Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rich Farmbrough (talk | contribs) at 18:00, 28 September 2010 (→Smackbot question - tagger code). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note: I will generally answer on your talk page (and usually copy here), and look for your responses here. If you see my answer here and it's not on your talk page, I'm either not happy with it (haven't finished writing it), or I forgot to copy it over. However I can't (borked watchlist among other reasons) watch your talk page (sorry), so reply here. R.F.

FAQ

Please feel free to read my FAQ. R.F.

Full ArQuive

Alternatively browse my Talk Archive Index. R.F.

FarmBLOGh

Or follow my blog. R.F.

Test

Template:Mirror thread

CFD Notice

The related Category:Cathead has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for discussion page.

SmackBot clarify tag

SmackBot corrected a clarify tag in Scosta. This is how I incorrectly added the tag - {{Clarify| September 2010}}. But is how SmackBot corrected - {{Clarify| September 2010|date=September 2010}}. btw - What do you think of this link for bork. Slightsmile (talk) 21:11, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know, I can't assume that parameter 1 is intended to be a date - especially as leaving it should be harmless. I could, I suppose, only do so if it is the current month year. Nice link. Rich Farmbrough, 21:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC).

Odd. Yesterday and today, when I click on the bork link I made, an error box pops up,

Stop running this script? A script on this page is causing Internet Explorer to run slowly. If it continues to run, your computer might become unresponsive. "Yes" "No".

Should I take this to Misplaced Pages:Village pump (technical)? Slightsmile (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh I get that a lot on Firefox, at least it tells you what the script is. IE won't even run on my main machine, speaking of borken. Rich Farmbrough, 12:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Could you not capitalize citation template in the future?

Like you did here (and presumably elsewhere). They are standardized to lowercase all across Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the {{Cite looks out of place when compared to the standard. Also, you probably shouldn't change the ==spacing around headings== either (see MoS:HEAD#Section headings). All of these little changes make it harder to read the diff. –xeno 22:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And can't you just please use a bot-flaged account for those edits so that they don't always fill up my watchlist? I'm normally all for consistency and cleanup tasks, and fine with bots making edits like this as long as I don't see them in my watchlist and they are clearly marked as a bot-made edits in the history (although I find it odd that you seem to be pushing your personal capitalization preference, I've yet to see consensus for any of this). You're obviously letting it run in auto-mode anyway, and have bot accounts. Use them. Amalthea 09:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment at all? Amalthea 14:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've moved stuff across to botland. Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. Amalthea 13:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, could you stop capitalizing those templates? It's really annoying. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll make some changes. Rich Farmbrough, 10:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Building a new ruleset now. Rich Farmbrough, 11:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Built manual ruleset to exclude canonical template names for cite templates when creating canonicalization rules, unfortunately reckoned without {{Cite_Web}} etc. Rich Farmbrough, 11:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Also a bug in the build process. Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

← You're still doing it as far as I can tell? Please stop capitalizing template names - if the editors who put it there made a human decision to use small case, you should not use an automated process to change it absent consensus to do so. –xeno 13:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See build (manual) 550, I'm in the middle of some manual runs on stuff like "3 january 3" and I'm not going to retype all the specialist rules. Rich Farmbrough, 14:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

If you're doing a run focused on stuff like "3 January 3" (which is noble, useful and helpful), could I ask why are any there capitalisation shuffling rules enabled? The last time I had cause to stop the bot, you investigated and after approximately three hours traced the issue down to an unexpected interaction between rule-sets. If you're not (intentionally) using a rule at any one moment, please do not have it enabled. In this case, please do not have capitalisation adjusting rules enabled, unless you are exclusively on a capitalisation adjusting run—and doing the latter on the basis of a previously agreed and documented project-wide mandate. —Sladen (talk) 15:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's the pull of opposites. Minimising the number of edits vs. making them clear. It's crazy to fix a date, fix a DEFAULTSORT, date a tag via three seperate edits when it can all be done in one. Moreover really minor but worthwhile changes (like moving a ref after punctuation, or replacing "Web reference" with "Cite web") are generally not considered "worth" even a bot minor edit, but are good rolled into other stuff. Rich Farmbrough, 15:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Yes, these are all (date formatting, DEFAULTSORT, dated cite) noble, clear-cut and good. Capitialisation adjustments are not clear-cut and—looking further up this conversation—are not universally considered good. Please disable capitalisation adjustments unless there is a project-wide concensus for them (which at the moment, does not appear to be the case). —Sladen (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Progress? —Sladen (talk) 17:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced

Hello Rich, I've undone your edits to Template:Unreferenced because they were causing huge red letters to appear on articles that Template:Unreferenced was transcluded on. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 03:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that was just a caching effect, form the earlier edit. See ]. Rich Farmbrough, 03:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC).

