Jump to content

User talk:Cyde/Archive023

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

Cyde's talk page        Leave a new message

Archives
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 A B C D E F G
H I J K L M N O
P Q R S T U V W
X Y Z 10 11 12

re: citation needed

[edit]

Hey bro. Take a look at this. All these the "citation needed"s on that entry were obviously done by someone who didn't watch those films. That's a really excessive use of "citation needed" and is just plain trolling.

It doesn't really matter if someone has seen the movie or not— contested statements of fact ought to be cited to reliable secondary sources wherever possible. One way that simplistic list articles can make up for their simplicity is by being ruthlessly accurate and carefully cited. In the case in question and as Cyde specifically cited, it's not at all clear that your personal opinion about things like good vs evil reflect the facts: The movies don't usually state these things explicitly and you haven't offered any citations to filmmakers, critics, or other secondary sources making these determinations. I've already warned you once about edit warring to remove citation needed notices, I really hope you'll reconsider your actions and find some good citations for your assertions. --Gmaxwell (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: 300, balance

[edit]

Did you not watch the film or read Frank Miller's comic book? Of the force of 300 spartans who set out to hold the Persians, only Captain Dilios survives. Every other Spartan died. This is who the 300 are, not the entire population of Spartans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Object404 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the entry on 2 jedi/2 sith to be more objective (specifically referencing only the films).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

Cydebot deletion summary

[edit]

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about some of Cydebot's recent deletion summaries, e.g. here, where it did not link to the CfD log page (version of CfD/W at the time).

Also, is there any chance that you could adapt Cydebot (if, of course, you have the time and interest) to do the two tasks requested at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Working#Requesting a bot to help maintain the Working page? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the first issue, it looks like the CFD templates have changed. I'll need to update the bot (specifically, a regular expression or two) to deal with the new formatting. I'll get that done soon. As to handling CFDW maintenance tasks, I'll need to figure out how much free time I have available. Mathbot's code would be a good starting point though. No sense in reinventing the wheel. --Cyde Weys 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, on both issues. If tackling the additional bot task would be a burden for you, please do let me know and I'd be happy to ask at BOTREQ instead. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, you should probably go ahead and ask there now. --Cyde Weys 03:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, will do. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the CFD templates have changed. Dates are being passed as parameters to {{cfr full}} now instead of the old way which just had a link to the per-day page. I'm figuring out how I want to handle this in PyWikipediaBot now. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Besides the templates changing, it appears that category.py was coded in such a way that a custom deletion message was no longer being used for the old category being deleted during a move (but it was being used during a deletion). Hard to say if it's always been that way and I just overlooked it, or if someone changed it. Regardless, the bot should be functioning properly now, grabbing and extracting per-day links from both {{cfr full}} and {{cfd full}}.

If you know of any other templates that are used in the same capacity, please let me know, because the bot isn't aware of them. And keep a closer eye on the bot in the upcoming week just to make sure that the edit summaries are being handled correctly 100% of the time. If not, there are still further changes that I'll need to make.

I've left all of the debugging/tracing code in for now. It all goes directly into my logs, so if there is an issue, I should be able to debug it quite efficiently. And once everything is ironed out, I'll commit my patch to the PyWikipediaBot trunk and post a diff for the perusal of any interested parties. --Cyde Weys 21:46, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll check the bot's deletion summaries for the next few days and let you know if I notice any issues. Thanks again, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see one issue. The default edit summary is still being used when a category has a talk page that needs to be moved/deleted. I'll get on that at some point. Let me know if you find anything else. --Cyde Weys 14:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any other edit summary issues, but I did want to ask you about two other things:
  1. For speedy renames, the following edit summary is used: "Robot - Speedily moving category OLDNAME to NEWNAME per CFD". Could you tweak the summary so that it links directly to WP:CFD/S?
  2. In this version of CFD/W, there are quite a few categories which Cydebot successfully emptied but did not delete. A user tagged them for speedy deletion using {{db-catempty}}, but this was about 1.5–2 hours after they had ben emptied. Did the bot skip them because they had talk pages?
Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed your #1 and I've hopefully also fixed the issue I identified wherein the edit summary wasn't correctly being applied for deleting the talk page. And I've also identified what's causing your issue #2. If you're so inclined, you can look at the PyWikipediaBot source code, specifically cfd.py, and the issue lies on this line: 

