}}. And of {{Unlink}}, of course. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps using {{Trunc}} instead of {{Str left}} will make a difference? Worth a try? Or perhaps it has to do with the rough behaviour of {{Str right}} in certain cases, as explained on that template's documentation. Debresser (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I know what happens. Try {{Unlink|[[123:456]]}} and {{Unlink|[[123;456]]}} and you'll understand. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I spelled it out in the documentation of Template:Unlink. Even if I understand only the "what" and ot the "why". Debresser (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem of {{Unlink}} is of course that it will chop off any 2 characters at the beginning and end of the string, not just link brackets. I'm working on sth now. I'll keep you posted. Debresser (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Why doesn't Template:Unlink/sandbox do the job? It tests whether the leftmost and rightmost characters are brackets, and only then executes the unlink. Or at least, that is what it was supposed to do. Debresser (talk) 00:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It renders {{#ifeq: [[ | [[ | Einstein |}}, which should have the desired result. Debresser (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps that has to do with the warning on mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#.23ifeq:, "Warning: Content inside parser tags (such as <nowiki>) is hashed before the parser functions are evaluated, resulting in errors:"? Debresser (talk) 00:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd better see what I did with {{Unlink}}! Debresser (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to ask you why that happens. :) Debresser (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I mean {{Unlink|[[Einstein]]|1}} rendering Einstein ...? Debresser (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh. because you changed {{Unlink}}. Debresser (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Congratulations. That was a nice job. I moved the functionality of removing any given number of characters from the start and end of a string to {{Chop head and tail}}. You may want to move it somewhere more appropriate. :)) BTW, that one also might need soe update, along the lines of {{Unlink}}. Debresser (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Amalthea has pointed in Template:Chop head and tail/doc to a limitation that is true also for Template:Unlink, and I have added it to the documentation. It might be, actually I'd say it is likely to be, connected with the limitation we already new about. Debresser (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

AWB cat removal: good removal, wrong edit summary message

Hi Rich. Just saw that you had, through AWB, removed an [[Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot)|Erik9bot]] cat on the article Base course. In short, I think it was correct to remove the cat, as that article now has an Unref tag, and Erik9bot normally identifies articles with no refs AND no unref tag. However, I don't think the msg left in the comment was correct; that comment was: "(Remove unref category as article appears to have one or more refs. using AWB)" The article still has no references; so it is correct to remove the Eric9bot cat, but not to say that "the article appears to have one or more refs." You might want to look into this. Cheers. N2e (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rich for modifying the bot msg. I've seen it leave a msg on another article now and the new msg is more correct. N2e (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Was this comment really meant for me? Debresser (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


Any better? Himalayan 09:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The concerning thing is that we have 2,740 articles about Swiss municipalities, most are similar one liners. Add to that the French communes, Italian comunes, Spanish, German and Austrian municipalities of similar lacking quality compared to the foreign version and it kind of puts you off as the task is such so huge as there must be over 50,000 stubs in this "communal" group! Someday maybe we will be able to click any article in any nav template at random and it will be beyond a stub!! Himalayan 10:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Any chance you could use Magnus's tools to upload these free Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 3.0 panorama images of Chexbres here? Just the ones by the same user Styeb. If you could do that I'll upload the ones from German wiki. Himalayan 10:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Tim1357's talk page.
Message added 10:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I wasnt sure if you watched for my response or anything, but then i saw that you wanted me to reply here, but alas it was archived Tim1357 (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Amritsar population count

Aye, Amritsar population count looks kinda funny after correction, a bug in AWB or a typo perhaps?

|population_total = 1194,740

Cheers, --Rayshade (talk) 10:52, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks there were three of these, all fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

Removing {{tl:Unref}}

You've probably dealt with this thought before, but it's not in your FAQ and I don't have the strength to browse your archive, so here 'tis:

You recently removed {{unref}} from Elm Bank. That was good, as there is a single reference to the National Register of Historic Places data base so {{unref}} doesn't apply. (And, I should add, it was I who incorrectly left the {{unref}} in place after adding the NRIS reference -- I didn't realize it applied only to cases where there are NO references.)

The article is still badly deficient of references, however; the National Register database is never enough information for an article. In the case where there's only one reference in an article, might it be better to swap out {{unref}} for {{refimprove}}? Sure, that will be wrong in some cases, as one reference can be all that's needed, but I'll bet it's right more than it's wrong.

And BTW, thanks for doing a grunt task. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 16:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC) (I'd prefer to have any reply here, but feel free to use my Talk page as your header suggests you might.)

Actually it's the category here I'm removing. Approximately 140,000 articles had this hidden category added by the now banned Erik9Bot against my judgement. About 1% how have a reference, so I am removing them from the category. The rest we will need to decide about. Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC).
Ahhh. Sorry for my confusion. I suppose the same issue applies to the category -- Elm Bank may have one reference, but it's still inadequately referenced, but I suspect there are deeper issues here. Thanks, . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talkcontribs) 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)


Please post on my talk Can you explain this edit? I am confused about the DEFAULTSORT and why you think it shouldn't be in an unreferenced category. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 21:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Small request

I nominated all templates in Category:Items to be merged with Tfm. There are still 8 templates there, because they are editprotected. And one Template:Mergeto/testcases. Would you please do the editprotected request at Template:Infobox Television episode and 7 null-edits, to give me the satisfaction of seeing that category without templates? Debresser (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I think it still needs a merge template on it. Tfm doesn't seem to understand "from" and "to", just "with".?
It doesn't. Actually there is no guideline about whther it needs to be used on both tempates or not. Personally, I think that depends. If the templates are more or less equal in scope, perhaps yes. In this specific case, where the receiving template is the dominant one, I think the Tfm on the template that will be merged into the other one is enough. Debresser (talk) 01:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and thanks a lot. I appreciate that. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why isn't anybody cleaning up the talkpages in Category:Items to be merged? I saw one user talkpage with a template to merge it. I don't know why, but that is admin work. And then part of the talkpages is copies of articles, like User:Cerejota/chinese-apartheid. I'm not even talking about the Wikipedia pages, which are a real nightmare. Nobody is ever going to sort them out seriously. Debresser (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Calendar edits

Please stop adding {{unreferenced}} to various calendar articles like February 2007 in Canada. Every section clearly has a news source cited at the end of every story. While it seems you were simply changing the edits from one editor to another style using a template, the original edit that declared the article was not sourced was incorrect. Please only make edits that are consistent with accurate information. For example a few years ago this happened with a bot, where a vandal had been making such edits and the bot was substantiating them. In this case, the bot made the error and then it is up to the editors to make the corrections and not simply laboriously changing the errors introduced by the bot. Thanks, Mkdwtalk 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi? How was Shabbes?

And after we've taken care of the niceties, did you notice this edit? Perhaps redirect Template:Soft redirect to Template:Category redirect? Or am I missing something? Debresser (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You are making a puzzling mass edit

You are making another puzzling mass edit. It is not being done consistently; this may be deliberate, I do not know.

I do not understand (a) why you do this at all, and (b) why you make default sort different for Phaeton and Imogen. Are you making an error?--Toddy1 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Partially I need to revisit a bunch of articles. Rich Farmbrough, 15:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
Self-evidently Imogen is correct. Nonetheless the Phaeton edit should cause no problems. Rich Farmbrough, 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC).


I don't know how to attain my goal at Template_talk:Album_cover_fur#Request_for_detection. Can you please help? Debresser (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Me no understand. What did you do at {{Infobox French commune}} that is related to this question. And what is working? Files with empty |other+information= ddo not get added to Category:Other information (as far as I know). Debresser (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I see. In this case the parameters are all capitals (in all 30 or so related templates), apart from this one. That is Bad.
Is there a solution to detect articles that have the parameter but empty? Debresser (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I tested that {{Ifempty}} in my userspace. It does not do the job, because it adds the category both if the parameter is empty and if it is absent. Unless I got something wrong. I need something that will alert if it is present but empty. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
It had 11,000 entries when I used {{#if:{{{other_information}}}|[[Category:Other information]]}} without a pipe. then I added the pipe and made it sort into Category:Other information2. Without the pipe it added all files using the templates with the detection, with the pipe only those with non-empty |other_information= parameters. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That was pretty futile, if you take into consideration that there are 40+ templates in Category:Non-free use rationale templates, most of which are like this one. Which is why I prefer the opposite solution. Debresser (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not mean to belittle your efforts. But I do think a more basic approach may be needed. Like making parameters all capitals/non-capitals, or making them non-capitalisation sensitive. Debresser (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't say I am happy with your edits to {{Album cover fur}} and its documentation. They are going the precise opposite direction of my efforts. Debresser (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hardware abstraction

Your edit [2] indicates that the article has a ref or a tag. It has no ref, and the tag is a merge tag. Can you explain your logic for not including unref tag when there is a merge tag? thanks Widefox (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Look more closely. I remove the category not the unref tag. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
ooops, you are right. I'm still confused though - why removed the unref cat? and for my ignorance, explain the DEFAULTSORT, which both of us have not restored from your original edit. Widefox (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
mmm, very interesting. Thanks, Widefox (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Revisions


I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, but I'm an aspiring editor. I'm in a master's program right now, and I'm tracking revisions on Wikipedia articles and analyzing them for my thesis. I was just looking at your revisions to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, and one of them confused me. What exactly is a default sort key? I'd appreciate it if you would explain it to me. Also, do you have any tips on understanding the revisions in Wikipedia? I'm comparing versions and noting the changes in red, but sometimes I can't tell what they mean or find them in the body of the article.

Thank you. Editor Lara (talk) 23:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the advice! It's very helpful. Quick question: do all the words in the default sort key have to be capitalized? I noticed you changed it from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy to The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy. Editor Lara (talk) 19:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot adding redundant {{reflist}} Again/Still?

My last message indicated that the bot was adding {{reflist}} to pages that did not need it. You responded that you would skip those articles. But SmackBot is still doing it, see here, here and here. Thanks. (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have upgraded AWB on SB's machine, the regression has been fixed. That should sort it now. Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories

May I understand that all entries in this category should be fixed by a bot, and that I should not have to do anything (now that we took care of the templates that automatically sort wrongly)? Debresser (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't seem to find the discussion you are referring to there. Also, could you tell me if you want me to fix them in the mean time. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The problem with Han Dynasty seems to be that Template:Infobox Former Country has a line {{#if:{{{year_end|}}}|{{{category|[[Category:{{{year_end}}} disestablishments|{{{common_name}}}, {{{year_end}}}]]}}}}}. Since the user defined 220 AD (and he had to because only 220 would be ambiguous), so that is what the category will say. This of course gives rise to various possibilities like AD, CE. The only solution I see is to do it the other way around. Category:220 disestablishments is ambiguous, so use either 220 AD or CE (I prefer the last, but consensus is that both are acceptable, unless we would make a rule for practical purposes that in categorisation it must be which ever one of them). The easiest way out of this is to allow all, without soft redirects, which is what I am going to do for the mean time. Any other ideas? Debresser (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes I fixed the template and the articles that use it. Transcluding content categories is a bad thing anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
I see. And how did you solve the problem of the ambiguity in "220"? That unless specified otherwise it is always CE? May I now redirect Category:226 AD disestablishments and other categories like it? Softly, of course. :) Debresser (talk) 23:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The template no longer generates these categories. They are in the pages instead. Template generated (content) categories are bad news. (Well some of the same problems apply to WikiProject cats too.) Rich Farmbrough, 23:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC).
That I understood. But that doesn't shed any light on my questions. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
More generally, has this subject been discussed somewhere? Whether the format should be 220, or 220 AD or 220 CE, or whatever we like. Debresser (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The answer is Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(dates_and_numbers)#Articles_on_years.2C_articles_on_numbers.2C_article_names_containing_non-date_numbers. A clear guideline to use numbers for CE and BC for BCE. So I am going to have with what to keep myself busy tomorrow, checking whether this is being maintained throughout. Debresser (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added an analogous sentence to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Time_periods for categories. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I really think we should not make soft redirects for this type of category. Because they are not alternative names, they are names that are against guidelines. And also because there could be thousands of them, if we were to start with that. So having seven of them is ridiculous, and I nominated them for {{db-g6}}. Debresser (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Dutch infobox translations

A couple weeks ago SmackBot was busy doing translations like this one which are progress but unfortunately not quite correct. In particular:

  • lon_deg should translate to longd not lond
  • lon_min should translate to longm not lonm
  • lon_sec should translate to longs not lons
  • foto should translate to image_skyline not image

In addition, to make the geocoordinates work, the following parms need to be added:

  • latNS=N
  • longEW=E

I started to fix the affected articles by hand, but it's proving to be a slow and tedious process. I request that you send SmackBot on another pass over these articles to resolve these issues. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I think the problem with the way images are handled is that the Afbeelding: namespace needs to be translated into English. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I did a spot check, and it looks like the bot run was successful. Thanks! --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

bot edits

I've been looking at revision histories, and I noticed some revisions have robot in the edit summary, but they are not marked with a b. Does this mean that the editor is human or a robot (or a combination of the two, LOL). Editor Lara (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Adding reflist, changing unreferenced

In this edit, SmackBot (1) added {{reflist}} even though there are no references, and (2) changed {{unreferenced}} → {{refimprove}}. As far as I can see, both edits are wrong. — Miym (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should not have changed the tag. I suspect that is a side-effect of putting Reflist there. However putting the {{Reflist}} in should be harmless - especially as someone should add some references any day now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC).


If we have now

| Low_resolution=<!--
-->{{#if:{{{Low_resolution|}}}|{{{Low_resolution}}}.  |Text.}}


| Low_resolution=<!--
-->{{#if:{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution|}}}}}}|{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution|}}}}}}.  |Text.}}


The obvious goal is to circumvent the hyphen in the future without changing old instances of the template. Debresser (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is fine. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
Thank you! Debresser (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


I cleaned out all the transclusions of {{Tfd}}. Have a look what I found in Template:Jazz/version 1. Now all that is left in transclusions is templates that are currently under discussion, and a bunch of userpages and usertalkpages. Debresser (talk) 02:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is the date of that Tfd template: December 2004 !

Could you get a bot at removing the Tfd templates from the 600+ userpages and usertalkpages?

I did it myself with AWB. I have 5 editprotected pages left. Could you please remove the line {{Tfd|Smile}} from User_talk:SlimVirgin/Archive_29#Smiles, User_talk:Dcoetzee/Archive_2007_2_21, User_talk:Sir_Nicholas_de_Mimsy-Porpington/Archive/Archive04, User_talk:Lostintherush/Archive_1, and change {{Tfd|Wr &c.}} to {{Tl|Wr &c.}} on User_talk:Trauma16? Debresser (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Should all be done. Why did it need doing? Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
I cleaned up over a thousand of old substitutions of templates that were substituted with the Tfd template. These five were the last ones, "needed" to be able to say that the job was done. That the Tfd template was completely out of place there, I needn't tell you. Thank you again for your help. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, cool just a tidying exercise then. Not sure even I would have bothered with that. Rich Farmbrough, 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
The reason is I posted to have Template:Tfd lowered in protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Template:Tfd_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. So I needed to know how much it is really being used. That was 53 as of yesterday (after I had noinclude tags on all cases, and still including these five). BTW, the request was declined, but I added a commentary and asked the declining editor to revisit. Debresser (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense,. But I wouldn;t worry about temporarily vandalising some user talk archives if prot was lowered. The trouble with tfd is that it is an unknown quantity. If, for example, someone tfd's unreferenced without noincludes, tfd would be on 140-300,000 pages. Rich Farmbrough, 01:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
The problem with the request at WP:RFPP is that there was no reason given for lowering the protection level. As I have said several times, I am more than happy to lower the protection level if you give a reason. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I take the contrary view - a reason is needed to maintain the level. And the reason I give above seems enough. Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
Eh. The reason is the low usage, around 50. But your argument is correct (even though Tfd shows only as a small line in such a case). But nobody else but you and me thinks of that. Debresser (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct that the default level for most all templates should be unprotected. In this particular case, I would be happy to lower the protection level at almost any point in time if someone has a reasonable edit request. Thanks. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 02:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


I saw your edit to Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates. I am very happy with that. I checked and all |cat-date= or |cat-date1= parameters use "fom", without exeption. May I suggest building that into {{DatedAI}} and remove all the "from"'s from {{Article issues}}. Something like Category:{{{cat-date}}} from {{checkdate|{{{date}}}}}. If worst would come to worst it would be trivial to make a wordaround. In the mean time I would like to see this as a significant step in the right direction. Debresser (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


i understand (je comprendre) that you are maintaining the éeventing european champ." page ?

if you are please check 1995


Lucy Thompson/Welton Romance (IRL)DIDN'T take part the event was won by Mary Elizabeth King (née Thomson)

bonne journée

un utilisateur français de Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How did you do that???

I.e. what tools did you use to calculate this? I know how to do it in principle, but it is so many edits and copy pasting that it would take hours, so I'm sure you have a smarter way? Can AWB help with this? --Stefan talk 03:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC). Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC).
Thanks, that was what I though. --Stefan talk 13:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tibet map

Hi, I greatly need a locator map pin for Tibet. I've got one here. I was wondering if you knew how to enter the correct digits usong goole earth like Template:Location map China Yunnan province. At present the digits are for Yunnan. Any idea how we can get it to work? Himalayan 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Please at least respond... If you can't do something please say so! Himalayan 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Location map. All it needs is the correct coordinates inserted into the box to control the pin..I believe you can find them on google earth apparently to north-south-east-west points of the Tibeta Autonomous Region... Himalayan 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that the map is a projection, and will have some skew no matter what you set for the coordinate limits. In particular, it will be the worst at the corners. So, it's a very bad idea to use the corner points to compute the map's limits. Better would be to use the midpoint of each edge. The two points that I used were 30°11′50″N 81°02′04″E / 30.197206°N 81.034478°E / 30.197206; 81.034478 and 27°19′38″N 88°55′17″E / 27.327338°N 88.921275°E / 27.327338; 88.921275, which are nearly the exact border intersections according to google maps. These were the two points for which it was very easy to identify pixel locations. It's important to pick two points which are far enough apart to get some level of accuracy (i.e., reduce subtractive cancellation), but still close to the places where you will be placing pushpins. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah well, revert to yours if you like. Of course if both maps render latitude and longitude as equi-sopaced vertical and horizontal lines, according to the same projection, then picking corners will be perfectly sound. Otherwise some kind of interpolation will be needed. In which case, if that is supplied by the template then it does need to know the actual bottom left and top right, for example, not the bottom the left the top and the right. Also it should allow for precession of the equinoxes, magnetic dip and, where possible cheese dip. Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
Your choice of coordinates was as good (or bad) as what I had. There is no way to get it completely right, have a look at here for test cases. You can make it exact for any two points, but it will always be off for other points. As far as I can tell, it's unsolvable, unless you use a different (or smaller) map. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes the projection of the map is off, so until we get a better quality accurate one this is the best we can do at present... We'll see how my Sichuan map goes. If it works out I may require your assistance, both of you for finding out the coordinates for the other province locator maps.. Himalayan 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles needing cleanup

Are you moving all templates, and thus the whole categories inevitably, or only part? Debresser (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All - all are doen I think, but any holdouts wil become evident after 24 hours. See the two progress boxes on the category page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
BTW, it is precisely this type of "renaming" categories that I was refering to above that will allow for all dated maintenance categories to have names like the undated ones, which will also simplify {{Article issues}} and {{DatedAI}}. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Exactly. This is the last set that make Article issues regular. Rich Farmbrough, 17:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
Did you throw out a few? I remember Wikify had diverging names also. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Hm last but one then.. until you point out another I've missed. Rich Farmbrough, 17:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
I'll be more than happy to do so. I've been waiting for this a long time. Debresser (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No other ones. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


What is that detection doing? Since when are these templates subst'ed? Oh, I see, you are fishing out the future substitutions into a category of "to be replaced by unsubstituted templates", right? Debresser (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's been running on "Citation needed" for a while now. I just found these articles with the stub templates substuted. ....

<small? commenteed out

Rich Farmbrough, 17:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
Incidentally SmackBot has been "un-substing" these templates using the delimiting comments for years. Except when it is ignoring comments. The two outstanding problems are
  1. You loose any parameters - not a big deal with most cleanup templates
  2. If another AWB gen-fixer comes along all the categories are pulled out and taken to the end.
Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
I know that problem. Have fixed them myself upon occasion. What I don't understand is what {{#if:{{NAMESPACE||etc}} is doing. Are you adding only article mainspace (and article takspace?) ? Debresser (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
No it is a kludge. there is a feature request for templates that refuse to subst...
What is supposed to happen is that a substed template should, at that instant, behave exactly like a non-substed one. That markup "breaks" the other markup, when it is subst-ed it is mended and so you get different behaviour. I spent a long time trying to persuade templates to quine themselves when substed. I don't believe it is possible with the current software. Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
I saw it. It is just a way to get the template to report substitution. The namespace is not essential here in and of itself. Another question. What is the text "Note, the items at τ are templates that use the syntax to invoke this category" doing on that category page? Why would the templates show up themselves? Debresser (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I used up my questions for today? Debresser (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
And two for tomorrow. That was referring to an older version of the cliché. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
But still... Debresser (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to take all the fun part, but I fixed the only two pages in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. Debresser (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Something went wrong

Something went wrong on Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from October 2009. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, universe repaired. Rich Farmbrough, 01:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
Finding other people's mistakes is my hobby. So thank you for making them so abundantly! :))) Debresser (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Userspace draft

Not sure what's happening, but Category:Misplaced userspace drafts now has userspace pages in it! Can you check/fix {{Userspace draft}}? (Incidentally {{userspace draft2}} only exists as a helper template because I couldn't get it to work as one template, but it would probably be better merged.) cheers, Rd232 talk 10:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done You mean "existed. Rich merged it already, as you requested. And the problem was one of those superfluous pipes Rich is so famous for. :) Or not extending DMC till the end, which comes down to the same and is the more elegant solution. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It was a missing pipe. Rich Farmbrough, 11:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
Oh no it wasn't. :) Debresser (talk) 12:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Rich Farmbrough, 12:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC). Debresser (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Which also had a mistake, but fixed now. The less elegant solution would have been to remove that pipe of yours. :) Debresser (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
You were right and I was wrong. Restored your version. Debresser (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well anyway, thanks! Rd232 talk 13:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


You updated Template:Str_rightc/doc about the 100 characters. Part of the explanations were formulated incorrectly (not by you) and I changed them. A Great Rule is to keep it simple. People trying to be overly precise often end up saying things that are not completely true. Which was the case here. Then I updated Template:Str_right/doc (without the "c") along the same lines, because your changes have affected it in the same way. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was concerned that pushing the length up to 100 might break something if there were pages near a limit. But it seems fine so far. Roll on proper string functions! Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Reflist on files??

Why is SmackBot adding {{Reflist}} to files? See e.g. this edit. Debresser (talk) 07:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing! It did the same thing to this file. Bidgee (talk) 08:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I was faced with about a thousand pages stuck in the "invalid date" category for two or three weeks. I gave them reflists. Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
I noticed them there. And I noticed them disappearing. Did you consider null-editing them? Debresser (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Not by hand. And AWB has got "smarter" - it won't null-edit in bot mode. it's not like I didn't have 500+ Russian localities with their slightly odd infobox, and the bunch of new cats at the same time. When SB has thousands of articles it can't fix progress on improving the algorithm grinds to a halt. Rich Farmbrough, 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC).
That is really stupid. Have you written them about this? Debresser (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Natch. Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Help again

Calling {{Coord}}:

At the moment I have {{Coord|{{{lat_deg|}}}|{{{lat_min|}}}|{{{lat_sec|}}}|N|{{{lon_deg|}}}|{{{lon_min|}}}|{{{lon_sec|}}}|E}}

This renders a parser error when the calling template doesn't define one or more of these variables.

{{Coord|{{{lat_deg|0}}}|{{{lat_min|0}}}|{{{lat_sec|0}}}|N|{{{lon_deg|0}}}|{{{lon_min|0}}}|{{{lon_sec|0}}}|E}} doesn't cause an error, but potentially leaves me with a buntch of zero's that I do not want to see.

{{Coord|{{{lat_deg|}}}|{{#if:{{{lat_min|}}}|{{{lat_min|}}}}}|{{#if:{{{lat_sec|}}}|{{{lat_sec|}}}}}|N|{{{lon_deg|0}}}|{{#if:{{{lon_min|}}}|{{{lon_min|}}}}}|{{#if:{{{lon_sec|}}}|{{{lon_sec|}}}}}|E}} doesn't do the job, but carries the kernel of a solution in the understanding that I must call a variable only when it is defined. The problem remains though, because of the "|" separator, which causes the template to again expect something. Can it be substituted by a code of &#nnn; format? Debresser (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

&# 124; The 6th site I checked had it. Now let's try it out. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC) {{!}}

{{Coord|{{{lat_deg|}}}{{#if:{{{lat_min|}}}||{{{lat_min|}}}}}{{#if:{{{lat_sec|}}}||{{{lat_sec|}}}}}|N|{{{lon_deg|0}}}{{#if:{{{lon_min|}}}||{{{lon_min|}}}}}{{#if:{{{lon_sec|}}}||{{{lon_sec|}}}}}|E}} is not working. The pipes just get copied onto the screen after losing their functionality. Debresser (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

{{Coord|{{{lat_deg|}}}{{#if:{{{lat_min|}}}|{{!}}{{{lat_min|}}}}}{{#if:{{{lat_sec|}}}|{{!}}{{{lat_sec|}}}}}|N|{{{lon_deg|0}}}{{#if:{{{lon_min|}}}|{{!}}{{{lon_min|}}}}}{{#if:{{{lon_sec|}}}|{{!}}{{{lon_sec|}}}}}|E}} also didn't work. Debresser (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

What is it you did in the beginning of this edit? A mistake, no? Debresser (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem with using numbered parameters, but first I need to get the idea of a separator through to it. :) Debresser (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

To get back to this issue. Your solution works, but has the abovementioned minus that it may potentially result in a lot of zeros. Do I understand correctly that we are at the end of our arsenal of tricks and I shall just have to live with this? Debresser (talk) 12:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the zeros are relevant. The user page in question is a very old (3 years) sandbox so that doesn't matter. The actual use of coord tempalte is either degrees, degrees and minutes or degrees minutes and seconds. The presumption (not actually valid in the far north and south)) is that northing and westing are accurate to approximately the same amount

. Therefore if soemthing, like the Grenwich observatory, is at 0 00 00 we should display the zeros - they show we are being accurate. Arguably you could wrap coord thus: {if {lats|lons|} | {coord|1|2|3|E|5|6|7|S} {if {latm|lonm|} | {coord|1|2|E|5|6|S} {if {latd|lond|} | {coord|1|E|5|S} |} } }. Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

I moved with this to my sandbox and testcases, and I came to the conclusion that the problem is actually in {{Coord}}. If we want to call it a problem. The thing is that it doesn't take undefined parameters. Meaning that something like {{Coord|34||N|55||E}} will return an error (two actually). Perhaps it will be easy to change that? Debresser (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have posted this issue at Template_talk:Coord#Undefined_parameters. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


A solution was found [[ther, and implemented. See User:Debresser/Sandbox on how to call {{Coord}}, and see the testcases, that it works marvelous. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor request

After the move of Wikipedia:Templates for deletion to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, of which Iwas the instigator, and which I used for another few small improvements on the general chaos after such a thing, would you perhaps null-edit four editprotected pages left in Category:Wikipedia templates for deletion? I'd appreciate it. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just Template:Infobox Television episode left. Debresser (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you Debresser (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet

After I was approached on my talkpage I answered that all is well. But is that so in fact? Erik9bot 9 is operated by User:Erik9 who is blocked as a sock puppet of the also blocked User:John254. Do you think it is safe to keep an unsupervised bot tagging 140,000+ articles into Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot)? Debresser (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot is blocked. The category remains, of course. –xenotalk 17:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
But shrinks. Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
You are replacing it by other tags as needed? Debresser (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed it form some 1500 articles and replaced it with unref in a bunch more. Need a BRFA now to do the bulk. Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
See Wikipedia:CiterSquad. Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
Thanks. Had a look. Debresser (talk) 17:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

New template

You won't believe what I found: Template:TVS-cleanup. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose Tfd and the category afterwards speedy. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll propose it for deletion anyway. thanks for cleaning up the category. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


You forgot the all-inclusive category when you made this edit. Or did you? Debresser (talk) 14:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's auto-generated. Rich Farmbrough, 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
How? By what? Debresser (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
DMCA sticks "All" in front of the first parameter, after lower-casing it. Rich [[User talk:Rich Farmb

rough|Farmbrough]], 18:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

I looked there and missed it. Will look again. Sorry. BTW, do you have a progress template that can monitor whatis the progress of migrating the Wikify categories? I use them to help you clean up the last bits. Debresser (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So why don't I see an all-inclusve category in the progress templates on Category:Articles needing cleanup? 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Debresser (talk) 18:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And why isn't there an old Wikify progress template? Debresser (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Answer to both: that is the old wikify progress template. Rich Farmbrough, 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
So where is the new one on Template:Articles needing cleanup progress? Debresser (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I have looked again at {{DMCA}} and {{DMC}} and I don;t see any all-inclusive category. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are right. The perils of noon-standardization. And if you look at the code for the "new wikify box", the benefits. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for replying, I know you must be busy. But I don't understand a thing of what you are trying to explain to me. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 19:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no all-inclusive category generated. If there was always one in existence I would have coded to generate it, if there never was one it would be fine too. "Sometimes" breaks stuff. Now I'm undecided about adding it in - since it's only used by one bot to generate a page of suggestions that is mostly transcluded onto the user talk pages of people who haven't edited for years. And I've given him the coding to do away with the requirement. And it will probably fail with the new category anyway. But I've added it. the sceond part - look at the coding in the category heading - a few keystrokes got me the new box. Rich Farmbrough, 19:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for explaining. Another time, over a beer (I'll have tea, or wodka), you'll tell me what noon-standarisation is (unless it is one of your famous typos for non-standarisation, which I have begun to suspect). As you noticed probably, I added an all-inclusive category to Template:Articles needing cleanup progress myself. And I could have done the same for wikify, or even make one, just that I was confused because of the missing all-inclusive category. Good you added it. Better do away with all of them at once (at a later or not that much later time). Debresser (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Standarisation? :p Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

BTW, it is a shame you didn't call it "Pages needing cleanup". Not only because that is the name of the all-inclusive category, but mainly because {{Cleanup}} is using DMC (without the "A") and not only articles get added, so "pages" is what it really should have been. Debresser (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one


In use on a few pages. Probably keep it, but modernise it. I'll do that. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Debresser (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


You may want to delete all old cleanup categories, progress boxes and whatever else. Debresser (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Debresser (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean --- up

Will you make up your mind if it is "cleanup", "clean-up", or "clean up". BTW, I think your rename to "monthly clean up category" was a mistake in English (even though I am only a continental). Debresser (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Urgent question

We now have


. Will both

{{{Resolution|{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution|}}}}}}}}}


{{{Resolution|{{{Low_resolution|{{{Low resolution}}}}}}}}}

(without the final pipe) work? Debresser (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC) If none of them are defined the second one will render as

{{{Low resolution}}}

Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

I know, which is what I want. But no difference in functionality? Debresser (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No other difference. Empty and not empty are a big difference. Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC).

