Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:09, 28 October 2019

The current status of ClueBot NG is: Running
The current status of ClueBot III is: Running
Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the "new section" button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the link above each section to edit that section.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
The ClueBots' owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.

Template:Archive box collapsible

ClueBots
ClueBot NG/Anti-vandalism · ClueBot II/ClueBot Script
ClueBot III/Archive · Talk page for all ClueBots

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

"redundant" sections

Please make the documentation clarify exactly why and when NG creates "duplicate" user talk page sections, such as adding a second - identical - "October 2019" section when an editor (or even NG itself) has already created one. Please provide a succinct summary AND policy links, not just one or the other. I checked the FAQ but it didn't help. I did a casual browse of the archives and sure enough: this has been asked before. Time to improve your docs! :) Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

See here as to why the bot creates duplicate headings. Pinging in Cobi for your comment about improving the documentation and FAQs.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be a documentation link on User:ClueBot III

User:ClueBot III/Documentation. -- Timeshifter (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It is. It's transcluded onto that page: User:ClueBot III#How your page is archived -- Cobi 04:59, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There is no link to the documentation. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? The documentation is on User:ClueBot III. Why does there need to be a link to it given it is already on that page? -- Cobi 05:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Furthermore, readership doesn't make a whole lot of sense on User:ClueBot Commons -- that userpage isn't really used for anything. That's why I removed the template you added. -- Cobi 05:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The documentation is in need of much improvement. Can't do that without a link to that documentation page. Most templates and tools have links to view their documentation page.

I was curious as to why such an old archiving tool has documentation in such need of improvement. The readership partially explains it. Not having a link to the documentation page is a much bigger reason. Not having a link to the table of contents on the talk page explains it a little more. These are 3 ease-of-use problems. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Readership is pointing at the wrong page. This is User talk:ClueBot Commons, so the readership template is for User:ClueBot Commons, not User:ClueBot III.

The "" links on sections in the userpage work fine and take you to the documentation page:

Clicking on any of the "" links takes you to:

-- Cobi 05:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I am interested in the readership of all the pages that lead to the documentation page. It is very confusing getting to that documentation page. I am especially interested in the readership of that documentation page. I can't do that if the documentation talk page is redirected to here. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You can, of course, dig into viewership of any page with pageview without having to have access to the talk page. -- Cobi 06:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks like very few people view that documentation page directly. User:ClueBot III/Documentation. Which means people have mostly given up on editing that page. Here are the daily viewing numbers:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-20&pages=User:ClueBot_III/Documentation

-- Timeshifter (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

How many people use Cluebot archiving versus Sigmabot archiving?

I am trying to figure out why people would not want the archiving tool (Cluebot) that also fixes links broken when threads are archived. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

ClueBot III is used by about 8,500 talk pages. See this. -- Cobi 05:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Where did you get that 8,500 number for User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis? Can I get that number from here?:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews

If so, please provide a direct link.

User:MiszaBot/config is used on 23,000 pages. As I am sure you know it is the config page for Sigmabot: User:lowercase sigmabot III. That number is from here:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&namespace=2&name=MiszaBot%2Fconfig

I substituted the Cluebot page you used (User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis) and got 8097:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/templatecount/index.php?lang=en&namespace=2&name=ClueBot+III%2FArchiveThis#bottom

-- Timeshifter (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I generated the number of pages at size 500 from the Special:WhatLinksHere page. I figured the rounding errors in that were reasonably within tolerance. 8097 seems in-line with those numbers. I'm not sure what the purpose of this question was if you could answer them yourself? -- Cobi 07:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"age" parameter. Is it OK to do it like this: "720 (30 days)"

Hours is not intuitive for the age parameter. Days would be a lot better. But in the meantime can I put the number of days in parentheses? -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not supported, and may break if things change, however, due to a quirk in the way that it looks for numbers, that might work. -- Cobi 05:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be separate documentation talk pages

I noticed after I tried to start a new section on the documentation talk page that you redirected it to here. I think that is a bad idea.

There is separate documentation for all the different Cluebot tools, and trying to combine them here on a busy talk page will cause nothing but confusion, and people bailing out on helping out.

I notice that you, Cobi, are a new admin with little experience outside these much-needed bot tools. Please take some of my advice about this stuff. I am in the top 3000 editors on Misplaced Pages. -- Timeshifter (talk) 05:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Given that I've been an admin for more than 10 years, I find it odd that you find it necessary to condescend that I am a new admin; and while I may have little experience in the article space outside of anti-vandalism, that is irrelevant given the subject of your argument is the technical aspects of Misplaced Pages, which I am very familiar with. I redirected the talk page here as it is better to keep the discussion here where people watch this page. Most people who are willing to help watch this page, not the various dependencies of the ClueBot userpages. This is not a busy talk page, generally, as it gets about 5 sections per month or so. Grandstanding and appeals to accomplishment are not a substitute for sound reasoning. -- Cobi 06:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Cobi. Sorry, I read the year wrong on Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Cobi 4. 2009 vs 2019. But you confirmed that you have little experience in article space. I did not mean to be condescending. I was just stating a fact that I have more experience in article space. I consider documentation to be article space in that it is supposed to be simple prose. Not technical jargon alone.

I have had this discussion many times with developers on Mediawiki, Wikimedia projects, Wikia, and Shoutwiki. I am the lead admin on 2 wikis outside Wikimedia projects. On a couple wikis on Wikia and Shoutwiki.

Many developers have lived in the bubble for so long that they often use language not used by average readers. They no longer know what is intuitive for average readers.

Documentation pages are the bridge between average readers and some very technical tools (at times). -- Timeshifter (talk) 06:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: The good thing about Misplaced Pages is that anyone can contribute so please feel free to write a bot to do useful work, then document it however you like. If the work is really useful, you will find that the community prefers the bot operator's opinion rather than that of random passers by. Johnuniq (talk) 06:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)