Oh, OK. Works now! :) Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 20:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

121.54.29.98

121.54.29.98, who you blocked for 3 hours, is at it again, adding redundant cleanup tags with dates from 2-3 years ago, interwiki links to nonexistent articles, and linked dates inside {{Persondata}}. I got BOLD and blocked him for 31 hours instead of going through the motions at ANI, but if you think it would be more appropriate I can open up a thread there just to get consensus. rʨanaɢ (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That's the right next step. It's almost like 121 is a training AI, replicating the types of additions to articles that are most often not reverted. Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

I went ahead and blocked the IP for a year, it seems like there's nothing good to come out of leaving it unblocked. rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(BTW, I did leave a note at ANI yesterday, see WP:ANI#IP adding broken interwikis, but no one ever responded. I guess there was more interesting drama elsewhere... rʨanaɢ (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

HIIII

Originaly sourced and properly cited'Rahstrapati Award' a category of national awards before 1968 box info was deleted - Citation requested to support the editor named Shshshsh 24 hrs ago claim support needed. Please protect National Film Award article by vandalism list of national awards among 'Rashtrapati Award 'deleted in the last 24 hrs by that editor please try to undo the edit if he again commits to vandalism. support needed from you thank you. please protect if Shshshsh deletes the National award list again.Report him to the administrator full support requested, your originally edited National award article was completely deleted through vandalism by the user 'Shshshsh ' support requested to (Prabhu6 (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prabhu6 (talk • contribs)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 07:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Candidate

Template:Infobox Candidate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for all your proofreading and copy editing that makes Misplaced Pages a higher-quality encyclopedia! -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Rich Farmbrough, 13:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot general fixes – IMDb

You may want to adjust SmackBot's "general fixes" regarding the rewrite of links to the family of IMDb templates; they are currently all spelled "IMDb …". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I saw the move, as a result of the rule generation. It's not one I agree with but it's not a big deal, will add support presently. Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Expansion of lifetime can lead to duplicate categories, DEFAULTSORT

E.g. here the expansion of {{lifetime}} can lead to duplicate categories and DEFAULTSORT. Would you add logic for this (could invoke MetaDataSorter after such an expansion to clean up). Rjwilmsi 16:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This shouldn't happen much, if at all (that was 2009), as 1. lifetime is now very rare, 2. SB invocations start with GF's after F&R, and only gradually do I manually change them to "before" to deal with intransigent items. If I could invoke General Fixes both before and after search and replace... Incidentally the duplicates are there anyway, just not visible. This is one of the reasons for expansion of the template. Rich Farmbrough, 19:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

I hadn't seen it was last year, thought it was three weeks ago. No worries then. Rjwilmsi 21:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Burma

Hi Rich. Can you do a similar run for Burma like you did with Chinese counties cleaning the infoboxes. Basically the infoboxes of the towns and Townships of Burma need stripping like this. They are far too bloated and empty. ALso many of them contain "religion=Buddhism and an empty government parameter which should be removed as in the Tuimu example and replaced with the time zone given. Also the division names need linking properly. If you see Tuimu now you'll see what I mean. Can you go through the town by division/state Category:Populated places in Burma and clean them and the Townships of Burma. Note that some of them are called states not divisions so in the infobox you just need to change Division to "State". Please though can you at least keep the very basic paramters like image skyline, pushpin map option, area, population and altitude. You can remove flag/shield option too as obtaining those are unlikely.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Any response?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

State/division - just pick that form the article name? Rich Farmbrough, 21:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

Incidentally I sorted the categories out, thy were a bit of a mess, sub-catting various "people in foo" cats, etc. ~~

Nice one. That'll do. Don't worry about anymmore as I'm gradually going through anyway and replacing the infoboxes/cleaning up the articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Smackbot question - tagger code