Ongoing dispute from Admin decision

Hello, as you know User:Roux was given a week long block for disruptive conduct. This has not pleased some of Roux's friends who contacted the other user involved User:The Transhumanist and demanded apologies etc from him on Roux's behalf. As things went on one of Roux's friend's- User:Verbal has, seemingly taken to following Transhumanist around the project reverting his edits. Possibly justifiably in some cases yet it seems to be a little odd to me that he only suddenly took an interest in the articles Transhumanist edited after the dispute broke out. Examples of the conduct can be found by viewing first, Transhumanist's contributions and then the history pages of his top recently edited articles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. I can't help but feel this is totally against the ethos of Wikipedia- what can be done? Gavin (talk) 00:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Code of bots

Are the code of bots feely available? Specificly, is there a place to see the code of SmackBot? Debresser (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Some are, including the code for AWB. SmackBot's code isn't, for a number of reasons including that no-one has asked for it. The main part of its task is actually built into AWB which will now date the key maint tags as a general fix. Smackbot's main set of reg-exes are regenerated every time a new template is added. You can see some of its code for smaller tasks at WP:AWB. As far as I know these have never been used by anyone, the ISBN one is no longer compatible eith current versions of AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 02:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
Because you told me once the code used in turning headers from == xxx == into ==XXX== is used in 14 places. I am a patient man, and would find them all. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia/Cascade protected templates

Did you mean to put this at Wikipedia:Cascade protected templates? It's currently in article space. (Or Wikipedia:Cascade-protected templates, even, if that is more correct.) • Anakin (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Rich Farmbrough, 02:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC).


I just now noticeed you ended a run of references fixing with SmackBot, so I walked in to fix the remaining articles. I found two or three articles where SmackBot had added {{Reflist}}, even though there was a <references/> tag. There is no need to do that. Debresser (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.Rich Farmbrough, 02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
You are fast. Debresser (talk) 02:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Karel van Wolferen article has been edited with references. Would it be alright to remove the tag that states there are no references in the article? (Would go ahead and do it myself, but want to notify you first). Thanks.Rayjameson (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This edit

I am confused by this. Is the left box or the right box the accurate numbers. BrianY (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your AWB edits

Hello. You've just added category:Living people to Bert Millard and George Liddell, both born in the 19th century, both where the article states they're dead... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I got George, but you beat me to Bert. Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Template:Woredas of the Amhara Region

Hi, can you use AWB to apply this template to all the woredas articles linked in it? Cheers. Himalayan 12:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can do this, but not the Flikr request. Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot potentially hiding vandalism

Hi, I just wanted to alert you of a case where SmackBot appeared to hide a large deletion of text from an article. An anonymous user deleted a large amount of text in the Don Mattrick article (diff), but because this deletion included the {{reflist}} section, SmackBot subsequently added just that section back (diff). If I had not decided to look at the history of the article, this deletion could have been potentially missed. I realize this is a hard thing to address, but is there anything that can be done? —Umofomia (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not a great deal that isn't already done. If you look at the history be suspicious of large changes in size. The edit buy the anon will show on watchlists (SmackBot's in general won't) and recent changes. And there are bits that will revert page blanking or (I think) removals of large amounts of content. There is also a system that blocks IPs from removing more than a certain amount of text. Rich Farmbrough, 14:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
Probably not. If you are lucky, the vandalism was so extensive that even SmackBot's fixes couldn't hide it. I see that often. It is just something that we have to be alert for. BTW, it is not as though the page cried out "vandalism" before the edit of SmackBot. If I would have come in, I would have done the same thing as the bot. Only those who know the article, or those with a very suspicious mind, would guess there was something wrong. Debresser (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhpas deleting reflist or references should be something the antivandalism bots specifically check for? I've lost track of who actually runs them these days though. Naively, it would seem like there are few legitimate reasons for these to be removed without comment. David Underdown (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at edit filters to catch that. There are legitimate reasons but { {reflist going is a little suspicious. Also thinking about the ratio of text removed as well as the sheer size. Trouble is edit filters are a bit of a resource drain. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC).


As of the last 24 hours Wikipedia:Templates for deletion has moved to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Debresser (talk) 04:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Stupid bureaucrats! See Wikipedia:Ani#Templates_for_Deletion_is_now_Templates_for_Discussion. Debresser (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:R to list entry

Hey Rich, you are the last one to edit Template:R to list entry, so I'm writing to ask why it doesn't have a [[Category:Redirects to list entries]] inside the <includeonly>? Note that the category does not display on redirects such as Aikidoka. -- ToET 07:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The template was also in the category, top sorted supposedly, although this is more subtle than the authors expected. If you go to "my preferences" you set it to display hidden categories. Not sure why this is hidden though, sure it is not a content category, but redirects are, arguably, not content pages. Rich Farmbrough, 13:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC).
As far as I am aware, none of the other redirect templates hide their categories -- the closest examples would be {{R to section}} and {{R to anchor}} with sample uses ACoRP and LiveMove. I'd boldly take care of it myself were the page not protected, and I'm happy to bring it up in a different forum if you don't care to do it. -- ToET 14:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see that you had already made the change when you wrote the comment above. Thank you. -- ToET 23:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - R to other namespace

Just fyi here things didn't go quite right. (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm well XQBOT should have propagated the ":". But it's all fixed up now. Rich Farmbrough, 18:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC).

Re: Cascading protection

Oh, cool. I'll probably keep the user page up just as an extra precaution, but it's good to have a central page for this. Hersfold (t/a/c) 23:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Rich, I too got your message. I have responded over at Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#Cascading protection.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Subst code

Would it be easier to add the code to {{mbox}} and insert a parameter, rather than duplicating code all over the namespace? OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes much easier, but it wouldn't work. Assuming you are talking of the "incorrectly substituted template" cliché? The whole point of that is it only comes into effect when it is substituted rather than transcluded. Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
Hmm... I shall trust your infinitely greater experience. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot (Lifetime)

A minor point. I was a bit confused by the Expand lifetime template: consider using subst;l instead.. It should actually be subst:l as in {{subst:l|1901|1983|Bloggs, Fred}}. --Big_iron (talk) 11:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, of course it should - typo. Fixed. And there was me thinking no one was reading the edit summaries. Rich Farmbrough, 13:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

DEFAULTSORT capitalisation

Hi. Do the first letters of sort key terms always need to be capitalised? I'm asking in order to make sense of your edit here. Cheers. --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes pretty much. The only de facto exception is for sorting scientific names of organisms into their families. I am working on a page to explain this in mind-numbing detail. Rich Farmbrough, 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
If they need to be capitalized, this should really be taken care of in the mediawiki software, instead of by adding a template to every wikipage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, see bug 164 for example. It's not a template though, and it isn't always needed, only on about half the pages, and it is already there on a third of them, and is needed for other reasons on many of the rest. For example most names sort "Lastname, Firstname", many titles sort "Hobbit, The", accents and diacritics are removed, Roman numerals and ordinals are converted to Arabic (John XXX => John 30) and so forth. I am working on a page to explain this in mind-numbing detail. Rich Farmbrough, 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
You're making hundreds of edits that are achieving nothing. [10] [11] :-( • Anakin (talk) 16:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I, too, can't see any purpose in applying a new scheme to the DEFAULTSORT tag in thousands of articles; it won't make any visible difference in the sorting for any of the articles that I've looked at. Also, this discussion could have been entirely avoided if the obvious place for guidance in this matter, WP:SORTKEY, would provide a reasoning. As far as I can see, there isn't. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
There was, it was removed. And it's not a new scheme in the sense that around a million articles use it. I am working on a page to explain this in mind-numbing detail. Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC).
1) Do you have an example where this scheme changed the sort order in a category? 2) While the mind-numbing details will be welcome, the most likely place editors will consult is still WP:SORTKEY; with no guidance there, how do you envisage future adherence to this scheme, or prevent well-meaning editors reverting to a more intuitive scheme? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


Feel free to delete Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I do. But I also think it is historically interesting. Rich Farmbrough, 02:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC).


Congratulations on the simplification of {{Article issues}} and {{DatedAI}}! Debresser (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 02:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC).


How do you make a bot automatic because I want to create a bot to help wikipedia. Thanks! RuneScape Adventure Sign! 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC).


Why are you changing the dates on all the royalty articles? What's wrong with the American format? --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A large percentage of them were a heady mixture of date formats, linked and/or unlinked. DMY seemed the best way to go since it was the preponderance, was used in territories in question. The main purpose of the exercise was initially to clean-up the 60 odd redirects to the infobox, but the dates were obviously in need of some work too. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC).


Some ignorant admin has made an edit to Template:Wikify that you will probably want to undo. Debresser (talk) 05:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Smackbot moved See also section in between footnotes and references

Here, SmackBot moved the See also section in between the Footnotes and the References, which is something I think you will probably agree is not right (irrespective of what the MOS has to say about it). You may want to tweak your bot code a wee bit. Hesperian 11:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Card Games

Thanks for your cleaning and general fixes on all card games. Please, do go on ! Krenakarore (talk) 18:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Port Askaig

Thanks for picking up the dodgy-looking 'rumour' about Port Askaig whisky. It didn't come from me and I share your scepticism. I'll watch it to see if anyone produces a source, but if they don't I'll edit it out. Dhmellor (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


hey bre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaker2013 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


I have been a bit busy these last days, and have not taken care of Category:Pages with missing references list. Could you please let SB do a run first?

And might I ask you to consider adding a comment to Template_talk:Citation#Full_stop_at_the_end_of_the_template_2. Debresser (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Unrefsect

I have nominated Unrefsect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


Is it necessary to run all over the encyclopedia removing 1 character from hundreds of pages and cluttering histories and recent changes lists? Among other things you've modified someone's 3½-year-old monobook.js, old user talk page comments, this change which doesn't fit with the edit summary at all, and other templates and such that haven't been modified in years. "Deprecated" doesn't mean "doesn't work". • Anakin (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - incorrect use of em-dashes

See this edit, where SmackBot changed the correct "xn--bcher-kva" to the incorrect "xn—bcher-kva". The bot should leave the sequence "xn--" alone, since this is the prefix for the ASCII equivalents of non-ASCII domain labels, and is highly unlikely to be used in any other context. --Zundark (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


hey wats up? explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicmaker2013 (talkcontribs) 18:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Regex Help

Hey Rich, I was wondering if you could help me with some Regex. I want to:

put tag {{dead link header}} at the beginning of each section that contains the template: {{dead link}}. I know there is some sort of lookforward buisness that needs to happen, I just don't understand well enough to write it. Tim1357 (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can wrangle reg-exes but there is stuff that could be done better than the way I do it. Here is the sort of thing I would write - the look-forward would be more efficient to write.

(\n==+[^\n=]+==+ *\n)((?:[^=\n][^\n]*\n)*)([^=\n][^\n]{{[ _]*[Dd]ead[ _]+link[ _]*[\|}\n])

replace with

$1{{dead link header}}\n$2$3

Singleline of course. Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Wow thank you. Now I need someone with a bot account to implement it. Maybe it is worthy of becoming a General Fix on AWB so SmackBot can do them. What do you think? Tim1357 (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I could add it to SB's normal run if there is consensus. Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC).

Need your opinion on some photographs

Hi. Can you provide you opinion on this matter? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


Just notifying you of a bad edit. Dismas|(talk) 08:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maps in infoboxes

Hi. Can you offer your thought on the template talk page of having a pointless map in a navigation templates such as Template:Postalhistorybycountry. It bloats an already oversized navigation templates and really has no purpose. If people are so dumb that they don't know where Asia is they can look... Dang it. Himalayan 10:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:cite IETF

Could you have a look over {{cite IETF}} and see if I've missed anything obvious? I'd like to have a few more people look it over before it really starts getting used in articles. It went together pretty fast but I had been planning to create a proper citation template for these documents for quite awhile. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot and {{cite album-notes}}

Please see this edit to "All My Loving". SmackBot changed "|pages=pp. 32-33" to "|pages=32-33". I know that is the proper thing to do for most of the templates in the "cite" family, but unfortunately, "cite album-notes" has a non-standard page parameter handling: it does not support "page=" and it does not include the "p." or "pp." prefix: editors must use "pages=" and supply the appropriate prefix manually.

I have considered changing "cite album-notes" to conform (see talk page), but I stopped when I realized that there were 1500+ references to it and changing the way the template works would break a great many of those. I knew one solution to that was to have a bot fix the existing uses, but I am not a bot writer and I did not know that SmackBot was already configured to fix the "pages=" parameter. (Does it do "page=", too?) That may mean that many of the calls to the "cite album-notes" templates are broken now (no prefix in parameter) and thus changing the template would actually do more good than harm.

I am very interested to know what you think should be done. My guess is that it may be less work to fix "cite album-notes" than to change SmackBot to handle an exception, and the former brings us closer to the ideal state. — John Cardinal (talk) 13:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a slight oddity. I created {{Page numbers}} to deal with this , it can be inserted as a wrapper in whatever cite templates might find it beneficial. Rich Farmbrough, 14:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
What about changing "cite album-notes"? If I change it, will SmackBot eventually fix some or all of the entries? Do you think it has removed the prefixes already? Is there an easy way to check other than manually going through the "what links here" results?
Sorry about all the questions, but for some reason this little problem is gnawing at me and I'd like to fix it. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I need your help or advice again. I saw you changed {{Cite album-notes}}. At that time, I was working on a sandbox page and test cases. My version added a "page=" parameter as well as using {{Page numbers}} for the "pages=" parameter. I updated the template after you did, and it seems to work when used from articles. It also produces the expected results when used from the Expand templates page. However, the examples on the doc page and the test cases on the [[testcases page don't work properly: when "pages=2-3" is specified, the doc page and test cases show "p." and not "pp." I can't figure out why; I've purged the pages, refreshed my browser cache, etc. Why would the template work when used from an article, but not from a doc page or testcases page? The troublesome pages are evidently falling through to the {{Page numbers}} template or they would not have a leading "p." Do you see anything wrong on either page? — John Cardinal (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: I found the issue. The problem is not related to the doc page or testcases page. If I use a plain dash ("pages=2-7") or if I use an HTML entity ("pags=2–7"), the {{cite album-notes}} template works properly. If I key an n-dash character ("pages=2–7"), the template doesn't work as expected. I added a test to the {{Page numbers}} page that shows that using the n-dash entity works but using the character doesn't. I was loathe to change the template... — John Cardinal (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, good detective work. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
Should be OK now. Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC).
Great! Thanks. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Elisabeth of Valois


  1. The accent is not present in the title of the article, therefore it shouldn't be present in the infobox. It should be somewhere in the lead sentence, but the infobox should be consistent with the title of the article.
  2. You haven't really corrected anything; you just changed it from 3 October 3 1568 to 3 3 October 1598.
  3. Corrected. Surtsicna (talk) 17:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Soft redirects

Here you have another template that automatically adds a category. Your edit to Template:Infobox Former Country was undone, claiming that it left articles without categories. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the trouble here? I saw it is used on 1773 articles. Likely most of them have 1 or 2 categories (for established and disestablished). How many did you fix? Debresser (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Debresser (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you'd like to do this through discussion? Like at Template_talk:Infobox_Former_Country#Start_and_end_years. Debresser (talk) 11:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Breaking templates

SmackBot keeps adding a date parameter to Template:BASEPAGENAME, which breaks it. Specifically, see these edits: [12][13] -Rrius (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK that won't break it in future. But fixing the code is a little more tricky. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC).


Hi - I noticed this and I think I understand the point of the template (to prevent broken magic word usage)... however I was just wondering if it was used anywhere and noticed that people might end up getting there by using when following an example link like {{tl|BASEPAGENAME}} - as it is used in [14]. I am just wondering if you think either of the following would be useful: 1) a soft redirect from the template you've created to the WP:Magic words page and/or 2) protection of the page to prevent the kids from messing around. Clearly this isn't a big problem, and it may not even require a solution - just trying to preempt any issues that may come up. Thanks.  7  23:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot at Hindi Wiki

Hi Rich,

Its been a while that SmackBot has operated on the Hindi Wiki. Can you please invoke the Smackbot again. Thanks Gunjan (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Russian map captions

HI. Can you use AWB to add a caption to the infoboxes like this for the federal sub categories of Category:Cities and towns in Russia. I've done Adygea, but probably best done with AWB. How are you, I haven't heard from you in ages. Himalayan 09:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Category suppression on maintenance templates

Hi Rich. The current method of suppressing categories on some of our maintenance templates by specifying a blank |category= seems rather unintuitive and also conflicts with the method used on some other templates, which require |category=no. I wonder if you might comment on a discussion on my talk page. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

All category

Another all-inclusive category here. Count your blessings. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Rich! Something the matter with SmackBot? Also, might you be Roman Catholic like me? Its last entry was on Saturday for the Catholic Church (as you already know, of couese)! Please have your robot to not place date maintenance tags on Paul McCartney's discography page, if you could. Thanks! Best, --Discographer (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that Roman-Catholic part. But he is definitely getting married. Nothing like Rich to be off for that long. :) Debresser (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It is getting a lot of net-work time outs which don't help. But the original idea was to run at least once a month! Things have changed a bit since then. Rich Farmbrough, 15:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

Template talk:Infobox musical artist debate

I've tentatively mentioned your name as a possible 'closing admin' for the debate here. Hope that's OK! We want to find someone neutral to end what has been a difficult discussion and I saw that you'd done some work on this box. Reg. --Kleinzach 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your bot

You bot is giving different pages from the same website the same name: [15]. This is the second time it has done this. Can you ask it to stop? Thanks, Mitsube (talk) 22:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have logged a bug for this I will check back and see if a fix is available. Otherwise I will work-around, please stop the bot if it happens again. Rich Farmbrough, 15:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Little Richard Article

Thank you for your recent "date maintenance tags and general fixes" on the Little Richard article. I have been doing a lot of recent on the subject and have been working to make the article more informative and accurate. At the same time, it needs to be encyclopedic, so please feel free to relay feedback / input asI go along. I am fairly new to Wiki and can use the support that you can offer.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently inserted a Ray Charles quote in the influence section with I think the appropriate citation info (please correct if I'm wrong) I pulled the quote out a day or so ago, as one editor wanted one the Bo Diddley quote in there or the Ray Charles one but not both (I think it looks okay with both, as they validate each other especially coming from those two music giants)) The quote farm that had been in there was edited out long ago. Your feedback is appreciated. Also, do you think it should be Penniman (the artists formal last name) or Little Richard mentioned through the article when referring to him, or sometimes one or the other? I am uncertain.--Smoovedogg (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Everything alright? You've been, well strangely quiet for you the last few days.... Himalayan 10:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic

You added a globalize tag to a section of this article before. I moved it and that started a whole debate as I felt the entire article needs to be globalized, not just a section. Could you comment here Talk:2009_flu_pandemic#Worldwide_view as you've expressed an opinion on this before.--Crossmr (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The Statesman's Yearbook

SmackBot moved a cleanup tag to the references section of this article. I moved it back. I am fairly sure these should be at the top? Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We once had a discussion about this here. Is it still a general AWB fix? Debresser (talk) 10:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
The tag needs to be visible to the reader on first opening the page so that they know immediately the sources are not clear. If it is lower down it might not be seen. Maidonian (talk) 10:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Could you please do another run of SB on Category:Pages with missing references list? Debresser (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


About User:Rich Farmbrough/temp52 (Citation templates : following character frequency).

When it says that the following characteris an "A", does that mean without spaces and without enters?

Can you make lists of these articles also? Debresser (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What is the difference between => 5 and => 7409? The latter I would guess to be the enter, and the first a tab. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the discussion on the meta template talk page, so I'll jump in here ;)
Unless I'm mistaken, 7409 would be a single whitespace character ' ' ( ).
--Tothwolf (talk) 12:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Rich, do you have anything to say about the other questions here? Debresser (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The figures ignore one newline, but do not ignore spaces. And the first is indeed a tab. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC).
I see. And can you also make lists? Debresser (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
To some extent, it is fro a database dump so inherently outdated. However it would be easy enough to run on all the transclusions. Rich Farmbrough, 22:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

Discussion at Template_talk:Citation#Full_stop_at_the_end_of_the_template_2 is at a dead point. Can you shake it up? Or do you have a better idea? Debresser (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Homelessness in the United States article et al. and anon editor

Hello Rich. Might I ask you to look into this matter also? Ben (User:SchuminWeb and User talk:SchuminWeb#Homelessness_in_the_United_States) has kindly looked at it too. Confer Homelessness in the United States article, etc. and User_talk: It's situationally unmanageable as it stands and a huge unnecessary diversion from real work to do in WP. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Settlement

I see you edited this so thought you might go to the article Kisber and put the photo in proper place in the box. Regret I can't as I inserted some text and saved it before trying to fix the photo location which I did not save. thanx. Handicapper (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot and {{Otheruses4}}

I noticed that User:SmackBot standardizes {{Otheruses4}} templates to upper-case already, do you think it would make sense to convert them to {{About}} templates while we're at it now that the template was moved? It was moved because {{about}} is easier to remember than {{otheruses4}} with its arbitrary number. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot has a small list of templates it does that for, easy enough to add About. Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC).

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement

Hi Rich,

It appears the problem with ksh_code has not been resolved fully, and we are with our horses midstream.

I see from many stub articles that they are using ksh_code to define the KSH code whereas ksh_code_2008 is the correct name for the fields. I also see that they link to the KSH page in the population_footnotes field.

I remember there was some discussion of changing the field name and add another that describes the date of the data. I am reasonably happy to do this, however, it has not been done and so the articles using ksh_code instead of ksh_code_2008 are not automatically generating a reference to the data, which was the intention.

I suggest you and I collaborate to fix this:

  • SmackBot could run over the articles using {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} and replace any instances of ksh_code_2008 with ksh_code. It should also remove the population footnotes (perhaps if they match a suitable regex) but retain the year, renaming it. e.g. for Csólyospálos it should change [ Csólyospálos] at the [[Hungarian Central Statistical Office]] (Hungarian). 1 January 2008; to be |ksh_data_as_of=1 January 2008.
  • I will modify the template as best I can to generate a more specific reference title. The KSH code field does now link to the correct KSH page, but the name of the reference is generic, as I could not work out how to stuff things using kinda "late binding" into the reference, but have been told how to do this now. But even if not, at worse the KSH code field does link there.

This need only be a one-off run for SmackBot. It's a pity that in the confusion/arguments of before, it seems that a decision was taken to use a field that did not exist in preference to one that did. But I think all that can be done now is to repair having left it in the air, and I hope you can maybe use SmackBot to help automate that repair. If so, I will change the template at an appropriate time to the new names. I think it would be unwise to introduce the new fields as a synonym, but I imagine that only the few articles (i.e. mine and a few others' articles with real content) would actually be broken by this change, and more (i.e. the 250-odd articles that are almost empty except for scaffolding) would be fixed by it. I should appreciate your views. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Monthly categories

When I saw that Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template has 77 pages, I decided it is time to create November's categories. Done. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I null-edited a little, and now it is 46 pages.
Which reminds me. Could you please do me a favor and null-edit the three pages in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. One of them has been there for over a week now. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


I see you deprecated {{Geobox River}} and {{Geobox Mountain Range}}. Can they simply be substitued by {{Geobox}}, or do I need to change any parameters? Debresser (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If that matters for the answer... on userpages. See Category:Pages using deprecated templates Debresser (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Fixed all except one. Since the deprecated templates are at Tfd, that will stop being a problem soon enough. Debresser (talk) 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

New template

Template:Tone-inline. I had to work on it a little, but now it is presentable. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks added. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC).

Your unreferenced tags

Just so you know, on the articles where you've been replacing the Erik9bot category with an unreferenced tag, the date you're entering is November 2006 and not 2009. --Sable232 (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. To avoid swamping the current monthly category I'm using the creation date of the articles. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC).
Ah, that makes sense. --Sable232 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template

Not sure I understand what you mean. There is a template for that site, but the documentation says it has to be subst'ed, but it won't subst inside ref tags so I was just copy/pasting the whole thing. --Sable232 (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. That works great. --Sable232 (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - The City of London Migraine Clinic

Hi Rich,

I wrote the article for The City of London Migraine Clinic as a volunteer ( The SmackBot has put up a notification saying "This article may not meet the general notability guideline. Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic. If notability cannot be established, the article is likely to be merged or deleted."

I don't feel it needs further referencing. Could you help me out by telling me what you feel is missing because I would like to remove the notification as soon as possible. I am also always interested in hearing an experience wiki persons opinion as this is the first article I have written.

Thank you very much, Simon Ssim24 (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


Did you mean to create this category like this: Category:PAGES WITH INCORRECT FORMATTING TEMPLATES USE? JPG-GR (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes its for cases where {{Str left}} overflows and stuff like that. Rich Farmbrough, 04:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot bug

FYI, SmackBot replaces content like {{fact|October 2009}} with {{Citation needed|October 2009|date=November 2009}} (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that is valid and harmless, if not ideal, behaviour. Replacing "fact" with "Citation needed" is desired, and picking up the un-assigned date while valid in most cases can't be assumed to be correct. Rich Farmbrough, 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Unreferenced template

Regarding this edit, [16], you added an unreferenced template with a date of January 2007, the first edit of the article.

According to Template:Unreferenced: "The date parameter, which is recommended, is used to indicate when the template was added to a page." Currently these dates should be November 2009. Aspects (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Same comment re 2002_NCAA_Women's_Division_I_Basketball_Tournament. (Yes, it does need references, and I'll try to add some.)--SPhilbrickT 19:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks these are some I am migrating from Erik9Bot's category and I don;t want to swamp the November 2009 category with many thousands of entries. Rich Farmbrough, 19:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
So you are knowingly putting in the wrong date? I notice that you are using AWB to make these edits with what looks like about ten edits a minute. According to AWB, if you are going to be making this many edits, you should be using a bot to do it. Also it says you should not be using this for anything controversial. Two editors bringing up that it is the wrong date seems to me to be controversial. Aspects (talk) 19:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think it probably is better to use the earlier date rather than the current month. If others dislike that, perhaps an alternative might be to use the date when Erik9Bot added the category to the article? --Tothwolf (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
That would be better than November 2009 but it would still bunch them all in July, August and September this year. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC).
I hadn't realized he had categorized them that quickly. Sounds like the current solution is for the best then. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are quite right and for the bulk of the edits I will be using a bot. As far as the intent of the date parameter since I added it to the template, and my bot maintains it, I have a pretty good idea how it works - the ideal would be to place the date it became unreferenced, but it is not usually worth spending effort finding these dates, also it would mean monthly categories being constantly deleted and undeleted - the important thing is to get the articles into the workflow - where a more accurate date has been available en-masse it has been used. I would be interested in hearing how using the creation date of the article creates problems, if it does. Rich Farmbrough, 20:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC).

Would it be possible for you to put something in the edit summary to explain that the choice of January 2007 is save editors like me the trouble of coming here? Stevage 14:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. Rich Farmbrough, 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC).

((ns0)) and ((main other))

Hi Rich. I just stumbled on {{ns0}} which is a template you made. I would like to redirect {{ns0}} to {{main other}}. This is why:

  • Having several templates that do the exact same thing might be confusing.
  • {{ns0}} and {{main other}} are parameter compatible so nothing will break.
  • {{main other}} has the additional "demospace" parameter, which is very useful.
  • {{main other}} is part of a series of namespace-detection templates that work the same way and has similar naming.
  • Not much of a reason, but anyway: {{main other}} is the older and more widely used one.

--David Göthberg (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is no reason not to - except that ns0 doesn't have any demo-space cleverness, and didn't even have a parameter 2 until I succumbed. And the reason for that was to maximise simplicity. Rich Farmbrough, 16:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC).
Thanks, I have now redirected {{ns0}} to {{main other}}, and deleted the /doc page of {{ns0}}. As always I felt a bit bad when "deleting" someone else's work. After all, your code was very compact and efficient. (Unfortunately the "demospace" functionality causes fairly complex code in {{main other}}.)
And haha yeah, I noticed that your template had evolved towards {{main other}} over time.
--David Göthberg (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement

Hi Rich,

You never got back to me on this so I basically am "relisting".

I think SmackBot or something else converted about 250 appropriate articles to use Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement (great, thanks!), but unfortunately it was using ksh_code instead of ksh_code_2008 as the field name for the Hungarian Central Statistical Office (KSH) code. I see now e.g. at Magyarcsanád and Taksony that you have changed using AWB to use the correct fields, and I presume that you have done so for all articles?

Nevertheless (and I appreciate that this is really better discussed at the template talk page, and don't mind if you want to move the discussion there) it is probably my turn to fix the template to replace ksh_code_2008 with ksh_code, and add a ksh_date field (it could just be date if you think that better). I can certainly do this, but would require another run at AWB to fix them all back again. In the alternate I can support both forms, but this is rather a faff since things like the reference, the area and the population is switched on whether the code is present, so would lead to quite a lot of duplication.

On a side note, other information such as the postal area etc. is also readily available from KSH, and could be dated as such. I note from another conversation that there was some mention of the date field on "unsourced fields", and wonder if we should just blanket supply it as a footnote. However, I also note that the blank_ fields in Template:Infobox settlement, while documented, are not actually supported.

Your advice would be appreciated, then I will get on and do it.

Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have to go back and review what the situation is there. Rich Farmbrough, 07:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

I'm a liar, at Magyarcsanád it is still using ksh_code, not ksh_code_2008. I agree with your sentiment that the date should be moved out of the field name (to ksh_code).
May I propose that I do that in the template, keeping the existing behavior for ksh_code_2008, so nothing breaks (under WP:OWNFEET) add ksh_year for the year of publication, then we can AWB or whatever the articles to migrate to the new field, then remove the old after. That way, nothing breaks along the way.
Some backround information that may help you: As far as I know the KSH census data is always published nominally on 1 January, regardless of the actual date of collection, and perhaps we should lose that entirely? As you may have guessed, the reason I put the date in the code when making the template was that every article we did happened to be 2008. Some, now, we find are 2009. In Hungary, censuses for small areas are conducted every ten years but like each tenth of the country does them each of those ten years. The KSH codes are, according to the missus, very very stable.
When we translate info for a stub (usually as we are translating somewhere else we check the links and if it is a fairly short article we translate that also along the way, move pics to commons, etc), we do check the KSH and the figures on HU:WP are often out of date. Since our role is basically translation not checking facts etc (that can come after) it is a bind to know then whether to change them, and HU:WP has it so that every edit has to be reviewed by someone else, an admirable policy in some ways but also means that small fixes can take ages to get visible, or are outright rejected by a reviewer on a high horse. I think their basic view is that it is better to aim for a smaller but perfect WP instead of a larger but imperfect one.
My very best wishes and I do appreciate your hard work. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely you don't entirely disagree with me?