       # Delete the old category and its moved talk page                                                                                        
       if copied and self.deleteEmptySourceCat == True:

What's going on here is that "copied" will be false if, for any reason, the destination page already exists (amongst other reasons). It will be false even if the destination page is the same as the source page and the source page has been emptied. Clearly there's a better check that can be made here; I just need to make sure I do it correctly. Some possible complications are that the destination page will not be the same (it will be stripped of its CFD templates, for instance), and also that the destination page may have had categories removed from it since its page text was copied over, so thus it may be different in a non-trivial manner. This particular nuance is more common than you would think, owing to the nature of batched CFD decisions. Anyway, I'll brood over it and try to come up with the best solution, which may end up involving checking edit histories (i.e. if the most recent edit on the target page has been made by this bot, then it's probably safe to delete the source page once it's emptied).

And in case you're wondering, there are a large variety of reasons why a destination category page might get written before everything is moved from the source category (and thus the source category is not deleted because it is not yet empty, or if the job queue is running slowly, it might not yet appear to be empty). Some reasons include: Bot failure for any number of reasons to process one individual article, two bots running over each other, one bot batch taking so long that the next scheduled execution overlaps it, etc. --Cyde Weys 02:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scots-Irish

[edit]

Please note that Scotch-Irish has become an offensive term. [[1]] [[2]] Yopienso (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The category was speedy renamed (criterion C2.A) from Category:American people of Scots-Irish descent to Category:American people of Scotch-Irish descent, apparently under the assumption that "Scots-Irish" was a misspelling. Cydebot merely implemented the seemingly-uncontroversial request made, reviewed, and approved by other (human) editors.
The main article was a short while ago renamed from Scotch-Irish American to Scots-Irish American, and there is ongoing discussion of this action at Talk:Scots-Irish American#Name. The name in the category should reflect the name in the article, so I believe it would be appropriate to wait until the issue of the article's title is settled and then simply match the category title. -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch-Irish is offensive now? Damn. Maybe I should stop identifying as such, and start getting offended when people call me that instead. --Cyde Weys 13:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde, did you read my links? Times and customs change, you know. I was raised with the understanding that my small % of feistiness came from my wee smidge of "Scotch-Irish" heritage.  :) I was also raised thinking it was nice to say "colored people" instead of the "n" word. Then we learned to say "black." Now we have to use the awkward "African-American." If you haven't read the note from ZScarpia to me, please do. It's the first link. Yopienso (talk) 23:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind me, I was just having a laugh. Whatever the decision is, just put it in WP:CFDW and it'll be done. --Cyde Weys 03:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm too dense to catch your joke, how do you think I could ever figure out how to "just put it in WP:CFDW"??? :P I can't find any instructions on that page. If you're Cyde Weys, I'm Beck Ward! Yopienso (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is back at Scotch-Irish American now. I would really want to see some kind of a consensus arrived at in a formal discussion before moving all those pages between categories again. --Cyde Weys 21:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me; I've chimed in like a proper ding-a-ling. It would be great if someone savvier than I could take it to WP:CfD. Yopienso (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Planning Discussions Now Underway Regarding DC Meetup #10

[edit]
  • You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  • Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing category names

[edit]

When you change one category to another that already exists, would it be possible to determine if an article is already in the new category and, if so, just remove the old instead of changing it to the new? That way we wouldn't end up with duplicate categories. You might need to do it in two passes:

  1. For every article in the new category, remove the old category if it's there
  2. For everything left in the old category, change it to the new category

I did something like that on a small scale using AWB. Just a thought. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Models

[edit]

Your bot has misinterpreted things a bit over "models." A human being that is a "model" belongs in category "Models (occupation)". The category "Models (occupation)" belongs under category "Physical models." Category "Physical models" belongs under cat "Models" as does "Conceptual models." The bot seems to think everything is a human model. Greg Bard 01:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, Cydebot has no semantic understanding of the category structure, and does not do anything not explicitly dictated to it by a human. Your best bet would be to head over to WP:CFD. --Cyde Weys 01:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do go ahead and dictate. I was the proposer of the move, which attained consensus. My "heading over" to CFD is not the next step in this process. If you could take a look yourself (human I presume) at what it is doing, I would appreciate it. Be well, Greg Bard 01:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

Orphaned non-free image File:Apple Computer Logo.svg

[edit]
⚠
⚠
 Thanks for uploading File:Apple Computer Logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you.

