Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:21, 27 August 2012

User:1exec1/rwatch User:1exec1/bin User:1exec1/dates.js User:1exec1/dates_override.js

Dates (again)

Do you see a difference between "Retrieved" and "Retrieved:"? I have been using the former as it is a more clearly defined statement and reads as a a sentence rather than a sentence fragment or malformed sentence. The notation has now appeared in approximately 6,000 articles and has endured review for FA, GA, and other editor- and peer-reviewed evaluations. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC).

Date formatting

I've noticed you've gone through a few articles and formatted the dates properly.

Do you have a program to help you do this? Or you did it manually?

Thanks. --Activism1234 23:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm using a modified Ohconfucius' date formatting script. Documentation how to install and use it is located here. Note, that it's very easy to do a lot of problematic changes using such scripts, so be careful. 1exec1 (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks. I've seen one editor who did similar stuff like what you did, and asked him how he did it, and he said manually, so I'll share this with him as well. --Activism1234 01:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Date breakage

Thank you for your enthusiastic edits. Please could you fix you bot/script to not make edits like . Hope it helps, —Sladen (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, you're continuing to edit at 10+ edits/minute Please you could confirm if you've fix the error(s) in the script before you continue. —Sladen (talk) 13:05, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your message before. I usually open 100+ tabs at one time and then apply my edits without waiting for the subsequent page load to complete.

I've fixed the script. Thanks for spotting the problem. I somehow didn't see that it's chapter= attribute in the reference. 1exec1 (talk) 13:11, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, for the record, the change to dates.js appears to have been . Is delinking of 2001 in music intentional? (I don't have a preference, it is just not mentioned in the edit summary, and would probably fall under WP:OVERLINK instead. —Sladen (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is intentional. Given the structure of the script it's very hard to assemble an accurate edit summary, so I manually modify it in certain cases when I see that it's worthwhile. I've yet to see someone to object to such delinking, so saying why it is done isn't necessary IMO. 1exec1 (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Updates are not required

This is the second edit I've seen today. The date format does not need to be updated. Please don't do it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Category:Use dmy dates says otherwise.1exec1 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Date format edits (AgustaWestland AW101)

When making date format edits using your script, please check that what you are changing is actually a date - here you made one good change ( |date= 15 Sep 2011 to |date= 15 September 2011 in a citation) and one nonsense change ("Smiths Industries OMI 20 SEP dual-redundant digital automatic flight control system" to " Smiths Industries OMI 20 September dual-redundant digital automatic flight control system").Nigel Ish (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be more careful. 1exec1 (talk) 22:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEATBOT, how much checking is actually being done before saving? Looking at a couple of consecutive edits from last night: changes an author= but without fixing it at the same time (and you have manually fixed these on similar occasions. The previous edit alters several citation titles, and similarly alters several literal quotations. I also spotted (removing a comma from a sequence of ambiguous dates; and while not serious would also point to not checking the diffs before saving). It takes 20–30 seconds per article to review those diffs; there is no way another editor could review these in 4–6 seconds each and keep up and is a shame to see such (generally) useful edits going into the encyclopaedia without oversight. Would it be worth slowing down, using additional checking time and also having the opportunity to make other useful (but fully manual) edits and fixes at the same time? —Sladen (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I only commit the changes at the rate of 10-15 articles per minute. I review the changes prior to saving as it's more convenient to me to do a sequence of <tab><tab><enter><alt+tab> later. I don't do additional manual improvements because it's very time consuming - finding the right spot of the article in the edit box and then fixing the issue usually takes about a minute. On average, I review 3-4 articles per minute, depending on the number of changes present, thus I think manual fixing is not productive. I only change something manually when the diff indicates that the script suggests a erroneous change. As for the citation changes, these were deliberate. I'm still not sure what's wrong with them. Should I not change the link titles? 1exec1 (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Affirmative. It is inappropriate to change the name of a work, or the contents of a literal quote, the designation of a flight recorder, or to change anything else that looks like a date, but isn't (yes, this includes railway-related Whyte notation!). For the linked examples above: If the name of the work/book is "25 OCTOBER – THE ROMANIAN ARMED FORCES’ DAY" then it either makes sense to downcase the whole title of the book per WP:MOSCAPS or to leave it as-is. Others are "Daily Press Briefing for August 17–Transcript", and "Report on an Analysis of the Representativeness of the Second Audit Sample, and the Correlation between Petition Signers and the Yes Vote in the 15 Aug. 2004 Presidential Recall Referendum in Venezuela"; "; these are also the names of works. —Sladen (talk) 01:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)