A clever fellow such as you must find yourself leaning at least slightly in my favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Such a post should be added to one of the Wikipedia pages. :)
I found the comment, researched, and moved the articles so the follow a standard style. I hope that is all ok. I could, of course, say THIS ARTICLE IS SHIT. I don't believe it, many people have worked hard at them. Said on user talk and article talk. Si Trew (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Is there something as being an admin with limited possibilities? There is so many good things an editor can't do without being an admin. Like editing protected pages, or deleting pages (to help out in Cfd), etc.

On that other site I wrote you about, I started working just a few days ago as admin and bureaucrat. Not a big deal to be able to delete a page or set user group rights. Today they also made me webmaster, so now I started working with MediaWiki files like LocalSettings.php. I made a few changes already, but I'll read the MediaWiki manual, and then I'll know more about it. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That went fine. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You will "gnominate" me...? :))) Debresser (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps give it a try? Just let me know beforehand, please, if you do. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

re Refs on Fort Hood

I have never seen another article use this style of reference formatting, it seems quite odd and awkward. Also, could you please use edit summaries? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try to attempt in constructive discussion on the article's talk page instead of engaging in edit warring with no edit summaries. Cirt (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
As you appear to be ignoring this, and ignoring consensus on the talk page against your edits, please see WP:ANI. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I struck out my comment at ANI, as you now appear to be acknowledging talk page discussion. But in the future please engage in discussion on the talk page instead of edit warring, and please use edit summaries. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

ITN for Fort Hood shooting

Current events globe On 6 November 2009, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Fort Hood shooting, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

--Dumelow (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood shooting

Hi, I just wanted to say "nice work" on the article, especially with the high number of edits being made, which, I think, has resulted in more than one edit conflict between the two of us! Anyway, it's good to see a neutral, well referenced, structured article taking form. I think you deserve this:

Current Events Barnstar.png The Current Events Barnstar
For your hard work creating and maintaining Fort Hood shooting HJMitchell You rang? 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Regards, HJMitchell You rang? 04:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

That's nice, thank you! I created it because I was Huggling and I saw the one line added to Fort Hood. Rich Farmbrough, 04:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
You're welcome. It obviously deserved more than a single line but Fort Hood probably isn't the place. I'm sure I'll see you around! HJMitchell You rang? 18:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Fort Hood Shooting

Alleged until proven guilty. Casualties implies dead, whereas victims cover dead and wounded. Neuromancer (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Victims implies a value judgement. It is a POV word we should avoid. Casualties does not mean dead. Hasan is an alleged murderer, but not really an alleged gunman - no one is disputing that he was the gunman. He will not be tried for being a gunman, he will be tried most likely for murder. Rich Farmbrough, 09:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

Oh and you mean "duplicated" not "duplicitous" - the latter means deceiving. Rich Farmbrough, 09:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC).
No, I know what duplicitous means, but it's late, and I was trying to be humorous. Apparently I failed. Neuromancer (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Webster's defines victime as: one that is injured, destroyed, or sacrificed under any of various conditions <a victim of cancer> <a victim of the auto crash> <a murder victim>
casualties is defined as: serious or fatal accident
wiktionary is user editable, and not considered a RS. Neuromancer (talk) 09:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not using it as an RS. I would be if I was citing it in the article but I'm not.

  • None of Webster's definitions of "casualty" are exclusively applied to fatalities. (Webster's New World College Dictionary)
  • A victim has to be a victim of something - usually an agent with real, imputed or anthropomorphised intent to cause them to be "injured, destroyed, or sacrificed". So by using the phrase we impute intent. Secondly we don't describe (nor should we) Hasan as a "victim" of the police officer that shot him, although his injury was prima face a sacrifice to save the lives of others. Rich Farmbrough, 09:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Nor do we refer to Hasan as a casualty. The alleged shooter definitely had to have an intent behind pointing a loaded firearm at a human, and pulling the trigger, then doing the same to 33 more people. Ipso Facto, the shooter had the real intent to cause them to be injured, or destroyed, thereby "victimizing" them. Some of those victims became casualties of the shooting. To categorize the injured as "casualties" is confusing to say the least. Neuromancer (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Weird 'date links'

On my travels, I found this oddball example of how some people link dates. For example, note the string "Vicki Gunvalson (born [[March]] [[27]], [[1962]]), at age 47" Due to the scope of the current operation, we will need to go and delink the lone months at some stage later or anyway, so could I ask you perhaps to look at a possible solution to incorporate into one of your bots? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Already doing it, month and days of the week. Rich Farmbrough, 14:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC).

References on the Hood shooting article

Hi, a discussion here concerns changes to the reflist format [17] & here [18]. If you need a hand fixing give me a shout. Leaky Caldron 17:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Well done on getting the refs. sorted. I noted a couple remaining - CNNs I think, but I'll leave it with you. I have seen that style used for quite some time and it certainly makes editing easier when text is not clutered up with citation details. I hope you didn't mind me getting involved - I was around on Thursday and chimed in at the time so I was shocked at the changes. Obviously the editor who changed them is not aware of this method - its just a shame he wasted his time. He is still arguing on my talk page that it is "unapproved". If you have any better guideline than the one I provided in my discussion with him it would be helpful - to set the record straight! regards, Leaky Caldron 09:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates again

I have a few lines of code in my monobook (from a script by Lightmouse) which I use to automatically insert an edit summary: 'function edit_summary()' or somesuch. To save me typing {{use dmy dates}} or {{use mdy dates}} each time, and so as not to annoy people by having the template at the top, I would like to build that into the relevant function to write it as the very last line of the file because it's usually part of the same edit. Could you suggest the code needed, please? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Also, I have this on my 'to do' list. Perhaps I could interest you in this task of making the dates uniform and WP:MOSNUM compliant, which needs quite a lot of mechanised work. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for edit

I hope I didn't keep you from other important Wiki business. Please accept this gift.

-- (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

AWB: Opening an XML dump across a n./w where I have full rights

Still happening in 4.9+? Can you reproduce it on demand? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Is SmackBot adding dates to Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard, which is populated by {{Userspace draft}}? Debresser (talk) 14:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm no, I have just added the template but I will need to remember to include userspace in runs Rich Farmbrough, 23:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
The draft wizard dates them itself it seems. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC).
Did you have Category:Unreviewed new articles? That is the mainspace counterpart of the other category, both used in {{Userspace draft}}. Although Category:Unreviewed new articles may be added directly or through {{New unreviewed article}} as well, but that is not done. I recently made a very nice change to the template. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
The draft wizard has the dated subcategory itself, but you see it doesn't always work out. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
I fixed all 18 articles that were in Category:Unreviewed new articles. Debresser (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Unreviewed new articles and its subcategories moved to Category:Unreviewed new articles created via the Article Wizard. Debresser (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

You did something nice with Category:Unreviewed new articles. Do you plan to do the same with Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard? Debresser (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Don't get upset at Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. See Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Source for the explanation. Debresser (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Something to take your mind off your usual toil

You may find a slight amusement at Template:Time of day in words. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 01:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC) ({{Time of day in words|01|26}}, Proper British Time)

Chuckle... Rich Farmbrough, 01:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Date on Unreferenced template

Greetings, Rich Farmbrough. I noticed that in some articles you have replaced the category "articles lacking sources" with an Unreferenced template. Fine, but, I believe the Unreferenced template should not be backdated. If you put the current date on the template, other editors will then see how long the article has been tagged. Take a look at Template:Unreferenced#Usage, where it says, "The date parameter is used to indicate when the template was added to a page." (If you reply here I will see what you say.) Mudwater (Talk) 01:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except it's not "articles lacking sources" - it's Articles lacking sources (Erik9Bot) which is about 100,000 strong and not dated. Essentially the Erik9Bot articles would swamp the November 2009 section. If there were just a few hundred I would simply stick them in there. I added a footnote to the{{Unreferenced}} page. Rich Farmbrough, 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC).
I see what you mean, but I think it's confusing to backdate the Unreferenced template. Other editors will get the impression that an article has been tagged for a long time -- more than three years in this example -- when it's only been tagged for a short time. If the tagging is partly based on the actions of a bot, and results in many articles being tagged for the current month, I don't see that as a problem. Mudwater (Talk) 02:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes I understand. When we set up most of the dated categories we did go back to previous database dumps to get the dating as accurate as possible, we would date that way now if it were effective use of resource. Rich Farmbrough, 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC).
It's not a question of the date being "accurate", it's a question of what the date means. The general usage on this and many other tags on Wikipedia is that it shows when the tag was added. Maybe the Unreferenced template should be enhanced to have an additional parameter showing how long the article has been unreferenced, but that's not how most editors are going to interpret the current tag. Mudwater (Talk) 02:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dating the tags when they were added (or when the date was added) has always been a compromise. It was one I was aware of when I created the parameter and categories. I am also aware , because I deal with them on a daily basis, that articles move from category to category, and all sorts of strange things go on. It doesn't matter that some articles are "late" - even if it weren't a waste of human time to date the tag at all, people would make so many errors digging back (I get probably a couple hundred misdated tags a day as it is) that adding the current date or better still no date at all is the preferred option for human editors. The important thing is that the articles get references. But having said that I am reluctant to re-create old dated categories (though it happens often enough due to article reversion). Rich Farmbrough, 03:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC).

Recreate old dated categories? I think my last post has muddied the waters, so let me restate my message. By common usage of the Wikpedia tagging system, and as stated in the documentation for the Unreferenced tag, the date in a tag indicates when a tag was added to an article. Backdating the tags should not be done, because (1) it will give most editors the erroneous impression that the article has been tagged for much longer than it actually has been -- in the example cited above, three years instead of two hours -- and (2) there is not a significant advantage to backdating the tags. I'm going to copy this discussion section Template talk:Unreferenced so please feel free to reply there. Mudwater (Talk) 04:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
This was also discussed previously, see #Unreferenced template in Rich's talk page archive. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich, perhaps a couple parameters could make this usage more clear? Maybe something like |backdated=yes and |auto=yes to show it was added by a bot (auto) and placed in an older category (backdated) to prevent swamping the current category with 100,000+ articles. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I had certainly considered a "bot=yes" field - "auto" is better - and backdated is a good idea in principle but not sure the purpose it would serve that the edit summary doesn't. Rich Farmbrough, 12:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC).
I'm thinking a parameter such as backdated would help editors who aren't looking at the edit summaries. Many editors look only at the template code and date in the article and won't check to see when the template was applied to the article. I'm a little concerned myself as there are many editors who initiate AfDs for articles going strictly by the date passed to {{Unreferenced}}. For example: "Article unsourced for X years ... etc". --Tothwolf (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Well it would still be true Esperantujo - unsourced for 8 years. And putting them in the appropriate categorises mean that the oldest can be prioritised. Rich Farmbrough, 18:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC).
...but not tagged as such for 8 years, which I think is the crux of the issue. Using the older maintenance categories makes sense to me, but there should be something explicit such as a parameter that shows other editors that the maintenance template was intentionally backdated when it was added to the article. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort on species articles

Hi Rich. Just saw this edit and have been pondering the usefulness of DEFAULTSORT on species articles. Would like your input and perhaps a lengthier discussion on the guideline itself in the proper place. If it isn't explicit already, I'd like to suggest an exception for the defaultsort usage guidelines for taxa articles.

  1. I see very little use for defaultsorts on articles that will only ever been listed next to each other in categories anyway (e.g. Nymphaea lotus var. termalis will only ever be categorized next to Nymphaea lotus, so the capitalization of the second word in the defaultsort seems unnecessary).
  2. Unless uniformly applied, the defaultsort with capitalized species, variety, and subspecies epithets tend to make categories alphabetize incorrectly (e.g. Category:Nymphaeaceae, where Nymphaea lotus var. termalis now sorts between Nymphaea alba and Nymphaea caerulea, the former having a capitalized defaultsort and the latter omitting defaultsort).
  3. The easiest solution to point 2 is the removal of defaultsorts from taxa articles titled at the taxon name.
  4. The defaultsort is likely to be forgotten if the page is moved (either to a common name or an updated taxon name).
  5. It's often counterintuitive to new editors who see capitalized species epithets in the edit window; they may even try to "correct" it, not knowing the guidelines.

So, any thoughts? If I wanted to bring this to a wider audience for discussion, where might I turn. Wikipedia talk:Categorization? Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As is often the case, at least some of the taxanomic folk have decided that what most of us consider a bug - case-sensitive sorting - is in fact a feature, and are using case to distinguish between different levels in biologic taxa via sort order (as the underlying scientific nomenclature does in the naming). Sadly, there are signs that the underlying bug bug 164 may actually be fixed next year, which will almost certainly make case-insensitive sorting the default, with no indication that case-sensitivity will even be possible. Studerby (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, see my reply to Rkitko on his talk page. The distinction is between the three main levels of sorting: pagename, defaultsort and piped sort. The case-sensitive sort only makes sense in the piped sort. This is what I was implementing across the taxa when someone decided to object to using the normal rules for defaultsort, despite the fact that it doesn't affect the genus categories. Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fictional endangered and extinct species

Ambox warning pn.svg

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Category:Fictional endangered and extinct species, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. daTheisen(talk) 09:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Oh blah, why did this have to be you? Massive guilt on my part now for tagging, after watching you try to fight hard to babysit the Fort Hood shootings article when it was new. Anyway, I looked at the project this is related to, but even this I thought this was a big stretch, especially from an encyclopedic perspective. There's probably a different name you could use that didn't sound so... hyperbolic? daTheisen(talk) 09:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


Please have a look at this diff. What do you say? And if you think this is a good idea, would you consider merging Category:Articles for merging with no partner with Category:Merge templates that are incorrectly applied? And BTW, do you have a better name for that category, perhaps? Debresser (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich? Debresser (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Major Nidal Malik Hasan

The redirect over at Major Nidal Malik Hasan is still pointing to the parent article. Could you get it fixed up?   — C M B J   00:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Sadly those redirects were on my mind when I got up this morning. Rich Farmbrough, 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Brockton murders

AFAIK, this is yet another "blast of news at event, blast of news at trial (which hasn't occurred), and then nothing" sort of article. NOTNEWS says that events like this need to be historically notable, and I don't believe a single home invasion is anything more than news, considering that all the information is culled from a whopping four sources. There will undoubtedly be more, but the content will be the same. Does NOTNEWs tend to hold up on AfD? MSJapan (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NOT does carry some weight, unfortunately. I would recommend notability as the grounds for AfD, if any. Rich Farmbrough, 07:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Bad robot, why do you hate indentation?

Smackbot made changes and left this message "Add references section and/or general fixes".

Why is Smackbot stripping indentation? Does not sound like a general fix to me. The indentation was put there deliberately. Indentation not only helps readability of the page source and it makes it easy for me to navigate using only the keyboard arrow and control keys.

Given that the bot needs to be programmed with a list of tasks I would appreciate if the status message could be a bit more clear about which of those tasks have been performed, and more specifically say what was done rather than "general fixes". Surely each time it goes through a condition the an additional note could be concatenated onto the summary string. It seems very odd that the summary says "And/or" when it is clearly "AND", it is a very definitive thing, when would be it be OR?

Please reply here, I've added this page to my watchlist -- Horkana (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Which article? Rich Farmbrough, 01:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC).
An episode of How I Met Your Mother. Here's the Diff. I was under the impression that if I used the same indentation consistently for all headings that would be enough to stop bots from reverting it.
Ah OK. Not really indentation, but I see what you mean. When an article is without a references section, and needs one there is a lot of analysis to work out where it goes, it is made easier if the formatting of headers is consistent. As to your other points SmackBot does that task using WP:AWB which allows a custom edit summary up to a point, but there is little value in cluttering edit history with every thing in the diff, indeed that is what diff is for. And there is a limit to the length of the edit summary. Rich Farmbrough, 01:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
No easy way to put References section as the section one space above External links?
I suppose I'm thankful you don't further obfuscate the summary with abbreviations but I'd encourage you to make more use of the space available in the summary.
I'll have to take a look at WP:AWB. I spot of lot of mistake when I put in decent indentation and clearly read what what is happening. Spacing and pretty printing are seriously underrated. -- Horkana (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Suppose there is no "external links"? In that case it goes below "See also" if there is no "see also" after "footnotes" and so on through a fair number of conditions, the mid teens if I remember correctly. Many people see "==" the same as <"{[('¿«»?')]}">. Rich Farmbrough, 01:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC).
If there is no "External links" section it goes after the last section? -- Horkana (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Before "Further reading".
I see your point. Now though it seems inappropriate to even create a page without including a References section. Thanks for discussing. Please be generous with the indentation, human readable means easier for humans to read (obviously) and hopefully check to avoid errors. -- Horkana (talk) 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - ZNovember?

Hello Rich,

SmackBot is formatting the date for the {{issue}} tag as "ZNovember" as seen here. I think that's not a good thing? (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not just {{issue}} tags. As you can see here, different tags are affected and dates are not only being added, but also replaced. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, working on it. Rich Farmbrough, 00:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC).
Fixed. Thanks again. Rich Farmbrough, 00:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

User:Full-date unlinking bot‎;

The bot has stalled for three solid days now. I'm dropping you this note because some of us feel that reinforcements are indeed necessary. Please can you see what you can do? Thanks. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 12:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit was just a test to see if your bot and/or script worked right; you wouldn't try to clean up stuff in User: space on a production basis, right? --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Not a test, I did that with preview, more documentation. Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

Clean-up changes

Rich, please help me understand some of the clean-up changes you are making. Firstly why are you deleting the spaces between the section heading codes (== etc) and the words when the Editor's guidelines, Cheatsheet and the Level 2 editing button all clearly show spaces separating the words from the code. Secondly, what is the logic for removing the links to dates? --Bermicourt (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I noted a similar problem when the bot edited Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. The change it installed not only unlinked dates (which is fine); it also removed some blank lines after section headers, changed capitalization of macros, and inserted an unnecessary DEFAULTSORT (with the wrong capitalization?); all this makes it harder to see what happened when comparing revisions, and makes the edit appear to be more serious than it really was. I would have preferred a more minimal edit, something like this one, which is what resulted after I cleaned up after the bot. Of course this is a relatively minor annoyance, but it'll add up when applied to lots of pages. Eubulides (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I've had similar issues with spacing but FYI the unlinking of dates is some kind of style policy, I assume it's official and written down somewhere or another. Unfortunately linked dates can be automatically converted and displayed using whatever local format the user prefers so I'm surprised by whoever came up with this style policy of unlinking dates which leads us back into the mess of different date formats displayed in ways no one is happy with, I'm just not surprised by Smackbot following what does seem to be a policy. -- Horkana (talk) 05:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually that is exactly the problem. For some time linking full dates was the thing to do, because it formatted dates according to user preferences (and despite the fact that it created WP:overlinking}. However it was pointed out that while this was great for (some) registered users, mainly editors, others were seeing a mish-mash of date formats in a given article. Therefore after much discussion (literally years and megabytes) date formatting of that type was deprecated inWP:MOSNUM about a year ago. Rich Farmbrough, 06:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC).
I'm not objecting to the date unlinking at all. I'm objecting to all the other stuff (removing blank lines for no reason, inserting an unnecessary and wrongly-capitalized DEFAULTSORT, changing capitalization of macros, etc.). Surely that other stuff isn't necessary. Eubulides (talk) 07:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


Per your delinking[19] at Sumate, Venezuela uses dmy, not mdy. I'll ask Ohconfucious to fix that one up, since I've seen him do one before. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Star


Red Star

Congratulations, Rich Farmbrough! It's my pleasure to award you November 14, 2009's Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan guess who :) 00:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You could also receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star!

Date changes

Dates - can you use that AWB tool to change the dates in the GA list from 1994-02-25 to 25 February 1994 (my preference) or February 25, 1994 since those are easier to read - and prior to this date stuff the default was that dates ISO formatted were automatically converted to one of these formats unless the user had something different specified in their preferences. Thanks --Trödel 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose so. Rich Farmbrough, 06:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC).

Merge template

Is there a better way to fix the merge template in Push–pull workout? Debresser (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw your fix. I suppose that means there isn't. Debresser (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot: reordering list-defined references

Here is a bit strange edit: [20]. The good thing is that the bot reordered <ref name="foo"/> elements in the text so that a group of footnotes is in numerical order, I like it, thanks. However, for some reason the bot also changed the order of <ref name="foo">...</ref> elements inside a {{reflist}}. First, I'm not sure if this is necessary at all – it does not change how the page is rendered. Second, I did not see any logic in the order that is produced by the bot: it does not seem to be alphabetical, numerical or anything. Third, the source code contained comments that were related to particular references, and those were misplaced by the bot. — Miym (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

Orange Star

HD 70642 (Celestia).jpg

Orange Star

Congratulations, Rich Farmbrough! Within the past three days, you received the Red Star for being hard working, kind to others, and for being an excellent user in general. You've now been chosen to receive the next higher up award, the Orange Star. A record of this award will always be kept at User:Meaghan/Shining Stars. Enjoy! Meaghan guess who :) 14:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You could also receive the next higher up award, the Yellow Star!

OOh Orange! Tasty! Is this progessing up the rainbow or the main sequence? Thanks! Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

Not a problem! You deserve this award for all your hard work over the years. It's progressing up the main sequence. Cheers, --Meaghan guess who :) 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Nepal VDCs

Hi Rich. I don't know if you are still up for doing tasks using AWB but I could sure use your help correcting the settlement naming in infoboxes of the Village Development Committee's of Nepal. You see the articles either don't have any banners or they are wrongly labelled as towns or villages rather than Village Development Committee like Chobhar, Nepal. Would you be so kind as to standardise them all? Also many of them wrongly say so and so is a town. Definately wrong. Most of them except for the capital of the district are rural Village Development COmmittee's or municipalities not towns as such... Himalayan 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich, great work, but you may wish to adjust the code to avoid [ ldid=325832924 this]. Thanks. Tony (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich but the point is Maidan, Nepal is not a small town. It is officially a Village Development Committee or at least a village anyway... Himalayan 11:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Messy? Try looking at Indian villages..... Himalayan 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding Source Parameter

Rich, This is my first time using Wikipidia and I am making a page for Vincent Ostrom for a class assignment. In response to my request to move the page (make it active), you said that I need to "add a source parameter using AWB." I'm not sure what this means, but in looking at the AWB instructions, it looks like one needs to have made 500+ Wiki edits before one can register to use AWB. I'm just starting. What should I do? Is this preventing the Ostrom page from becoming active? Advice would be greatly appreciated! Thanks.-Rachel Feeney User:R.G.Feeney —Preceding undated comment added 19:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC).

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 06:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedian of the Day

Bronzewiki 2.png
Congratulations, Rich Farmbrough! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, 16, November 2009! Keep up the great work!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

You seem to be getting all the awards lately :)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 00:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I shall clear a space on the mantle. Rich Farmbrough, 06:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

A possibly erroneous edit?

Recently, you made this edit. Among the other changes you made, you changed the format of the accessdate parameter of the cite web template. Please don't do this. If you check the version of the page before your edit, you'll notice none of the access/retrieved on dates were linked. In fact, the template documentation suggests the date format that was used as an option. I've reverted your edit. You may want to check and see how many other articles (if any) you've done this on.--Rockfang (talk) 09:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you are still doing it. Could you respond here when you get a moment? Thank you.--Rockfang (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes at the moment I am dealing with the handful of very early dates. I am cautious about changing date formats, and used to be a champion of ISO style for certain fields, until a number of users convinced me that they actually were unable to read them until the format was explained to them. For that reason, in a relatively small subset of ISO type using articles where it seems unlikely to be contentious I have used spelled out dates instead of ISO type dates. If you are saying that it is contentious on the accessdate field in those articles, I can easily leave that parameter format unchanged, as indeed I am doing with the cast majority of dates anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 10:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for responding. My request/suggestion is this: inside {{Cite web}} if the |accessdate= field has something like [[1900-12-12]], then just remove the brackets (if possible) and leave the format the same.--Rockfang (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

1 zzz08zzz 2009 ...

... modern date style are quite unreadable enough without WP inventing its own months. See this diff at Bury. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

OH bother. Thakns. Rich Farmbrough, 12:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC).


Hi Rich. Sorry it's taken me a few days to get back to you. I just reverted all of your defaultsort additions to the Drosera articles (WP:BRD). Since this point has at least two editors concerned about it (myself and Hesperian), I'd appreciate it if you might stop adding it to taxa articles while we discuss it. I would like to have this discussion with a wider audience so that we can get a feeling for consensus on this issue. I took a look at the Abies suggestion and it still irks me that this seems unnecessary for the reasons I stated earlier. And think of it less as an exception and more of a guideline on the proper usage - a sort of "use only when needed" guideline, not "use everywhere even when unnecessary" guide. That's my perspective. Appreciate your additional thoughts. Rkitko (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich, have you had any time to review this? I saw this edit and noticed you have not yet turned off the defaultsort capitalization effort. There doesn't seem to be any guideline or policy that supports this, though there may have been at one time at WP:CAT - it's since been removed as it was disputed, correct? What you're trying to correct seems to be a mediawiki problem to fix. Anyway, I'd appreciate it if you would cease adding the disputed capitalization style to defaultsorts in your AWB edits. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Help Required

I need ur help. if you do not know the the solution then please tell me whome to ask. There is a problem with my wikipedia account User:Brainlara73. i get logged in, it logged in, and suddenly when i open my wachlist or any other page of wikipiedia, it is logged off automatically. I think it has been hacked or any other problem. Please Help me out.

Regards. Talha

-- (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC).
cookies are enabled. Problem is still there, it gets logout instantaneously. Is there any way to change password through my email as i can not to view My preferences due to this problem. -- (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Date delink only once

The User:Full-date unlinking bot is specified to only process articles once, in order to prevent edit-warring between editors who actually understand the articles, and bots which do not. Since your recent series of edits seems to accomplish similar goals to the Full-date unlinking bot, do you promise that you will not process an article that has already been processed by that bot? Do you further promise to coordinate with the bot so the bot will not process any article that you have processed? Jc3s5h (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that will be unlikely to be a problem. Regardless there may need to be a maintenance phase, and the FDU task is only part of one of many clean-up operations. Rich Farmbrough, 12:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC).
This can be done, from my side at least. Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC).


Hey Rich, I have seen you around similar articles and was wondering if you could take a look at Al Qaeda#American operations (may be re-titled Al Qaeda#Fort Hood Shooting) for WP:SYNTH issues. One user feels that since al-Awlaki is linked to al Qaeda, and Nidal Hasan is linked to Awlaki, then Hasan must be working for al Qaeda. I feel this constitutes a serious WP:BLP issue. Thanks for the help. Grsz11 01:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Unlinking bot making heavy weather of it

User_talk:Harej#Bot speed. Tony (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

ISO delinking

Recently, you (with AWB) appear to have started making automated edit like this one[21] with the summary "delinking ISO style dates using AWB". This edit in question does not appear to delink anything; but instead it has changed a large number of YYYY-mm-dd dates inside {{cite}}s to long-hand format. Template:Cite/doc clearly states "Note: Since "the date" is a single parameter in the code, the ISO 8601 date format (YYYY-MM-DD) should be used"; the subject is therefore misleading and the edit non-productive. —Sladen (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

That of course is wrong, the documentation you were looking at is for an old version of the template. It was probably wrong then as well. Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
(You may have missed this on my talk page Rich Farmbrough, 19:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC). )

Please leave date format alone when unlinking

I saw a similar change to Thiomersal, in which a few dates were delinked but a bunch of dates were converted from the article's YYYY-MM-DD style to some other style. There is no consensus to change YYYY-MM-DD date format to other date formats, and AWB should not be going through articles changing date formats like that. Is there any way that the damage already done can be undone? Eubulides (talk) 17:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I've put a list of 1,052 recent edits that (judging from their edit summary) probably involve this undesirable date reformatting into my sandbox. Can you please take a look at it? Eubulides (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides; the fall-out is wider than just that exact summary; these edits[22] do[23] the[24] same[25] under the opaque summary "Fix error using AWB". —Sladen (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I noticed this edit which changed "date = [[2002-08-06]]" to "date = 6 August 2002 ". Please explain the full logic by which this change was made, including any limits on the input range of dates for which the change will be made, and how the format "6 August 2002" was chosen rather than "August 6, 2002". --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
There are no ISO style dates on en.WP ns0 outside the range 1700-9999. The page in question already had a date in that format so there's little difficulty there. Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Yes but it isn't wikilinked. Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC).
Why (full logic) was the formatting of dates lying in the year range 1700–9999 changed? —Sladen (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2009
Full logic is to get the maximum value from the edits. Per the above discussion I am leaving parameters in ISO style. Rich Farmbrough, 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Hi Rich, Please could you clarify your response? Why was the formatting changed? --Northernhenge (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The syntactic sugar of the date linking means that it can be safely dealt with in ways that would be difficult later- since we don't have ISO style dates in text and they are contentious in other places that is what I was trying to do. Rich Farmbrough, 17:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC).
I've raised this issue as an AWB bug report. Semiautomated tools should not be used to install formatting changes like these without consensus. Eubulides (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It's not AWB, though. Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Ah, thanks, and sorry about the confusion. AWB is a complete mystery to me. I'll go report the bug as a false alarm, if you haven't done it already. Eubulides (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand what "en.WP ns0" means. I question the claim "There are no ISO style dates on en.WP ns0 outside the range 1700-9999", I have seen such dates, although I can't say if the are in en.WP ns0 since I don't know what that is. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
English Wikipedia name-space zero (article space). Rich Farmbrough, 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Well I haven't checked for dates after 9999 to be fair. Rich Farmbrough, 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
YYYY-MM-DD dates are exceedingly rare outside that range in English Wikipedia, but they do exist. For example, the ISO 8601 article uses the date "1582-10-15". Admittedly this is a special case (which I found by searching for "1582-10-15" using Google) but there's no technical objection to dates before 1700 in YYY-MM-DD format. The objections to that format are stylistic (not technical), and understandably so as it often appears out of place when discussing older topics. Eubulides (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Farmbrough edited such a date himself today (see line 81). When I saw the edit, I supposed he relied upon his personal experience enjoying bonfires to realize that despite the requirements of ISO 8601, the date was actually in the Julian calendar and should not be converted. But in view of his claim that no such dates exist, I must suppose he was letting his program run wild with no regard to falsehoods it might produce. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
You might suppose what you wish. Alternatively you could look further up in the article and see that the date is given in the first sentence of the article. Rich Farmbrough, 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
I do not question that "1605-11-05" was, by happenstance, equivalent to 5 November 1605 in that context. My concern is that since, as far as I know, Greece was the last country to convert from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian calendar, and that was in 1923, any YYYY-MM-DD formatted date in or before 1923 must be manually inspected to determine what calendar it is in, before converting it to any other format. Since Mr. Farmbrough stated, after allowing 1605-11-05 to be converted by his software, that there were no such dates in the English Wikipedia article namespace, I conclude that Mr. Farmbrough did not carefully inspect the date before allowing the conversion, else he would have remembered it. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It so happens that I do remember it. The injunction to "Remember remember the fifth of November" ensured that. You will also have seen that I asked for a citation in Stoke Golding as there was no internal support for the date. Nonetheless I think you are living in a fantasy land if you believe that editors are smart enough to take a Julian date, convert it to the proleptic Georgian calender and enter it wiki-linked ISO format, and at the same time stupid enough not to realise that it will display as a normal format date and hence needs a qualifier. Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Since you did not manually inspect such dates, you would not have seen any qualification that might have been present. However, I see that you have wisely given up the practice of reformatting dates in the YYYY-MM-FF format. I sincerely hope you will never resume that practice. --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
OK read between the lines. "I asked for a citation in Stoke Golding as there was no internal support for the date." You are supposed to realise from that that I did manually inspect the date. Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

There have been partial or complete reverts of what Rich has done where ISO format is at issue. Not all ISO date formats were changed by Rich: some were simply unlinked, as described in the specs. Often, Sladen or Eubulides have simply reverted Rich, without making the dates uniform. In some cases, after the reverts, the reference section is a messy mixture of date formats: don't people care? I don't think these reversions are quite justified.

