| Revision as of 02:05, 5 April 2007 editTyrenius (talk | contribs)37,867 edits →What on earth is this?: :::::Agreed. ~~~~← Previous edit |
Revision as of 03:19, 5 April 2007 edit undoSatyrTN (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users47,258 edits resetNext edit → |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{archives}} |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
;No current project |
|
== {{tl|LocateMe}} == |
|
|
So I've got the bot set up to run through the categories listed. It fetches the list of articles from each category, then reviews each page looking for "geohack.php". |
|
|
|
|
|
What I've done with other projects is to use this page for updates, comments, etc. The edit summary the bot uses points to this page, so it's a central location. |
|
|
|
|
|
The bot keeps track of the number of articles in each category, the number that already have "geohack.php", and the number it has tagged. That record will be located at: ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
You mentioned two searches and/or lists. If you'd like, I can have the bot run through those lists one run. I've found, though, that the category system is the most complete and relatively thorough. |
|
|
|
|
|
As for timing, I usually set the bot to run at a particular time - usuall midnight my time (Eastern US), but we can set it up for whatever time works best for you. Having it run at a set time lessens the server load a little and gives us a day between each run to address any concerns that crop up. |
|
|
|
|
|
Let me know if you have any questions or concerns with any of this. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 15:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Thank you. The logs look useful, but do they include actual page counts ("tagged 425 out of 837 pages checked")?. I'm in the UK, so it's about 5pm here, as I type. Ready when you are! ] 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yes, I'll make sure that's there. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 16:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Comment == |
|
|
Thank you. Consensus is to place the tag on the article; not its talk page. ] 15:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Sounds good. At the top of the page? -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Yup, just like "cleanup". ] 15:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Better idea! Please use {{tl|LocateMeBot}} (modified as you see fit). Thank you. ] 16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I modified {{tl|LocateMe}} to include the line about SatyrBot if the "satyrbot=yes" parameter is there. No need to have two separate templates :) -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 16:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::I specifically want to include "This ''apparently'' location related article" and "''seems to'' lack coordinates", in case of false positives. ] 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Gotcha. We'll use the LocateMeBot tag, then. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Just to confirm, you should be looking for "geohack.php" in the HTML, not the wikicode. ] 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Correct. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I don't think consensus is to place "expand" type messages in article space, but instead in talk space - cf. ]. I'm very much dismayed that you have - to my mind - spammed 500 or so articles with the locateme template. Additions to the talk page alert those who are watching the article. Additions to the article also alert those watching, but mainly (again IMO) detract from the article by discussing what to the vast majority of readers must surely be of little or no consequence. I would urge you to think again about what you're doing. --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Timing == |
|
|
|
|
|
So I'll set it to run at midnight my time, which I believe is 5am your time. It can take 2 to 3 hours to run, so by the time you finish your morning coffee, you can check on how it's done :) -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 16:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK, Would it be worth running it on a single category of, say 100 articles, now? ] 16:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sure - the very first category has ~160 articles, less than a hundred of them need tags. I'll run it on that one in just a few minutes. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::Can't count. First cat has ~95 articles - perfect. Will be running in just a minute. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 18:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Lookin' good! On a quick scan, I found two false positive - an article about several places around the word, categorised because one of them is in London; and an article about a 160km walkway around London. ] 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Oh, can you make it add the month + year: '''<nowiki>{{LocateMeBot|April 2007}}</nowiki>''' (or whenever), please? ] 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Doh! Yes - I'll do that. |
|
|
::::Just to clarify, have you reviewed the separate categories to make sure they're at least 80% accurate? More, if possible? -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yes, to the best of my judgement - I haven't sat here with my calculator ;-). BTW, two ave been renamed since I compiled the list, and are now red-links. ] 01:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Kewl :) -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 01:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== West End theatre == |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't know if your bot meant to do this, but this is a rather amorphous area of London - theatreland - equivalent to Broadway. They would be very imprecise coordinates, as it covers three boroughs. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:If London has geo coordinates, then so can one of its sub-divisions. Use the centre point, and low granularity (say three decimal places, or equivalent). ] 23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I noted ... == |