--ARTEST4ECHO talk 14:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK MP cats

[edit]

The result was NO to endashes, yet your bot is going ahead and changing to endashes. See [3]. DuncanHill (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told the bot to do it. Being taken care of on my talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

CFDW task seems to be down again

[edit]

There's currently a long listing at WP:CFDW, but your bot seems to have stopped the moves at midnight UTC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, seems to be working again. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to have stopped again - no edits for half an hour in that task. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like there's some exception that isn't being handled. So when this exception is thrown, it dumps the bot all the way out to the command line. Then the bot won't resume until its next scheduled task. I'll look into it, but I'm thinking that this issue may simply be fixed by updating to the latest version from Subversion, which I haven't done in a little while. I'll keep checking my logs just to make sure that it isn't recurring, though. For the curious: 

Robot - Moving category Settlements in New Caledonia to Populated places in New Caledonia per [[WP:CFD|CFD]] at [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 15]].
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "~/pywikipedia/cfd.py", line 186, in <module>
    main()
  File "~/pywikipedia/cfd.py", line 131, in main
    robot.run()
  File "~/pywikipedia/category.py", line 461, in run
    pywikibot.translate(site, cfd_templates))
  File "~/pywikipedia/catlib.py", line 482, in copyAndKeep
    authors = ', '.join(self.contributingUsers())
  File "~/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 2636, in contributingUsers
    edits = self.getVersionHistory()
  File "~/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 2465, in getVersionHistory
    dataQuery.extend(self._getVersionHistory(getAll, skip, reverseOrder, revCount))
  File "~/pywikipedia/wikipedia.py", line 2521, in _getVersionHistory
    dataQ.append((r['revid'], r['timestamp'], r['user'], c))
KeyError: 'user'

Interestingly enough, if you look at the edit history (now deleted) of Category:Settlements in New Caledonia, you'll see that one of the edits has had the username and/or IP address oversighted/censored/deleted/{whatever they're calling it these days}. The MediaWiki API call should be returning a specific value to indicate that case, not removing the key from the returned data entirely. Interesting. I wonder what the best way to handle this is. I'll follow up with the PyWikipediaBot folk. --Cyde Weys 14:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the May 15 set, I deleted the redirected South Africa category that may have been the roadblock to CydeBot continuing in its task. Try starting it up again with South Korea.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot appears to be stuck again. — ξxplicit 20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may be because of the multi-prefix Category:Wikipedia:Books... categories. I remember that Cydebot also encountered a problem when renaming Category:Wikipedia:Books to Category:Wikipedia books. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I'm assuming this would require manual work, then? — ξxplicit 22:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. It's not likely that we'll encounter many more multi-prefix categories in the future, so it's not really worth asking Cyde to take on the bother of trying to find a work-around. I'll have a go at a portion of the categories today with AWB. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling it Black Falcon. If this comes up more regularly than we currently expect, do let me know and I'll look for a solution. Unfortunately I anticipate that it might be a tad messy, because the problem resides somewhere in the bowels of the PyWikipediaBot code (specifically in how full article names are parsed out into component namespace and page title), and not in anything specific that I've written. --Cyde Weys 13:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Saint John River (Bay of Fundy)

[edit]

I just created this category and had just completed popuklating it, and you instantly unpopulated it. Please cease. Gjs238 (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You please cease. (No, YOU please cease, no YOU ... etc.) Seriously, see the note I left on your talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

How did Hungarian-Austrian Jews land up descending from "Hungarians"

[edit]