That's not really a worry Tony, I have always seen the unlinking as just a part of a longer process and I was trying to get some more value out of about 1/2 % of the edits. We can do this later but it will be harder - and it will be later. But it doesn't break the main process. Rich Farmbrough, 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

However, I must say that the bot was always conceived as performing a narrow, uncontroversial task. I trust that this task has not been widened. I don't know why all of these complaints are occurring now, but did not occur during bot testing. Tony (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • None of the changes Rich made seem to have had anything to do with erroneous conversion of Julian to Gregorian dates (or vice versa) - most are articles about modern-day subjects - so I don't really appreciate this red herring; nor do I appreciate what seems like a heavy dose of sarcasm coming from some quarters. I have already left a note on talk pages of Eubulides and Sladen respectively about their edits. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucius: I haven't seen any messages regarding sarcasm on my User talk page... —Sladen (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As you will have already seen from my message, I stated above that I wanted to comment about your editing. There was never intended to be any comment to you about any sarcasm on your part, if any. I apologise for the misunderstanding. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • To answer your question, Tony, the complaints are about actions which Rich has performed with AWB, not the date-delinking bot. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The large volume of changes gives the impression of a fully automatic process. Any hint of a flaw in the logic of an automated process should be pointed out before it causes a large amount of damage. Just because I had not seen the kind of damage I was concerned about was no reason not to point out what seemed like a logic flaw. Later, Mr. Farnbrough informed me that he had manually reviewed the edit I used as an example. I am unable to imagine how he is able to effectively manually review the large volume of edits, but perhaps he has some process that defies my limited imagination. --Jc3s5h (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Tony: It would have been wasteful to directly revert the overarching edits completely, as that would have lost other (good quality) changes that were in the same edit but not documented in the AWB summary. It should be clear from the widely varying [and very-specific] summary lines of the ~27 reactive edits[26] that I made, that these were done manually—even then I'm sure they weren't perfect and straight revert followed by a freshly-fixed AWB run would likely have been safer and more reliable. —Sladen (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Rich, the bot was always intended to fulfil a narrow task. That is why it gained overwhelming community consensus. Unless these issues can be resolved soon, I suggest that the removal of triple-unit links proceed without the complication. Then we can debate how the other stuff might be done. If the task is narrow, the speed can be something like what was suggested by BAG, with minimal glitches. Tony (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

date= parsing

In the edit[27] the script does not appear to be actively parsing for date=; it managed to managle date[[2008-03-29]] to date29 March 2008—ideally the script could do with tighter parsing rules. —Sladen (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it could correct that error, right now the motivation to add features is not high as there is always someone to object to anything. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
If something is out-of-spec, it would be preferable for AWB to leave it alone to avoid making things worse. —Sladen (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

How is it making things worse? There appear to be about 500 missing "=" signs. Easy enough to fix them up. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

If you're keen on helping to fix things up; could you please assist with reverting (or writing a rule to revert) the unintended date changes noted above before embarking on new projects. It would be useful to have an idea of between which times (UTC) the broken YYYY-mm-dd rule was likely to have been active, which summary edits have been used with this rule active, and to confirm that the broken rule has either been fixed, or permanently disabled. —Sladen (talk) 18:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The process should have a hyper-rigid definition of what is and is not a date, and anything that does not meet the definition of a date should not be processed. Among the criteria for being a date should be white space, equals sign, minus sign, hyphen, or some kind of dash to the left, and white space, colon, some type of dash, or terminal punctuation to the right. I suppose within a citation template, the vertical pipe could also be to the left or right. --Jc3s5h (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And you think I have processed non-dates? Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Is the date being defined by its key, or by it's index? If a citation date is one that starts date *= *(.+)[|}], accessdate *= *, ... then yes dates were mis-identified. If the rule was only looking at the value ([0-9]{4}-[0-9]{1,2}-[0-9]{1,2})) and relying on that, then no. Personally I would be happier if the context were carefully included in any rule.
Could another tool reliably parse the output generated? No—some formerly good dates ended up with zzz in them and some lost mark-up (which although undesirable) was clearly separating the datum from the previous word. —Sladen (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
OK the zzz syntax was a temporary artifact caused by excluding a class of dates. It took moments to fix. In the case where there was a missing = the question is deeper but not really difficult. As far as the wiki is concerned both the before and after situations were semantic nulls. Some hypothetical tool might be able to parse one version, the other version, neither or both - in addition to or instead of any combination the valid parameter syntax. In particular the tool I am using can parse either and moreover converts from either to a valid en.wp:template:typical valid version and took less time to create then explaining this. So while there is something interesting in what you say it doesn't greatly matter, what we do when we find a problem is fix it and move on. We should doubtless produce a bulwark against recurrence however that is a council of perfection at the moment. Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Why is there this nit-picking? I don't see anything broken. That is an input error totally unrelated to a date or its linking. There's no real reason why the bot and Rich's script should pick up and correct those. In fact, it makes it more complicated to program for. It's not reasonable to have to write the script foreseeing and expect to know when to insert an 'equal' sign and when not to. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The medical oath is "do no harm" (eg. do not make things worse)—and I would hope that the same applies here. See User:Full-date unlinking bot#Criteria for delinking "The bot will solve simple grammatical errors that the autoformatter will no longer be able to correct (due to de-linking).". —Sladen (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm just thick - still don't get. The autoformatter never did fix missing 'equals' signs, nor palliate their absence. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 16:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes but it was an easy fix, some 500 articles have been corrected as a result. And it draws attention to the fact that the syntactic sugar of the date linking measn that it can be safely dealt with in ways that would be difficult later- since we don't have ISO style dates in text and they are contentious in other places that is what I was trying to do. Rich Farmbrough, 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Lhoka Prefecture

Hi. Somebody keeps disrupting this article by moving it from the correct Shannan Prefecture to Lhoka. Can you move it back and put some kind of protection against moving it or whatever? It is officially the Shannan Prefecture and we have maps, categories and inline text to this effect not to mention books I possess from neutral sources. That area has been called Shannan for centuries! Can you move it back? Cheers. Himalayan 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, now, from what I gather it is the "official" PRC new name for the prefecture, despite it being called Shannan for over 1000 years, I had thought initially it was vandalism. Sad really that such a deep rooted name can change just like that. However as Lhoka will not be recognisable to many I've redirected to a double name title which seems the sensible thing to do. Himalayan 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah well we have had Cleveland, and South Kesteven, East Rother and so on, all no doubt with some root in the past. Rich Farmbrough, 12:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC).


Would you please recover the article that was deleted by adding the infobox. Thank you. (Salmon1 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

The article name is Irving Kriesberg. Thank you fvery much. !Salmon1 (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC))

I cannot thank you enough for your help. I will try my best not to repeat my error. Very best regards, (Salmon1 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC))


hello Rich Farmbrough, thanks for remark, i do it next time. Trabelsiismail (talk) 15:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(Delink dates (WP:MOSUNLINKDATES) using AWB)

Do you have a module for this? --John (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I can upload the XML later today. Rich Farmbrough, 08:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC).
Hi there, if you would, could you modify your script to not redo the section headers in edits like this? I find them easier to find and read in an edit window when they are spaced. Regards, —Ed (talkcontribs) 08:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Sure, no problem. Rich Farmbrough, 08:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC).
Thanks dude. :-) All the best, —Ed (talkcontribs) 18:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It may be of interest that, when MiszaBot scans a talk page for archiving, it *adds* spaces to the headers which don't already have them. I don't know which style is more standard for the headers, or whether articles and talk pages are expected to have the same style. On my talk page, 'new section' (i.e. the '+' button) creates a header with spaces. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes I was aware Mizabot does that. De-facto standard is no spaces by almost 3-1
   * Spaces in header 3,571,002.
   * No spaces in header 9,967,810.
Rich Farmbrough, 18:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC).

<-- I came to post on the same topic, so piling on. I've created pretty much 90% of the pages in Category:India women Test cricketers and Category:India women ODI cricketers, about 70% overlap between the two. When I created them I assumed that linking dates was a necessity as that's how I'd seen it elsewhere. Could you run your module on both these cats, or let me know how I could do it using AWB? Thanks. -SpacemanSpiff 04:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Settings are here

[28] Use with caution and at your own risk. Rich Farmbrough, 07:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC).

Thanks, but I think I'm going to wait a bit to do this, I'm still not too familiar with altering settings on AWB. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 15:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

New unlinking code

I see the wonderful new AWB code you just wrote, and was wondering if...

you wouldn't mind seeking approval for a second bot to supplement the efforts of Full-date unlinking bot, perhaps using that code? It would be nice to have a bot that runs at the approved speed, doesn't pause for its 8-hour constitutional, doesn't work to rule. ;-) Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have thought of doing this but BRFA is a little tedious sometimes. It took FDUB months. And I am waiting on an approval as it is. I dare say I'll file one in due course. Rich Farmbrough, 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Especially as WP:NODEADLINE seems to apply. Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
Maybe, but it's frustrating to see all the hiccups that FDUB seems to be experiencing I get the feeling you could do the job a hundred times better. Being infinitely simpler than agreeing on a roadmap for universal suffrage in Hong Kong, it would be nice to see the job done before the latter's promised arrival in 2017. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Especially as we still have to deal with a host of other date formatting issues. Rich Farmbrough, 13:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC).
There seem to be some small problems. At least, in year articles,
should not be unlinked. I fixed the ones I caught in future years, but I don't know how many past year articles you've mangled unlinked against clear consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough, 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for improving articles

I appreciate your using the bot to tidy up references and formatting and stuff. I wanted to say that I research and write quickly, sometimes copying and pasting whatever date format I come across in my sources, and find it takes too much time to manually switch from 6/04/2007 to the proper format of 2007-06-04. But I trust your bot does this quickly, effortlessly, right? So it's a big time savings for me if I can work quickly.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please do not allow N/N/YYYY dates to creep into Wikipedia article content or articles; if both of the 'N's are less than thirteen, it's impossible at that point to identify which is the month and which is the day—which is why WP:MOSDATE is really quite clear on this and states; "Do not use date formats such as 03/04/2005, as they are ambiguous" ...None of the decreed date formats allow this ambiguity. In the case of "6/04/2007" it is impossible for a bot it identify what it might need changing to. Remember that Wikipedia is about quality, not quantity and it's worth taking the time to decode it to whichever of 6 March, 4 June, 2007-04-06 or 2007-06-04 was intended. —Sladen (talk) 04:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to switch the slashed dates; but it takes time and slows me down considerably; it's easier to pull off the date in whatever format it is in with copying & pasting; but if I see both number are less than 13 in the slash format, then I'll switch it. Is this a reasonable compromise?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Btw, if the date is 06/04/2007, it's June 4th not April 6th; a bot might not tell you this, but I will. It is the convention in these dates among American English language newspapers to have the month appear first. The bot should be programmed to assume the first number is the month in those situations (when two front numbers < 13 and four digit number in third place then best guess is month is first number, date the second). In Europe, rarely is the slash format used. If you don't believe me, if you look at all the date formats when there are three numbers, delimited by slashes, and the last number has four digits -- in those situations I bet almost all of the first numbers are the month.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No. In Europe (and the rest of the unAmerican world) a date with slashes is dd/mm/YYYY. (Just like time is written HH:MM:SS not HH:SS:MM). —Sladen (talk) 04:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The use of slashes is pervasive in Europe when a date is to be represented by numbers, and it is as Sladen says. Furthermore, bot conversion issues, if we are to go down that route (and I'm not suggesting that we do), will have to consider include urls, where the use of slashes is extensive. So I urge User:Tomwsulcer not to be expedient with his slash-delimited dates, which are certainly ambiguous. If you can't be bothered to perform such a simple manipulation with the url/source open in front of you, another editor will be forced to open the link to resolve that ambiguity. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected. Didn't know about Europe. As an American, I presumed that such places only existed in myths.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
OK the thing to do here is use javascript: I have a tag to switch from mm/dd/yyyy and another for dd/mm/yyyy. Rich Farmbrough, 08:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
Is this javascript something I can use with my Ubuntu Linux computer and Firefox? If there's some code which is easy for me to use (and which makes less work for people cleaning up after my atrocious formatting) please let me know; I used to be good at computer programming but today sometimes I'm categorized as one of the "blinking VCR types", although I don't know what this means (I think it's a compliment, right?)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But I was wondering that perhaps you might know something that always is a nuisance for me, and might give me advice? When I finish putting together a new article, how do I find the proper categories? It seems I have to wade through tons of screens. The Wikimedia Commons has this great tool called "Common Sense"; do you know if WP has something similar? So, I could type in things like "doctor researcher medicine person manhattan" and it would find the categories for me?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

For articles where I have worked on content I have simply guessed and dug through the category tree - and I do now use WP:HotCat. For other articles I am afraid I generally delegate this task to category experts by adding a {{Uncat}} tag - the uncategorized backlog is generally the shortest at a few weeks tops. Rich Farmbrough, 08:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
Thanks! I'll try both! I put them into my help-file code. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Date formats again being changed willy-nilly

Following up on #Please leave date format alone when unlinking above: this morning's big batch of date changes again changed the date formats of articles while unlinking them, for no good reason. For example, this edit to Neurotypical changed "Retrieved on 2007-11-24" to "Retrieved on 24 November 2007" even though the established style in references in that article was to use YYYY-MM-DD format. You indicated earlier that you had fixed your regular expressions to not do that, but apparently it's still doing that.

While you're fixing this, can you please let us know exactly which regular expressions you're using? That might help to avoid future problems like this. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No if you read the summary it says that it is unlinking named parameters adn converting others to words. Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
Rich: alot of people have complained—the path of least confrontation might be to stop automated date conversions and stick to the core topic of delinking. Please. Pretty please. —Sladen (talk) 19:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It's knee jerk reaction. Neurotypical was uniformly ISO free before this edit for example. But of course you are right, let us slow everything to a snail's pace, avoid contentious areas, and take the path of least resistance. Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
First, that diff's edit summary did not accurately summarize the edit. The edit did not change any "named parameters". More important, the edit changed date formats for no reason. Many editors prefer the YYYY-MM-DD format, and it's inappropriate to install mass changes to some other format. It's irrelevant whether Neurotypical had no dates in older versions; what's relevant for this process is what the article looks like now. Please take more care to not change date formats like this; this repeated format-changing without consensus is worrisome. Also, please publish the regular expressions used to perform these changes, so that we can all help to prevent this sort of problem in the future. Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Some of us think the YYYY-MM-DD format is an abomination, of course. I have yet to see a real world style guide that recommends it (YMMV). Mr Stephen (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It only arrived by the back-door of auto-formatting. It was the only way to enter the date in one field and have it auto-formatted. Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
No. YYYY-mm-dd dates are used because they are concise, unambiguous, syntactically definite, sortable, sane (most-significant digit first), intentionally agnostic and language independent. —Sladen (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a thought, at least in sortable tables, perhaps {{dts}} would help? --Tothwolf (talk) 23:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Rich is quite correct. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I would once again refer Sladen to the comments I left on his talk page. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
For a quarter of the World's population YYYY-mm-dd is their normal preferred date format.[note 1]Sladen (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
[29] No leading 0's used. Rich Farmbrough, 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
Oh and its not YYYY-mm-dd it's either YY-mm-dd or a more complex formulation 2009年2月18日 for example - and it is likely the majority actually write something completely different. since there are a number of scripts in China with their own numeral systems and in some cases more than one numeral system. Rich Farmbrough, 00:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
I would recommend a visit over guessing at straws; if nothing else, the passport stamps should provide a lasting reference point. —Sladen (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
You can post me the tickets whenever you like. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
I fear that the Standardization Administration of the People's Republic of China may disagree[30]. —Sladen (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
They disagree with themselves as they use YYY年MM月DD日, YYYY年MM月DD日 and MM-DD on their real home page - although the first one is probably a software error. But we al know that standards organisations consume their own dog food. Nonetheless the heading of the "Standardization Law of China" has two other date formats in it:
Agency responsible:
Issue date: 1988.12.29
Implementation date: 1989.04.01
(Adopted at the Fifth Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Seventh National People's Congress on December 29,1998)
So really that is all kinda fun but not terribly relevant.
Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
I doubt that is true. I think that a very large proportion format their dates as either "18 November 2009" or "November 18 2009", plus or minus a comma. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Well as Sladen says, path of least resistance applies, so there's no need to publish anything. But the eternal picking at edit summaries doesn't help - nor does using terms like "willy nilly" and "mangle". And if the previous versions are irrelevant how come you changed it from majority DMY to majority ISO style? Well never mind, we can sort this stuff out later, it will be harder, and it will be later. Rich Farmbrough, 22:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
The previous comment does not make it whether that this semiautomated date reformatting will stop. Will it? Eubulides (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It has already stopped. Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

I tend to agree with Rich on the knee jerk reaction thing. That was my reaction upon seeing the dreaded "AWB" edit summary on fully 1/3 of the pages on my watchlist, but ultimately there's nothing wrong with it. Seems like the arguments here are just... arguments. I mean, really: Who cares what China likes? They have their own Wikipedia (and can't even access half of that one anyway). That's really scraping the bottom of the argument barrel. At worst, the changes are quite harmless. I'd say overall, they're pretty helpful. Kafziel Complaint Department 00:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Well said, Kafziel, it's a red herring. It's what WP wants for itself which is important. Apparently "alot of people have complained", but the only evidence appears to be on this talk page, and the numbers can be counted on one hand, with several digits to spare. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Population of the People's Republic of China.


Bronzewiki 2.png
Congratulations, Rich Farmbrough! For your kindness to others, your hard work around the wiki, and for being a great user, you have been awarded the "Wikipedian of the Day" award for today, November 19th, 2009! Keep up the great work!
Note: You could also recieve the "Wikipedian of the Week award for this week!

Décémbér21st2012Fréak  |  Talk 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, most kind! Rich Farmbrough, 01:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Congratulations! Debresser (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cholsey railway station

With this edit you have inserted commas into two dates that ought not have them, being day month year. I shall remove them again. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a nice station, except when it is raining. While I have not been there for some years, I would not want to litter it with surplus commas. Rich Farmbrough, 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
P.S. I am checking my alst few thousand edits for more of the same. Rich Farmbrough, 12:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Bot status

Hi, can you use a user with bot status when making massive automatic changes? That would ease for those watching the pages you have been doing those changes. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See what I can do. Rich Farmbrough, 13:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

date work

Good work, but please check the MOS for the format for 'dd month yyyy' dates such as '17 November 2009'. I believe that commas are not allowed; they are only used in the 'month dd, yyyy' format, such as November 17, 2009. I am saying nothing about which format is preferred; I am only discussing the comma. Hmains (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, the question of whether to remove the comma is not trivial "... the troops moral fell to an all time low by 19 November, 2009, however, saw a new turn of events...." Rich Farmbrough, 08:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

But I certainly should not be adding commas. Rich Farmbrough, 08:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC).
you are/were doing so Hmains (talk) 04:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, fixed the problem (code fork), working on the symptom. Rich Farmbrough, 07:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC).


Since you partook in the first nomination, and I do not regularly see you on WP:CFD, I'd like to inform you of this nomination. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this time there is a real chance. Debresser (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Double listas

Hi, on various pages including Talk:Gerard Crole, Talk:Thomas H. Swope and Talk:Michelle Michaels you added an extra listas parameter instead of filling in the existing blank one. I know that you're busy unlinking dates these days, but I figured I'd point this out for when you return to listas work. Of course, these edits were two months ago, so you may have already fixed your AWB settings.... MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe that is resolved, but I will bear it in mind. Rich Farmbrough, 19:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC).

Need your expertise

Hi Rich, another editor is considering asking for an upgrade on the article for "Echoes", the song from Pink Floyd. However, there's a huge white patch that I've seen a hundred times on Wikipedia, where the text vs. the infobox leaves a big blank spot. Could you have a look at it, and either fix it, give me a name of another editor who could do this, or ask me to bug off if I'm wrong to consider the layout of the piece? It would of course, be gratefully appreciated, as I am computer illiterate for the most part. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You can use {{TOC left}} - I have put it in, but the TOC is quite short (a POWr TOC one might say) so the layout might be too busy like that. I tend to only use that with very long thin TOCs, 30 lines of years for example. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC).


What is wrong with the url and title in the example here? Debresser (talk) 12:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


Could you help clarify the "piping" issue in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_19#Categories_for_discussion, please. Debresser (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Section heading style

I'm puzzled... User:SmackBot makes edits like this, removing the spaces from eg == References == to make ==References==; yet User:MondalorBot does precisely the opposite. Which style should I follow for new section headers that I add to articles? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Whichever you like. On the whole SmackBot leaves these alone, certainly for it's main task of dating maintenance tags. The substantial majority of headers in articles have no extra spaces, presumably in analogy to other delimiters like () {} <> but if you use the new-section tab you will get spaces, so I would conclude editors in general prefer without - though I have heard both points of view. Rich Farmbrough, 14:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC).
I left Mondalor a note. Rich Farmbrough, 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC).

Quick question regarding...

Hi Rich Farmbrough. I'm Nonamer98, and I'm relatively new to wikipedia. I know the basics, but there are a few things that still puzzle me.

In the edit summary, how do you make it so that it says something like "Reverted/undid edit identified as vandalism by..." (I emphasized the important part)

Is there a format or something that I can't find? I know what vandalism looks like, and I only revert clear cases of vandalism.

You're input is greatly appreciated. Nonamer98 (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It depends, you could type it in the edit summary box, or past it there, but I expect you are seeing use of a tool like WP:Huggle. Rich Farmbrough, 08:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC).
You might be right. Here's an example I found on my watchlist:

Reverted 1 edit by identified as vandalism to last revision by Rich Farmbrough.

I want to make it so that it says the bold part. Any input? Thanks! Nonamer98 (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


You recently accidentally deleted some links to stub using AWB (I have restored them). No doubt AWB mistakes these for something connected with stub-articles. This is not the first time this has happened (I believe). Is there some mechanism for protecting content from AWB? --catslash (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I made a change to the article. You can use {{Nobots}} (qv) in a similar circumstance, but it should only be a stop gap. If possible I will file a bug report tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 23:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC).


Wow! Congratulations on passing the 500,000 mark! Heh, I thought it was a big deal when I hit 50,000 edits about ten days ago; now, that seems so tiny compared to your half a million. Anyways, keep up the good work, and I'll be seeing you, as always, popping up all over my Watchlist. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Rich! Good morning! Or at least, I hope it's morning where you live! Anyway, the article Brazil is blocked due to a dispute over a content. I would like to know if you would be interested in giving your opinion to end it once and for all. In case you do not know much about the subject, I could explain it better to you. This is the link. All help is needed. Thank your very much and kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:35, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I am answering you in here, hope you don't mind. Because in the Brazilian census, the mixed-blood population is all grouped in the "Pardo" category. Brazilian experts divide this category into several subcategories: the Caboclos (descendants of whites and Indians), Mulattoes (those of whites and blacks), cafuzos (those of balcks and Indians), Ainocôs (those of whites and Japanese) and Juçaras (those of white, black and Indian). Their geographic distribution across the country is not equal. For example, in the Amazon rainforest (also known as the Northern region of Brazil) where very, very few African slaves were sent to, the Mulatto and black population is a rarity, while the Caboclo is the predominant one. In the Southeast (Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo, Minas Gerais, etc...), due to the coffe farms and gold mines where many African slaves were brought to work, from the 17th to the middle of the 19th century, there is a large population of Mulattoes. This is not what I am talking, but what experts on that field say. The other editor claimed that 85% of the population in the Amazon rainforest is black. He got a newspaper article whose author simply added Pardo to black category from the official census and said that both combined were a black population. Yes, it's an obvious mistake from the author of the article, but that's his problem. So, this is it: the dispute is between sources based on Brazilian academic experts and a source based on a newsparer's article. --Lecen (talk) 12:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree 100% with you. Are you going to "pick" a side on that one or do you prefer to stay away? The article is blocked and the matter must be resolved sooner or later.
But sharing with you my personal opinion, it does not make any sense to say that a Brazilian is black because it has 10% of black genes. Because all Brazilians (including blacks) have at least 40% white genes. So, everyone is white now? Anyway, that was a newsparer article written by an unknown and non-specialized author. It shouldn't be taken as a source when all Brazilian experts do not agree with it. --Lecen (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

List of centenarians

Hey Rich,

Thanks for taking the time out to fix the commas in the dates, but this this date is contained in the title of reference, and is therefore a direct quote, so shouldn't it be left out? Cheers, CP 15:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

More work for you!!!

Hi, Rich! You probably aren't going to be as excited as the title of this post suggests, but I do indeed have work for you, if you have time and are willing to help. Basically, the gist is that I have upgraded {{Infobox Russian district}} to be more like {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}, which means that the newly upgraded template also contains the "date=" parameter used internally to date uncited fields. Could you, please, add it to your bot workload the same way you did for the inhabited localities? Thanks much!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:45, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

The date param did not add correctly here. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done.

Alexey Steele

Hello, Rich, I added a feature article from the LA TIMES concerning painter, Alexey Steele, and although I do not imagine myself to be as smart as a computer programmer like yourself, I think that confers notability on the man, since there are very few artists in the USA who ever manage to get a single word written about themselves in the LA Times, let alone an entire two page feature article. But I leave it to your judgment and discretion to determine if the tag should be removed or not. Cheers.

Big Media Articles (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich, I also forgot to mention that I added a reference about Steele receiving the Artemis Award in Athens, Greece not too long ago, an award received by only 14 individuals including a Nobel Prize winner, an Emmy winner, etc. It seems to confer international notability upon Steele, since I doubt there are many USA-based painters who have received any such acclaim from outside America. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers.

Big Media Articles (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Answered on user's talk page.} Rich Farmbrough, 09:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
hello, Rich, thanks for sending me the notes. Based upon Steele's history section, I thought you placed the notability tag on his listing but if not, then my error, and sorry about that. Based upon your comments, I will remove the tag, since you do not seem to object.
As for Dr. Devra Davis, she did, in fact, belong to the group awarded the Nobel Prize in 2007, as per the following paragraph, taken from a news service:
"She also served as a Lead Author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the group awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007."
It is not unusual for members of a Nobel Prize Winning Group of individuals to be credited on a personal basis...for example, Doctors Without Borders won a Nobel Prize in 1999 and the key members of the group (at that time) are often credited individually with having won the Nobel.
Anyway, thanks for such an expeditious response to my queries. Cheers.

Big Media Articles (talk) 09:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Her work on AR3/WG3 should be noted in her article, not the Noble though, since that was the 2001 report - and lead author sounds impressive - the chapters she was a lead author of had 15 and 10 lead authors (less "contributing" authors). Also her work on the short term benefits of reducing fossil fuel consumption
  • Davis, D., 1997: The Hidden Benefits of Climate Policy: Reducing Fossil Fuel use Saves Lives Now. Environmental Health, Notes 1-6.
  • Davis, D.L., A. Krupnick, and G. Thurston, 2000: The Ancillary Health Benefits and Costs of GHG Mitigation: Scope, Scale, and Credibility. Expert Workshop on Assessing the Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Policies, March 27-29, Washington, DC.
Rich Farmbrough, 11:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
Rich, it looks like you are 100% correct. I salute you for sleuthing the issue and getting to the heart of the matter, VERY impressive! Well, I still am inclined to believe Steele is notable in his own right, not simply by process of association, IMHO. Cheers.

Big Media Articles (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


Hi, Rich. Could you run SmackBot on references errors, please? Debresser (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The last entry in the log is of 18 November. Debresser (talk) 11:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Date format damage

As politely as I can ask, in the sweetest of cute fluffy cutesy baby rabbit voices, please could you curtail the use of unvetted high-speed automated rules to attack YYYY-mm-dd dates. Eg. this edit[31] has modified an article that exclusively used YYYY-mm-dd dates in its references[32] section and now introduced multiple formats... (MOS:NUM#Format consistency). —Sladen (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit[33] introduces European dates into the references section where all but one full dates was in YYYY-mm-dd and the one exception was in US-format. —Sladen (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit[34] delinks and unilaterally converts YYYY-mm-dd dates, but then fails to delink the US-format dates in the same sentence. —Sladen (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit[35] converts YYYY-mm-dd inside a named date parameter, despite the summary line suggesting that is not the case. —Sladen (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit[36] also converts a YYYY-mm-dd date, despite the references section using exclusively YYYY-mm-dd dates. —Sladen (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit[37] unilaterally converts a date where the references section uses exclusively' YYYY-mm-dd dates. —Sladen (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
These consecutive edits[38][39] convert YYYY-mm-dd dates in tables that consistently and exclusively use YYYY-mm-dd dates for brevity, making a mess of the tables. —Sladen (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
These consecutive edits[40][41] converts a YYYY-mm-dd date in a references section that exclusively uses YYYY-mm-dd dates. —Sladen (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually not, it turns out. the first one had another dmy date in the ref section, the second didn't change the ref. Rich Farmbrough, 11:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
This edit[42] converts YYYY-mm-dd dates to European dates, despite every date in the article being in YYYY-mm-dd, except one, which was in US-date format... —Sladen (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
This edit[43] converts YYYY-mm-dd to European, despite the majority of the references, and the rest of the article using US-format dates. —Sladen (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I see Rich has reverted them all. In the meantime, I have delinked all the dates, and have aligned them in the correct format, as appropriate for the article. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I actually reverted most of them, some Sladen had sorted a couple I fixed up. Rich Farmbrough, 11:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
  • As a general point, the above twelve highlights were from a consecutive range of 25 edits that happened to be on Special:Contributions at the time I looked. If the same ~50% failure rate has indeed been extrapolated across all of the recent AWB date edits, then there will have been an immense amount of inconsistency introduced. —Sladen (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


This diff has picked up 0-6-0 as a date instead of a railway engine type. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, I know they are railway configurations and thought I had dealt with that. As well as football line-ups and a few other things, well I'll checkem out. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
OK I picked up another one, and a couple (so far) of articles that needed linking, and put hat notes about 4-2-4 and 4-4-2 (which I'm pretty sure I disambiguated a couple years back). So a worthwhile exercise. Rich Farmbrough, 11:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

US format date cleanup

This edit changes[44] "August 15th 2007" to "August 15 2007", rather than "August 15, 2007" (MOS:DATE). —Sladen (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm well it should be "August 15th, 2007" but that is certainly worth looking out for in general. I'm working through the other items too. Rich Farmbrough, 00:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
No. It should be "15 August 2007" or "August 15, 2007". And this edit[45] (made eight minutes ago) should not have had a comma added. —Sladen (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As in the fact that it was an ordinal did not mean that the comma wasn't required. Rich Farmbrough, 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
Eh? WP:MOSDATE allows precisely three full date formats; your edit took a full date in one of those formats and changed it into none-of them. As did this edit[46] and this one[47] (both since the above). —Sladen (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
"August 15th 2007" isn't one of the three allowed. The other two are revised already. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 00:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC).
Ta—my apologies for the statement "your edit took a full date in one of those formats", which was incorrect and thank you for having fixed it (and the other two noted). —Sladen (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates for preferences

Hi. In the course of other edits, I have delinked your purposeful date-linking here. Sorry, but I don't see how MOS:UNLINKDATES (and the bit about autoformatting) doesn't apply here. Persuade me otherwise if you wish. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right to unlink them. If you read the history you will see I was self reverting. This was as a response to the above:

These consecutive edits[48][49] converts a YYYY-mm-dd date in a references section that exclusively uses YYYY-mm-dd dates. —Sladen (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for re-unlinking. Rich Farmbrough, 11:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

Your correct edits

Hi your edits were very good but have been reverted on topic Islam and Sikhism Thanks 5705noreply (talk) 05:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank for letting me know, a bot will pick that up later. Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC).

