Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:24, 24 January 2010

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – show another – #92

This is Tim1357's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 5 days

Album reviews bot work

Hey there, I was just wondering what the status is on Dashbot for WP:ALBUMS. 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? —Akrabbim 01:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have bug right now and I am trying to fix it. Here is what I've done so far. Ill make it priority for the weekend. Tim1357 (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, cool. I was just wondering because someone's question at WT:ALBUMS 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? —Akrabbim 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. Tim1357 (talk) 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 Footprints (album). I moved it lower on Space I'm In and don't think it takes away from the article. J04n(talk page) 13:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that WP:ALBUMS#Article body says to put the Reception before the Track listing. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Redrose, I appreciate that but believe that this is an instance when WP:IAR should be considered, as moving the section will lead to a much better looking article. J04n(talk page) 14:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Tim, could you keep an eye on WT:ALBUMS#Reviews in infobox? There is discussion on if we need to change anything about the way the bot is going about this. Thanks —Akrabbim 13:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, watchlisted. Tim1357 (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

—Akrabbim 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: Pooh (comedian) --The Editor1 (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I am working on a fix to that very problem right now. Tim1357 (talk) 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? Ruigeroeland (talk) 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 |diviso 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! Tim1357 (talk) 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 Ruigeroeland (talk) 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! Tim1357 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, great! Glad we figured it out! Ruigeroeland (talk) 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... WJBscribe (talk) 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 WP:TX, 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 subkingdom 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 WP:TX. Please discuss such massive changes first. Thanks, Hqb (talk) 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 subkingdom 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? Tim1357 (talk) 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. Hqb (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I used Misplaced Pages:TX#Complete_blank_template 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? Tim1357 (talk) 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 Template talk:Taxobox and WP:BRFA to solicit comments from the relevant communities. Hqb (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, It is semi-automated, but if you think this is controversial, then Ill bring it to Template talk:Taxobox. 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. Tim1357 (talk) 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. :) Sherurcij 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 Barry Seton. If edittors were only to be given 1/2 weeks notice prior to deletion, that should been included in the notification. --Falcadore (talk) 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 Barry Seton 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 Category:Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles for an administrator who can assist you in restoring the deleted articles for you to work on. Josh Parris 09:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, sorry, I am responsible for redirecting Barry Seton to user space, Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Barry Seton, it was done in coordination with Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject Australia.

The list of many of the articles incubated is here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Australia/Unreferenced_BLPs#Incubated_articles

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 Misplaced Pages:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia, which will alleviate this concern.

Here is a list that the members of Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron and myself created: Misplaced Pages:Article Rescue Squadron/BLP 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:

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Biographies_of_living_people#View_by_Collect 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.

Barry Seton is now fully restored. Thank you for your concerns, and I am sorry for the confusion this caused. Ikip 18:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dashbot

RE: Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests#Bot_to_move_articles_from_main_space_to_Wikipedia:Article_Incubator 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 WP:Article Rescue Squadron indexing of tagged articles. I also note your unreferenced BLP bot. WOW. What a great idea. Ikip 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. Ikip 19:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Rough estimate: About 14400 have been notified. I have about 3000 to go. Tim1357 (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)