User talk:Pearle/archive2

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

Perle's categories[edit]

I have a question if Category:Articles to check for link ordering and Category:Pearle edits needing manual cleanup are really neccessary? This bot is supposed to clean up the categories, but these two categories mess up the Wikipedia boots category. Is there something to do about it? Renata3 19:30, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly do use them occasionally. I suppose they could be merged, though I do find it handy to have separate categories, because different problems get assigned to each. -- Beland 08:15, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Bug in category parsing[edit]

The automatic category lister is not robust in the face of incorrect markup in articles. See e.g.


Somewhere, someone forgot to close a bracket...

I realize that Ms. Wisebot cannot anticipate all possible typos and brainos that may occur, but at a minimum, there should not be any double-square-brackets in the list.

(I discovered this trying to look for category links; the parser found the start of a link, and then stalled out a few hundred kB later...)

Crism 22:50, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki does not add articles to "Category:1997_films" when it sees something like the above messed-up syntax, so for most purposes, Pearle probably shouldn't, either. I do occasionally post a list of categories with questionble characters in the name to Category:Wikipedia categories in need of attention so they can be fixed. But what function or command were you using, or what were you trying to do, exactly? Perhaps your application requires different behavior. -- Beland 08:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was harvesting Wikipedia data for use as a very large set of heavily-interlinked test data. That included parsing Wiki text for links, and the infinitely open link caused Perl some headaches. I ended up limiting the maximum length of a link to 1,024 characters, and Perl was much happier. crism 28 June 2005 23:56 (UTC)

What does this mean?[edit]

I just saw a Pearle edit on my watchlist with the summary "Mostly null edit to actually remove from Category:\s*Article names with other uses". As advertised, it was a mostly null edit. What effect did it have? --Carnildo 1 July 2005 02:55 (UTC)

Such edits usually just tidy up category and interwiki links, to conform to the style noted at User:Pearle#New_category.2Finterwiki_style. Null and mostly-null edits are needed in a certain weird situation which has to do with a bug in the Mediawiki software. When an article uses a template that is in Category A, the article is also placed in Category A. But when the template is changed from Category A to Category B, the article doesn't move until the next time it's edited. Pearle is working on renaming categories, which involves moving all the articles from one category to another. When there are templates involves, she'll need to do null or mostly null edits to some articles after a human has changed the template over. -- Beland 3 July 2005 09:53 (UTC)

Faulty edit[edit]

This edit involved removing the blank line between the cats and the interwikis; this is faulty, and should not be done even to stimulate category links table regeneration, as there is intended to be a blank line between them. Could you please modify your bot?


James F. (talk) 2 July 2005 10:50 (UTC)

Well, for several months now, I have been leaving one blank line between category links and body text, and no blank lines between category and interwiki links. I try to keep the number of blank lines in this area to a minimum because they cause extra whitespace in the finished product, which makes it easier to miss the fact that you haven't scrolled down to the very bottom of the page (and thus not see the category links there). -- Beland 3 July 2005 09:55 (UTC)

Moving categories[edit]

QUOTE (from summary):

Moving from Category:Future_games to Category:Computer_and_video_games_in_production

Why is this being done?  Thorpe talk 22:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Because this move was listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#To_be_emptied_or_moved, presumably after being approved by the WP:CFD process. There was a small glitch in Pearle's code that added the destination category without noticing that it is already added by the template, but that's since been fixed and the mess cleaned up. -- Beland 01:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
People are removing the new category from the article. Take WWE SmackDown! vs. RAW 2006 for example.  Thorpe talk 10:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's back on now. Sorry.  Thorpe talk 10:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


Goodjob with the cleanup... but, why are you moving stub notices to the bottom? As far as I know it goes:




Thanks...gren グレン 16:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting the stub category at the bottom is a convention of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting#Stub_sorting_methods. It's done that way so the stub category is last in the list, so they don't obscure "real" categories for readers. -- Beland 19:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I didn't see what you were referring to on that page. Sometimes it is recommended that stubs go above meta templates... like, if Hilary Clinton were a stub, it would go above the template of "First Ladies of the United States" since that is not related directly to the article... with this method I don't see how you can do that and you obfuscate the stub notice. I figured it was meant to go first so that people would see it and fix it. Is this an accepted standard at wikipedia? Hmm... thanks. gren グレン 20:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting says: "It is common practice to put the tag at the very bottom of the article." People requested that Pearle do this, so that's why she does. I can definitely see your point about why putting the stub notice above navigational templates might be a good idea. I don't know if there's a convention about how to deal with these situtations. Personally, I don't think it matters all that much. I mean, it should be obvious that the article is too short, anyway. I think the stub tags are probably most useful in that they help people who are looking to expand articles on a given topic to find some good candidates. It's also a good "yeah, we know this article is too short" for the benefit of readers, but it's not like an NPOV or accuracy dispute notice, where's it's rather important that they read it. It's also worth noting that the category links themselves also appear below navigational templates, but fixing that would require software changes on the Mediawiki server. -- Beland 03:58, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

correlation ratio[edit]

