User talk:MerlIwBot/Archives/2011

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

What on earth...

What kind of rule is this bot using that would justify this edit??? Herostratus (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The interwiki link was bad: it should have been Никонов, not КНиконов. I've fixed this now.
(Formally, the bot was perfectly justified. In practice, though, a human would have fixed a broken link like this, while the bot has simply deleted it. I would suggest that perhaps when a robot deletes an interwiki link from en:X to other:Y, it should modify Talk:X, leaving a note like this: "I, robot, have deleted the link to other:Y, because there is no article other:Y. If you think this has happened because there was a typo in the link, please correct it and add to the page again."). -- Vmenkov (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Inserting duplicates

Hi, please have a look on this edit: [1]. The bot inserted a lot of duplicated interwiki links. Problem with articles where the existing interwikis are not correctly sorted? --Ben Ben (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My bot does not care about the existing sort order. It simply adds an interwiki after an existing interwiki that would be the predecessor in an ordered list. So if you have "D A F", "B" would be added after A without resorting of the other interwikis.
The interwiki bot script uses the api and not the source code for reading the existing interwiki list. My log shows that the bot thought these interwiki are missing. The only reason for this is, that they are not returned on api request. Perhaps of a broken database. I'll add a check so that also the source code is scanned if an interwiki already exists before it is added. That should solve the bug. Thanks for reporting. Merlissimo 18:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

{{Done}}

Charley horse

Hi! I removed sv:lårkaka many months ago because a lårkaka is a bruise, not a spasm. See Talk:Charley horse, bottom of page. W n C? 13:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope this is ok now. Merlissimo 22:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
{{done}} Seems OK to me. W n C? 01:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

More unjustified interwiki removals

Like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Hanyi_Railway&curid=26471738&diff=423844324&oldid=417816900 Even though the link from Template:Hanyi Railway to zh:Template:汉宜铁路 (or zh:Template:漢宜鐵路, in traditional chars) was perfectly valid. True there was no reverse link, but I thought that bots' job was, when A linked to B but B did not link to A, to add reverse links (B to A) as appropriate, instead of removing the original link!

Methinks the bot's operation here again stumbles at the simplified/traditional char alternative text in zh wiki, as it did when unnecessarily removing interwikis from Wiki Commons. -- 14:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll investigate in this. titleconversion is done using mediawiki. My bot hasn't bot flag on zhwiki yet. But at the moment my bot can only add interwiki to template namespace if there is already one, because the interwiki position is something special in template namespace. Merlissimo 16:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I have to second this, just reverted two massive unjustified interwiki removals from the english wikipedia on Computer Graphics and Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime). Needs to be reworked or removals need to be stopped. Adam McCormick (talk) 05:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Same thing here? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Game_Boy_line&curid=11979&diff=435738439&oldid=434435225 Irrogalp (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
The bot added the reason to the summary. Interwiki connection is a 1:1 relationship. de:Game Boy and ru:Game Boy are already connected to en:Game Boy, so it cannot be connected from en:Game Boy line. If you want to have these articles linked from en:Game Boy line you must remove them at en:Game Boy. Merlissimo 15:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Is there a 1:1 Interwiki rule? imho de:Gameboy covers both en:Game Boy and en:Game Boy line Irrogalp (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pteridophyte

This edit to the pteridophyte article is incorrect. I have had to revert twice now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