|
|
|
|
|
#West End theatre, a rather amorphous area spanning three London boroughs, would you like an approximate coordinate for London? |
|
|
#You also seem to be applying the bot to ''Cat:Former theatres in London''. While some locations, like the Rose have been identified, many have not; or the street layout has changed; or they drove a railway through it in the 19th century ... you get the idea. Some of this architectural scenery has been taken back to the props room. |
|
|
Bots, eh, can't live with 'em, can't live without them. I'm sure they'll be more before the night is through ... ] 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:From the former article; "''London's main theatre district is located in the heart of the West End of the city centre, and is traditionally defined by The Strand to the south, Oxford Street to the north, Regent Street to the west, and Kingsway to the east''". Why not take the centre of that? Say, Leicester Square? We're not so much looking for a precise location as where you'd stick the relevant pin in a map... ] 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Not run == |
|
|
|
|
|
I take it we didn't run, last night? Was there a problem? ] 08:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Not sure - I had it set to run, but it doesn't seem to have. I've just started it. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 14:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Locate me templates== |
|
|
I have changed these to use "date=" syntax which is the way cleanup tempaltes are going. Any labelled with the old syntax will be picked up and changed by SB, so no worries. ''] ]'', 10:50 ] ] (GMT). |
|
|
:Thanks! I've updated the bot's script. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
|
|
|
By what criterion did your bot decide that this article about a world-famous concert series was "location related"? Just asking. ] 10:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: It's in ]. Given that the page says that the Proms are "held annually in Central London", that would seem to be a good call, too. ] 16:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::They are held currently in 2 concert halls, some distance apart. They can be located (] - where the vast majority of the concerts are held - and ], off ] - where the Chamber Concerts are held). Formerly a wide variety of other locations (particularly the ] up until its destruction) have been used, it does not seem to me that there is any one meaningful location which could be used for the concerts as a whole. Further locations, such as the ], ] are used for other events connected with the series (although these are in fairly close proximity to the RAH. ] 08:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Then I suggest you lift the low-granularity coordinates from an article like ] (alternatively, use an in-line coordinate marker for each venue (see ], but note that there is ongoing work to develop a more pleasant presentation)). ] 08:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Is that really necessary, London (and indeed South Kensington) is linked in the article, as are the concert halls. If someone wnats a better idea of the lcoation of the concerts, then they can follow the links. The Proms as an entity cannot really be said to have a meaningful location (most people listen on the Radio or watch on TV, so the location is largely irrelevant), individual concerts/events yes, the whole thing, no. The season also includes the "Proms in the Park" concerts which have been held in Hyde Park (London), Manchester, Liverpool, Belfast, Swansea and Glasgow (that I can think of). If someone clicked on the coordinates that are currently in the article (which I've tweaked slightly from what was originally adde)d, does it materially improve their understanding of what The Proms are? ] 13:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] == |
|
|
hit 3 times ] 16:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
*Fixed (but not may need adjustnig) ] 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Hmm - wonder why it didn't recognize the tag was already there? I'll check on this before tonight's run. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::There seem to be 43 instances of this, so I've stopped the bot. I'll remove the categories that have been done, fix the duplicates, and fix the error. Then the bot can run on the remaining categories tonight. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 17:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Letter V== |
|
|
The ] was tagged, bizarrely. There's no relevant category involved. ] 16:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Another wierdness I'll check before tonight. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 16:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==LocateMeBot == |
|
|
Any possibility that a) you can prevent your bot from adding the same notice twice to and b) that you consider putting the "location needed" spam box on the talk page and not on the article page. There are IMO few reasons for spoiling an article with your favourite deficiency box. --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
You former point is addressed above. It's not a "spam" box (please ]), and it's in the same place as other "cleanup" templates. ] 17:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Looks more like an expansion template than a cleanup - "This apparently location-related article appears to lack geographic coordinates- You can help by adding them". ] suggests these should be on the talk page. --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
::] suggests the opposite (and I'm now adding this one). ] 20:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Bah. Thanks for at least toning the template down a bit (assuming you have in fact done that). "This template was added by SatyrBot." seems gratuitous at best, given the existence of history. --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Parks around London etc == |
|
|
|
|
|
