Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:43, 27 July 2008

2006-08-14 2006-10-18 2007-01-28 2007-03-14 2007-05-05 2007-06-11 2007-07-18 2007-08-20 2007-11-27 2007-12-31 2008-02-01 2008-03-01 2008-05-01 2008-06-15

Why?

Why? {{reflist}} is used almost everywhere I see. I'm increasing uniformity. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't understsand - what kind of a logical system lets us use either "References" or "Reflist", with no criteria as to when one or the other should be used? Wouldn't that cause endless revert wars between the two, with no way to tell which person is right? Can you tell me why "references" should be used instead of "reflist" on, say, Lou Ferrigno? Or, can you tell me why "reflist" should be used instead of "references"? It's a loop. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, why is "references" better than "reflist" in Ferrigno's case? There are more than 10 references. Am I a "tourist editor"? Is that bad? Should we all pick about 7 pages and only edit those pages, and not dare touch other Misplaced Pages pages because some editor may be "maintaining" them and will be very upset at "tourist editors" editing them? What if I really want Ferrigno's page to have a "reflist"? What makes me wrong on this count, and what would make me right? The fact that it's been that way since a "non-tourist editor" decided to adapt the page doesn't really support "references" over "reflist" or the vice versa. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what makes "reflist" better, except that I was under the impression that the majority of articles used it. Although I slightly personally prefer "reflist", what I prefer even more than that is uniformity across all of Misplaced Pages, which is not an outlandish request. Template:Reflist states "when normal-sized font is more appropriate on an article, use instead". Well, when is the normal-sized font more appropriate? There has to be some kind of consensus on a clear system somewhere. I don't care what the specifics of that consensus would be or are, I'd abide by them either way. But without a clear guideline this whole thing doesn't make any sense. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Query

I need help renaming about 200 articles. Doing this by hand would take me all day.

Can your bot rename articles, or be adapted to do so?

If so, please contact me.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist    22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That issue is at AN/I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Feature Article Candidate Roman Catholic Church

The nomination of the above article was archived by the Featured Articles Director, with the comment that the page had again grown too long. He has asked that all remaining objectors produce a list of their specific problems with the article in its current form. These will then be addressed by the article's editorial team before re-presentation for FA status.

Can you therefore please post a complete list of any specific remaining objections you may have on the article's talk page at: Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church. If possible can we have this list in by the end of June, so that editors can begin to address them all in detail in July. To prevent the nomination again becoming over-long, we would ask that you raise ALL of your remaining concerns at this stage, making your comments as specific and comprehensive as possible. It would help if all your comments were gathered under your name in a single heading on the page. Thank you. Xandar (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage bolding bot

Gimme, the bot that bolds the mainpage entry at WP:FA is broken quite frequently; I've left a query about whether you might take that over. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reflist again

WT:FAC#Reflist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The pleasure of your company is also requested at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article candidates#New references feature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot and the Good Articles page

Depending on the consensus here, a small change to the bot might be warranted in the near future. What's your opinion of changing the dashes, by the way? Waltham, The Duke of 19:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sean Combs

Hi Gimmetrow, I guess that'd be me adding the silly tags. I'm sorry if it annoys you and you're right that I should look for references first - but it's not really my field, I figure that the regular editors of the article would be more likely to have those sources at the tips of their fingers. I don't really like the role of {{fact}} tagger, but in this case it's a BLP, so the solutions do need to come swiftly. Some of the wording in the article is questionable and I've tried to improve some of it. Some other areas, I've asked for sources. I see you've done a lot of work on it just recently and thanks for that. I'll give it a rest for a little while, but of course you know it's a BLP, and will thus get extra scrutiny sooner or later. Regards! Franamax (talk) 04:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Beslan school hostage crisis

Just a note to let you know I have failed this article for GA. See the article's talk page for my review. Naerii 21:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Gimmetrow 21:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues

Frustrated. Left a note here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

GimmeBot and new C-class

User_talk:Marskell#C-class_status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainpage

Raul just scheduled a slew of TFAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thesis

Actually, I'm only done my master's - I still have years on the phd. But I do appreciate all the yeoman's work you do around here. Raul654 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Tea & Sympathy

Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Tea & Sympathy didn't get moved to archive; problem with the ampersand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Gimmetrow 19:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul is out 'til the 8th. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just letting you know that I'm not going to pr/ar tonight, and generally, I'm going to stop tending to FAC 24/7 and promoting daily, on the principle of being "nagged to distraction". That Raul is a wise man; I think FAC can survive if I promote every two or three days :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecclesiastical heraldry