My bot added the reason for its chance to the summary. As written all Interwiki from ko:양치식물 link to en:Fern and there is an indirect reverse connection. Also the commonscat link to commons:Pteridophyta which exit in both articles mixes the interwikis i think. But there are much more wrong interwikilinks.
At the moment there is still a great interwiki chaos related to this article. My bot tries to solve such problems using the algorthm of Tarjan. But the script was only able to fix this partly and as you think in a wrong way. All the following articles are reachable from every other article using interwikis only. My bot tries to split this into groups but at the moment all these groups are still connected with wrong interwikis. So could you move these articles into correct groups or verify the bot suggestion? At the end each group must only contain a language once. Group 2 does not fulfill this rule. And many articles (Group unknown) could not assigned automatically.
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Group 6
Group unkown
involved Redirects
There is a unidirictional link to da:Karsporeplanter which linked to Vascular plant, but my Bot split these groups on its last edit. [2]. Could it be that the latin name is wrong there. It is the same as in da:Karplanter (Tracheobionta).
Is Pteridophyte the same as Pteridophyta? Most Interwiki from Pteridophyte link to Pteridophyta, but on enwiki Pteridophyta is a redirect to Fern which contains Pteridophyte in bold lettern. Merlissimo 15:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes "pteridophyte" means "Pteridophyta", but sometimes it doesn't. You need to look at the cointext of the article to determine whether or not there is a match. Your bot is not able to determine context, and so is making an error. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thats why i asked you for help so that this can be corrected. My bot i making changes only if the bot thinks it is sure. In this case it removed the ko interwiki only because it was connected to en:Fern and vice versa (strong connection). Merlissimo 16:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Still more unjustified removals

I don't understand why this edit happened. Your bot seems prone to making unwarranted removals of links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The bot log contains:
Page: enwiki:Green algae (G0) NORMAL
 -> ar:طحالب خضراء (= arwiki:طحالب خضراء) (G0)
 -> bg:Зелени водорасли (= bgwiki:Зелени водорасли) (G0)
 -> cs:Zelené řasy (= cswiki:Zelené řasy) (G0)
 -> da:Grønalger (= dawiki:Grønalger) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: strong connection between (3) da:Grønalger and en:Chlorophyta) (G0)
 -> de:Grünalge (= dewiki:Grünalge) (ADD_DONE; Reason: resolving redirect Grünalgen) (G0)
 -> de:Grünalgen (= dewiki:Grünalgen) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: moving to redirect target Grünalge) (G1)
 -> eo:Verda algo (= eowiki:Verda algo) (G0)
 -> es:Alga verde (= eswiki:Alga verde) (G0)
 -> et:Rohevetikad (= etwiki:Rohevetikad) (G0)
 -> fi:Viherlevät (= fiwiki:Viherlevät) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: strong connection between (3) fi:Viherlevät and en:Chlorophyta) (G0)
 -> fr:Algue verte (= frwiki:Algue verte) (G0)
 -> hr:Zelena alga (= hrwiki:Zelena alga) (G0)
 -> hu:Zöldmoszatok (= huwiki:Zöldmoszatok) (G0)
 -> id:Alga hijau (= idwiki:Alga hijau) (G0)
 -> ja:緑藻 (= jawiki:緑藻) (ADD_DONE; Reason: resolving redirect 緑藻類) (G0)
 -> ja:緑藻類 (= jawiki:緑藻類) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: moving to redirect target 緑藻) (G2)
 -> ko:녹조류 (= kowiki:녹조류) (G0)
 -> lb:Gréngalgen (= lbwiki:Gréngalgen) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: strong connection between (3) lb:Gréngalgen and en:Chlorophyta) (G0)
 -> mk:Зелени алги (= mkwiki:Зелени алги) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: strong connection between (3) mk:Зелени алги and en:Chlorophyta) (G0)
 -> pl:Zielenice (= plwiki:Zielenice) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: strong connection between (3) pl:Zielenice and en:Chlorophyta) (G0)
 -> sl:Zelene alge (= slwiki:Zelene alge) (G0)
 -> sv:Grönalger (= svwiki:Grönalger) (G0)
 -> tr:Yeşil algler (= trwiki:Yeşil algler) (G0)
 -> uk:Водорості (підцарство) (= ukwiki:Водорості (підцарство)) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: moving to redirect target Зелені водорості) (G3)
 -> uk:Зелені водорості (= ukwiki:Зелені водорості) (ADD_DONE; Reason: resolving redirect Водорості (підцарство)) (G0)
 -> vi:Tảo lục (= viwiki:Tảo lục) (G0)
 -> zh:綠藻 (= zhwiki:綠藻) (G0)
So the bot tried to split the group of algae (en:Green algae) and its division (en:Chlorophyta). If you look at the content of the removed interwiki articles da, lb, mk and pl you'll see that they all contain the word Chlorophyta as latin translation. So these removals were correct.
Only the removal of fi:Viherlevät was logical wrong i think, but this article was already linked to the Chlorophyta interwiki group before my bot edited there [3]. This logical fault was caused long time ago. I'll move the fiwiki article to the other group.