Hi Cyde: Please help me out here; I am looking at this page Category:Austrian Jewish people of Hungarian descent and it is downright wrong. It was previously named Category:Hungarian-Austrian Jews (meaning Jews from post World War ONE Hungary that had at one time been closer to Austria-Hungary) which is accurate, meaning a Jew with a very specific Jewish Hungarian-Austrian heritage, while the new name is not accurate because it implies that the main heritage is primarily "Austrian" (which they are mostly not) but of "Hungarian descent" meaning it could be not-Jewish, which is ridiculous for this category. They are both Hungarian and Austrian but not of either descent. "Hungarian" and "Austrian" should not have been split in this case. It gets confusing I know, but the category was fine as it was. All I can see are the references here, but I never saw any notification for this discussion at the key Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism or at least at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism where it should have been posted for Judaic editors to be notified. I hope this will NOT be a trend now to come up with changes that will screw up Category:Austro-Hungarian Jews; Category:Austrian-American Jews. Where was this CfD discussion and who was behind it and what is still going on. I would like to know so that I can file an appropriate WP:DRV. Thanks for all your efforts and help. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this in passing—I pity you, Cyde, for being expected to know the details of every single bot action someone working at WP:CFDW activates. IZAK, I did some digging and found that this was nominated as a speedy rename: see [4], so it must have been processed without objection. I suggest you talk to the nominator, User:Mayumashu, and find out what his rationale was. Good luck, Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the message at the top of User talk:Cydebot, I still get lots of these. Sigh. --Cyde Weys 13:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Good Ol for showing me who nominated it. I will now contact User Mayumashu (talk · contribs). You know Cyde, the problem with your bot is that once it/you makes the changes it leaves no live html links of the history of that categ and makes you the only "address" to ask when the name "Cydebot" shows up. When bots take on a life of their own they are in effect like Frankenstein creatures and only by contacting their creators can there be any hope of finding out who was responsible for the changes. Maybe you can look into that. IZAK (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I figured out the line of code that was causing the Frankensteinian behavior and I have de-rezzed it post-haste. --Cyde Weys 03:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propositional logic

[edit]

Why exactly was Category:Propositional logic moved to Category:Propositional calculus? There was discussion and consensus to move the category to "propositional logic", but I do not see that for this move.Greg Bard 22:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Cydebot. --Cyde Weys 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent

[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review see Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. Because you evidently closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. IZAK (talk) 06:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your input at DRV

[edit]

Hi Cyde: There is now a DRV for 24 categories of Jews at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent. As you mention above, the deletions were based on speedy delete nominations and your bot was used to make the changes, but an admin at DRV, User Stifle (talk · contribs) has requested [5], [6] more information and input from those involved in the deletions and what they based themselves on. Since you have been involved with deleting and discussing these, could you respond ASAP at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 28#Categories:American Jews/Jewish people by fooian descent and help us out tracing who nominated and supported the Jews' categories in question for speedy renaming and why it was done so that the monitoring and closing admins at the DRV can know the starting point of the DRV in question. Thanks for helping us out here. IZAK (talk) 03:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any specific questions about how the bot is programmed, I can answer those. I'm no more qualified to answer any of the other questions than anyone else, however. --Cyde Weys 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot stopped deleting

[edit]

Cydebot stopped deleting at approximately 03:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC). Its other operations—creating new categories, moving category talk pages, and recategorizing pages—seem to be working fine (including edit summaries). I'd be grateful if you would look into this. Thank you, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting shedloads of errors that look like this: 

Deletion of [[en:Category:SuG albums]] failed for an unknown reason. The response text is:
{u'error': {u'info': u'Invalid token', u'code': u'badtoken'}}
Deletion of [[en:Category talk:SuG albums]] failed for an unknown reason. The response text is:
{u'error': {u'info': u'Invalid token', u'code': u'badtoken'}}

I'll investigate further tonight. Yeah, that's not a very useful error message. --Cyde Weys 15:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be working again...[7] -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

Category:Eurovision songs of "Swedish"

[edit]

Hello, could I ask you to correct Category:Eurovision songs of Swedish to Category:Eurovision songs of Sweden? Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 24 was about moving the categories to Eurovision songs by country. The country's name is Sweden, not Swedish. :-) Tomas e (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added this to process, my mistake. Sorry about that, that's so embarrassing! — ξxplicit 16:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi,

The Institute of Food Technologists has a new logo, and I do not have the rights to update it on their page. Can you please help me? Thanks!ldl2010 18:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlabinger (talk • contribs)

Moving cats to articles?