I really was hoping for a citation for the bit about the crosier for bishops in the Church of Sweden. I thought it would be good info for the Ecclesiastical heraldry section of Swedish heraldry, but I just wanted to have a citation for it. It sounds like good info, I just want a source. Thanks! Wilhelm meis (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That was from someone else who read books I didn't have. I think it was from Michael Francis McCarthy's books. Gimmetrow 23:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Why don't we have a pre-load at FAR, similar to FAC, that includes the tools? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't someone like Gary King working on one? Gimmetrow 23:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

He did a screen that pops up with a blurb, but I mean a pre-load like the one at FAC that adds the article title link and the tools. I just nommed a FAR, and there's no pre-load. Unless I did something wrong? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about the server lag. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

I was wondering why you undid my edit (putting the references into three columns)? I notice that most good and featured articles with enough references (over a hundred) use three columns... Lady Galaxy 02:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought I linked the edit summary to the Template talk:Reflist. Anyway, I think you will find most featured articles do not use more than two columns. 02:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Really? For some reason all the good articles I looked at (Smallville and Ayumi Hamasaki for example) used three... Lady Galaxy 06:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale and Triping

I seem to have gotten myself sucked into an edit war with Triping. What's your opinion? Should I stop backing her enormous thing out? Or do you feel that there is a general consensus that her changes are bad?
Kww (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Source bug

Is the doctor in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Attributed Arms

Hi Gimmetrow. Re: Rolls of Arthurian arms (40 and 200). Could you tell which specific books illustrates these, and whether these arms have crests, names or any dates? Thanks. Stephen2nd (talk) 11:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten, but I don't have the book right now. Gimmetrow 04:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

I'm trying to fulfill a user's right to vanish and in doing so need to adopt two of his userboxen that are widely used. Can you look at my bot's completed trial ( Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/Xenobot 2 ) and either approve the task or give me permission to run 155 more trial edits? –xenocidic (talk) 23:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. –xenocidic (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

lol, i miscounted so i started doing it manually under my name. there's still about 150 more. –xenocidic (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New template

Gimme, where are we on User talk:SandyGeorgia#Requests archive? Raul hasn't disagreed, so ... should I archive that section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Bot stall ?

Star added, but no articlehistory at Talk:The Shape of Things to Come (Lost)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, an FYI on renames that are recently promoted at User talk:Rick Block#Double listing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Raul just scheduled a mainpage batch. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Good articles

I made this edit which changes the format of one of the sections on the page. I'm letting you know just in case you need to update your bot to take this change into account for future updates. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair-use images

Please see the discussion at:

• Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons#Subpage for BLP image policy --Timeshifter (talk) 15:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Old Peer review

No I guess not. It's just easier to recall and type out template names with spaces, though, IMO. Gary King (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead Gary King (talk) 22:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory

Hi, I saw you contributed quite a lot to the creation of the above mentioned template, and I would like you to help me undestand a few things, and how I can adapt it to the needs of a slightly different FA policy of another Misplaced Pages.

First tell me if i understood correctly: Template:Historyoutput is for producing the full name of the reviewing process, from given abbreviations, right?

On this other Misplaced Pages (the Romanian one), after a FAC, or FAR process, the page is immeditelly archived, and moved to Misplaced Pages:featured article candidates/ArticleName/Archive X, and the (now blank) Misplaced Pages:featured article candidates/ArticleName page is deleted. This is so that it would be easier for unexperienced users to create a new nomination, by using {{FAC}} template. This is done on WP:en too actually, but by bots.

Is there anyway to alter this code below, so that when I click on identified, I would be directed to the right page (Misplaced Pages:featured article candidates/ArticleName/Archive X, and not just Misplaced Pages:featured article candidates/ArticleName)? I though maybe this could be done either by creating a new parameter: currectstatuslink, but I don't know how to make the template use that instead of Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}.

Or simpler, it could be done by using actionXlink, where X is the number of the most current process that took place, which is extracted using the code below. But again, i don't know how to make the template use it. Please help me with this.