Your bot is adding the LocateMe template to all articles associated with parks, it seems. However a lot of these articles don't need the coordinates because they cannot be located! I am meaning, they talk about many parks and are more generalised articles, not quite lists but nearly. Also, if coordinates were added it would be sloppy as it would mean that they would have to be added for every park and square in the article. ] 17:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Examples, please. Your latter point is not correct - an article about "Parks in Birmingham", for instance, should carry the same coordinates, at the same low resolution, as the article about Birmingham. ] 17:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sorry i suppose i wasn't clear. Examples include ], ], ], ] etc. Look at the contributions. ] 17:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::They should use the same coordinates as ], ditto, ] and London again. Also, to address one of your earlier points, here is an argument that adding all the coordinates on one article would be a good thing; since it would allow a user to add them all, in one go, as waypoints to a GPS device, or Google Maps/ Earth, or whatever - but this isn't the place for that discussion (however, see ] for an example). ] 17:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Next batch== |
|
|
Ready at ] ] 20:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've fixed both errors that happened. I also condensed the template a little to help with the above users' concerns. We should be good to go for tonight. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 21:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
==What on earth is this?== |
|
|
Please explain . Never heard of it before. I doubt if many people have. Please provide a link to relevant policy where co-ordinates are mandatory. If it's a place, like ], why doesn't the bot kindly work it out? ] 21:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Can you point out where the template says that coordinates are mandatory? No? Then please don't use "straw men". Otherwise, your suggestion of bot-added geo-tags for articles about places may have merit, see . However, not all of the tagged articles are about places (in the sense of localities); some are about buildings, bridges, battles etc, whcih won't appear in gazetteers. ] 22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::If they're not mandatory, it's not a good idea to leave these notices which spoil the look of the article, and which very few people will respond to, so they're likely to stay there for a long time. Have you consulted more widely about this? If so, is there a team to follow up and add the co-ordinates. It's going to take a lot less time to add the template than do the work necessary to fulfil it. Why don't you simply add the co-ordinates, instead of the tag? Buildings etc usually have the place prominently in the lead. I don't want to damp your enthusiasm, but I don't think this mass tagging is necessarily a good idea. ] 23:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::You mean like {{tl|expand}}? -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 23:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::: and {{tl|Uncategorized}}. ] 09:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thank you for sharing your opinion,Tyrenius. You may wish to familiarise yourself with, amongst others, this ]. ] 23:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Sorry - to clarify my flippant response a little - It takes very little time for the bot to figure out which articles don't have the coordinate information. Once the tag is on an article, any user can find the coordinates and add them to the article. However, getting the bot to find coordinates for a particular place (especially those that aren't in a gazette or other database) would be next to impossible, while humans will be able to do it relatively easier. There's also a ] involved in helping out. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 23:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Well there you go. A couple of complaints in the same 24 hours. I do think you're pushing it a bit. You lean on Expand as a precedent; seems to me that's a flimsy support to you. The majority of the cleanup tags have some merit in warning the general reader about the health of the article. Yours merely promotes your special interest in geocoding, which for me is nearer ] than it is a helpful addition to the article space. I'd be intyerest to know '''what exactly is wrong with adding your template to the talk pages'''. Is that just not high enough profile for you? Do we really need to know that "This template was added by SatyrBot"? Is that not merely bragging? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You are tagging redirect pages such as ], ], ]. Albeit these have got categories (for some strange reason), you might want to get your bot to stop doing this; it cannot be helpful. --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
You're going to end up tagging probably tens or hundreds of thousands of articles and the tags are going to stay there for a very long time in all probability. If the Project is helping out, can you wait till they've fulfilled existing tags, rather than add lots more? How many have been added and how many have been met to date? I think this needs wider debate. ] 01:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hi, Tagishsimon! I think you're confusing two issues. For the record, I've addressed every issue you've given me about the bot - and will address the redirects right now. I'll also take SatyrBot's name off the template. It does need something to let people ma. But I'd like to point out that I have absolutely nothing to do with WP:GEO besides offering my bot. You're comments have bordered on ], and I don't appreciate them. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you have a concern about the bot and it's actions, I appreciate your bringing it to my attention. If you have a problem about the placement of the template (talk vs. article), why don't you bring that up with WP:GEO, people who obviously care about it and would be glad to discuss the issue with you. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 02:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I see what you're doing as a single minded defacement of the article space, by the hundreds and thousands, to pursue a special interest. I'm not happy about it. Whereas there is IMO clear justification for the tens of other article tags (bar perhaps the expand tags which have somehow crept in), there is in my view no justification for the coordinate expand tag on the article. And as Tyrenius pointed out, all you're doing is consigning these hundreds and thousands of articles to have an unnecessary and intrusive sticker for the reader to surmount before they get to the article itself, perhaps for years. I see what you're doing as spam - an intrusive advert soliciting people to join the geo project. I see the justifications for your article space tagging as flimsy and self serving. I do not see how you can dissociate yourself from the actions that your bot is taking. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I do not understand why when the was to tag the talk pages, a switch was made to article space. I do see from Andy's actions that he's to go ahead and hijack the article space. I see little point in raising this at WP:GEO, and, to be honest, don't have enough time to dedicate to fighting this fight. |
|
|
|
|
|
::You've reached for WP:Attack rather and palmed off the substantial question to WP:GEO. I don't think that's heplful. As I said, I don't see how you can dissociate yourself from your bots actions. It just does not compute. |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am, FWIW, glad that you have taken the trouble to build and operate a bot. I think tagging geo-lacking article's talk pages would be an excellent idea - I'm absolutely not against this element of the improvement of wikipedia. I just happen to think the way you're going about it really sucks very badly. --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::For just a second, let me give you my perspective on all of the above. |
|
|
:::I create a bot. Then I watch the bot request board. 80% of the requests that come in are silly, like "Can someone make me a bot?" When I look at the 20% that are serious, my bot is suited for only about 1 out of four. So when a project comes up that my bot is suited for, I'm relatively excited. And I ] that the person/project requesting the bot is working to make Misplaced Pages better. Since I'm usually not part of the project in question, I don't know the in's and out's, but I assume they've been thought out. |
|
|
:::So then I do the programming that's required specific to this project. As you noted below, sometimes the bot doesn't work the way I thought it would. It's a bit of work, but it's stuff I like to do. |
|
|
:::Then I get someone complaining. And believe me, with every project I've worked on, I've had complaints. Sometimes it's something I can fix through changing the bot. Sometimes it's related to the wikiproject. I do what I can to fix the bot. And I expect the complainers to be able to go to the project if it's related to them. |
|
|
:::So - where does that leave us? Again, I ask you, if you have a problem with what the project is doing, please take it to the project. If the bot is doing something wrong (like double-tagging), I'll do what I can to fix it. I hope that explains a bit better why I'm doing what I'm doing. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 00:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I hear your argument and accept your good faith. But I think you're being naive. There's enough evidence now that the locateme project has annoyed several users, even to the extent of getting your bot suspended. If you didn't know before, you do know now that posting tags to the article space is controversial. I think you must accept that you will be held responsible for the actions of your bot, even if you're kindly doing someone else's bidding. And whilst you can AGF on the part of the requester, you cannot assume that they've sufficiently thought through their plan, in their enthusiasm to further their good faith aims. Please don't let it discourage you; as I said earlier, I think it's excellent that you're taking the time & trouble to develop the bot and work with the community. --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Agreed. ] 02:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Why auto-tagging may be harmful== |
|
|
|
|
|
Parsing the lead of ] would give the article the coordinates for ] - but that's not appropriate; the article needs much more specific coordinates, provided by a human, in order for a user to find the tree, within the gardens. ] 13:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Automating == |
|
|
Stupid cron command... I think I've fixed that so it will run automatically now. I've just started it manually to run the current batch. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 14:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Double tagging== |
|
|
Such as . Does the bot guard against a single place being in two category lists? --] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:Dagnabbit! Yes, it's supposed to. Now I have to go through every one and see if it's been double-tagged, and then go back to the bot and figure out why it's not working correctly. Grr... -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 00:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I've not come across any other examples. The history of that page might give you an insight. Looks like you reverted it twice, from memory. --] ] |
|
|
:::Oops. .--] ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Thank you. Found four that I missed yesterday before I . Since it ran today without any double-tagging, those four should be the last like that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- <span style="background-color: #EECCFF;">]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> (] | ])</span></span> 00:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Block== |
|
|
I have blocked this bot for the time being. Please see ]. ] 00:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC) |
|