But on many articles to bot was not able to decide to which the group zhey belong to an left these connections unattached: no:Grønnalger sr:Зелене алге simple:Green algae ka:მწვანე წყალმცენარეები ro:Algă verde eo:Verdalgoj commons:Category:Chlorophyta sh:Zelene alge az:Yaşıl yosunlar species:Chlorophyta el:Χλωροφύκη ja:緑色植物(Disambig)

btw: You could vote for TS-1039. I have written an interface so that you can ask the bot itself for the log which contains the reason for thwe change. Merlissimo 16:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The removals were not correct; the bot made a mistake. You cannot make the decision on the basis of whether the page contains the word "Chlorophyta". That word sometimes means the division narrowly (as we use it here on en:wiki) and sometimes means all the green algae (as on some other wikis). You are assuming that the Latin names of groups are always used the same way, and this is not true. This is the same problem you had with "Pteridophyta". The scientific Latin names have different meanings in different situations.
Take a look at the page content of the da and pl pages that were removed. These pages cover both Chlorophyta and Charophyta, which is what en:Green algae covers. The en:Chlorophyta page does not cover Charophyta here, so it does not match the content of either of those articles.
Latin names have different meanings depending on which classification is being used, so the choice of Latin name cannot be a basis for deciding the correct links. You must look at the page content to make the decision. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I am mainly speaking engish and german, so i can say, that the bot was correct by changing to dewiki link. My bot only analyzes the existing interwiki connections. In this case there was a path from en:Chlorophyta to da, lb, mk, pl and vice versa, but not a path from these foreign articles to en:Green algae. That's why my bot removed the unidirectional links from en:Green algae. So the existing interwikis pl:Zielenice and da:Grønalger at en:Chlorophyta caused that removal and must be removed there. Merlissimo 23:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Case changes causing problems (Tubo de Vórtice)

Recently a Portuguese user regularised an article title by moving it from pt:Tubo de Vórtice to pt:Tubo_de_vórtice. In response your bot removed the pt:Tubo de Vórtice link from the Vortex tube article. It would have been far more useful if it had changed it to pt:Tubo de vórtice.

Looking at the issues raised above, it appears that your bot is creating quite a lot of work for human editors. That is not good. I would recommend that you stop running the bot until you have addressed the concerns raised by earlier commenters. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

My bot is doing about 1000 edits per hour, so i think five responses within the last 24 hours is absolutly ok. Removing interwikis is always more fault-prone than simply adding only interwikis. The bot uses some graph algorithms for this.
Removing this interwiki was correct because the target does not exists. Another interwikibot starting at ptwiki must add the new ptwiki interwiki. I have now promoted to new ptwiki target the the other language projects and made two changes on commons [4] [5].
The bot has also a reverse interwikilink search feature, but this is used only on conflicts at the moment. Perhaps i should also used it if there are deleted interwikis. Merlissimo 12:27, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ophioglossales

The he and ko links were correct. The en:wikipedia has a separate Ophioglossales and Ophioglossaceae page, but the he and ko Wikipedias have a single page for both, so those pages should be linked from more than one page here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thats impossible according to the interwiki logic. Interwikilink should be bidirectional and one article can contain a language only once. You could only create a static redirect on he/kowiki and link to this static redirect (redirect page containing the magic word __STATICREDIRECT__) from one of these enwiki artciles. Merlissimo 11:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not impossible; it happens all the time. We can have two or three articles here that match to a single article there. There's nothing impossible about it; the topic matches are not always one-to-one because some topics are merged when there is large overlap of content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Its technical impossible because the mediawiki database accepts only one link per language. You can read this on Manual:Langlinks_table. Of course its possible from the content side, but mediawiki interlanguage links cannot handle this by design. Please read also meta:Help:Interwiki_linking#Interlanguage_link. Merlissimo 07:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Bot error Marino