<td>]</td>
<td> '''{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}''' is a ]; it (or a previous version of it) has been '''''[[{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action15|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action15link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action14|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action14link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action13|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action13link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action12|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action12link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action11|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action11link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action10|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action10link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action9|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action9link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action8|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action8link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action7|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action7link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action6|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action6link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action5|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action5link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action4|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action4link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action3|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action3link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action2|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action2link}}} |
{{#ifeq: {{uc:{{{action1|}}}}} | FAC | {{{action1link}}} |Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }} }}|identified]]''''' as one of the best articles produced by the ]. Even so, if you can update or improve it, ].<includeonly>]</includeonly></td></tr>

Also, can you tell me where to find these, so that I could translate them. I have used + F for both {{ArticleHistory}}, and {{Historyoutput}}, and couldn't find them:

• Article milestones
• Process
• Result
• Date (also how can I modify the date format, so that it would show D,M,Y and not M,D,Y?) diego_pmc (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Historyoutput generates the lines under "Article milestones". The date format for those lines is there in the #time magic word. It's just a matter of changing January 15, 2025 to 15 January 2025 ({{#time:F j, Y| }} to {{#time:j F Y| }}). As for the "identified" link, it uses the last FAC actionlink, regardless of whether it has /archive or not. That's why the action numbers count backwards. Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}} is just a default. Gimmetrow 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

International Academy

Why did you revert International Academy? The citations were in the proper format. Calebrw (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See WP:CITE#Citation templates. The article had no cite templates, and there was no need to add them, nor any need to add lang=English when the subject has clear ties to an English-speaking country. (While adding the cite templates one cite was made incorrect, too.) Finally, there was no need to add a bunch of empty fields to the infobox. Gimmetrow 20:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Charts

Hi. On most single articles I come across, the refs for charts are placed in the header, which I think it looks neater, or with the chart names. As for deleting charts without explanation, I'm sorry, I'll be clearer next time. Funk Junkie (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

I'm not interested in edit war, but are you sure what you've done?

Hint: see footnote #366

Have a nice day. 219.79.166.153 (talk) 15:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Operation USA

I noticed that you edited Talk:Operation USA I am a bit confussed by the good article review process. I did an unoffical review of the article, but did not list it. The only other individual involved in the review is the own who wrote the majority of the article and is therefor not qualified to review it. User talk:72.87.146.61 edited the header without comment which is what you repaired but at the same time, it seems, changed the status; or did you mean to list the article? Would you be willing to review it and provide any feed back you might feel appropriate as related to my initial review? Thank you Dbiel 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, a coworker (I do not work for OPUSA) reviewed the page and process for GA qualification and felt it qualified and altered the discussion page. If it still does not qualify I will continue to work to make it acceptable. I wanted to clear up any questions and make it clear that I asked an individual to review the page and GA process and make an objective opinion based on the merits of the article. I am also not entirely clear on the process, however I have worked very hard to make this article detailed and accurate and want to follow all necessary procedures.Wattssw (talk) 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

removing date auto-formatting

Gimmetrow—thanks for your suggestion and offer. I've alerted Lightmouse to this. Tony (talk) 13:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be delighted if you could look at my monobook code and suggest changes. This could apply either to the addlink thing (I have never understood that part of the code) or switching dates into dmy or mdy. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Archive script

No, it's still done manually. I wouldn't know how to write a script for that sort of thing anyhow :) Gatoclass (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

date-autoformatting removal script

Hi Gimmetrow: do you have any ideas about how the script might be modified to deal with this blasted citation template problem? Tony (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Project

Tada! I haven't done much testing with it yet. Let me know what you think. --AdultSwim (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AdultSwim/Sandbox This is a raw reflist of everything not currently in the article. It includes vandalism and errors. It also includes the same reference if the format changed. (see 13 and 19). --AdultSwim (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Heraldry

I centered the text because it appeared left-aligned in Safari 2. Now that I check, it is centered in Safari 3 and Firefox. Presumably there is a higher-level problem as I have been seeing the left-aligned text in Safari 2 in a few random places recently. I don't see that the text-align:center hurts anything on the template, especially since there are still a number of people running Safari 2. It would be nice to fix the higher-level problem but I don't know where to begin to look. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's centered in Safari 2 (Mac). With your centering code it looked right-of-center on the system I was on at the time. If you want to figure it out, I won't fuss. Gimmetrow 04:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:GO

In the "it's always something" department, see User:Redirect fixer and this; since that's not a real userpage, and since it references something on a maillist, I don't know how to make it stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It only happened once, right? Maybe if we ignore it it will go away. Gimmetrow 04:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

That's the spirit !! But I don't think so :-) This message is from July 23. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes, there's now an option with page moves to auto update redirects. Don't know when pywikipedia will support the option or I'll have time to add it, but until the software supports it I don't think it can be deselected. WP:GO seems to be the only redirect. Can just rollback each week for now. 05:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

New feature needs change in coding

Your bot that archives pages by moving them, like , needs to uncheck "Update any redirects that point to the original title" to avoid edits like . --NE2 05:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)