[edit]

Hey, I wonder if Cydebot could handle this, or if you could recommend another bot or method: there's tons of categories on talk pages, and it was decided in this discussion to move them to the articles. I'm sure it could handle taking them off the talk pages, but would it be able to put them back on the articles? Any ideas if not? Thanks a bunch. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into it tomorrow. It'll be a one-off, but it shouldn't be too difficult. --Cyde Weys 22:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, that's super nice of you. I didn't mean to put you out like that, just wondered if you knew of something that already existed for that task. Peace, delldot ∇. 16:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, looks like hidden categories were first added in 2008, and this is the first I am hearing of them. Geeeez. --Cyde Weys 19:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finally getting around to this, by the way. Sorry for the wait. --Cyde Weys 01:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And away we go! Total programming time invested so far, maybe a little bit more than an hour. I figure another hour to make it totally configurable (right now it only works on categories and it only goes one way). Once it's nice I'll commit it to PyWikiBot trunk. Do let me know if anyone notices anything wrong, because there will probably end up being some kinks to work out. Yes, we are doing it live. --Cyde Weys 01:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I found the first issue to consider. What do we do when the target page to move our category to is redlinked? I figure we have three options: do nothing, remove the category from the talk page and leave the article page alone, or remove it from the talk page and create the article page consisting of just that category. So far I've chosen the second option, but I'm definitely open to being persuaded. --Cyde Weys 01:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another issue: PyWikipediaBot's default handling of categories always moves them all the way to the bottom. Apparently this is where the stub templates are supposed to go (below the categories). So I'll need to change that as well. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for dealing with this! I would think if the page is redlinked removing the cat is fine (and G8 the talk page?). I bet someone will come along behind you and A1 the article again if it's empty except for a category. Anyway, your help is much appreciated, let me now if I can help out or anything. Peace, delldot ∇. 15:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to go through these and square away the category pages, by making sure that they're all hidden and changing the wording that says they should be placed on talk pages. --Cyde Weys 06:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Settlements categories

[edit]

Hi there Cyde. After much discussion, I've finally closed the Many more settlements nomination and will create a subpage of WP:CFDW for this large load at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large. I'll need a bit of time to properly format and list all the categories listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 28/Settlements, so this is just a heads up. Regards. — ξxplicit 04:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I think I've got them all now, so everything should be ready to go. — ξxplicit 06:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And away we go! --Cyde Weys 12:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, we found some of the first group of "Cities, towns, and villages" categories had pictures built into the pages. We've removed those. So if you were waiting to take another shot at deleting those, go to.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the issue that's happening here is the same as the issue from the subsection "Cydebot stopped deleting" above. what's going on is that PyWikipediaBot is losing the login token (who knows why), and there's no code anywhere in PyWikipediaBot that will refresh the token in the middle of a run. So if a run is long and goes on for a long time, this issue can crop up. I'll be trying to figure out how to automatically refresh the token if it does go stale soon. Then we shouldn't run into this issue nearly as often. --Cyde Weys 21:45, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think it's actually working. Keep your eyes out for categories that aren't being deleted that should've been, because this should fix most of the problems. There is still a known issue whereby target categories that already existed when the run started will not have their source categories deleted. This will be the case if, for any reason, there was a first run that failed to delete the source category. --Cyde Weys 20:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And geez, this is even more edits than I thought it would be. Also, some of the categories are applied via templates rather than being on the article pages. I guess those will have to be handled manually. --Cyde Weys 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's taking far longer than I anticipated as well. As for the template-populated categories, those won't be too much of a problem to handle. — ξxplicit 20:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a combination of two issues: A slower-than-usual edit rate (which I'll blame on server lag), and my initial attempts to fix the issue where the admin login token was getting lost actually just succeeded in breaking the bot. So I'd make the change, let it run for a little while, forget to check on its progress, then wake up the next morning to discover that the same stack trace had been sitting on the console for half a day following the erroring-out of the run. Whoops. But it's on track now, and I have a good bugfix to commit to PyWikipediaBot trunk to boot. --Cyde Weys 22:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion about Cydebot renaming categories