What sort of cleanup did you have in mind for this article? Michael Hardy 20:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Pearle did not add the cleanup tag, only sorted by month, as the edit summary "Changing {{cleanup}} to {{cleanup-date|July 2005}}" indicates. It was originally added by an anonymous editor from I assume they did so because this article is incomprehensible to anyone unfamiliar with advanced statistical notation. It could be repaired with a concrete example and an intuitive, rather than symbolic or mathematical explanation. A graph or two would also help a lot. -- Beland 01:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Dear bot, I appreciate your hard work. However, could you possibly be so kind as to mark the small changes in category names as minor? This would prevent my watchlist from getting long and unreadable. Thanks in advance. Halibutt July 5, 2005 05:46 (UTC)

Hmm. It's hard to determine in advance whether a command-line option will be used to make a major or a minor change. -- Beland 22:33, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, as far as articles are concerned, I suppose it's fair to say that category renaming is almost always, if not actually always, a minor matter. I'll mark changeCategory() operations as minor from now on. -- Beland 21:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


Hi Pearle Wisebot, Could you please let your author know that as I've been going through Category:Articles to check for link ordering, I've noticed that you occasionally incorrectly tag pages that are marked with the VfD template, because that template includes a category? Could you ask your author to modify you to ignore the misplaced cateogry in the VfD template? Please let me know if this isn't clear. Thanks! -- Reinyday, 16:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I've noticed that, too. Not a bad idea. I put in a patch; hopefully this won't happen in the future. -- Beland 18:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Perfect! -- Reinyday, 05:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Kilmacud Crokes[edit]

In what way does the article need to be cleaned up.--Play Brian Moore 01:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Pearle did not add the cleanup tag; she only changed it to a date-specific one. An anonymous editor ( added the cleanup tag on 27 August. I see User:Petaholmes had added the cleanup-importance tag on 14 August. I guess this team is notable because they've won an all-Ireland championship? If so, that should probably be mentioned first. I think the article could probably use a copyedit (though there may be some Irish English variations that look like errors to me) and maybe some tweaking to make it sound less like the evening sports report and more like an encyclopedia. Sometimes similar articles are supposed to have a similar format, so you might check other teams of the same type to see if there's a template or anything. -- Beland 01:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Catch phrase[edit]

Thanks for revising the tag on the page. Since I placed it there, I refactored much of the article. If you think the tag is no longer warranted, feel free to remove it. Many thanks. Paul Klenk 01:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The page reads cleanly to me, so I changed the generic cleanup tag to {{unsourced}}, since references seem to be the only remaining problem. Thanks for your efforts, Beland 23:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

From Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism[edit]

Many of the recent moves from Category:Environment to Category:Environmentalism are inapproraite, as the pages moved discuss an aspect of the environment, not political activism. Andy Mabbett 22:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. The entirety of Category:Environment was approved for merger with the latter by WP:CFD, and Pearle was blindly implementing that decision. I have left a note at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#To_be_emptied_or_moved explaining the situation and linking to background information. The participants of that page will need to figure out what to do now; I'm sure your input on that would be helpful. Thanks, Beland 02:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I never had a chance to get involved in discussion on the move and I would have liked to since I do a lot of work on the category. The move has reulted in mant incorrect categorisations. I will set up a Wikiproject:Environment soon (busy at present) to discuss it. Alan Liefting 02:53, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I have set up Wikiproject Environment to discuss these issues and set up some goals on the Environment articles and categories. Alan Liefting 07:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop cleaning the Category:Cold War people[edit]

Well nothing to add. Recently the bot removed Charles de Gaulle.... Ericd 23:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please undo those changes. Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Bukovsky, Natan Sharansky... @#$%@!#$%? Humus sapiens←ну? 23:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
This category has been deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 6. I've changed the edit summary used in this situation to make this clearer for future purges. -- Beland 23:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sort key fix for Pearle's rename[edit]

FYI: [1] -- User:Docu

I guess you mean [2]. Is this a request to sort articles of name X to "*" when they are in categories of the form "List of X"? -- Beland 20:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone moved the page since my post above. That broke the diff link. Pearle had removed the sortkey ([3]), which sorted the article under R (or L) rather than at the beginning of the category where it used to be. -- User:Docu