The article 1787

Sorry, I had to revert your edit to get at some vandalism. Thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to re-do it. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh thanks, you could have just deleted the vandalism though. No need to un-do, un-do in a simple case like that. Rich Farmbrough, 19:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC).


Since I noticed that Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template has been populated by them same articles for a few days, I decided to fix them. And walked into Template:Failed verification that does not yet have the substitution detection. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Dates, dates, again, again

Rich, pardon WP:STALK, but please strongly consider whether it's really possible for a human to accurately edit and review at seven articles per minute:

  1. This edit[50] converts a YYYY-mm-dd where the references section exclusively used YYYY-mm-dd.
  2. This edit[51] rewrites + breaks three URLs by inserting random spaces.
  3. This edit[52] hides an in-line link, despite WP:OVERLINK/WP:EGG ("avoid linking ... the names of major geographic features and locations"), and then inserts three instances of "January2002" [sic].
    Look at the next edit. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
    Ta for the date fix. Can I reiterate WP:OVERLINK—we're trying to get rid of useless links, not add more! "Ohio" does need adding as a separate link (especially when the previous sentence has the abomination "U.S. state of Ohio"). Same applies to Wisconsin, Oregon. Michigan, Scotland... —Sladen (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  4. This edit[53] converts a YYYY-mm-dd in a named parameter; which previously the summaries rules were claiming to avoid.
    Yes because I was first asked not to chage acessdates then ref date= then... so I threw that out if the window as a rule. In this infobox this is a better format.

Sladen (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC) (All from the top of Special:Contributions).

  1. "references section exclusively used" - There's only one ref with one date - no need to overegg the pudding ;-)
  2. Agreed the script needs to avoid this sort of false positive
  3. Agreed, this is one of those potentially ambiguous date formats probably best left for humans to resolve.
  4. This is not a "parameter" in that no calculation or interpretation depends on it. Space is not an issue, so I see no particular reason for this to be in 8601.
Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


The SmackBot bot seems to have placed an {{advert}} tag on the article on Evan Kohlmann. I am surprised at this, thinking that either this would be a tag that only a real human being should apply, because it requires real human judgment -- or alternatively, if we can trust a bot's heuristics to apply it, the edit summary should link to the rules the bot used.

Is the bot still applying this tag? Geo Swan (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The important phrase here is "(One intermediate revision not shown)". Rich Farmbrough, 09:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For being the first person to reach the 500,000 edit mark, I award you this Barnstar for your efforts. Thanks for being a leader among all Wikipedians. Chris (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Chris, much appreciated. Rich Farmbrough, 13:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC).


How can I change ==Header== to == Header == using AWB? Debresser (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich, do you have time to explain this to me. I just found out that I can use AWB on Innerpedia as well, but don't know how. Debresser (talk) 12:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

There still remains something to fix. Sorry, but the regex article is still a bit hard for me, so if you could please help. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

List of artists who have covered Bob Dylan songs

I noticed you have changed the format on the headings and subheadings for the article. In my opinion I think it's less easy to read as a result. Is it possible for it to be changed back or has it been discussed somewhere that the new format is better than the previous one? If the page is to be kept in the current format should pages such as List of artists who have covered Van Morrison and the Beatles songs be changed as well to show consistency? Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
Thanks Kitchen roll (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

AWB rules

Could you please check/tweak some AWB rules: this edit[54] (a) breaks an image link; (b) replaces hyphen with &nbsp; instead of endash; (c) inserts the seventh month as September, not July (d) and linkifies a d-m-YYYY date. Same here[55], breaking a doi= link. Thanks, —Sladen (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem now. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

This edit[56], appears to have made the article's table a mess of inconsistency. —Sladen (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how your AWB script works: of two identically formatted (ie linked, ISO) dates in one article, it only converts and delinks one... Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It's avoiding accessed on , retrieved on and archived on. Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
  • Then it could still result in inconsistencies within reference sections, violating WP:MOSNUM. If the 'date' parameter is converted whilst leaving 'accessdate' untouched, there will be at least two different date formats in the refs section. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Well people argue(d) that acessdate= should be left as ISO even if the date is words, then other people argued that date= should be left as ISO too... basically I was only looking at about 1% of the dated articles and reduced that further to about 1/3 of 1%. Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
Congratulations due—this is the first I've seen "Rich Farmbrough" appear in my Watchlist, reviewed the last dozen AWB steamroller edits and not found major carnage. —Sladen (talk) 03:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Please fix the AWB rules to check if the NNNN exists in the article title before removing the "'"[57]. —Sladen (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A number can be a name. A person or object with a name can possess something. Therefore a number followed by apostrophe-s is potentially valid. Since you do not read articles carefully enough after editing them to decide whether the added "s" indicates a time period or possession, you should not make such changes. --Jc3s5h (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Eg. B movies (Transition in the 1950s)#Mutating genres: "such as rape in 1950's Outrage (released by RKO) and 1953's self-explanatory The Bigamist". —Sladen (talk) 18:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try[58] to leave the comment <!--- See [[Wikipedia:Footnotes]] on how to create references using <ref></ref> tags which will then appear here automatically --> intact. —Sladen (talk) 02:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Have a break

Have a wikibreak. The articles on my watchlist invariably you have done more harm than good. I know you are a good editor. Take a break. Si Trew (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Or if not, just shut up. Your edits are generally destructive. You love the plaudits but never respond to anyone who has genuine, real criticisms of your editing habits. Sheesh, your bot works OK most of the time, and you AWB to fix some other stuff. Other editors actually make stuff are annoyed (at least one, guess who) when your bot or yourself under AWB "corrects" something that was perfectly correct under WP.MOS and so forth, let alone being referenced and for facts, wikified and stuff.
It is quite easy to just fuck up other editors' contributions. Harder to fix them. You still after three attempts to ask you to discuss about Hungarian templates have not even bothered to respond. I go WP:ANI I know I will lose but you are a nuisance if you do not listen to humble editors who are actually making content. There is a place for doing it, SmackBot does it well, but you don't even bother to look at the articles before AWB. There may have been a lot of consideration into how to put it, before you "correct" it. With translated articles especially, it is very hard to translate and you trample all over it.
Totally fed up with your editing style. But I do truly believe you are a good faith editor, even though you could not deign to my last three requests to sort out the Hungarian templates. I would have done the work, just needed you to give direction. You could not be bothered. So you like to have a big edit count, I think, and don't care about the content.

Wishes, Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


Is it you who has fixed almost half of the articles in Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters? Debresser (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

No I did few, but I want SmackBot to do it. BRFA has bee waiting a couple weeks seems like. I think Rjw was working on it. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Happy Thanksgiving!

Thanksgiving Turkey.jpg
December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promate WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{subst:User:December21st2012Freak/Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

December21st2012Freak  Happy Thanksgiving! 16:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Date out of Nihongo template

Could you stop putting dates out of Nihongo template? I don't think that's the convention. -- Taku (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Another Barnstar

Minor Barnstar.png The Minor Barnstar
Thanks.I see you all over the place, quietly fixing articles. Your name constantly appears on my Watch list. Graham Colm Talk 10:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot-related opinion

I think your opinion would we welcomed at WP:VPT#Toolserver IP editing logged-out again. Oh, and well done for the awesome milestone achievement. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwelcome template

Template:Formatfootnotes Debresser (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - doesn't that depend when it is used? For example see footnote 1. Rich Farmbrough, 21:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
What do you mean? Debresser (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
If editors will start adding a template to articles with or without references error, that is going to be a capital mess. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Mr. Farmbrough's suggested usage is what I intended it for, there are lots of articles cited like that, which would be better served with ref tagged references. --(ƒî)» 22:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You mean for cases where a footnote is not defined as such? If so, perhaps make a new error category for that. We have a few already, for various types, but all are sorted into by MediaWiki. Making a new category, to go with the new template, would seem reasonable to me. Manually or with a maintenance template adding the category does not. Debresser (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Why didn't I do that in the first place? --(ƒî)» 22:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Rich, may I draw your attention to this edit of mine? Debresser (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
I have a feeling this template is going to be popular. It might make sense to turn it into a dated template with monthly categories from the beginning. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for all your work here. I try when I make a template to give reasonable error messages, rather than it just say nothing or whatever, which is very hard to debug. This is a great advance, at least to see and know something is wrong, rather than it just swallow erroneous input. You will see at my testcases (e.g. Template:Hungarian settlement rank name/testcases or Template:Ordinal to word/0 to 19 I don't just test the cases that work, I test the cases that do not work. I hope this gives editors using them, which are few I admit, an idea of when they are sending it broken input. I am a software engineer after all. Si Trew (talk) 07:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm a liar cos there are no testcases for the rank name. I am going to fix the doc, too, now that Mayar Téleüles Infobox has gone. I will try to do this at the others in that cat, but could do with a second set of eyes in case I miss any. Si Trew (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for this fix. Thought I went back and added the reflist template, but obviously not! Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 16:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

List of cities, towns and villages in Hungary

Hi Rich,

I have conglomerated this from List of Towns and Cities in Hungary A-M and List of Towns and Cities N-Z. Since it it is a list I can't see the point of having it split. Now I need your help.

The population figures - ignore that they are not quite matching the articles themselves, for now - are pushed together with the postal code. Which makes Bácsalmás have a population of 7,1611,6430, which of course is nonsense. I have gone through "A" and split them with align=right, but you may be able to do better with a bot I think. They are in separate table fields, just not aligned properly. And of course under WP:MOSNUM the spaces should be replaced by commas. Could you do this with a bot? It is fairly simple really but you are the bot expert not me.

I dunno whether to link the county names cos it could well be WP:OVERLINK. If you want to, subst {{Hungarian county link}}.

I should appreciate your advice. Letter A is now OK except if I made silly mistake, but the rest still needs doing. Si Trew (talk) 09:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Rich, much appreciated. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

900 (number)

I don't think removing your edit removing DEAULTSORT has anything to do with MOSUNLINKDATES. I'm not saying the edit is inappropriate, just that it's trivial. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Template:Infobox Hungarian settlement

Please don't forget this. I did ask you politely about the way to fix this up (with a bot assist and some template changes), twice. The second time you did not reply (as far as I can tell). I don't mind doing the template fixup but need your consensus first, if we need to run SmackBot over it. Si Trew (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, I will try to remind myself about this and see what to do. Rich Farmbrough, 11:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC).

need to re-read/ Rich Farmbrough, 08:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC).

OK the problem here is simply as you identified that we can't use parameters inside a ref. May relate to an existing Bugzilla bug. That aside I have tweaked the template and some documentation, it is not perfect because we are assuming 1 January 2008, but we have to hope that the above bug is fixed in the next couple of years then we can use <population as of> in the ref. Rich Farmbrough, 19:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
But we have a good reference already. Why do we want to get rid of it? Rich Farmbrough, 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
But the parameters are wrong. Get it? I put in a couple of parameters, you disliked the name of it, I attempted to discuss but your bot went and changed them all anyway as a fait accompli. So then I asked whether to change the template, three times, no reply. So I think you just think it is just job done and move on to your next project to destroy. Stay and fix this with me please, I asked you three times with no reply at all, and all we have to do is agree on the names in the template then run the bot to fix what you have broken. And you have broken it, regardless of what you say. The template automaticaééy reffed and you broke that. Can we please sort it out because I am losing my good faith in you, I think you just get a good project in your head and forget the mess behind you. Si Trew (talk) 20:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
To get to details: Let's have ksh_code (not ksh_code_2008), fron other advice these seem very very stable. From before the Communist era. I am working on maps on these too, and they are very stable. Let's add a date field ksh_date and we then stick them together when necessary. Then we link area and population to the automatically provided ref. And I wrote KSH (Hungarian Central Statistical Office) and did all the links and know that is quite stable, as much as e.g. INSEE or whatever. So is that OK? But I need your bot then to run over and fix the articles it broke. Si Trew (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree with ksh_date. We already have population_as_of. But as you found out in October and I found out today you can't use parameters in refs. So it makes more sense to use the refs that have been generated already. We can even drive the bot off the parameters by creating a tracking category "Hungarion infoxes with ksh code but no footnote". Rich Farmbrough, 20:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
[59] currently has both footnotes. which is better? the one with the link or the one without? Rich Farmbrough, 21:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
There is a trick to get you to do elaboration in refsm i.e. swindle the parser. Someone put it on my talk, I will put it here if you think it useful (or you can check ny talk) Si Trew (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, "{{tag}} doesn't do it, that is just "<lt;"... Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

(oudent) You're right, I hadn't read it really, and it is just saying use {{tl}}. I thought there was something more curious, though, a little trick that would get round the parser and do that kind of trick, like one does with {{{!}} and so on. But this isn't it.

It's not good form to edit content on user talk pages. You just can't help yourself can you. Si Trew (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK so i am trying to get to the nub of the gist here and Csomád as you pointed out is a great exannple. From the KSH code it generates the link to the KSH inline, in the infobox. There is then a reference to the KSH generally. Then one to the KSH with the name of the place and it links to it with the KSH code.
The first and second are my doing, the third is yours (or your bot's). As I see it, the third is far nicer, but requires a bot to do it cos one cannot do it by constructing the reference using #PAGENAME and Template:Ksh code etc. to pull it together. So, to propose:
  • Add ksh_code_2008 as a synonym for ksh_code. Add ksh_date
  • Run bot to replace ksh_code_2008 with ksh_code in existing articles
  • When done, remove ksh_code_2008
  • Then try to sort out the mess with multiple references. I did attempt to use a footnote for this, but footnote_blank in {{Infobox settlement}} does not work. Or if it does it must have a bizarre set of rules which are not documented. Which means, it does not work.

I will do the first bit now, as nothing gets broken. I was hoping to avoid the duplicatio, but so be it, nothing then gets broken by doing so. YOu might end up with three references in Csomád, who knows (and that is on the list for our translating it from HU:WP. So far we are only down to the end of A.)

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you've broken it. It is t his that frustrates me. I try and try and try to get a consensus how to do it, and still you go ahead and break it. Because I wanted to keep ksh code 2008 until your bot cleared t hem up. But you took it out and broke it. SHeesh, I could have broken it myself, that would not be difficult, the whole point was not to break existing articles. See WP:OWNFEET, please. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I edited Abony to use the new fields. It is broken, it complains there is no cite ref. It is broken. Si Trew (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The behaviour is documented (could be better). When you add ksh_code you need to add the population_footnotes.
  • I may be wrong Simon but I think the only broken articles were Ráckeve and Abony. Both fixed.
  • There were 6 articles using ksh_code_2008 - all fixed. 5 needed a population_footnotes field. Some of these you had removed the footnote.
  • All articles that have a ksh_code have a population_footnotes field. Most of these you had removed the footnote.
  • We don't need ksh_date, we have population_as_of.
  • Currently every article has a "}}" at the beginning. fixed
  • There is a limit to the number of hours I am willing to spend trying to "trick" the parser into doing stuff it should do anyway. I have probably spent dozens of hours on that, sometimes I have succeeded, sometimes not.
    • If you get auto ref generation working, great, let me know how.
    • Meanwhile either:
      • cut and paste the population footnotes field.
      • if you add ksh_code to a significant number of articles I can run AWB to add the footnotes (I set it up and there were only a handful (well 2 + 5) of articles that needed it)
      • or you could make a subst template
    • It is possible it might make sense to replace the static part of the url with a literal template {{Ksh url}} (should be KSH url really). That way if they change the structure of their site we just have to make one change.
Rich Farmbrough, 09:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
Incidentally the broken items should have showed up at Category:Hungarian settlements with KSH code lacking footnote. Rich Farmbrough, 10:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
OK that all sounds good. I know I am a bastard engineer who just wants it right. Of course I could have fixed Abony but wanted to leave it as an example of how it could go wrong. Can you say, we are now definitely all on ksh_code not ksh_code_2008? The ksh_date I am not sure about. population_as-of totally understand, but also the area figures come from there too. I would suggest that keep as ksh_date and just feed it to population_as_of, do you agree? The population density, given area and poulation, is computed with {{pop_density}} in {{Infobox settlement}} which is somewhat annoying as one cannot then just put in free text, e.g. to knock down the precision or whatever. I think that it should be a free form text field, what do you think?
Thanks for all your work here and thanks for putting up with a grumpy bastard (i.e. meself.) I am glad we got it fixed. Now I can use it with confidence in many other Hungarian geo articles I have to edit. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes all articles are on ksh_code. ksh_date/population_as_of - well either are a bit kludgy - but we could I suppose feed ksh_date as an alternative "population_as_of = {population_as_of|{ksh_date|}}" (with all the extra {}) - then if there were an <area_as_of> in the future we could do the same. The other question is whether we should make sure people can add sources other than KSH, I guess as it stands they can but inelegantly. Rich Farmbrough, 12:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
BTW, for the record, Abony is the best tst case because it uses the template and has most of the fields, and, er, happens to be the first in the list alphabetically. Coincidence? Test Acsa and Sulyap to make sure, I think that uses {{Magyar település infobox}}
Nothing uses {{Magyar település infobox}}. Acsa is fine, Sulyap, maybe has a diacritic? Rich Farmbrough, 12:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
My typo there, it is Sülysap. It should have redirect without the diacritic, but I missed the S. It is the missus' home town so we did that one first (and improved the Hungarian, it is odd with the HU:WP, they seem to like removing information instead of adding it.) So it is basically, from your stance, a random article.
I dunno why you say nothing uses {{Magyar település infobox}}. Did you change them to use {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}}? I checked "what links here" and it does seem nothing links to it. I dunno know whether it is better to delete it, now that Hungarian Infobox settlement works pretty well, or to leave it be, as it does no harm. What do you think? If you proposed it for deletion I would be neutral, but I can see a good argument for it being deleted. Frankly only Monkap and I actually do the translations of these articles and we can get along quite fine with the English version. Should we delete it? Si Trew (talk) 17:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes we translated them all months ago. We can delete it, (easy enough to undelete) if we aren't bringing any more articles/infoboxes over using automation. Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC).
OK let's delete it, if you PROD it I will support as author and say it is no longer needed. It is a bizarre way to learn a language, I know what a mayor is (polgarmeister) and a county (megye) but not how to say yes or no.
I could speedy it but would likely be declined, better for you to PROD it I think. Si Trew (talk) 06:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
I speedied it as an unused template. Rich Farmbrough, 10:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC).
OK, slightly surprised it was accepted at SPEEDY, but one less thing to worry about. Thanks for all your work here. Thanks Rich, it is very much appreciated. Si Trew (talk) 07:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I see you added infoboxes at Mezőberény. Thanks for that. It's referenced from László Németh, which we are currently translating, but it's hard going at that article. Thanks once again, your help in improving these articles I truly appreciate. Si Trew (talk) 16:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot and obsolete parameters

Since you are dealing with films can you also remove obsolete parameters from Infobox film? Check Category:Film articles using deprecated parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes sure. Rich Farmbrough, 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Removing stub tags

Bots should not remove stub tags from articles that have been manually assessed as stubs. I, personally, assessed Virtual Pool franchise as a stub, because it is missing probably at least 50% of the information it needs. Smackbot had no business making up it's "mind" that I'm wrong. If it is just going on article length or some rubric like that, it needs to stop. At very, very least it should never countermand WikiProject tag assessments on the article's talk page (as long as one still says "Stub", it's still a stub, unless a) only one such project tag says so, and b) that tag has |auto=yes). I would also suggest strongly that it never remove stub tags when there is more than one stub tag, since it is fairly likely that this represents the human-mind judgement of 2 or more editors. At any rate, "stubness" is principally a factor of logical article depth and completion, not length in bytes or characters. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text" - and stub-class assessment is a separate matter. This article is certainly not a stub in my opinion. It needs a expand tag not a stub. Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC).


At this edit, SmackBot deleted an image, leaving the summary "Standard headings &/or gen fixes. using AWB". It happened nearly two years ago, and it seems no one has noticed until now. Can you explain the edit, please? Moonraker2 (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This is my mistake, and it was the next edit. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

About the edit filter

Yesterday, I accidentally tripped filter 263 (Serafin - talk page abuse) and my autoconfirmed status had been revoked. I was trying to warn an IP about vandalism on an article on a profane word when the filter "recognize" that I abused the talk page (because of the profane word, when it is actually referring to the article). Fortunately, it's a false positive and I believe the filter has been fixed by User:Zzuuzz. See here. Will I ever trip the filter again and have my autoconfirmed status revoked if I warn a vandal regarding the article on a profane word on his talk page now, since the abuse filter is already fixed?  Merlion  444  10:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

[60] R.F. 2015-10-22Z23:02

Date Maintenance Tags and General Fixes

Hey there, What does "Date Maintenance Tags and General Fixes" mean? I read it in the edit summary on Karl Rove. Is this automated? If so, it's really cool. How did you invent it? Any way to get an automaton to do all the editing on controversial topics? Would save a lot of green house gases from being expelled into the atmosphere. LOL. Malke 2010 (talk) 15:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
Wow, that is very cool. I've always wondered about the "citation needed" thing. So when you put up "citation needed" it gets dated and then how does the system notify editors that they need to kick into gear and get a real source up on the article?Malke 2010 (talk) 15:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Amazing, the size of it all. Truly defines the term "work in progress." Well, now that I'm aware of this sort of thing, I will be very diligent in seeing to it that any articles I work on are properly cited. I'm also amazed by the "dead links" tool. Brilliant, whoever figured that out.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

accessdate= improvement

This edit[61]; rules for improvement... —Sladen (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

you've got it. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pages with citation templates etc.

Although I agree with the move, there are 20 templates that sorted into Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters, and you changed only {{Cite web}} to Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. The others are found on User:Debresser/My_work_on_Wikipedia#Accessdate. So it is either change all, or change none. Debresser (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks saved me visiting your talk page to ask. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
My pleasure. I made all the new monthly maintenance categories (apart from 3 that had been created already today). I am very anxious about the Cfd templates. I'd hate there should be complaints now that we've finally got those categories renamed. See above Debresser (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Will you do talkpages, userpages and wikipedia pages as well? I'll of course fix anything you leave, but I do think your AWB does it 10 times quicker than I do. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bot status (again)

You still didn't get a user with bot status to perform those massive automatic edits so I'm unable to automatically differentiate these irrelevant bot edits in my watchlist.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cite journal

Hi, this edit has broken linking of short-notes to references (including Harvard referencing) for {{cite journal}}. The field is documented as |ref=, which is how it's used in hundreds of articles; but the template no longer recognises that - it's now looking for |Ref=. Parameter names are case-sensitive, and it appears to be normal to use lower-case parameter names unless there is a good reason not to; I can't find a policy doc, but see User:Slambo's comments here. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are guidelines. Mea culpa. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Spanish municipalities

Perhaps you'd be interested in copying infoboxes from Spanish wikipedia. They are in big need of sorting out and are very inconsistent. Even the ones were currently have are a mess with paramaters and dividers in the wrong place and just yuck. See User talk:Plastikspork. We have a wrapper template Template:Infobox Spanish municipality. I believe you can copy most of the infobox and it will wprk we now just need to find a way to transfer both maps and them to display like Nerha for instance. If you could discuss it with Plastikspork we can find out whats best and then if you are interested paerhaps you could do the prelimary interwiki copying and then Plastikspork at a later date can convert to infobox settlement. Either way it needs some discussion first to ensure it is done as efficiently as possible and to save possible time later.... Himalayan 21:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we should coordinate the effort if you, Rich, want to help. I have a PerlWikipedia script that can transfer infoboxes from the Spanish language wikipedia, to the English language wikipedia, and perform various automated edits (ala AWB). I ended up using PerlWikipedia since it wasn't clear to me how to do this with AWB. I am planning to have a look at it later today. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The lists can be found in the categories of Category:Municipalities of Spain,,, Using Plastik's script it should work.... I'd say the vast majority are in need of replacement or are missing or have out of date data or have a grye infobox and needs replacing etc so it would probably best to do most of them and overide the current infoboxes (which even if they have an infobox settlement it is infobox city or a mess in terms of order...) . This will also ensure standardisation later. I think the top 10 spanish cities are OK though.... Himalayan 22:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

At last


Now you should probably delete the January category,since that is premature. I'd leave the December one in place. Are all involved templates updated? Debresser (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Will you take care of {{Cfr}}, {{Cfm}}, {{Cfd}}, {{Cfr-speedy}}, {{Cfc nomination}}, {{Cfm nomination}}, {{Cfl nomination}}. These should be all, but the Cfx_nomination ones are used by templates that perhaps may be simplified now. I'm not sure. Debresser (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried my hand at it on {{Cfr-speedy}}. Please check it as well. Debresser (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder, don't change the beginning and end remarks, because that will break bots. Debresser (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I did the Cfx_nomination ones as well, but I think there is still much superfluous code there. BTW, I didn't use DMC in any of them, because these templates use substitution. Is there a workaround? Debresser (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you do it now, because the new month is beginning. Debresser (talk) 15:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages etc. need the same fixing of deprecated parameters as articles.
Although there is no compelling reason to use DMC, it is what we do in all other dated maintenance templates: either {{Fix}} or {{DMC}}. It would look nicer on Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories with templates as well... Debresser (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I used DMC in {{Cfr-speedy}}. It took me a few tries to get it right. If you'll agree to do the other templates, good. BTW, could you check for redundant things in the Cfx_nomination templates also, please? Debresser (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I also added {{DMC}} to {{Cfc nomination}}, {{Cfm nomination}}, {{Cfl nomination}}, and changed the templates {{Cfc1}}, {{Cfm1}}, {{Cfl1}} that use them appropriately. That was quite a job. I also removed all redundant messages. Could you have a look whether the three sets (2 Cfc, 2 Cfm, and 2 Cfl templates) can not be combined into three single templates? Debresser (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

autoformatting templates

I thought you might be interested to know there are several thousand articles which use date-autoformatting templates. As there is consensus against autoformatting, I have started removing those templates whilst aligning the date formats. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Change to Infobox film

Hey Rich, I think your latest edit to {{Infobox film}} broke something. The poster images are not defaulting to 200px anymore. - kollision (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Ty fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Hi, I'm just wondering why the change to spaced paramaters has been made? PC78 (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009–10 New Mexico Lobos basketball team

I have nominated for deletion an article you edited. You are welcome to comment in the discussion. LadyofShalott 21:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


I have tried too hard and messed up the references. Any chance of you reverting it? -I may cause further 'damage.' I will then sensibly add one new reference and some info!! Thanks for the assistance. Rosser Gruffydd 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks for your help. Rosser Gruffydd 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikify stats

Hi there. Thanks for the infrastructure work on Project Wikify. One thing I've noticed is the summing of articles requiring wikification has some inconsistencies. For example, the the total given on the main page today at 22:22 UTC was 19905, where-as on the month-specific pages, such as for December 2007,the total was 19943. Then adding up the monthly numbers (shown on the Decemeber and other monthly pages), the total was 20721. This might just be an aretfact of the timing of scripts, but in case there might be an error within scripts (or elsewhere), I thought I'd raise it. Cheers! Heds (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

  • mae culpa - I double checked my calcs before posting, but it would seem I repreated an error in my check, which seems to have been double counting a particular month somehow. Sorry to have troubled you. All the best, Heds (talk) 02:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorting question

Just a thought, but wouldn't it be easier for sorting for DS or pipes to only have the first letter of the first word capitalized?

- J Greb (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

All caps may not be a problem, though it would result in a DS on every page. IIUC, that's something we don't want.
As for all lower... aside from the same issue as all caps, it would also look a little funky on the category pages since people expect the capital header. There may also be an issue with the ToC templates - the most commonly used ones only look for caps.
Beyond that, we've already got an MoS-like bar on 1) non-Latin characters in the DS and 2) double caps in last names. It isn't much of a stretch to propose "For the ease of sorting, please limit capital letters to just the initial letter of the sort argument."
True... very true. It may just be a case of having the two methods co-existing. - J Greb (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jimmy Slade

Hi Rich,

I saw that you went through and removed NYC-transport-stub from a number of New York City Subway station articles. Thank you. However, Jimmy Slade is still reverting! User:Me Three has asked him to stop re-adding the template to articles that are not stubs. I have asked him, begged him, etc. I don't have enough diffs for evidence to open an RFC on him. His Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and attempted ownership of articles is getting really old. What can we do? Acps110 (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

interactions Magazine

I noticed that SmackBot "corrected" the title capitalization of Interactions (magazine) in September of 2008. However, the magazine title is properly all in lowercase (weird, I know). I don't want to correct it back if the bot is just going to reverse it again. Can you help? Netmouse (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It changed "External Links" to "External links" back in 2008. But there is policy/guidelines on these weird caps for tradenames. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

Date ranges and AWB

Hi, please be careful when using AWB to delink date ranges on music-related pages, as some of those are album titles and shouldn't be delinked (i.e. [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]). I have filed an AWB bug here. Thanks. Mushroom (Talk) 02:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

17th to Seventeenth/MoS?

Hi. I see you are changing 17th to Seventeenth [71]. Can you give me the MoS basis for this? On the face of it, this goes against normal editing rules. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It just looked ugly. Rich Farmbrough, 02:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
Please see WP:CENTURY — and please consider reverting. Thanks. --Kleinzach 02:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Another thing. Can you tell me whether you are using AWB to change the format of the centuries (from digits to letters) on other articles? --Kleinzach 08:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
No I'm not. Rich Farmbrough, 13:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC).
OK. Thanks for clarifying that. --Kleinzach 13:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


See this edit. The changed text is not a date, it's the name of an album and should remain linked. — John Cardinal (talk) 03:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC).


Thanks for the copyedit to the infobox for László Németh for {{birth date}} and {{death date and age}} to put them into British date format (if I can use that term). I must admit that has been annoying me for some while because of course that is the format used in the article, but there were always bigger fish to fry. I suppose I should check the other articles where I've made infoboxes, too, but at the moment I am trying to spend some time sorting out Hungarian maps. Si Trew (talk) 22:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

date unlinking bot

There is a bot User:Full-date unlinking bot going around unlinking dates. I think it will unlink the type of dates you are unlinking. If that is right, then you could let the bot get to it and save some work. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks, I am working with it. It's not doing the articles beginning with numbers though. Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot questions

This is just a question, not a complaint: Why does SmackBot capitalize the un-capitalized first character of a template's name (for example, change {{redirect|Yosemite]]}} to {{Redirect|Yosemite})?[72] What does this accomplish?