There appears to be some interwiki links mix-up by your bot for Marino, Italy and Marin (name). Kindly check these edits [6] and [7]. Thanks --JinJian (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I started my bot at Marino, Italy and split all connected articles into four groups:
Group 1 Marino Disambig
Group 2 Marino Laziale, Latium Italy
Group 3 Marino Name
Group 4 Marin Name
Group 5 Marinus (to en:Marinus (given name))
I'll propagate these new interwiki groups. Merlissimo 00:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Conventicle vs. revival meeting fi/se/no/en

To me it seems plain wrong to remove association between fi:seurat and en:conventicle because historically ecactly conventicle is in question. How/why have these changes been made and on what grounds? --Isidorus Finn (talk) 19:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Page: enwiki:Conventicle (G1) NORMAL
 -> de:Konventikel (= dewiki:Konventikel) (G0)
 -> fi:Seurat (= fiwiki:Seurat) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: strong connection between (3) fi:Seurat and en:Revival meeting) (G0)
 -> sv:Konventikel (= svwiki:Konventikel) (REMOVE_DONE; Reason: strong connection between (3) sv:Konventikel and en:Revival meeting) (G0)
The error is caused by fi:Seurat->da:Konventikel->simple:Revival_meeting->en:Revival meeting->fi:Seurat. I split this into two groups:
Group 1
Group 2
I think it's ok now. Merlissimo 19:54, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

British Expeditionary Force (World War II)

Hi

What exactly is your bot doing? It made this edit [8].

Out of those that were removed, most were correct:

Why did it remove them? Chaosdruid (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I already saw this change while watching the bot live log. enwiki has two articles: British Expeditionary Force (World War I) and British Expeditionary Force (World War II). Most other language projects (except jawiki) only have one article. I think the best solution is to connect all interwiki to the (World War I) article and add some section interwikis to (World War II) if exists. The other solution would be linking to the disambigouspage British Expeditionary Force, but then you won't have these interwiki from World War I. I have done my first suggestion. [9] [10]. Merlissimo 12:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
That is not the best solution at all. If your bot is unable to resolve WWI and WWII then it should do nothing rather than linking all to WWI and risking a large number being incorrect. No information is better than incorrect information. SpinningSpark 08:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Thats what my bot dot on its aotumatical edit: The script linked most interwiki to WW1 instead of WW2. Thats the same as what it did on my manual decision. I added only new section interwikis to WW2 manually. Merlissimo 12:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Is the Pope a shark?

Quite a peculiar interwiki this bot has created: ht:Reken for en:Pope. Esoglou (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

On some languages papa is used as latin name for a Carcharhinus. I this possibly why sb. added a wrong interwiki. I solved this conflict on manual review. I'll change all interwikis after my bot is unblocked on enwiki. Merlissimo 21:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Ton

I have just undone this edit which removed the majority of interwikis from ton. On checking a few at random they all seem to be genuinely the same subject. I see that there are already numerous other complaints on this page. I think you should pause this bot now while you rethink your algorithms otherwise the bot will have to be blocked. It is not acceptable for a bot to be putting human editors to this degree of trouble. SpinningSpark 08:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