Oh, you're right. It was easy to find the regexps responsible; I have fixed them so they preserve leading (and all other) whitespace in sortkeys now. Thanks for catching that. -- Beland 02:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

E-102 Gamma[edit]

Do you think the E-102 Gamma article is cleaned up yet? --anon

Well, apparently someone does, because the cleanup tag has been removed. Pearle and I have no opinion on the matter. (Other than that I am amazed at the amount of work that's gone into documenting a fictional character in a video game.) -- Beland 02:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


WikiThanks.png Thank you for your contribution at Pune.
Please keep it up!!! - P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

Cat:British institutions ->Cat British organisations[edit]

Becasue this was done by a mechanism other than "move", history is lost. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 19:06, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good point, though this is standard procedure at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion, whether or not a bot is involved. You might want to comment on the talk page there if you think this should be changed. -- Beland 02:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup tags[edit]

Hi Pearle,

Should I do as you did, and add a date to the cleanup tags I add, since I probably will add more (because I'm going through all of WP's articles to find flukes and discrepancies or articles that need re-working). Lincher 19:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

You may do so if you like, or not. Pearle is a computer program, and will automatically add the date based on when you added the tag (just so we can have the many thousands of articles tagged for cleanup sorted by month) if you don't choose to do so. Thanks, Beland 02:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


Your bot, in it's "Moving from Category:Wikipedia_maintenance to Category:Wikipedia_maintenance_templates" edit spree, is moving the category outside of the <noinclude></noinclude> tag. Can you please correct this? (I was going to do it manually until I saw how many articles had been modified). —Locke Cole 20:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I fixed these and moved the rest manually. -- Beland 22:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. =) —Locke Cole 23:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Cleanup-month[edit]

On List_of_African_American_jurists on this edit: [4]. I know its a bot, but its helpful. I shall have to remember that its {{cleanup-date|December 2005}} rather than just {{cleanup}}. I meant to put in cleanup date, honest, I just couldn't find it anywhere. Anyway, thanks again. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 14:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


For to read [5]-- 21:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

wikify tags too?[edit]

Apparently the Wikify template has been changed to use month subdates similar to the cleanup tag. See here: Template talk:Wikify. Would there be any easy way your bot could pick these up too? Thanks for your time. --W.marsh 22:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

  • That was easy to implement. Now doing a test run. -- Beland 03:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


This edit defies comprehension. What you up to, Pearle? (NB: I'm going to attach the new information you posted to the end of the article, so don't go slathering it all over again, y'hear?) —Phil | Talk 09:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that was me. The older, larger chunk of data is getting out of date, but the new listings are tuncated, because I ran out of hard drive space in the middle of the run. Sorry about the confusion; I have to upload them directly like that because of character encoding issues. -- Beland 12:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Please modify Pearle's behavior[edit]

This edit shows Pearle "changing {{wikify}} to {{wikify-date}}." However, you'll notice that she's also added an unnecessary {{interwiki-category-check}} tag, cluttering Category:Articles to check for link ordering with articles that don't need to be checked. -- Reinyday, 08:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Ug, seems to have disappeared. This is what Pearle uses as the canonical list of wiki languages. That's why the interwiki links are now being flagged as garbage. I will figure out where the list went and do a cleanup run as soon as I get off work. -- Beland 15:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, developer Tim has kindly restored the langlist. I have added a check to prevent this from causing a Pearle malfunction in the future, and done a special cleanup run on Category:Articles to check for link ordering. Everything there now should have some kind of real problem.-- Beland 19:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the fast response! -- Reinyday, 21:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Animal (band) listed for deletion[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Animal (band), has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Animal (band). Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

AmiDaniel (Talk) 08:43, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi there. you've been changing {{CleanupDate}} tags with {{cleanup-date}}, but in the process, you've changed the original dates to December 2005. (e.i. [6]) Please, just replace the template's name, not the date. Good wiking, Mariano(t/c) 08:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Hmm. There must be a bug in Pearle's date-of-tagging detector. I will look into it. -- Beland 19:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I think some regexp changes may have fixed this, but if anyone notices this happening again, please leave a note. -- Beland 14:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


pearle keeps trying to change {{cleanup-english}} and failing to do so, im not aware of any dated variant of this template. Maybe there should be? maybe pearle should stop trying to change it? Discordance 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes; same point: the bot seems to think that "cleanup-english" is equivalent to "cleanup-date" and can be modified (as it just attempted to do on Science fiction on television.)—LeflymanTalk 09:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