Also, a fairly common human error (of mine, at least) in inserting dated template tags is filling in the date without the date= label (for example, entering {{Citation needed|December 2009}} instead of {{Citation needed|date=December 2009}}. When SmackBot fixes this type of error, it adds the full date parameter with the label to the template tag, but leaves the unlabeled date as well, as in this example: {{Unreferenced section|November 2009|date=November 2009}}. Would it be feasible for SmackBot to delete the orphaned, unlabeled date parameter when it makes this fix? —Finell 03:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.)

The capitalisation is really a perfective thing, the same way we do [[Category:People... SmackBot doesn't capitalise all template names though, when it's doing its normal dating run, for fear of upsetting people...
As to the unnamed date parameters, I used to do that (in fact most of the templates started off with an un-named date parameter and we did a big conversion) but occasionally people use it like this " seventeen tons {{cn|tons/tonnes}}" so it could feasible be used " in November 2009 {{cn|November 2009}} the lemmings jumped...". However I may look at this again in the future. Rich Farmbrough, 03:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
That was quick! Thanks. —Finell 03:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some edit

Is this edit as stupid an idea as I think it is? I just happen to have this template watchlisted. It is protected, so I can't do anything. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at Rjanag's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

April joke

When you made this edit, did you notice that all sources date from the first of the month? See when they were first introduced. I propose undoing your fix, delete all added "day=01" and perhaps the "month=abbr." also, and then refix the article. And then do the same wth User:Maha Yahia/Amino acid. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters is now empty, apart from one page which I don't seem to be able to fix. Since you renamed the category, this page can now be deleted. Debresser (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
In Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters I fixed portals, talkpages, and wikipedia pages. Except those few that couldn't be fixed because they discuss the subject of these parameters. There are still some 850 articles and userpages left. Debresser (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Does the fact that they are different mean that you won't be able to fix them with AWB? If so, I didn't understand that the first time. Debresser (talk) 02:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


[73] --John (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 02:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
Thank you. I needed the laugh. JimCubb (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
I have inserted the correct value for {{DEFAULTSORT}}. The |listas= on the talk page was untouched. This is the main reason for having an explicit sort value on an article. There are too many editors with bots and AWB who muck up the sort value and leave no indication that such a change has been made. JimCubb (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

New template

Template:Says who. Debresser (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Ty. Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

AWB with comments

FYI, this edit moved a disputed category outside of a comment. There was also another edit where you fixed a 'date2 => date', but didn't fix a 'month2' and 'year2', but I can't find a diff. It was clearly a malformed case. In any event, thanks for all the hard work! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm working on the month2/year2 now as people have used them in so many ways. Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

Location linking guideline

I believe that there is a Wiki guideline that indicates that location links of the form [[City, State]] are preferred over [[City, State|City]], [State]] but I cannot find it. For example, Chicago, Illinois (one link) is preferred over Chicago, Illinois (two links). Or maybe it's the other way around. Any idea where I can find the guideline? Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and informative reply. I will have to change the way I have been copyediting. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Smackbot XXII

Reference your latest application, would you care to integrate and apply to uncap the bot speed but subject it to Maxlag? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit of Haruhi Suzumiya

You may want to check the diff of your edits with AWB. With this edit you left two "date" parameters in the Cite video template. Please use the Talkback template on my talk page if you reply. -- allennames 06:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks I did know, there were a bunch of these that I knew I was creating, I had a follow up run to clear them up. Rich Farmbrough, 06:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
You're welcome. -- allennames 06:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"tidy cite"?

Not understanding if it was intentional, but this edit created an unnecessary redlink in the reference citation. Somehow, this isn't fitting within my definition of "tidy". —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Partly because the cite template is broken. But I saw that error, and would have gone back to it. Rich Farmbrough, 09:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Cite video date and year parameters

Rich, have you got a response to my comments about date and year parameters at Template talk:Cite video#Date parameters? I think we might need to retain |year= so |ref=harv will work. — John Cardinal (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Did the 700 pages in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters become around 4500 because of {{Cite video}}? Because if so, then perhaps we should have cleaned the old ones first. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes well category lag seems to be working overtime. Most of the old articles are actually fixed, just the ones with parameter 1 should remain, but there seems to be a slow influx of those articles. 90%+ of the video articles are also fixed, but are still in the category. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
OK I found the bug... should start emptying now. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC).
I noticed. Thanks. There's a reasonable 935 now. Today and tomorrow are festive days for me, see 19 Kislev, but I'll try to give them my attention as well, ASAP. Debresser (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I did some null edits... speeds things up. A lot have {{{1}}}, I have fixed about a dozen, Rich Farmbrough, 11:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

White Brazilians

Could you please take a look at this?...

[74] Ninguém (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bayonetta AWB edit

Please check your AWB usage: this edit to Bayonetta recognized part of a page title (which uses a pipe character) as a parameter, even though I put "nowiki" tags around that part to prevent such an error. I've undone the edit. --an odd name 05:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thansk for that. Rich Farmbrough, 05:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC).


I saw the edit tht YOU made to Reinforced Concrete Box using AWB [removal of category]... How do you do tht? -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so who do I go about doing that? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay thanks then. I still haven't made much edits using AWB, mostly basic fixes.. ==Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher

The discussion on this page is getting out of control, with editor's refactoring other's comments, or removing them entirely. I have no involvement with the page, and only took notice when I saw this inflammatory edit summary on recent changes: "Anti-American bias: I don’t have to clarify anything to you when I have already done so. Got a problem? Leave it at my talk page." That summary accompanied the removal of an entire discussion. Claims of bias are being thrown back and forth, and it is difficult to sort out the facts from the accusations. I think someone needs to step in and tell everybody to calm down a bit. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Smackbot blocked

I'm not sure if anyone informed you but SmackBot was blocked in accordance with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SmackBot_changing_referencing_style.2C_again_.28dearchived.29. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I noticed. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

Edit to Luna Park Sydney

In the edit summary for this edit to Luna Park Sydney, you noted that you removed "conclusion about heritage OR". However, no content related to the park's heritage listings has been removed or altered. Could you elaborate: did you want to remove such content and (a) forgot to or (b) decided that the referencing was appropriate (or at least borderline but needs firming up) and forgot to remove the message? Thanks -- saberwyn 23:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

No harm. Thanks for the prompt reply. -- saberwyn 01:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I hereby award this barnstar to Rich Farmbrough for his massive contribution to the project, including frequently appearing on my watchlist with high quality "minor" edits. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub tags

Please stop stripping stub tags from articles that are still classified as stubs by one or more projects, as you did at Billiard table. That article is very much still a stub, since it has no information at all on the history of billiard rooms, or anything at all really other than minimal room dimensions, and only one source. Whether something is a stub or not is principally a matter of depth of (reliable) coverage, not length of verbiage. The article essentially provides one "fact" (room size), regardless how much wording it took to do that, and is missing a boatload of needed material. I don't frequently disagree with your gnoming decisions, but rapidfire AWBers with lots of pre-determined scripts, as well as bots, removing stub tags is something I find myself reverting more and more frequently. Please check the talk pages before doing this, unless it's really, really clear that the article isn't a stub (e.g. because it looks something like George Balabushka or Eight-ball not Joe Balsis or Seven-ball). :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you mean Billiard room. Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC).
Yep; had both open at same time. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Nascarfans (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Review

First off thank for you taking time to notice. :-) Yes I know what you saying. Actually I'm the one that was citing both the Box Office and The-Numbers. But someone had this to say: "Wait, can we PLEASE clear up the box office totals? Before the edit, we had the movies having over 5.4 million. Now all of a sudden, they have a total of 4.9 million. Thats a huge difference! Personally, I think we should use ONE reference to get all of our information so the total will be consistant."

My response was that I used whatever site has the most posted is the most accurate. It seems that The-Numbers have the most accurate Foreign totals, while the Domestic are pretty much the same with Box Office Mojo. Also, most of BOM's foreign totals end with "000,000", and that really doesn't seem accurate at all. Anyways I made the decision to just use one source so it wouldn't cause any confusion in the future, and I also don't know the consensus via the Film Project. I probably should ask?

I personal believe it should be called Foreign or International (as both of those sites have it), so it's one short and to-the-point word, rather than 2 or 3 words, which the table cells doesn't appreciate. ;-)

My understanding is that we usually don't post the DVD sales (at least not under the box office table). I have wondered where that bit of info could go, because it should be posted somehow. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Well about the refs and stuff, I was just going by what other articles, like GA/FA have. If I "make up" up something (in regards of how something is done), it usually gets reverted so I tend to just go by what other articles have.
"The word "foreign" is US-centric"
Well most of the films are US films and domestic meaning "US and Canada" so it's only logical to have Foreign as in other countries, IMO. I think some tables had "Outside U.S." and I changed it, because Foreign basically means the same thing. The-Numbers usually posts the production budget AND source of where they got it from.
Just so you know I opened up a discussion here, you're welcomed to join in. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

New Moon (2009 film) and Eclipse (2010 film)

Both these two articles were recently submitted for a name change. I did agree with this name change in February, however, now I am a strong opposing factor in why the name should ramian New Moon and Eclipse with the signifigant other name in the first line of the articles.
WP:NCCN and WP:PRECISION both state the title should be "terms most commonly used", "A good article title is brief and to the point", "Prefer titles that follow the same pattern as those of other similar articles", "An article can only have one name; however significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph". "And despite earlier reports that the movie would be known as The Twilight Saga's New Moon, the title will remain New Moon according to the movie's rep. They just have Twilight Saga in the artwork to identify it for anyone less devoted than your average fanggirl."Source.
Also see WP:PRECISION. I quote from there: "Articles' titles usually merely indicate the name of the topic. When additional precision is necessary to distinguish an article from other uses of the topic name, over-precision should be avoided. Be precise but only as precise as is needed. For example, it would be inappropriate to name an article "United States Apollo program (1961–1975)" over Apollo program or "Nirvana (Aberdeen, Washington rock band)" over Nirvana (band). Remember that concise titles are generally preferred."
However, I personally do not think we have had enough input and would like input from people who might not like these movies, or just edit them to help wikipedia out. The pages are: Talk:New Moon (2009 film)#Requested move and Talk:Eclipse (2010 film)#Requested move. Any help/input would greatly be apriciated.ChaosMaster16 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)ChaosMaster16


You have flagged a bunch of pages as "Unreferenced|date=December 2009" unfortunately there is no template called "CURRENTMONTHNUMBER" so the flags are breaking. Please type in the month. eg. December 2009 or 2010-01 etc. Awg1010 (talk) 06:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


...for your help with Cocker Spaniel and Catch Dog.

Very welcome Rich Farmbrough, 08:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

AWB question

I noticed you went through articles I watchlist and delink dates. As a AWB user myself, how do I pull that off? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I made those settings available. Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings Rich Farmbrough, 04:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC).
Cool, but how do I add it into AWB? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

See also User:Ohconfucius#Incorrectly_formatted_dates. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 19:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Can you explain on the talk page why you moved this article in October? Thanks.Prezbo (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Date Delinking & Regex

I noticed your recent, massive delinkings and my first reaction was jealousy. I was waiting for the six month ban to expire, as it would have in six days, but I suppose the current interpretation is that when the bot went through it opened it up for human controlled editing too. That's fine by me.

I've joined the bandwagon. I glanced at the regexes (configs) you posted, and your list of strange things you've encountered is insightful. I need to do a little more work myself on setting up some baseline configs, but once I do, I wondered if you might take a look at what I cook up.

Today I whipped up this: \[\[([0-3]?[0-9]) *(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December)\]\] *\[\[([1-9][0-9]{2,})\]\] as the find, and $1 $2 $3 as the replace. I have a similar one for abbreviations.

In any case, I'd be appreciative of any exchange of info, and if you know of a central place where this is being loosely coordinated I'd appreciate that too. Thanks. Shadowjams (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Shadow, there is a debate about co-ordination. I argue that it is not essential since of the 60,000 WP:FDUB edits I checked there were effectively only 2 reverts, and they have been changed again with no complaint. However I did "coordinate" by doing the 0-9 range which FDUB will not do.

Effectively you can co-ordinate with FDUB by not editing pages with the ranges it has completed (jan 1- feb 14 and dec 10-31), but it cannot currently, and is not currently required to, coordinate with you.

It is important I think that you catch effectively all the full dates on a page, so you should pick up the three main formats. Make sure you include an optional "." in your abbreviations. Sprinkling the regex with " *" is a good idea, although it is probably about .1% of articles that have these types of dates.

\[\[ *0?([1-3]?\d) *(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) *\]\] *\[\[ *([1-9]\d{2,}) *\]\]

for example picks up strangely spaced links and suppresses leading "0"s

\[\[ *0?([1-3]?\d)(st|rd|nd|st) *(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) *\]\] *\[\[ *([1-9]\d{2,}) *\]\]

also gets links like 1st September 1999, finally

\[\[ *0?([1-3]?\d)(st|rd|nd|st)[ _]*(January|February|March|April|May|June|July|August|September|October|November|December) *\]\][, ]*\[\[ *([1-9]\d{2,}) *\]\]

catches legal underscores between the parts in the first link.

For a test page copy User:Full-date unlinking bot/Test environment to your userspace. It tests for false negatives, I.E you should get everything on this page (and some more). It does not test for false negatives - for example two half dates split by a sentence end, or things that look like dates but aren't. I did find one Octember I think, the context made it clear what it actually was. Rich Farmbrough, 07:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Oh and more than 4 digits in the year is very rare, more so than 2 digit years I would say. Rich Farmbrough, 08:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC).
  • As this is likely to be a manual effort, there is every reason to incorporate code to remove links to date fragments such as January 1 or 1961, of which there are plenty and untouched by the bots. Most of these date fragment links would fail the 'germane test' as far as the subject is concerned. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Mccready

This request is to you so I'm not sure if it's right but would you have any problem if I reblocked to disable talk page use? He's gone far past the point of being productive and I really know I shouldn't be responding to him but it's just aggravating. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I really need to let go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters

All pages left in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters are user(-talk) namespace, apart from 2 Wikipedia and 5 talk pages that should probably stay the way they are. Could you run the same fixes you did on articles on them as well, please? Debresser (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I already did, pretty much. The difference in the ratio was mainly pretty manual. Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
Sounds familiar. Sigh.

And you also did Category:Pages with missing references list already, and I'll have to fix all 212 article by hand? Debresser (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, almost all fixes are {{Cite video}}. Perhaps you forgot to do that for userpages? Debresser (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Rich Farmbrough's Day!

Featured article star.svg

User:Rich Farmbrough has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Rich Farmbrough's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Rich Farmbrough!

00:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. RlevseTalk 00:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Who could not have a smile brought to their face by that? Rich Farmbrough, 00:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC).


Teh WP sevrer. 373

Please stop delinking dates in articles, if that's the only change that you're making. You're slowing down the server with that extreme amount of edits, and it's not necessary, unless you want to make other fixes in the pages as well. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB uses the maxlag parameter, therefore it is incapable of slowing down the servers in that sense. Rich Farmbrough, 10:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
Haha damn, someone out nerded me again. I wasn't necessarily talking about lagging the servers in that respect. But more of clogging up the Recent Changes log. Cheers, --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. Rich Farmbrough, 10:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

Big Thanks

Thanks for fixing the reference link in Douglass High School Kingsport. I wasn't sure how to do it, and the directions were confusing.Csneed (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

A Cfd I think you should know about

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_9#Category:Articles_lacking_sources_.28Erik9bot.29 Debresser (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

How do I?

Hi. How do I get a wikisignpost on my user page pl? Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC) Thanks. Got it. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

New template

Template:Primary source claim Debresser (talk) 09:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Pákozd

You removed a stub template from the article, naughty bot, when the talk page had assessed it as being stub class. The fact that we are expanding the article does not change that assessment, so I am wondering under what criteria you did so. I could understand if a human assessor did so, but a bot should not. Naughty bot. Stick to your date fixing malarkey.

And stop changing the cases of template transclusions. They may be written that way for good reason, i.e. to give semantic information to editors. That {{Croatia-hist-stub}} is capital, but {{convert}} is not, is no mistake.

Si Trew (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot & Refs

Why does SmackBot change the order of references (for example in a recent edit to Hekla)? Whilst in general I doubt this will matter I could imagine that someone might write a paragraph based on several sources and might want to cite the main source first and then the less important ones after. JMiall 13:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am going to block the bot again. This is the second time since you agreed to disable these features; what's going on? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Script quibbles.

Two comments.

  • Recent: Don't know if you have a whitelist for this, but for section titles there are lots of words that could plausibly be correctly capitalized. See this diff for one example, "List of Representatives" is correct, just as "List of senators" would be wrong.
  • Old: This is a problem as old as the hills, but as a reminder, please don't change the date style of an article. Sadly I don't have the diff (it was awhile back), and it's not overly important anyway, but it was some member of the European royalty that had all its dates American style, and you changed it to European style. Again, not a big deal, but annoying nevertheless.

Thanks. SnowFire (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a whitelist, actually it is more subtle than that, but no, capitalising "represntatives" there does not conform to MoS. It does not back-inherit a capitalisation from House of Representatives. Rich Farmbrough, 21:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC).
Well, that's not the reason, but I'm pretty sure it is capitalized. At the very least our United States House of Representatives seems to have it right; the title is (U.S.) Representative, capitalized, but when referred to generically ("California has 52 representatives") it's not. Checking a few actual House member webpages confirms that they capitalize it as well. So I'd say "List of Representatives" is correct when referring to specific people holding that title. SnowFire (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of articles of British subjects which have been incorrectly maintained with the American date format, and there seems to be no reason why such an article should not be changed to dmy date formats. As most European nations also use dmy format, the same argument applies. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


Hey there, remember that bot request from a while ago about a bot moving pages that contain hyphens? Well i filed a BRFA and i'd appreciate you're input. here is the link Tim1357 (talk) 06:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Stub v. stub class

Rich, thanks for that. I can only bow to your better knowledge about the definition, at least the one that is writ in stone. The basic problem is this: Different projects assess articles differently, and of course Battle of Pákozd, I think this was the one it did, may be assessed as stub class from the POV of military history, start class from the point of view of WikiProject Hungary, and not even on the radar from the POV of WikiProject Croatia. All of which is good and fine by me.

The point is then, under what criteria does SmackBot remove the stub template (and IIRC it was SmackBot who did it, not you, [here]. I could understand if you with human intervention had done so (and if you just accidentally did but were signed in as SmackBot I could understand that slip), but if SB is doing so I should like to know under what criteria it does so. What regex does it use to find a stub template, and how does it decide it is no longer a stub? Length, references, what? Even though articles in this series (except one) have been completely translated now from the Hungarian, to my mind they are still stubs. Others may disagree which is why there are project assessments for them on the talk page. Certainly I doubt SB checks the talk pages for projects' assessment, since that would probably be one regex too far.

I suspect that in fact it was you who took it out, not SmackBot, and accidentally you were signed in as SmackBot. As it happens I reversed the intervention because I had already got on to Military History project to ask how to go about reassessment of all this series of articles now they have been translated. I still suspect they will stay at stub class by their assessment, which is not of course to say they are still stubs, and as you say there is no clear definition of what a stub is, so it comes down to editorial judgment. i.e. not a bot's judgment. I don't see that SB can make that judgment, it needs a human editor to make it.

SB generally does a pretty good job and I thank you for it, but surprising behaviour like this should be documented I think. Indeed, generally SB should be documented. If it is, I should be glad if you would let me have the link.

Sincere best wishes, I know I am always griping but I just try to make it better, as I know you do. It's funny, I've been linking up these articles and every place I have been to now uses {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}}, thanks for doing that. We do fix them up as we pass over them for making sure the figures etc are correct, but even having that much is a great advance. I think it was wrong to remove Template:Magyar télepüles infobox, because it did a lot more fixup and basically meant you could just slap it in from HU:WP without change, but that argument is in the past.

Si Trew (talk) 06:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for yours. It is not so much the documentation of AWB itself I was after, but the specific rules (or an overview thereof) that SmackBot uses. They sound sensible, i.e. length, links etc, but I am sure you understand that when an editor specifically marks something as being a stub (in fact, marked it as three stubs, one each for Austria, Hungary and Croatia) it is surprising when a bot comes and removes them. I know you did not directly mean this, but I am not over worried about it, I just put them back. But if it was habitually removing them, I would start to worry, since I think it should be a human editor's decision not a bot's, that is my main point.
As for the Hungarian settlement template (Hungarian version), yeah I might recreate it, but I think pretty pointless now since you and another (I forget whom) made a stentorian effort of converting all the Hungary geo articles to Infobox Hungarian settlement. I never really thanked you enough for that, and while I was grumbly at the time, I see in retrospect it was the right way to go. By the way, I think you introduced an error a few days ago that meant the website and another field did not appear. I can't put my finger on it but it was somewhere around here, on 25 November. It may have been an error I introduced after, myself, but I don't think so, I just noticed it when I made my own changes. I fixed it, no worries. Si Trew (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Style-seets and IPs

Rich, would you mind taking a look at Talk:Soviet aircraft carrier Varyag#Style, and at this user's contributions. Perhaps I'm on the wrong track here, but I really don't want to be lectured to by an IP with minimum edits on WP, as I don't think he understand how WP works. If I'm wrong about the "style sheets" stuff, can you explain why? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Please add your contribution here. Thanks! -- (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

{{inuse}} tag

Does you respect the {{inuse}} tag? I've never come a cropper because of it, but if it were easy it would seem to make sense for you not to make any changes to an article if it is marked inuse. As far as I have seen, this template does tend to be used for its intended purpose i.e. to warn other editors that lots of changes are likely to be made very soon, so their own edits may well conflict. I haven't seen this tag abused at all, no doubt your owner Rich Farmbrough has, but on the whole I think it would make sence for you to hold off while inuse. I'll check that template now for "what links here" to see if there are gross cases of abuse.

{{underconstruction}} I think should not get the same special treatment.

Best wishes as always


Yeah, as of writing Category:Pages actively undergoing a major edit, which {{inuse}} puts articles into, has 17 members. So it seems it is not abused much. I'll check them in case one has been left by someone nodding, but on the whole I think it is safe to say inuse is not abused. Si Trew (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen {{Inuse}} left on pages, but obviously removed it, and I suspect everyone else does the same. AWB advises in manual mode to skip inuse pages, (This page has the "Inuse" tag, consider skipping it). Smackbot's main run has the checkbox "page is in use" ticked. I suspect the others do but I'm not gonna check them all right now. Actually SmackBot currently skips all pages, as putting a set of footnote superscripts in numerical order is a blockable offence. Rich Farmbrough, 05:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
Well I changed a couple to {{under construction}} as they have been edited reasonably recently but are not inuse by the criteria on its doc page. I don't understand the relevance about footnotes, cos inuse is usually used at the top of the article, or section. I also don't understand what you mean about putting footnotes in numerical order being a blockable offence – I persobnally try, with multiple references, to have them run in numerical order, i.e. quote at first use. I doubt you mean that is blockable, so what do you mean?
Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#SmackBot_.26_Refs Rich Farmbrough, 05:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
Way to go, Rich. Tell me at my talk page "your battle is now the only article using {{inuse}}". Don't give me a clue which battle, would you: Yes it is a slip but are you being deliberately unhelpful because it sounds like it. And because you reply on other users' pages, not your own, nobody else can follow the conversation.
Do you do it on purpose? Are you deliberately on a wind-up? Today I put documentation into {{tlx|ksh ref]] which I didn't make, but whoever did could not be bothered to document it. I also categorised it. I put See Also for {{ksh 2008}} and {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}}, and crosslinked the others from there. I edited the two articles (Telekes and Sülysáp) that used KSH2008 so that they don't, and put them to Infobox Hungarian settlement. This afternoon Moo and I stuck in a good proportion of one of the battles, which is why it was legitimately marked as inuse. I also tidied up or created the doc at {{inuse}}, {{underconstruction}}, and {{newpage}}. I've also moved work to commons, asked at PNT for a German translation I am not too happy about, and am putting together a new map in SVG format. In short, I have not been idle.
I was just about to ask for speedy deletion of KSH2008 under A7 ot G6 when I read your message. There was good reason it was marked as inuse, because it was inuse. I think I changed it to underconstruction, but if I slipped, I will correct that.
Please tell me you are not deliberately winding me up. Si Trew (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No it is perfectly fine that that article was in-use. I was just pointing out that when I reviewed the use of in-use, the only good use was that one. The others were all labelled in-use when we looked yesterday adn only one had been edited since. Maybe we could make inuse smarter, so that a few hours after editing it replaces itself with under construction and after a few days deletes itself altogether. No maybe not.... Rich Farmbrough, 20:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Phew, thanks for that. I think I may still have inuse on one of them by mistake, cos we won't translate it for a few more hours yet, it will be at Káplona if anywhere so I will check to be sure.
User:Monkap told me earlier that a lot of the coats of arms for places are now coming into commons and it looks like they are being uploaded en masse, e.g. at Abony and Nagykáta. Some articles I already used image_shield, which both {{Infobox settlement}} and {{Infobox Hungarian settlement}} support. Some redlinks that I had put in are now blue links, grabbing the file from commons. The field in Hungarian WP is címer, in English it is image_shield. The uploader seems to have his wits about him, the form of the filename is "HUN placename COA.jpg". These were marked as not PD before, but on Commons they are marked very specifically with the laws saying they are public domain if they are Hungarian govt. properrty. I think this might be a nice job for your bot, it would be good to get these in if we could. I am not quite sure how far it has got now, as it happens I edited a Hungarian place starting with Z, but by sod's law it didn't have that stuff in it anyway.
Very best wishes, you did scare me, I wondered if it was just saying oh I have fixed the others and yours is the only left, but you know how things can sound sometimes. I'm relieved it was not. Si Trew (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

footnote ordering

In this edit the order of two footnotes were transposed. While this puts them in numeric sequence, it puts them in the wrong order to support the information in the paragraph. So why make the edit? -- PBS (talk) 08:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Request on hold

Could you consider popping over here to respond to the request. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 11:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Help with dermatology-related content

I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our new Bolognia push 2009!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
Ok, I e-mailed you the login information. You can also find more information on how we are using that source at WP:DERM:MA. Thanks again for your help. ---kilbad (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinion requested

What do you think Rich? WT:Blocking IP addresses#Updates required? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the three hour block caused no reported problems. We need to determine clear the way to having these permanently soft-blocked. We should also check that the Cluebot address needs protection. Having said that these addresses are sensitive to hardblocks. Rich Farmbrough, 20:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
And having them permanently soft blocked would safeguard against that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Revision history of Maureen Cleave - FACTUAL ERROR, NO SOURCES FOR ANYTHING

I write on behalf of the subject of this entry and am struggling to make contact with anybody at Wikipedia but have neither the expertise nor time to read the endless geeky pages on how to do so. It seems obvious that the people who run Wikipedia do not want to be reached. So please don't take this personally - you simply happen to be the topmost name in the history file for the entry on Maureen Cleave.

Ever since this entry was created in 2006, as far as I can see, the opening paragraph has contained a fundamental inaccuracy which makes all the rest questionable. No source has been given for ANY of the info presented in this item either then or now. In the meantime a fake MySpace page has been created citing a version of the Wikipedia entry which includes a defamatory statement which is the subject of a complaint to MySpace.

Why don't you delete this entry, rather than publishing pure hearsay, which at some stage will leave Wikipedia open to the UK libel laws, if not already? I cannot understand how to trawl the entire history of this item, so appeal to your better judgment. Thanks. 12 Dec 2009. " (talk) 21:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)"

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

Potential falsehoods by SmackBot

(copied from User talk:SmackBot/archive3) One of the tasks of SmackBot is to introduce {{start date}} and {{end date}} into infoboxes where they do not currently exist. These emit microformats, which are required to be in the ISO 8601 format and Gregorian calendar. How does the bot insure that the input dates are Gregorian dates in order to prevent falsely claiming the output dates are Gregorian, when in fact they might be in some other calendar? --Jc3s5h (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A related task is introducing the {{birth date}} template into infoboxes. A falsehood was generated here where the microformat falsely proclaims that Alexander III of Scotland was born 4 September 1241 in the Gregorian calendar. I will correct this error momentarily. I would like to know how I can be sure SmackBot will not revisit the article and reintroduce the error. --Jc3s5h (talk) 23:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(Reply copied from Editing User talk:Jc3s5h)

There is no way to ensure that the dates are Gregorian. However ISO 8601 does not apply to non-Gregorian dates. Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC).

First, the {{Birth date}} and related templates claim to use the ISO 8601 format, so while Wikipedia in general is not governed by that spec, {{Birth date}} et al. are.
Second, if a bot can't figure out how to do something right, it should do nothing. I suggest the bot not process any date before 1 March 1923, the date Greece changed from Julian to Gregorian. While a few other countries adopted the Gregorian calendar later, I strongly suspect they changed from a non-Western calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Really you are going at this the wrong way around. If the wrong or unqualified date is given on n articles, is is no good to simply supress the emissions of hcard data on m articles. The solution is to correct the content, not hammer the presentation. Rich Farmbrough, 00:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC).
You fail to see that the rules for writing a date in the typical American or Engish formats, such as "Alexander III of Scotland was born 4 September 1241" are different from the rules for writing a date within {{Birth date}} because, by convention, the reader is responsible for figuring out the calendar used for dates in typical American or English formats from context, while {{Birth date}} is specified to always use the Gregorian calendar. When the bot changes from typical format to the template, it potentially tells a lie. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to do what I can to improve the article and correct articles that already have incorrect templates. See Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Help with custom module. --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

List of United States Presidents by military rank

The WP:AWB did a horrible job on the article when it attempted to remove links in headings on List of United States Presidents by military rank seen in the diff. Has been reverted, looks like this one needs to be done manually. — MrDolomite • Talk 06:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I would say you are right. Rich Farmbrough, 07:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC).


hi Richard, i have an editing questioned on the page for Engelbert, 8th Duke of Arenberg , an so called editor, yopie is going around round pages on Wikipedia removing links without due process of discussion, in most cases he has not written or contributed to the articles in question but seems to be policing the links on these pages can he do this, and is this right, and i have not contributed my myself concerning these links or articles they have been put there by the contributors in question, please would you reply to this as i find it quite amazing that certain editors seem to have the powers to overwrite anyone a bit of a dictatorship rather than a democracy, regards henry mcdowall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no "due process", comment left on User talk:Yopie's page, because of questions on what they are being replaced by. Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Unreferenced BLP bot

Hey there I wanted your input on a bot that you requested (and i scripted) see discussion here Tim1357 (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) followup

Rich, following up to comments here, it was said that you were working on the category to reduce the amount. Out of curiosity, how in particular are you doing that? (It's kind of hard to see someone editing articles OUT of a category). Are you just having a bot follow Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erik9bot_9 criteria? Wouldn't it be better to wait until the CFD is finished (I know I'm going to lose on the deletion question)? I've started a discussion at Category_talk:Articles_lacking_sources#Bot-created_category since that clearly is the best place to get the people most familiar on it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks. Just curious really and wanted to make sure it doesn't just continue ambiguously. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Language and computer challenged plus..