All automatically removed interwiki are always connected to another enwiki article. Most of the interwikis at ton are about the metric unit an so belongs to Tonne. But there is a big interwiki conflict related to Ton. My bot started at nl:Megaton and made to following grouping decision, but changed only some interwikis where there was only one strong connection.
I'll review this decision later manually. Merlissimo 12:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I looked at a handful manually (including the French article which if anywhere one would expect to be about tonne) and found that the bot was in error in every case. Unless "Unités anglo-saxonnes" is some strange version of the metric ton I think the French article must be covering the same ground as ton. Conveniently "la tonne courte" is translated in article as short ton and the Unité d’énergie section includes tonne TNT. Likewise the Danish article. SpinningSpark 16:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the problem with both English tonne and ton having an interwiki to fr:Tonne (unité). This is sensible in this situation where French does not have a separate article for ton and covers both in the same article. Is there some kind of bureaucratic rule against it? SpinningSpark 16:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Blocked for this. Let me know when the problem is fixed and I will unblock. SpinningSpark 21:01, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Bot is stopped, but i'll answer your last comments tomorrow. I am too tired now. Merlissimo 23:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
By design of Mediawiki one article can have only one languagelink for each language. Technical this is because (ll_from,ll_lang) is a primary key as you can read on mw:Manual:Langlinks table. Its also mention on the Help pages at meta:Help:Interwiki_linking#Interlanguage_links: It is not suitable for multiple links of the same other language. As you can read on meta:Interlanguage use case the solution of the developers was that interwikis should link to a disambiguation pages instead for solving this problem.
This would mean that there should be a disambiguation page as interwiki target on enwiki linking only to tonne and ton. But in reality this is not done and interwikis should link the most closely corresponding page in another language. Interwikibot will never add interwikis between disambiguation pages and non disambiguation pages.
Your solution that both enwiki articles should link to the same target on other languages result in an interwiki conflict (read meta:Interwiki conflicts) because it isn't an injective any more. pwd bot won't do any modification to this page anymore which decreases the interwiki quality by time (delected and moved target are not corrected). Having two pages in one interwiki group isn't possible. All interwiki bots expect that every languagelink is transient, so it must be also bidirectional.
In some cases my bot can do this automatically. Of course this could be more error-prone than running the pwd bot in mode which only adds new interwikis. But leaving interwikis unattached won't help to improve the quality of interwiki links. My bot is doing about 800-1000 edits per hour (one instance of a pwd bot is making max. 30-50 edit per hour, some operators are running multiple instances for increasing the edit rate). For this edit rate there are only very few reported problems. The bot relies on the already existing interwikis and if a human adds a wrong interwiki the bot propagates this error to other wikis.
A possible solition for solving interwiki conflicts is mentioned at meta:Fine interwiki. My bot supports section interlanguage links (having an anker) and static redirects. It won't also resolve redirects if this would cause a new conflict (like de:Megatonne and the above example). The static redirect feature (a redirect page containing to magic word __STATICREDIRECT__) was also added to the pwd framework some weeks ago, so that all interwiki bot are able to handle this.
Of course changing interwikis manually can always produce better result. I don't think that my bot was wrong is this case, but i would move some articles from group 2 to 3. But reviewing this big conflict involving so many articles will take some time. It doesn't make sense to solve the conflict on enwiki only. My sugggestion below. Merlissimo 19:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Group a
Group b

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MerlIwBot/Archives (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I think the bot edit was correct related to the existing languagelink relationship from other wikipedias. The solution Spinningspark annonced for creating an extra interwiki conflict isn't possible because it won't help for the future. You can find my proposal for solution above. Merlissimo 19:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

{{subst:Having looked through all the "ton" links, I've found that there were several errors per the interwiki links, including German and the two Norse entries; combined with errors such as the sharkish Pope up above, I think some reprogramming is necessary before the bot gets going again. Feel free to leave me a note when you think you've fixed the problems.}} Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Wrong interwikis are always initionally set by humans somewhere. After the shark/Pope/Monkey conflict i already improved something so that this will not happen again, but this does not affect Tonne. Merlissimo 13:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Adventures of Pinocchio

There is also a greek edition for this article. ΕυστάθιοςΧ (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, Thank for the hint. I'll add it later after bot is unblocked. The removal of el:Πινόκιο was correct. I'll promote these group:
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 5
Merlissimo 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)