See Template talk:Cleanup-english. -- Beland 13:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have temporarily solved this by redirecting {{cleanup-english}} to {{copyedit}}, for unrelated reasons. I looked at the matching code, and I'm not sure why cleanup-english is triggering an unsuccessful attempt. I will have to look at it again when I am more awake. -- Beland 21:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This should be fixed by some changes made a few days back. -- Beland


Why does your bot tell me that the "Definitions" heading and the Template:Wiktionary that follows it are out of order?! Seahen 03:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone inappropriately used subst: on an 1911 Britannica template, causing a link to "Category:1911 Britannica" to appear directly above the "Definitions" header, where it does not belong. Someone has subsequently fixed it. -- Beland 18:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

DJ Pierre[edit]

Has an out-of-order category in the Cite-sources template - hence Pearle spots it. This is really symptomatic of self-ref cleanup tags which, perhaps, like stubs should not be at the top? Rich Farmbrough 13:51 11 May 2006 (UTC).

The problem was that someone inappropriately used subst: for {{unreferenced}}, which inserted a Category: link at the top of the page, where it does not belong. It is common practice for these templates to be at the top of the page, where they are most visible. I replaced the result of the subst: with the template itself. -- Beland 18:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Bait Bazi[edit]

I have to clarified and wikified this page as per your request. Please inform me if it meets the criteria or I have to furthur improve it. There are 11,700 hits on Google if you search for Bait Bazi. Thanks. Siddiqui 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Forwarded to User:Sandstein, the originator of the request. -- Beland 23:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Could you give me a few pointers as to what I should do so as to conform to Wiki style? Thanks. andreasegde 08:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Pearle is a computer program that automatically refiles articles to be wikified by month. But the main documentation for wiki style is Wikipedia:Guide to layout. -- Beland 19:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

category exclusion request[edit]

Hello again. Pearle, can you please exclude articles tagged with Category:Articles for deletion from appearing in Category:Articles to check for link ordering? When people substitute the template {{AFD}}, then Category:Articles for deletion appears before the body of the article. Thanks!!! -- Reinyday, 23:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Erp. I think so. I will add this to my todo list. -- Beland 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, should be fixed now. -- Beland 06:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Helena Jaworska[edit]

You changed the wikify tag I had on this article to wikify-date. I was going to put a wikify-date tag on there, but only one section of the article needs to be wikified -- a regular wikify tag says "article or section" but wikify-date just says "article", which is incorrect in this case. What is the correct thing to do? Is there a special wikify tag that I could put in the article that I don't know about? Should the wikify-date template be changed to that it would include article sections as well? Or make an entirely new template? EdGl 15:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)'s really an automatic re-filing. I changed the wikify-date template to say "article or section"; having a separate tag just for sections that need to be wikified seems a bit much, when you can just indiciate this by where you place it. -- Beland 18:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Football Aid[edit]

(moved from User:Pearle) I've noticed you did an edit on Kaká back a while ago. I nominated the article at Football Aid/Article Improvement. Maybe you can help out by voting and do more edits. There are also more articles you can do and you can nominate articles yourself.Kingjeff 00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Pearle is a computer program mostly involved in refiling articles tagged for attention. 8) -- Beland 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Bowling books[edit]


Your bot? has changed the bowling books pages - said it may delete them for being "nn book" - fair enough but what does that mean so I am able to expand?

Many thanks.

(Added to User:Pearle on 11:17, 9 April 2006 by User:FK0071a)

Pearle is a computer program that does not tag articles for deletion. Which page(s) in particular are you referring to? Perhaps I can help figure out what happened if the problem has not already been resolved. -- Beland 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gail McKenna[edit]

Brilliant article


Can you clarify what I need to do to wikify the PKN3 stub? Thanks! Sandwich Eater 12:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This was left on User talk:Pearle; Pearle is a computer program that merely refiles articles to be wikified by month. But to answer your question, a good place to start would be to make appropriate words and phrases into links to other Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Guide to layout for more info. Thanks! -- Beland 06:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorting the category in {{subst:afd}}[edit]

I noticed you making this edit: I'm somewhat confused about the link-order tag, which I've removed; your operator should feel free to put it back. There were no categories or interwiki links on the page but the AfD category (and two transcluded from cleanup tags and so not written on the page). There is a good reason the AfD category is written inside the AfD tag and not at the bottom of the page! Perhaps your operator could check to see if this is the problem? --ais523 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I have excluded articles in "Category:Articles for deletion" from automatic processing, which should prevent this problem from happening in the future. -- Beland 06:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)