(This might sound silly, and of minor importance, but I'll give it a try)...

  1. In edting biographical articles with a substantial number of other language Wikipedias listed on the side panel, many of us don't know what some of those language names are! When they see "Cesky", "Dansk", and in particular, language names in characters that aren't in the English alphabet, it isn't obvious what language it is. After editing for awhile now, I myself don't know what they all mean. I'd assume clicking on it would tell me, but you know, that's not the purpose of that. I think the ramifications are significant when looking perhaps to either cross-edit linguistically, (My first language is Brazilian Portuguese) OR to find the right editor to assist you. An example might be Japanese characters (what kind, for example?).. OK --- my point is, is it possible technologically speaking, to list the names of other language Wikipedias as they are, but perhaps set it up so that by passing a mouse over the name, we can see the language name on that famous left hand panel in English? It IS the English Wikipedia. Or maybe I'm wasting your time with this, but it would spare a lot of looking around and a lot of messages asking what's what. Like, "Bom Dia, en el Wikipedia se llama "Cesky"... era uma problema.." Do you see what I mean? Can anything be changed easily?
  2. I noticed a bot running which I'm pretty sure is yours (?) in the history of some of the articles, de-wikilinking dates of birth. Should I take this to mean all dates of birth at the introduction of each biographical article should not have wikilinks around them? Sad that I have to ask this, since nobody taught me how to edit here, and I see this in nearly every article's biography of musicians, which is the area where I work. However, if it's not WP policy to put those links around dates of birth outside the infoboxes, then I'll begin removing them. Sorry to leave all this here; I'm just a computer-challenged Wikignome with little editor contact and lots of questions. Thanks.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for clearing that up. For myself, I upload a lot of photos, and am often curious as to how other articles in different languages have come about photographs that are difficult to find, and after checking out a few, want to communicate with other editors about what I've found, and often don't know what language (usually the Slavic or Asian ones) to tell them the photo might be, or whatnot. This only applies to those uploaded only to a Wikipedia, not to Wikimedia Commons, obviously, but yeah, I think the mouse over thing would be nice.--Leahtwosaints (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Log of references runs

Could you explain this edit? When SmackBot is blocked, it is inappropriate for you to be running its tasks under your main account. The solution is to fix the bot. Please do not run any additional SmackBot tasks under your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

He is manually helping me keeping an error category clean. No controversial edits should be involved. Why throw out the child with the badwater? Debresser (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Those edits were not the ones for the error category; they were for edits such as [75] with edit summary "Add references section and/or general fixes. using Project:AWB", which correspond to the same bot task as SmackBot edits such as [76]. The issue is that the bot is blocked because it is broken, and the code needs to be fixed rather than just being run as-is on a different account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes the error category can be found by doing a "what links here" from the log page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

The bot is not broken in respect of ordering references. There is no one that has actually said the bot reordering a reference was wrong, although a number have raised it all have either been satisfied once they knew it was not arbitrary or at worst said "someone might conceivably ... ". The other issue may have had more merit, but that is now resolved. Interestingly one of the reasons that issue was claimed to be important is that it stopped reference numbers from being strictly increasing - apparently this would cause academics to be unable to read the articles. This is a minor fix, like closing [] or {}, and is pretty uncontentious. Rich Farmbrough, 15:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Nothing has changed since last time: the bot should not be changing references to named references nor rearranging references. However, the bot has now been blocked two times since you originally agreed to fix it [77], based on complaints from two different users [78], [79]. After the first block, you said the problem was an "old version" running [80]. In the spirit of trust but verify, since the problem has occurred again, would you add a "version" to the edit summary the bot uses, so that it is clear whether the latest version is being used? Compare Special:Contributions/WP 1.0 bot.
Also, as I pointed out before, I do not believe that SmackBot has an approval to remove stub tags from articles. That feature also needs to be disabled in the bot.
Let me know when these things are accomplished, and I will unblock the bot ASAP. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate to run any of the bot's regular tasks on your main account. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As I say technically it is not authorised to correct mismatched brackets. Why make life difficult? Rich Farmbrough, 15:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
I agree: your bot does many unauthorized things. For things such as unmatched brackets, I don't worry about it. But for the references, I do. The simplest solution, and the easiest one with respect to the bot policy, would be to simply disable all unapproved tasks. But I am not worried about unmatched braces and I have not complained about them. There are solid reasons why a bot should not be changing and rearranging references, and why a bot should not be removing stub tags automatically. This is very different than the situation with unmatched braces. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note: if you do not stop the current AWB "add references section" run within 10 minutes, I will block this account from editing as well. I have already pointed out that running SmackBot jobs on this account, in order to avoid resolving the block of SmackBot, is inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding a references section is not what was considered problematic with SmackBot. That was naming references. Which was also unreasonable, if you ask me, but that is another matter. I fail to see the problem with adding a references section to articles that don't have one, practically as well as principally. Debresser (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. However, once the bot is blocked, it needs to be fixed before the tasks are resumed. In this case, it would be very simple for Rich F. to fix the bot, by simply commenting out the problematic features. I do not understand his reluctance to do so, but I am ready to unblock ASAP once things are fixed, so the bot can get back to work. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On a different SmackBot issue, I notice that Rich has not agreed to fix SmackBot so that it no longer marks up plain dates within infoboxes with the {{birth date}} family of templates. These templates require Gregorian dates, and the bot is incapable of deciding if the input date is or is not in the Gregorian calendar. I give notice that I will regard any further such changes as a knowingly reckless error, and will take whatever measures the Wikipedia community allows to stop SmackBot if this ever happens again.

A fix I would consider acceptable would be to not mark up any date with the {{birth date}} family of templates if the year is greater less than 1923 (the year Greece switched from Julian to Gregorian). --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC) revised 20:02 UT.

He means, of course, less than. Rich Farmbrough, 19:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
Now this is a case in point. This same user objected to moving stuff from xxxx-xx-xx to spelled out words on the basis that we did not know that the xxxx-xx-xx date was necessarily Georgian/Julian and is now saying that the uncertainty is acceptable in spelled out text , but not in xxxx-xx-xx format. This suggests the user is looking for problems. In the same way CBM is saying that editorial freedom is being taken away by re-arranging a set of simultaneous cites, yet with many hundreds of such re-arrangements not one has proved to be a problem. Yes it is possible that one day someone will have a convincing case where out-of-order superscripts are desirable. And it is possible that soemeone will have a case where http://http:// is actually wanted. But SB has left the latter almost certain error in an article to avoid changing the former also almost certain error. So far this affects a relatively small number of articles, partly because I put myself out and did separate runs for articles with and without refs, and partly because the grooming effect of AWB means that maybe 90% of those articles needed no fixes and a goodly percentage of the remainder only minor fixes.
Why make WP worse for the sake of being right? Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
I have explained the reasoning behind not rearranging references and not removing stub tags. Please see my post dated 15:18, 14 December 2009 for a concise statement of my concerns. If you let me know when the bot is fixed, I will unblock it ASAP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I am unhappy with your attitude that bots should be used in situations where their edits may be wrong. If it ever comes to my attention that SmackBot has wrapped a Julian date with a member of the {{Birth date}} templates, (or has wrapped a Julian date with a member of the  (0009-11-01) family of templates and failed to provide both kinds of dates within the template) you will be hearing from me in a wider forum. --Jc3s5h (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Humans are used in the same way only more widely. I think you need to on the one hand qualify the use of the phrase "may be", and look at the context, and on the other understand a little more about the word "wrong". I have previously given the hypothetical example of of a bot that reverted 10 edits a day of which 9 were correct, and one was actionable libel. In this case the bot would be right to be wrong, even in the majority of cases. Conversely a bot that "corrected" the spelling of "flouride" and changed the person's name would be wrong to be right, even though that was only one mis-spelling created for 999 corrected. The entropy is such that the mis-spelling the persons name removes an amount of information exceeding the correction. Even if it were not so, the very real risk exists that the process will be run again this time correcting maybe 3 mispellings and creating one (assuming the correction of the correction has taken place) - the raw ratio less favourable, the information theoretic one becoming disastrous. Moreover the repeated change would fuel botophobia. That dispenses withthe philospohy.
In the case of the microformats the approach needs to be a little more wide ranging:
  1. The methodology needs to be investigated to evaluate the possibility of building the microformat into the base templates rather than wrapper templates. This is one of the key reasons I have been holding off on this task.
  2. We need to publish a specification of the microformat we are using that specifically states what information is being presented and what the caveats are. For example we use co-ordinates from the American Government's database. We know these are inaccurate, and because of the conversion of units can present an impression of accuracy. Therefore they are "falsehoods". We are also an open source project, therefore there is no guarantee that any information is correct (even if we weren't there wouldn't be). We do not need to bind ourselves to hCard if we choose not to.
  3. The nature of the emitted data and the filtering of the data should be properly engineered and specified, to the extent that it is important.
  4. If necessary a task force should be set up to check every date on wikipedia and make sure it is clear what calender it is in.
Apropos of ordering references. The problem is that there is no problem. A few people have commented that there could potentially be a problem. In hundreds, probably thousands, of re-arrangements to correct numerical order there have been a handful of enquiries, and three people have pointed out that it is conceivable that just possibly one day, it might happen in the fullness of time, given the right circumstances that this change might be a problem. For this I am supposed to either leave articles broken, in that and many other ways, go and bother the developers to remove a perfectly good fix, or familiarise myself with the code, acquire a C# compiler and maintain a fork of the source that behaves differently, gives different stack dumps/traces etc....
What I have done in the past when there has been a real rather than imagined problem is simply turn off GFs and log a bug, or run GF's and scan for the problem if it is amenable. Neither solution is perfect, for a number of reasons, but I certainly don't think that logging a bug for a perfectly fine piece of code would go down very well.
Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

Yes it is possible that one day someone will have a convincing case where out-of-order superscripts are desirable.

The reason what you call 'out-of-order superscripts' are sometimes desirable is that the first citation is the main/best source for the information, whilst the other citations are supplementary or provide other alternative/contradictory sources. Unfortunately your bot destroys the information provided by this ordering.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I clearly understand that. I could challenge whether it's a good way to provide information, even more strongly whether, say 2 articles using such a convention (and also happening to use a repeated ref) in a sea of a few thousand where the numbers are essentially random, in an ocean of over a million articles where they are monotone increasing, is a good method of signalling. However I would prefer to actually find a circumstance where there is a problem, then we can look for a solution. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
Your summary of what ought to be looked into with respect to birth and death dates is reasonable, with the understanding that the microformats currently in use are published by external organizations and it is not within the power of Wikipedia editors do redefine them. An item you didn't explicitly mention is that widespread changes by bots can lead people to incorrectly believe something is right just because the bot made it pervasive. One important item is not mentioned. There should be an evaluation of whether providing the microformats actually adds any noticeable value to Wikipedia, or at least that there is a good prospect that it will become valuable within the next several years. Indeed, if we don't know what people are usually using them for, we can't evaluate how accurate they need to be. I take no position on the value added by microformats in the context of birth and death dates. --Jc3s5h (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to "log a bug." Simply change the code that you actually run, just as you would change any other piece of general software to fit a specific need. As someone who runs several bots, I can't accept the argument that it is too hard for a bot operator to edit the source code of their own bot. On the other hand, since the bot is approved to do specific tasks, while GFs are just an add-on, if you would prefer to turn off GFs instead of recompiling, that's up to you. But just commenting out these particular features seems like a better choice to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In continuation of where I left this conversation, and in reply to CBM. I was under the impression that this bot runs its tasks separately. That is, it will not make a certain type of fix when it is busy with another type of fix. Rich, is this so? If so, why shouldn't Rich be allowed to use the bot, or at least his personal account, for doing any non-controversal fixes? Surely we can rely on him to refrain from doing controversial tasks till he fixed those parts of the code, if consensus wills that. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are right in a sense. That is each edit is done with the purpose of making a specific change, and 99.9% of them will make that change. However it has been customary to have general fixes turned on, and since some of SmackBot's tasks have been retrofitted as core AWB fixes (for example dating the main form of the top 8 or so maintenance templates) it can well be doing stuff that would come under other tasks. The fix that CBM is complaining about is a general fix however. Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC).
You have cut directly to the heart of the problem. The bot does not do things separately. If it ran each task individually without doing anything but the task itself, this entire issue would not exist. However, as things are the bot sometimes edits articles with an edit summary for a particular task even when that task is not applicable to the article edited. I understand why this is, and I don't care about it as long as the extra tasks are uncontroversial. But, for example, here is a diff that is supposed to be for removing capitals from section headers, but which also includes reference rewriting (not reordering, but actually replacing a reference with a named reference). — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole point of GFs is to get the maximum value from the edits. Debresser is right in the sense that the bot makes an edit with a purpose in mind and will not in general perform its other tasks, however it does, and pretty much always has performed GFs, which, due to the fact that AWB and SmackBot have grown up together , includes a lot of SB's functionality, for example dating Cite needed tags. This is a good thing since it cuts the number of edits, server load, network traffic, database size etc. However the pull between multifunction edits and many small edits has been obvious since day 1, SB's approach is clearly laid out on it's user page "Note, when Smackbot is using AWB, some of the general fixes options will usually be turned on, to get the most value from the edits. Hence most edit summaries say "and/or general fixes". Again usually, the motivating change will be made or none at all." Rich Farmbrough, 23:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC).

So are you admitting that your bot does a mix of things that are approved and things are that not approved together? Second, are you willing to separate the tasks? The last bot operator I remember who played the "I cannot separate things so let me keeping doing what I can because it's so valuable" didn't work so well. I think the best thing to do is have SmackBot do everything but the conduct that's being disputed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually I have started a conversation on getting a split of approved and non-approved GF's at WP:AWB. I simply don't think that maintaining my own version of AWB is the way to go, even if I had the C# experience and the desire and time. It also happens that I find the particular change in question a strange sticking point. Anyway with a little luck that is behind us now. Rich Farmbrough, 03:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC).

Actions have been thoroughly reviewed

Yes, Tedder again. You closed the ANI discussion with Actions have been thoroughly reviewed. This is incorrect: Tedder's protect has been thoroughly reviewed; no admin has commented on the propiety of breaking 3RR or or revert-before-protect. This is merely a note to you to indicate that I disagree with the wording of your close; I don't expect any action from you William M. Connolley (talk) 09:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi Rich. Hope you've been well. Question. I recently ran into an editor who thought is quite rude that a vandal had been warned a number of times, and yet nobody had been kind enough to welcome him. If there is indeed anything to that view (I'm unsure), why don't we simply have a bot welcome everyone? It seems a waste of time for editors to do it. And if its a necessary step to get some editors to agree that blocks, etc. are appropriate, it seems like perfect bot work. Thoughts? And happy holidays.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Michael Rosenzweig (composer)

I have nominated Michael Rosenzweig (composer) for deletion. I would be grateful if you could let the community know your opinion about this. Cheers--Karljoos (talk) 15:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

DMC - repeated request

Now that the new dating system of the various categories for discussion templates has been working fine for over a week, perhaps you would now agree to make the switch to DMC?

I have the templates ready for copy&paste on Template:Cfx/sandbox. I made a few very minor changes, as you can see in great detail in the history. (I mention it to you, so there should be no surprises). Debresser (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, after doing some further work, I'd like to ask you to delete Template:Consider listifying and the related redirect page Template:Consider Listifying, that is an unneeded, unused an never finished copy of Template:Listify. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I made {{Cfc}} and {{Cfl}} and documentation, based on Cfr. You can find them in Template:Cfx/sandbox as well, and I tested them on Category:Jewish Americans to great satisfaction. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I want to replace {{Cfc1}}, {{Cfl1}}, and {{Cfm1}} with {{Cfc}}, {{Cfl}} and {{Cfm}}. What do you say? Debresser (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
That was a piece of cake: just replacing them in one template. Can you delete them, and their documentation and {{Cfc nomination}}, {{Cfl nomination}}, and {{Cfm nomination}} (and their capitalised redirects) that are used only by them? Why they were created in such a two-step way and not like I just did along the lines of Cfr, is one thing that completely eludes me. Anyway, they are not in use, nor have they ever been, see the WP:CFD instructions for nomination. Debresser (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a yes, a no, a later, or a I want to have a look a them a few days before I do such a thing? Debresser (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't really been able to give it my attention yet. Rich Farmbrough, 08:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC).
bump. Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC).
I hope the bumps don't hurt. Debresser (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Still too busy for it? Debresser (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
As you know I had 104,000 other things to do... Rich Farmbrough, 02:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
I know. But still, that is going to take a lot more time, while here you can make a difference and do a major clean up in ten minutes. Debresser (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


There's a minor problem with the edits SmackBot is making to the Time travel article--twice on Dec. 16 2009 it changed the following citation:

cite journal | last = Uribe | first = Augusto | title = The First Time Machine: Enrique Gaspar's Anacronópete | journal = The New York Review of Science Fiction | volume = Vol. 11, No. 10 | issue = 130 | page = 12 |date=June 1999


cite journal | last = Uribe | first = Augusto | title = The First Time Machine: Enrique Gaspar's Anacronópete | journal = The New York Review of Science Fiction | volume = 11| issue = 10 | issue = 130 | page = 12 |date=June 1999

In case it's not easy to spot, it changed "| volume = Vol. 11, No. 10 | issue = 130 |" to "| volume = 11| issue = 10 | issue = 130 |". But this is actually incorrect, the New York Review of Science Fiction has a separate "Number" and "Issue", they are not synonymous--see for example Can you tweak SmackBot's program so it doesn't assume they are synonymous and automatically replace the first with the second? Thanks... Hypnosifl (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:BON#SmackBot removal of stub templates. –xenotalk 21:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Editing of HTML comments, part II.

Brought this up before (my comment, your reply), but the bot seems to be back to taking commented-out categories and adding them for real; see this edit . Not a big deal in this case as this should probably just have been deleted ("House of Mendoza" is a subcategory of "Spanish noble houses" = Grandeza de España, which is a holdover from the Spanish version of the article), but figured I'd mention it. SnowFire (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will endeavour to make it stay fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 00:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Picture for meigs field post

I have a photo to add to the meigs field listing and am not sure how to contribute it...

Here is link: [81]

I took this photo from a medical helicopter on April 6, 2003... I remember the closing... it was really ridiculous. Zargnut (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)zargnut

SmackBot - getting sort keys wrong?

Hi, What's the point in Smackbot assigning a default sort key if it isn't going to get it right? See Richard Moore (actor), where the article title was given as the sort key - despite the clues that it had two biographical categories, and that "Moore, Richard" had been set as the sort key within one of those categories? PamD (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - stub/Stub

Hi, I spend a lot of time stub-sorting, and it saves a couple of keystrokes if the generic tag is input as {{stub}} rather than {{Stub}} (ie I can use the existing lowercase "s" rather than having to delete the capital "S" first). I see that Smackbot uses the capital letter - any chance it could change to lower case? PamD (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Message from user:Cheong Kok Chun

If you had tag the word Orphan in the article: Vision Four, then please see the message written in Talk:Vision Four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheong Kok Chun (talkcontribs) 09:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters

I fixed 15 userpages in Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. All of them had deprecated parameters inside the {{Cite video}} template as their only problem. It would make sense to try that on the remaining ones, if your bot is up to that. Debresser (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Please check Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters. There are two pages by User:Geo Swan, that I do not feel I'd like to fix. Perhaps you are up to it. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

One sorted, the other lots of fixes, but seems resistant. Rich Farmbrough, 23:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
Gottit! Rich Farmbrough, 23:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC).

Some fix needed

This edit combined with the lack of Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates leads me to the conclusion that there is something wrong on {{Current}}. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply from user:Cheong Kok Chun at 11:56 PM (Kuala Lumpur)

Actually I dont know about the information and the manager of Vision Four because I did not create this page called: Vision Four. Please contact the user at User talk:Tyh27 because he is the creator of the page called: Vision Four. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheong Kok Chun (talkcontribs) 03:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


Rich, I emailed you. Tony (talk) 12:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Links other than in articles

I have noticed there are links to dates from various quarters of WP which may or may not have been considered for delinking as follows, for example:

Would you look into these, please? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a somewhat related point ... I think there are some dates, such as baseball year dates, that are not automatically delinked. But that may well be in accord with the view of the individual relevant wikiproject, such as the baseball wikiproject in that case. It's I think a somewhat mild disconnect with the overall wikipedia policy, and I'm not sure that they need be consistent, but it is something I thought I might raise for your thoughts.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you have an example? do you mean the {{by}} template? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I presume so, it has been mentioned in passing that the the albums project, I think it is, had a guideline to use "1966 (see 1966 in film)" where appropriate... or was it films? Regardless that alwasy stuck me as a good way to go, it discourages blind linking (how often is the "by" link useful - incidentally I moved "BY" to "Baptist Youth" a few days back. On a more generic note it has been said many times that projects do not trump general guidelines. Clearly if they did you would get jurisdiction conflicts. It is ok I think to provide specialist exceptions "We italicise scientific titles, becasue that's how it is done" or "we use 'mya' instead of BC" or "we use IUPC spelling for chemicals, not UK or US." What is not ok is what some have tired to do , make OWNed projects a bastion of some idiosyncratic style (over and above ENGVAR type choices that are simply due to the early contributors). Rich Farmbrough, 02:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
Tx. To answer Oh's question, it's the case in perhaps most baseball player articles. See, for example, Babe Ruth, Albert Pujols, Joe Mauer, and Jimmy Rollins.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Used as a reference

Sorry, this is OT to this thread: Rich, I quoted you as a reference in this discussion. I'm just trying to be polite; it seems polite to mention it when you quote others. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 08:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Editorial tags should go in the Talk page

One of the most elementary Wikipedia style rules is that any comments (questions, requests, suggestions etc.) *about* an article should go in its talk page, not in the article itself. Phrases such as "This explanation is incomplete" or "He was born in 1950 (someone please check this)", or "He was born in ????" in an article page should be deleted on sight and, and any relevant discussion should be carried out in the talk page.
So could someone please explain why editorial templates like {{Unreferenced}} or {{Merge-to}} are being inserted in *articles*, rather than their talk pages? What makes those editorial requests so important that it is OK to deface the articles with them?
As if that damage was not enough, those tags are being inserted before the leading paragraph (which is then not "leading" anymore!), waste from four to six lines of screen space to deliver a half-line message, and are ridiculously flashy (as if they were the most important thing that the reader should know about the topic).
Finally, some of those tags are being inserted by robots, which is quite unfair. For each mouse click by the tagger, some regular editor will have to spend a minute or two, at least, to remove the tag — even if the tag is unwarranted. Why should the tagger's opinion about the article be worth a hundred times more than that of a regular editor?
Please!... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, sorry, I may be barking up the wrong tree. I may have misunderstood what Smackbot is doing. (I just had a hundred of my articles edited by it in a row, I am still checking what happened...) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
As an editor, I totally agree with your opinion, and think it should be taken to a level different than Farmbrough's Talk page (needs wider discussion). The bot edits look "true by policy, but depressing" to me. I think you're right; the tags belong on the Talk page for editors, not in or on articles. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The tag is only replacing a hidden category and the tag on stub pages is itself currently hidden. Another alternative is to speedy these unreferenced stub pages, while I was vexed when someone did that a few months ago, and managed to restore and improve some of them, the new stubs that are being created seem to be referenced, whereas some of the older ones aren't, and it seems they will be replaced if deleted. So while the idea doesn't appeal to me I don't rule it out totally. Rich Farmbrough, 10:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
I dont object to the {{unreferenced}} tag per se, the problem is its placement. That supposed "rule" contradicts the earier and very logical rule about use of the talk page. Moreover, I just saw that, in a straw poll on where the tag should be placed, there were 9 votes for "top of article", 10 for "bottom of article", and 13 for "talk page". And that, of course, is among the 30 or so editors who took part on the discussion of that template, and who therefore are far from being an unbiased sample of all editors.
It seems that a considerable fraction of the articles will end up with that annoying template. That includes many perfectly good and fully verifiable articles that were created before 2006 (when the <ref> machinery did not exist). Do you expect that the 10,000 regular editors of Wikipedia will immediately stop whatever they are doing and rush to put references into those articles? Does anyone believe that adding references to a perfectly fine article is more important than fixing wrong formulas or bad syntax, adding essential contents, or create missing articles? (Many of the authors of those old articles have already left, perhaps put off by the creeping Vogonization of Wikipedia.) Face it, the *normal* state of a Wikipedia article is, and will ever be, "unreferenced" or "insufficiently referenced". (So in fact it may be more efficient to tag only "fully and properly referenced" articles 8-).
Actually, several of the articles that were tagged as "unreferenced" by SmackBot *do* cite sources, they just don't use <ref>...</ref>. But go try deleting the tag on those articles!... So please reconsider: either move those tags to the talk page, or make them invisible (like the "unreferenced stub" tag). All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No not immediately but within some reasonable period of time. And I would say the the fraction eligible for an unreferenced template is falling, I took maybe 7000 articles out of the unreferenced categories in the last month or so. We have over 1 million articles that use "<ref>" and a whole bunch (presumably nearly 2 million) that use other forms of referencing. If the community wants to move the tags to the talk page, they can - start a (modestly perennial) VP discussion - as I did on (unsuccessfully) getting rid of Orphan tags; some information is kept there systematically, like "needs infobox" and "needs photo" for biography articles. Alternatively find a suitable reference book and cites for a big bunch of articles! Rich Farmbrough, 09:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

&nbsp; -> {{convert}}?

Here's a final one for now, something I've been meaning to ask for a while: When it comes across a quantity separated from its unit by a space, SmackBot often replaces the space with &nbsp;. Eg "3 km" -> "3&nbsp;km". Would it not be better to use {{convert}} instead? Eg "3 km" -> "{{Convert|3|km|mi}}". -Arb. (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

Breakage of Template:Article issues/doc/Fulltext

I believe the most recent edit you made to Template:DatedAI broke Template:Article issues/doc/Fulltext, because it stops the former template working in the Template namespace.—greenrd (talk) 14:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC).


XLinkBot‎ adds a welcome when adding a warning, if the page is completely blank.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Defaultsort keys

I've noticed a lot of AWB edits from you in which a musical group's name gets a "second word, first word" sortkey applied to it as if it were a person's name — do you have an automated function running that you're sometimes forgetting to turn off when you're doing other batch jobs? Just wondering... Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 03:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC).
Ah, okay, fair enough... Bearcat (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
FWIW, though, one alternative might be for the template to add a "group" flag for articles that are discussing groups of people (bands, companies, etc.) instead of individuals, and then AWB could switch off the function if that flag is present. Food for thought, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)



Useful. Rich Farmbrough, 11:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

Editing other people's signatures

You may want to fix something.--Rockfang (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm looks like a stray mouseclick. Very odd though. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 13:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC).


Look at this; the HTML comment makes it self-explanatory. I suggest that the bot only process the |pages=, leaving |page= alone, as books using chapter-and-page numbering differ in whether to use hyphens or dashes.

Good idea. Rich Farmbrough, 12:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC).
Good, but &sly; is the entity for the soft hyphen (used to syllabify words and only visible if at the end of a line). The "normal" hyphen has no named entity, and the numerical entity is &#45; ― A. di M. — 2nd Great Wikipedia Dramaout 13:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes I knew that except the invisible bit. Oh well learn something every day. I was worried that a numeric entity would be unicodified. Maybe {{-}} would have been better. Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC).

Template:Unreferenced stub

Hey Rich, can you fix Template:Unreferenced stub so that it doesn't float the box to the left making the text wrap around it? As can be seen at Kinglassie when the auto= parameter was removed. -- œ 02:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

OK should be done. The idea was to make ths stub less obtusive... Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Date format when unlinking

I see that you have recently de-linked several dates (e.g. on Scrapheap Challenge). Could you please take care when de-linking, to change the date format to one suitable for the variant of English used in the article. For example, Scrapheap Challenge is a UK show, so should say 12 April 1998, instead of April 12, 1998. Bluap (talk) 15:55, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot's use of {{Unreferenced stub}}

When removing the outdated Erik9bot category, SmackBot sometimes adds {{Unreferenced stub}} yet for some reason the expected message box seems not to be displayed. Is this deliberate? For examples see Frome Sports Club or Soesdyke-Linden Highway. -Arb. (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes there was some objection to "tags overwhelming stubs". For this reason the auto parameter hides the tag. There is no reason that this behaviour can't be changed in future. Rich Farmbrough, 01:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
Fair enough. Seems odd not to have the text box though as that is what is most "useful" to the casual reader, or so one would have thought. -Arb. (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
No, no, PLEASE keep it that way! "Odd" (to say the least) is having editorial messages like the {{Unreferenced}} tag being visible to readers. If you could fix that too... All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
From a pre-Wikipedia perspective, odd is allowing unreferenced, incomplete, badly translated, POV pushing, mis-spelled and poorly laid out articles to be part of the encyclopedia. Rich Farmbrough, 17:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC).
Well, I don't see how sticking an {{Unreferenced}} tag at the top of such an article will solve those problems. If the criterion for tagging is the mere presence of <ref>s or a References section, then pov-pushers will easily evade it; and, conversely, the mere lack of references does not mean that the contents is unverifiable, unverified, or wrong. Most articles created before 2006 lack references simply because they were neither required nor supported; yet many of those articles were based on reliable sources,or are otherwise OK. Do you expect that, by threatening to delete those articles, you will get their authors to rush back and add references to them? Many have probably left Wikipedia; many of those who are still around do not keep those articles in their watch lists anymore; and many will rather work on new content than comply with bureaucratic requests. Given the current ratio of editors to articles, and the number of articles that have got editorial tags (including {{-stub}}, {{Cleanup}}, etc.), the only consequence of sticking those tags will be to deface the article — essentially forever.
You may have seen statistics of wikipedia's growth. They show that the pool of editors, which had been doubling every 11 months or so until 2005, has since been steadily decaying. That probably means that essentially no new editors have joined Wikipedia's pool since 2006, and old editors are leaving. The main reason for this change probably lies elsewhere, but suspected accomplices include the creeping bureaucratization of Wikipedia, the cluttering of article sources by templates, and the general hostily shown towards newbies — including the aggessive deletion of "non-notable" articles, and the threatening disdain implied by tags like {{Unreferenced}}.
Anyway, for the last four years Wikipedia has been in a downwards course. It will not get out of that trend as long as people just keep doing what they have been doing since then, without a better justification than "it is policy". All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am familiar with people taking a real or perceived problem and blaming all or part of it on something they don't like. I am not "threatening" to delete articles, just surprised that a manually created plant stub I came across is less well referenced than the several hundred sister articles in the same genus created en-bloc. To explain why I think that deleting these articles might be effective consider that if, by some mischance, we were to loose all the U president articles, they would undoubtedly be recreated in a couple of days, and most likely to an excellent standard. Similarly the "pre-2006" stubs of which you speak, are, while still stubs, probably (i.e. on average) of more interesting/notable/important topics than the ones created in Decmeber 2009. Therefore they would be likely to be re-created, properly referenced. Let me make it clear I am not proposing that we do that, simply pointing out that it is not a ridiculous idea. Rich Farmbrough, 23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC).