[edit]

It would be nice if you could participate in the discussion here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archived to WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive213#Speedy category renaming violating the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license. Would making a proposal at WT:Categories for discussion be productive? Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot just moved Texas Rangers category to Texas Rangers (baseball). You know, I hope, that Texas Rangers are a law enforcement group in Texas, a division of the Texas Dept of Public Safety. In at least one case, Reading Wood Black, that's what the Texas Rangers category was there for. Reading Wood Black lived in the 19th Century before the baseball team. I removed the category altogether after Cydebot renamed it - seemed the easiest solution. Wonder how many other sites were conflicted on this very category. Maile66 (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to tell you besides that the category rename is clearly a good idea, because the old name was confusing (did not differentiate clearly between use as a sports team and use as a law enforcement group). As to how to distinguish which was which in the pre-rename, mingled category, that was a job for humans to sort out, not bots. I suspect what happened is that the rename decision went through at CFD without anyone realizing that there was anyone besides baseball players in the category. --Cyde Weys 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a done deal now, anyway. I do agree that going forward the rename was a very good idea. We have too many confusing categories in Wikipedia. Maile66 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion

[edit]

Hi Cyde, have you ever considered making User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion sorted by when the page was added to CSD (in other words, always listing new ones at the bottom)? That would allow items to be worked in the order they were added to make sure that things don't stay in there forever. --B (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Hello, this is a notification that there is currently a discussion at WP:ANI that involves you, which can be found here. Your comments are welcomed and appreciated. Thank you. — ξxplicit 03:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me. I wonder what can be done. --Cyde Weys 04:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the laugh. Esp "caps-lock-is-cruise-control-for-awesome" --Kbdank71 13:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad bot

[edit]

Bad bot. Bad bot! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Date of birth missing

[edit]

Hi, why the change? From the category's description: "This category is intended for the discussion pages of articles ..." If there is consensus that the category is not for talk pages, the description should be adjusted. And, in this particular example: the category was in conflict with the article about Moldomusa Kongantiyev already categorized as 1958 birth. I am therefore very much in favour of putting the category in the article itself, because such conflicts would be more evident. Is there no chance that the bot would recognize the conflict automatically? Cheers --FordPrefect42 (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And why is the bot moving the stub tag so it's placed before the categories and not at the foot of the article (before the interwiki) links? Infact, why is the stub tag being moved at all? Lugnuts (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the section "Moving cats to articles?" above. --Cyde Weys 12:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Time magazine people

[edit]

Cydebot doesn't seem to want to empty out Category:Time magazine people at WP:CFDW, and I can't exactly figure out why. The category isn't populated by a template and it took care of Category:Time magazine articles just fine, but simply won't depopulate the former. It created Category:Time (magazine) people, but didn't go beyond that. — ξxplicit 05:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns CFD

[edit]

Hello Cyde, I need your help with cleaning up the tags for the now closed cities and towns CFD. The result of the CFD was to skip some of the complicated ones. I was thinking of doing this with AWB Find and Replace, but it looks difficult to me. Category:Cities and towns in Anjaw district is an example. Can your bot do it? Full list is here. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you are referring to. What exactly needs to be done? By the way I'm going away for a while soon so I'm probably not the one to rely on to resolve this issue if a timely solution is needed. --Cyde Weys 04:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CFD notices on some categories need to be removed. See User_talk:Mike_Selinker#Cities_and_towns_CFD_tags for more information. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/DC_10#People_probably_attending_a_2:30_Air-Space_Museum_pre-dinner_tour

[edit]

Check out the new things that the Smithsonian is offering us! Sadads (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

Cydebot DOB moving snafu

[edit]

This is an example of Cydebot moving Category:Date of death missing and Category:Date of birth missing into an article without checking whether the article already had a valid Category:1833 births and Category:1874 deaths in it. Seems to me an opportunity might have been missed here? --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth/death is not the same as Year of birth/death. A year is a year, a date is a full date, with day, month, year. This article has years of birth and death but no dates of birth and death. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyde/Archive023&oldid=1143861063"