| Revision as of 19:56, 24 January 2010 editTim1357 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers69,627 edits →Question about notability← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:28, 6 December 2024 edit undoClueBot III (talk | contribs)Bots1,372,667 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to User talk:Tim1357/Archive 16. (BOT)Tag: Manual revert |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:Tim1357/Archive |format= %%i |age=120 |maxarchsize=100000 |numberstart=2 |archivebox=no |box-advert=no |maxkeepthreads = 15}} |
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=User talk:Tim1357/Archive |format= %%i |age=120 |maxarchsize=100000 |numberstart=2 |archivebox=no |box-advert=no |maxkeepthreads = 15}}{{retired}} |
|
{{wikipedia ads|15|119|2|6|14|15|18|24|40|67|89|92|101|176|21|104}} |
|
|
{{Talkheader|search = yes}} |
|
{{Talkheader|search = yes}} |
|
{{editabuselinks}} |
|
{{editabuselinks}} |
|
|
{{bots|optout=ifd}} |
|
|
|
|
{| border="0" class="toccolours" style="background: red; border: 4px solid #0000aa; margin:0 auto; clear: none;" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
!<center><big> If you are here about a message on your talk page</big></center> |
|
|
|- |
|
|
|
|
|
|<center>I encourage you to ''']''' and leave your concern. Its much easier to re-start the bot then to un-do a list of edits </center> |
|
|
|
|
|
|} |
|
|
|
|
|
==DASHBot's message == |
|
|
Hi -- I don't understand your message to me on January 19, 2010 regarding CONCEPTiCONS. Please explain how I can be of help -- ] (]) 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hmm, it appears that the page is as a biography of a living person. Sorry about that! ] (]) 22:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
== Album reviews bot work == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hey there, I was just wondering what the status is on Dashbot for ]. I saw it was approved for the extended trial, but I don't really know how the bot approval process goes. Is it good to go? When will it be up at full steam? —''']'''<sup>]</sup> 01:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have bug right now and I am trying to fix it. . Ill make it priority for the weekend. ] (]) 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Alright, cool. I was just wondering because someone's question at ] reminded me of it since I hadn't heard for a while. Is there a way to see the bot's progress, like the number of album articles it has changed? —''']'''<sup>]</sup> 02:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Sure, I can have it log for you. I think there is a toolserver thingy that can count them tough. ] (]) 03:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I would like to suggest moving the 'reception' section to after the 'track list'. For articles with short leads we are ending up with poor looking articles, an example is ]. I moved it lower on ] and don't think it takes away from the article. <font face="Century Gothic">](])</font> 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I'd like to point out that ] says to put the Reception ''before'' the Track listing. --] (]) 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Redrose, I appreciate that but believe that this is an instance when ] should be considered, as moving the section will lead to a much better looking article. <font face="Century Gothic">](])</font> 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
Tim, could you keep an eye on ]? There is discussion on if we need to change anything about the way the bot is going about this. Thanks —''']'''<sup>]</sup> 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sure, watchlisted. ] (]) 16:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
{{tb|Akrabbim}} —''']'''<sup>]</sup> 17:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
==DashBot Message error== |
|
|
It seems the bot is off, but I got a message saying that a page I created was unreferenced human biography. I didn't actually write, I simply moved the page in question to make it a disambiguation page, and I guess it got turned into an article later. You should probably fix this. Here's the page, and the message is on my talk page. Page: ] |
|
|
--] (]) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for the reply! I am working on a fix to that very problem right now. ] (]) 02:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Cossina== |
|
|
Hello there, I noticed you are adding the section "Cossina" to many taxoboxes. I am wondering though, should that go at the bottom under genus? I really don't think it's a subdivision of a genus is it? ] (]) 09:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hey Ruigeroeland! You are right, there is no subdivision for a genus. However, the template can parse out the parameters, so <code>|diviso</code> may come last in the template, but it will be put in the correct spot when the template is called. I hope that makes sense. I will try to put parameters in the correct spot from now on, so contributors such as you self can more easily read it. The thought actually never passed my mind before this. Thanks! ] (]) 11:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hmmm.. It might be my lack of wiki-knowledge, but does that mean that it will be moved to another spot in the taxobox? Because I still '''''see''''' it as a subsidivision of the genus, and if it is not, it should not be visible on that spot, but higher in the taxobox tree, shouldn't it? I ussually just copy a taxobox when I make a new species, and I happened to make one today which has Cossina listed in (I think) the right spot, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/Notocelia_roborana ] (]) 23:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::You were absolutely right! I was using the section parameter for botany, which has a different definition then of that of zoology. Nice catch! ] (]) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Ah, great! Glad we figured it out! ] (]) 11:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Your request to join BAG== |
|
|