Rich, sorry but I cannot agree with this analysis. Many of the articles in question (mine and other people's) took *a lot* of work to create (*including* looking up references), and were only created because *one* editor choose to do it. Some stub-size articles that I created took me many hours to find the necessary sources. If all "unsourced" material was to be deleted, it would be years before someone would have the intiative to restore it; and that may never happen. Not because those articles are worthless or unimportant, but simply because the number of *important* articles and sections that are still missing is completely out of proportion to the number of active editors — and these are shrinking, not growing. (By my estimate, there are about 10,000 editors who make at least 2-3 edits a day on the average. Creation of a medium-size, medium-quality article requires hundreds of edits. Routine maintenance of a hundred articles probably requires another 10 edits per day. Can you tell me how many articles have got the "unreferenced" tag already?::All of them. Rich Farmbrough, 04:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
) So deleting unsourced material just because it is unsourced is, more often than not, throwing away the hard and valuable work of other editors.
That's what the tagging and sourceing is supposed to do, save material from being destroyed. Rich Farmbrough, 04:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
Hm, sounds like: "that is why ransom notes are a good thing, they save hostages from being killed" 8-) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
And even if the articles were recreated right away, the original work would still have been wasted.
Sigh, how can I make you see that article tagging does not contribute anything to Wikipedia, it only defaces the articles and pisses off other editors? Imagine a janitor who, instead of cleaning, goes around the building spray-painting "THIS ROOM LOOKS DIRTY" on the walls --- even in rooms that are actually quite clean --- and abuses anyone who tries to erase the signs. How could that possibly be considered "good work"? What is the difference between that janitor and a robot-assisted article tagger?
Please reconsider, and stop this tagging madness. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Love the janitor analogy. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Incomplete articles were fine when no-one took it seriously. Now it is one of the top 10 sites - and do you believe that more of what is documented on my User page under "things that stayed too long" doesn't exist? Do you thing that the problems with the Adbot articles are unique? What you are talking about is more like "Unsafe floor" signs being removed. Certainly, wikify, uncat, stub, expand, copyedit could be made hidden, but these are not the problem tags. The problem tags are COI , unref, NPOV, BLP unref, copyvio and stuff like that. Rich Farmbrough, 04:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
And anyway - why are you complaining to me? I just hid 45,000+ tags! That is what this section is about. Rich Farmbrough, 04:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
Rich, sorry again for barking up the wrong tree. Many thanks for hiding the stub tags and for your attempt to get rid of the "orphan" tags. (If you cound't, why should I even try?...) I hope that you will reconsider the "unref" too. Meanwhile, I guess that I am really burned-out and need another long break from Wikipeda. So long, and all the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

fyi on date formatting...

You are the expert on date formatting... and you did your date reformatting thing on Abdelaziz Kareem Salim al-Noofayee. Recently another quality control volunteer did further date reformatting on that article. I asked them about the conversion of dates from yyyy-mm-dd format to dd Month yyyy format -- within {{cite}} templates. I thought I would let you know, in case their work wasn't in line with the date standards.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I have no problems with this type of change, and the format seems appropriate (US military). There will always be dissenters of course. Rich Farmbrough, 21:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Could smackbot?

I just looked at your FAQ. Could your smackbot be authorized to change every instance of a URL a site has stopped using to the URL the site now uses?

Originally the DoD made available one hundred .pdf files under Then, for a period of time those files were available under that directory and

But, for some time now, only the second directory,, works.

There are over 2,000 places where URLs start with the first directory. Could smackbot correct all those URLs?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have it ready to go , but I need a BRFA. Rich Farmbrough, 02:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

HMNZS Waima: Fate

HUllo Rich, yr pages re this trawler/minesweeper are helping me resolve a small mystery I have had since about 1960.I found this at ...."..In May 1946 Waiho and Waima were sold to Red Funnel Trawlers Pty. Ltd in Sydney. The ship was renamed by her new owners Matong ON 178379. Waiho was delived to Sydney in September by the Marine Department steamer Matai arriving 12 September.." Navy Museum. My own involvment was when my father "souvenired" the brass engine room plate in about 1960, as the ship waited for scrapping (?) in Sydney Harbor. He still has that plaque, and I hope to be able to Fwd it to the museum soon. Thanks for your help in tracing the ship ! Feroshki (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


Hi! Wow you must have covered every topic imaginable now! Can you use AWB to remove a - from the coordinates display title of the villages in Jamaica statred by Kyle 1278. You see it works in the map display but adding a - and a W into the standard coordinate display make it an east! So they are currently displayed in south India! Can you quickly remove the - sign from the bottom coordinate display. Also he has wrongly added documentation which says AU, but it is Jamaica not Australia. Can you fix them like thisThanks. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Hehe. Thanks. Happy Christmas! Dr. Blofeld White cat 13:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if you knew why is on our spam filter? Is it because it is a commercial site? Because that site contains a lot of useful information and even if not acceptable as a reference for some topics it is useful for further reading in external links. How do I go about requesting it to be cleared? I mean hell if fallingrain is not even on the spam filter I fail to understand why this site is.. This OK I found MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to bitch about it!! Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:45, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem delinking date ranges

I noticed a problem with your date delinking in the yearly Masters Tournament series of articles, e.g. 1981 Masters Tournament. The comma in the date is getting incorrectly dropped when delinking (see this edit [82] for example). I've fixed all the Masters articles (by deleting the year which is redundant anyway) but thought you should be aware of the problem. - Tewapack (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Default sort tags

Hi, Rich. While fixing the default sort tags, I have identified two different sources of misclassification. There's Smackbot (via AWB as you say) and there's also User:DefaultsortBot. That bot is adding default sort tags to articles that lack them if they have a "listas" parameter in the WPBiography template on the talk page. If the "listas" parameter is wrong then DefaultsortBot gets it wrong. Smackbot changed many articles around Dec 11th. I have fixed many of them regarding band articles. Why widespread do you think this problem with the default sort tag is? Does it extend outside the band articles? One thing that might be able to prevent recurrence in the future is for Smackbot (or AWK) to check its default sort tag against the "listas" parameter. If what it wants to use matches the "listas" parameter then the edit can be assumed safe but if there's a discrepancy, then something is wrong. I am going to be away from Wikipedia mostly during the Christmas holiday so I'm afraid I won't be able to help much more for a while to fix more of the tags. Cheers, 00:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is an assumption that everything up to now is OK. There are bots (and users) that copy in both directions, and that do work on either of the two parameters. For example ListasBot, DefaultsortBot, Yobot. Some transformations are more or less safe, for example getting rid of diacritics, on WpBio articles reversing John Xxxx (though this could be a band). Trouble is ListasBot last ran in Sept, DefaultsortBot in June. Also somehting is needed to flag discrepencies and fix those that are obvious. Rich Farmbrough, 00:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force/Required pages

I was starting to go through the above list, but am noticing some type of issue with links that have punctuation. For example Beau’s lines, even though there is a Beau's lines article. Perhaps there is an automatic way to fix this? Thanks again for your help! ---kilbad (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes sort of. Rich Farmbrough, 06:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

Something shiny

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
I award you this Barnstar because every time I look at my watchlist you have unlinked dates to at least four more of the pages that I patrol, Happy Holidays J04n(talk page) 15:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC).


I have no idea how AWB works (and don't particularly want to know), but I hope that it is possible to avoid mistakes like this (the one in the recording section) in the future. (And I normally wouldn't bring it up, but my watchlist usually contains a lot of "Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) (Delink dates (WP:MOSUNLINKDATES) using Project:AWB" and I'd rather not have to go through and check all of them each time.) Thanks. Santa Claus of the Future (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

Amp'd Mobile

I've just used Twinkle to remove some advert sounding material by an IP address ([83]). For some reason Twinkle said in the edit summary that I had reverted your edits. I haven't and I want to make it clear that that was a mistake on Twinkle's part. I would like to apologise on Twinkle's behalf. Not sure if I can remove your name from the edit summary... any ideas? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems, it's just an edit summary. Rich Farmbrough, 16:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC).
No it's cool. It says "Reverted TO edit 35.... by Rich... " Rich Farmbrough, 16:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC).


I'd like to work on an article that was deleted, and rewrite or improve it. Could you put it on User:Debresser/Sauscony Lahaylia Valdoria Skolia please? Suppose you can guess what the title was. Debresser (talk) 12:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Debresser (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Review Question

Hi Rich - I see that you did a quick review of a page I created (Destiny Solutions). As this page has been up for a while and no one has taken down the This is a new unreviewed article marker. Could you take a full review of the page and take this marker down?

Thanks!Hollyroad (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)Hollyroad

Yes check.svg Done.

Rich Farmbrough, 19:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Happy Holidays from Phantomsteve!

Happy holidays to you, Rich Farmbrough - hope you have an enjoyable, relaxing time
-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Cfd templates

I see my post about the Cfd templates was archived. I hope it is not forgotten though. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

The archiving works on sig dates. Hence the bumping. Rich Farmbrough, 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC).
I came to the same conclusion by deduction. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Just the occassional reminder. Actually, the more time passes, the clearer it becomes that the changes I made are working well. Debresser (talk) 11:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Please leave capitalization of template names alone

I left the following message on User talk:SmackBot:

This date-delinking edit by SmackBot to Generation Rescue changed "{{reflist}}" to "{{Reflist}}" (capitalizing the template name) for no reason. Please leave it lower case; that's the standard style for that template. Thanks. (This is just one example of many.) Eubulides (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Shortly thereafter SmackBot deleted the message without comment. Is this normal for SmackBot? If so, then I suggest modifying its talk page to tell other editors about this behavior.

The talk page does explain that comments get archived (quickly otherwise it becomes a discussion page). In this case I went off to do some research, then took some much needed sleep. Smiley.svg Rich Farmbrough, 05:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

More important, can you please fix SmackBot so that it doesn't change the capitalization of templates? It should just leave capitalization alone; there's no reason to change it. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

  • why does it matter? It's hidden away and visible only in edit mode. The template would work just fine whether it's capitalised or not. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ohconfucius: Capitalization matters to us that have a preference. As far as I know most template programmers around here prefer lower case. Bots and tools should not be used to enforce a style for which there isn't consensus. As far as I know there is no guideline telling if templates should use upper or lower case. So the bot should respect what the human editors have put there.
I regularly see the same thing in the /doc files of templates that I have created: A user with some tool like AWB comes along and "cleans up" the page, but all he does is changing capitalization and changing whitespace in headings etc. Which means that user is using a tool to enforce his personal preference, on texts which he didn't contribute to. That's very rude towards those who spent a lot of work on coding and documenting the template.
--David Göthberg (talk) 04:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Now I have to wonder: Do I have to WP:AGF of a bot? —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Pooh, what a load of old cobblers! Whether or not {{Reflist}} is in capitals is hardly a style matter. The whole of WP enforces capitalisation of the first letter of each and every article. Just go to the template concerned, and you will see "Template:Reflist" right at the top. Quite what effect the capitalisation of 'Reflist' in any given article has on programming is really beyond me. It's not that we're unappreciative of the work you guys do programming templates, but it just strikes me you're trying to pin the blame on the wrong person. Seeing what is being argued about here is fundamentally an AWB matter, I suggest that if you have an issue about the "enforced capitalisation" of "{{Reflist}}" allegedly against consensus, you should take it up at WT:AWB. While you're at it, if you have too much time on your hands, why don't you busy yourselves changing the editing toolbox, because clicking on the relevant button also inserts "{{Reflist}}" at the cursor. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean to indent your post as a reply to mine? It appears irrelevant to what I wrote.
Setting aside the style issue, my point is that the change makes no practical difference. But someone seeing a bot perform the replacement might mistake it for a meaningful correction and edit pages for no reason other than to implement it (thereby wasting time/effort and increasing system overhead). —David Levy 06:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry. It was a response to the ongoing discussion above, not to you specifically. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It matters because users who see bots perform such edits might assume that the capitalization replacement is beneficial, prompting some to waste resources by performing edits purely to make this pointless change. —David Levy 04:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I changed the date delinking to leave {{Reflist}} alone. We can talk about the use of case to aid readability another day. Rich Farmbrough, 04:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

Eubulides is pushing his idea of what the standard is. He has done so at another occasion as well, in a very pushy way. Note that SmackBot was mentioned in that discussion. I propose to ignore him and his POV pushing, or actively fight them. Debresser (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Debresser: Yes, Eubulides is a very disturbing POV pusher. I had my share of fights with him about other issues. He almost made me leave Wikipedia and he made me decrease the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia. But in this case he is right.
Debresser: In this case it seems you are the POV pusher. You edited the doc of a template I made, only to change all template names to upper case. And that was for a template you had not contributed to at all. That's rude and the same thing as changing a text between British and US English, without contributing to the text at all. And I see in the discussion you linked to that you are apparently doing the same thing in other places.
--David Göthberg (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Most citation templates, and {{Reflist}}, and their documentation pages I have worked on, and am working with them daily as a wikignome. Apart from the fact that in most cases there was mix of upper- and lowercase usage anyways. So he was inforcing his standard no less than I was mine. But saying that it was rude of me to edit Wikipedia, that is pretty rude yourself. Debresser (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it is a capital mistake to consider any user's attempt to improve the encyclopedia as "rude". And changing the text to (for example) British English is good on The Shadows, even if you have made no other edits there. Rich Farmbrough, 05:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
  • Yes, I am aware that Eubulides has a low-level running feud with Rich. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think he is protective of certain pages. I would say over-protective, doubtless he would disagree. <shrug> Rich Farmbrough, 05:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Rich: Changing capitalization of template names to upper case is not improving the Encyclopaedia, it is just pushing a style. And there actually is a technical reason why we use lower case in template names:
As you might now parameter names and parameter values are case sensitive in template programming. So most of us stick to using all lower case parameter names and values. Like for instance {{my temp|image=no}}. Also the template names are case sensitive in all but the first character. If you change the docs to say {{My temp|image=no}} then you confuse the users and they tend to do mistakes like {{My Temp|Image=No}}. So experience has taught us it is better to stick to all lower case everywhere when working with templates.
--David Göthberg (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with parameter names being normal case, one reason that template names benefit from sentence case is that {{{{advice is then obviously a parameter and {{{{Advice is then obviously a template. Rich Farmbrough, 06:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Incidentally I have changed a shed load of major use templates from title case, camel case, unusual abbreviations and space free to sentence case, and more recently I noticed a number of other productive editors (fugeddabout it spring to mind) have made the similar changes. Rich Farmbrough, 06:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
In my experience, the vast majority of "contributions" to WP appear to be very minor changes. There's plenty of scope for those who want to complain about others making pointless edits. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot is still capitalizing template names gratuitiously

"OK I changed the date delinking to leave {{Reflist}} alone". Thanks, but it's still doing it now. See this recent edit to United Cigar Stores, done within the past half-hour. Could you please look again and test that your fix actually works? Also, can you please make sure that other template names are not also being capitalized? I assume the problem is not limited to {{reflist}}. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mm, should have only affected a small percentage of edits. Sorted. Rich Farmbrough, 20:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for fixing it. By the way, I looked at the previous subthread and want to say that I do not want to give the impression that I have a "low-level running feud" with you. I don't add comments to this page every time I see SmackBot doing something right! (That would overload you.) My reports of SmackBot's missteps should not be interpreted as meaning anything resembling a feud, any more than the bug reports I might file with (say) Microsoft or IBM mean that I am "feuding" with Microsoft and IBM. The work that you do is a valuable improvement to Wikipedia, it's appreciated, and I hope this is clear to all. Eubulides (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Links other than in articles (bump)

Sorry about this, but one of my previous posts appears to have gotten sidetracked and has now been archived. I'd like to revive it:

I have noticed there are links to dates from various quarters of WP which may or may not have been considered for delinking as follows, for example:

Would you look into these, please? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I found a lot of links, but only a (relative) few appear to be full dates. Some of these need a little manual intervention, I have had them cued up for a while. Rich Farmbrough, 20:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot + delinking dates

This FR is probably about SmarkBot: [84]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Merry Christmas!

December21st2012Freak Happy Holidays! 00:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Date delinking

Hi Rich. Thanks for all the great work you do. I see that you've got SmackBot running all out doing date delinking, but the user page still shows the date delinking proposal (SmackBot XXII) in a "Requested" status. Does that status need to be updated?

Also, could you publish the source code of the AWB module that you are using? I see that the SmackBot does a few things that FDUB doesn't do, such as month abbreviation expansion. I'd be interested in seeing the logic behind the scenes. Thanks. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 05:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 05:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for the response. I'm actually interested in the meat of the bot operations - the C# or VB.NET code (if you are using Make Module) or other script (external processing). -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 06:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of J. R. R. Tolkien's

I have nominated J. R. R. Tolkien's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - incorrect edit summary

With this edit SmackBot changed the capitalisation of a template call {{anchor}} → {{Anchor}} but left the edit summary "Delink dates (WP:MOSUNLINKDATES) using Project:AWB".

I've not looked through the bot's full contributions, but all the other edits that it has made to articles on my watchlist with the same edit summary have actually been date unlinking. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I tightened the filters, it was doubtless picking up a Whyte Classification as an alias for a date. Rich Farmbrough, 10:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC).


Hi Rich. In this edit you enforced WP:MOSUNLINKDATES in an article dealing with a recent year, but this is in disagreement with the guidelines, WP:RY, for such articles. Not sure which one takes precedence, but I guess it's the latter. Favonian (talk) 12:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: Happy holidays!
Thanks! I have put the birth years back - even though they are of uncertain usage. I have left the days of death unlinked for the moment. I was generally avoiding years, but there are so many of them! Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Fix broken references errors

I'd like to draw your collective (User:Rich Farmbrough and User:AnomieBOT) attention to the last three edits on 2006 Iditarod. I think this type of mistake can be easily avoided by AWB aided tools, and bots can easily fix them. Thank you for your efforts. Debresser (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an AWB bug, I will have to investigate. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Another type of fix that a bot or other tools can easily fix is this trivial one. Debresser (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm no I don't think so. [1][1]
  1. ^ a b A reference called http something
I don't understand why not? Debresser (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Use the source Luke... where you will see your example used as a valid ref name. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
I did that the first time. I just happen to be even stupider than you think. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, 13:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

And yet another easy type in this edit. Debresser (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can have a stab at that one. Did you notice I took a calculated risk and now close refs that start less than 140 characters from the end of a section? Rich Farmbrough, 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
No, didn't notice. Nor do I understand. Debresser (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
OK so a ref is missing the closing tag. We would put the closing tag on but we have no way to know where it goes, or even that it is missing without a great deal of work. I noticed however that it is often at the end of a section . Therefore if I see an opening ref and no closing one, near the end of a section, I take the trailing text into the ref. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC).
If that is less than 140 characters, is that what you meant? I see. A risk indeed. Not sure if the risk is worth it, frankly. Debresser (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Happy Christmas Rich!! I may have a job lined up at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I've made a proposal to blacklist the fallingrain website which you've seen in countless Indian and Pakistani articles as a reference when there is ample proof that the site is unreliable and contains false population and often altitude data. One editor is conerned it would take 150 hours to remove the links to that site from 9,000 odd articles but I'm pretty sure it could be done in less that ten times that duration. I see it as a much needed cleanup task, I know that when I see fallingrain used as a reference I automatically think "unreliable" because I had so much experience of it being grossly inaccurate. The geo coordinates are about the only thing reliable... Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Those come from the USGS database I have a copy of that. But removing the refs would be trivial - how about the data. Rich Farmbrough, 17:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC).

Good question. I know its used to reference population and more commonly altitude. I wonder if there would be a way to find falling rain in references first and fix that and then remove the loose external links in the other articles afterwards? Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Rich Farmbrough. You have new messages at WP:BOTREQ.
Message added 03:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied... Tim1357 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Smackbot problem - commas

I noticed a problem with a recent Smackbot edit [85]. It left in a misplaced comma in a date - "[[dd mmm]], yyyy" to "dd mmm, yyyy" instead of dd mmm yyyy. - Tewapack (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the comma showed before and it shows after. I'm not sure if it safe to remove it as it can be correct. "... he finally recovered from the illness on 12 April, 2007 had been a bad year. " however if the year is followed with a fullstop it seems safe. Rich Farmbrough, 05:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC).


If you have a moment, could I get your input regarding acronyms in the list of cutaneous conditions? Thanks again for all your help! ---kilbad (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.

Rich Farmbrough, 09:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Smackbot edits

Please stop removing the date links from the calendars of saints pages (Current Roman Rite Calendar, Tridentine Calendar, General Roman Calendar of 1954, General Roman Calendar of 1962). The MOS specifically allows date links for these kinds of calendar-related pages, and as the date pages themselves have a listing of other saints as well as other observances, someone browsing the calendar might very well be interested to see what else is celebrated that day, so they have a purpose. PaulGS (talk) 21:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I have taken steps.... There are so many feast says, that it might make more sense to have separate pages (my recollection is that there are 17 Saint Richards) - but that's another discussion. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC).


[edit conflict] I was just about to note the same thing [that Arthur mentioned]. Dates are inherently relevant to other dates, and should be linked in date-related articles (just as much as people's names should be linked in bio articles). I've now reverted the bot twice on a couple date-related pages... Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Date links

I keep finding many radio stations' & television stations' pages dates delinked and I think this is wrong. Here is why: places are allowed to remain linked and yet dates aren't. When answering "Who, What, Where, When, Why & How", the Where is allowed to remain linked but the When isn't. This is wrong because the When is just as important as the Where. Nor am I saying that I think the places should be delinked as well. Finally, all of this happened without a lot of us knowing it was being talked about and I think some Wikipedia-wide notice should have been given. Thank you for your efforts in wanting to clean up Wikipedia though.Stereorock (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with you, I'll note that, to the extent that the bot is de-linking dates in general, it's legitimately reinforcing part of the WP manual of style, whereas such reinforcement would be ridiculously tedious to do manually. Nobody can change that guideline single-handedly, and the best place to bring it up might be Wikipedia talk:Linking. My problem is that the bot has been de-linking dates in date-related articles, wherein dates are germane for obvious reasons, while the MoS indicates that particularly germane dates should be linked. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well as I say it is pretty much done, we can have a conversation about rectangular Februaries. The point is not that then date be germane, but that the page linked to be germane. I hope all dates in our articles are germane, although there are certain classes that are not: nonetheless linking to them is not helpful, just as lo9nging to "dog" from a discussion of Churchill's depression is not helpful, although the "black dog" is a central theme. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC).



I'm trying to help clean up the articles on WGBH -- I'm an employee and can verify most (maybe all) of the information that's in question in the articles. However, when I made a few edits, they were all reverted to previous versions, even minor grammatical corrections. Can you help me correct/verify items in the following articles? It seems like someone would want my assistance, since the Wikipedia article on WGBH-TV says at the top that it needs a lot of cleanup.

Also, WGBH does a significant amount of educational outreach and materials, online and print. How should that info be included?

Thanks in advance. Daisykin (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Daisykin

Certainly, I will look at it now. Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Andrew Stahl

please take a look at this article: Andrew Stahl, which one of your bots recently edited. (that is not the issue.) i am not certain, but it may be a total fiction. it has such fascinating facts as that he graduated from college before he was born.originally, he was listed as being on the team roster of the washington capitals, but that has disappeared.(that's how i came to see this.) in any event, neither he, nor the two alleged 'teammates' are now or have ever been associated with the washington capitals. the names of these individuals have appeared in recent vandalism of the caps article. there is an external link to imdb, but the individual there under that name is certainly not the guy this article describes. as i said, i can't decide what if anything in this is other than vandalism. it does seem to have a fairly extensive history. ????!!!! thanks. Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone, I think, changed the DoB and birth place and added the Capitals stuff. the rest looks OK at first glance. Be good to ahve a better source than IMDB, which is crowdsourcedl. Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
Yes it was an IP on the 15th. - familiar? Rich Farmbrough, 16:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC).

Little but important things...

Rich, WP:ENGVAR exists for a reason. Please be more careful so I don't have to do this over and over again. I really don't care whether the dates are linked or not, but if you must unlink them, please make sure to stick to just that task; don't switch the date format for no reason at all at the same time. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:34, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

So why not switch the format instead of relinking them? Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
Because it's quicker to revert the whole thing (like I said, I don't care whether the dates are linked or not)... or so I thought until I had to do it three times. Thanks for the fix though. Happy New Year.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, December 28, 2009 (UTC)


hi Richard, i have an editing questioned on the page for Engelbert, 8th Duke of Arenberg , an so called editor, yopie is going around round pages on Wikipedia removing links without due process of discussion, in most cases he has not written or contributed to the articles in question but seems to be policing the links on these pages can he do this, and is this right, and i have not contributed my myself concerning these links or articles they have been put there by the contributors in question, please would you reply to this as i find it quite amazing that certain editors seem to have the powers to overwrite anyone a bit of a dictatorship rather than a democracy, regards henry mcdowall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Please feel free to read my FAQ. R.F.

Full ArQuive

Alternatively browse my Talk Archive Index. R.F.


Hi, Rick. Do you think it would be possible to format date automatically by using {{date}} template, while de-linking dates by bot? Beagel (talk) 05:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it would also be possible to simply format the date in a desired format. Rich Farmbrough, 09:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
Thank you for your response. Yes, it is always possible to do this manually. However, I understand that the issue of formatting dates is still controversial and there is no consensus about doing this. Therefore, please consider may question just as an idea, which was a little bit premature. Beagel (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Delinking dates in year articles

A recent edit to 1610s in England was:

  • 18:26, 24 December 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (15,983 bytes) (Delink dates (WP:MOSUNLINKDATES) using Project:AWB) (undo)
why unlink the dates here, and not in 1610?
(I don't actually care about date linking, just curious about anomolies) --Brunnian (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the speedy reply - but articles like 1610s in England appear indistinguishable from the year articles to me. So shouldn't they be treated the same?--Brunnian (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Accessdate removed: [86]. AWB error? -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-29t12:25z

well spotted! Look a few lines down and you will see another identical accessdate though. Rich Farmbrough, 12:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC).


حبيبتى يوليا.. العالم كله يعر فانى احبك. العالم كله يعرف قدرنا وانسانيتنا وقدراتنا ومحبتنا وصدقنا.. كيف نخشى ان نكون هكذا . ولماذا يعطلنا المجرمين بتلك السخافات المدمرة للحياة لماذا لم يحتمو باشياء نافعة للحياه.. هذا هو الفارق بيننا وبينهم هم كازبون ونحن نيتنا يصدقها العمل هم يريدون الدمار ونحن نحب العمال . هم يتأمرون على البشر ونحن نحب الخير للجميع بالحق هم يريدون اخذ ما ليس  من حقهم ونحن نطالب بشرعية حقوقنا ومالى   وحياتى وقلبى ليس لعبة الابالسة ليس لهؤلاء الحمقى الذين لم تصل عقولهم الى جزء من تفكيرنا لانهم محدودين فى الفكر بجرائمهم ونحن ورائنا اشياء كثيرة نافعة.. نحن نعرف غايتنا وهم لا يعرفون ان نهايتهم بتشبثهم فيما يجرموه نحن نعرف طريق الحياة وهم سلكو طريق الهلاك. نحن نريد الامان للشعوب وهم يريدون الخوف والغدر لهم نحن نريد المشاعر الحقيقية للانسانية وهم يشوشون ويخيلون ويعزبون ويضلون لانهم شياطين  الارض اعداء البشر. نحن لا نهاب فى الحق لومة لائم وهم يخشون قول الحقيقة لانها الحياة التى لا يريدونها للعالم .. انهم يريدون طمس كل شىء وتزوير كل شىء والنهب على حسابات كل شىء انهم يقتلون الحياة  ويقتلون انفسهم دون ان يشعرو لانهم اعتادو هذا الدمار والكزب  من اجل ما يسرقوه لانهم اعتادو على ان يكونو وجوه باقنعة وليس على حقيقة الذات بما هم مكلفون به من مسؤلية. انهم مجموعة فيروسات لعينة ولابد من ايقاذهم ووقف جرائمهم .  ونحن يجب ان نفتخر بما نصدى له وما نقوم به لاننا صادقين فى الحياة ونحب الخير وسننهتظر ماذا سيكون الغد بازن الله فيما اشير اليه وندعوهم بعدم اللعب بالموت لانهم اصبحو مكشوفين امام اعين العالم وانى منتظر بدء  اتخاذ اجراءات السفر لاكون ببلدى اكرانيا ومعى ماطلبته من ثرواتى حتى نقوم بدورنا فى الحياة دون ازى الشياطين وفى حال غير ذلك فلا يلومون الا انفسهم. حسين امين  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC) 

SmackBot EchoStar edit indicates trouble

As mentioned on User talk:SmackBot, this edit apparently by SmackBot destroyed date information in a table in the EchoStar article. I'm concerned SmackBot could have done damage to other articles as well! Could you check into it? Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 22:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

YesY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 09:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

User B. Fairbairn

Hi, need your help. I registered to Wikipedia having witnessed the user B. Fairbairn constant removal of Time references in many pages. I have Spielberg page on my watchlist as the user appears to be on a mission to edit out Time. On a sidenote, he makes agitating comments purely to stir...example, 10 June 2009, on the United States page on Broadway theatre, text below the image stated "host to many popular shows"... and he added "and some unpopular ones".. and in his reason for edit stated.."Being a realist here".

Having only been an observer on Wikipedia, i was prompted to register having seen this users work. Thanks for you assitance. XRyanPerryX (talk) 07:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


If you are looking for what to do, there are a few Cfd templates that are waiting for your attention. Debresser (talk) 16:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So far there is less than 700 articles there. I can't believe that is all. I fixed all non-mainspace entries. Debresser (talk) 20:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I picked up a whole bunch when we did the last run. But it will probably grow. Rich Farmbrough, 05:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC).
It did. Over 7,600 now. Don't forget the other namespaces, talk and user. And the Cfd templates. Really overdue. Debresser (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Well project is iover time for picing up ieces. Rich Farmbrough, 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC).
Were you drunk when you wrote this? Or did you stay up late for a midnight mass? Debresser (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Version numbers that look like dates

Hi, I reverted this edit of yours; I think you might have mistaken a software package version (shown with dashes instead of dots in filenames, etc) as a date. Cheers, --Kjoonlee 14:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

thanks for that. Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

January 0

In January 0, Smackbot mutilates one date [[March 0]] --> [[March ]] while still linking it (March 0 is up for deletion, on which I have no opinion, but it is a related nonstandard date) and delinks a See also entry for another nonstandard date, February 30, which is a standard article. Ephemeris is another article which lists January 0 and March 0 in See also. I'm not sure of the relevance for March 0 in Ephemeris, but January 0 is definitely relevant. — Joe Kress (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is (was) a bug. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC).

Are you calling both changes bugs, that is, "March 0" to March " as well as unlinking a date in See also, where every entry must be linked?

Yes, but bugs of different natures. I am done with that particular piece of software nonetheless there may be useful things that can be done.