Congratulations, I have closed your request to join the Bot Approvals Group as successful. Go forth and approve bots... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">] ]</strong> 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adding minor ranks to taxoboxes == |
|
|
|
|
|
Hi! You seem to be adding minor ranks to taxoboxes in a semi-automated process. Please note that, per ], minor ranks are normally to be avoided, unless explicitly mentioned in the article, or otherwise directly relevant to understanding the taxon's classification. For example, there would almost never be a need for adding ] information to taxons describing families. Also, you are rearranging the order of some taxobox fields (such as putting "subdivision" above "subdivision_ranks") for no apparent reason, and against the recommendation at ]. Please discuss such massive changes first. Thanks, ] (]) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Oh! I was not aware of that! I thought we were supposed to put as much information in there as was relevant. Ill take ] off my list. I reoredered subdivision before subdivision_ranks simply because that is what is the order it is given in the taxoboxes documentation. I changed that. Any other parameters you want me to skip? ] (]) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The subkigdom was just the most obvious example; in general, you probably shouldn't be adding ''any'' minor ranks above the next higher major one for the taxon in question. E.g. for a genus, you might add tribe and subfamily fields (if they are not redlinks), but nothing above family. Note that this is different from the practice at Wikispecies, where all higher ranks are always listed. |
|
|
|
|
|
::As far as I can tell, the documentation consistently puts subdvision_ranks first, which is also the order they appear in in the displayed taxobox, making editing more intuitive. ] (]) 17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I used ] which lists it as such: |
|
|
| subdivision |
|
|
| subdivision_ranks |
|
|
:::I think that might have been a human error. So I removed everything above superfamily from my list, and reordered subdivision to be after subdivision ranks. Is that all? ] (]) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: That's all that I can see for now, but I'm not really an expert either. In any case, an automated taxobox-filling bot is surely something that needs to be discussed at least at ] and ] to solicit comments from the relevant communities. ] (]) 17:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Ok, It is semi-automated, but if you think this is controversial, then Ill bring it to ]. Ill also spam some wikiprojects to see what they think. Believe it or not, as of about 2 hours ago, I became a member of the Bot Approvals Group. If I get consensus from the Wikiprojects, Ill drop at the BRFA page aswell. ] (]) 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Bot== |
|
|
Just a "thanks" for your bot's BLP-unreferenced talkpage messages, I've seen many of my articles get tagged "unreferenced" over the years and rarely bothered correcting it (typically articles I started in 2005, before we ''had'' such policies) - but having them all in one place like that convinced me to get off my ass, so I went and fixed half of them this week. :) ] <sup>(]) </sup> 23:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also working through my list - at about 40% through it, but just one week after this notification has begun I'm find articles being deleted, for example ]. If edittors were only to be given 1/2 weeks notice prior to deletion, that should been included in the notification. --] (]) 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::The bot's notices weren't warnings; there was a recent spate of Arbcom-refered unilateral UBLP deletions that ] may have been caught up in - that deletion spree was not directly related to the Unreferenced Biography of Living Person notice you got from the bot. |
|
|
::On the other hand, they were warnings, as any unreferenced statement in a BLP can be deleted at will, and the administrators in question may have decided that rather than leave a blank page for an article, it was quicker and easier to delete the whole thing. This is, of course, mere speculation. |
|
|
::Check ] for an administrator who can assist you in restoring the deleted articles for you to work on. ] 09:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Um, sorry, I am responsible for redirecting ] to user space, ], it was done in coordination with ]. |
|
|
:::The list of many of the articles incubated is here: ] |
|
|
:::Rjanag followed behind me and deleted all of those redirects, that was the largest complaint we had. I was opposed to delete redirects for two days, but I was overruled. Maybe I can replace the redirect with a one week notice to check ], which will alleviate this concern. |
|
|
:::Here is a list that the members of ] and myself created: ] This is a list of all the articles which were deleted out of process by the three administrators. |
|
|
:::'''I would encourage you to comment at:''' |
|
|
::::'''] which is directly on point about these deletions.''' |
|
|
:::There are 49,000 articles which editors are getting ready to delete. That is why we incubated the Australian articles, to give editors of the projects of interest more time to edit and decide what is encyclopedic and what is not. |
|
|
:::] is now fully restored. Thank you for your concerns, and I am sorry for the confusion this caused. ] 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Dashbot== |
|
|
RE: ] |
|
|
Hey!! I was just going to message you about my bot request! I didn't realize you are one and the same as Dashbot. Thanks again for helping with the ] indexing of tagged articles. I also note your unreferenced BLP bot. WOW. What a great idea. ] 18:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Question about notability== |
|
|
How many of the 49000 unreferenced BLPs article creators have you notified with your bot? Thanks in advance. ] 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Rough estimate: About 14400 have been notified. I have about 3000 to go. ] (]) 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC) |
|