When Smackbot is adding categories such as Category:Living people or birth and death year categories to an article that's tagged as being uncategorized, would it be possible to also have it switch the tag from {{uncategorized}} to {{morecat}}? Not a big deal if not, but I thought it worth asking anyway, because I've come across a few articles today where that would have been helpful. Bearcat (talk) 23:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a useful AWB function - AWB is very conservative about uncat, though, assuming that any unrecognised template might hide a category - which mostly they don't or shouldn't. Comics especially has a wonderful categorising mechanism, but of course the cats aren't in the page source and don't work with intersections etc. This sort of project specific cleverness is a real problem sometimes. Rich Farmbrough, 23:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

We use the API to get categories, so whether they're explicit in page or not doesn't matter. Rjwilmsi 21:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe so, but the tagger code I saw looked a the page text. I'll check it out tomorrow. Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

            // skip article if contains any template except for stub templates
            // because templates may provide categories/references
            foreach (Match m in WikiRegexes.Template.Matches(articleText))
            {
                if (!(WikiRegexes.Stub.IsMatch(m.Value)
                      || WikiRegexes.Uncat.IsMatch(m.Value)
                      || WikiRegexes.DeadEnd.IsMatch(m.Value)
                      || WikiRegexes.Wikify.IsMatch(m.Value)
                      || WikiRegexes.Orphan.IsMatch(m.Value)
                      || WikiRegexes.ReferenceList.IsMatch(m.Value)
                      || WikiRegexes.NewUnReviewedArticle.IsMatch(m.Value)
                      || m.Value.Contains("subst")))
                {
                    summary = PrepareTaggerEditSummary();
                    return articleText;
                }
            }

Rich Farmbrough, 18:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot uncategorized

In this edit SmackBot incorrectly tagged an article as uncategorized — there is a comment at the bottom of the article clearly state that the appropriate categories are present at redirects rather than at the article itself, but the comment is obviously human-readable only. Is there a way to automatically inform bots such as SmackBot that the categorization of articles such as this one is not problematic, to prevent it from coming around and making the same bad edit again? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well not a good way! Let me look closer. Rich Farmbrough, 06:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 07:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot

Hi Rich I added references to an article I am working on titled "Youssef Elsisi", could you please let me know if it satisfies the notability and/or references for wiki. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Regards.

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Despite our disagreements on other sundry matters, I would like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude for generating the AWB rules for the list of WikiProject banner redirects used in my WikiProject shelling task. –xeno 14:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Speaking of Xenbobots, did the Chicagoland problems resolve themselves? Rich Farmbrough, 14:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Hmm, you'll have to jog my memory? I am working without the assistance of a beverage made by straining hot water through ground beans. –xeno 14:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I too have an empty earthenware container at my elbow. It's one of Xenobot IV(?)'s project labelling tasks. WikiProject Chicago. However many of the pages once labelled were disputed and now have various "nobots" templates on their talk pages. I know you suggest this as one solution on your bot's talk page, but it has two flaws: firstly it doesn't solve the underlying problem, whether it is mis-categorisation, or poor project definition (assuming the banner doesn't belong), secondly if a project wants to include pages with little or no apparent connection to the subject of the project, it's not really for the pages "owners" to say them nay. Anyway the reason I ask is that I periodically try to clean up bots/nobots, and have managed to remove a couple of hundred plus (not least from the templates with red-links pages which were all denying AWB for no real reason - although that got me into updating the pages, which are quite owned at the moment). Rich Farmbrough, 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

Ah yes. It's a bit of a dispute over how wide a metropolitan area spans. One user feels that CHI is casting their net too wide, but on the other hand (as you note), projects are generally free to set their scope as wide as they wish. I didn't really feel like getting in the middle of it, to be honest, so I was fine with them denying Xenobot on a case-by-case basis. –xeno 15:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

cite vs Cite

At Carbon dioxide, you used AWB to change multiple occurrences of "cite web" to "Cite web". Why? The cite web template explicitly uses the lower case version. Q Science (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes some of the documentation does although it is not prescriptive in that sense. However

1. Template:Web reference
2. Template:Web-reference
3. Template:Web cite
4. Template:Cite website
5. Template:Cite-web
6. Template:Citeweb
7. Template:Web
8. Misplaced Pages:Citeweb
9. Template:Web citation
10. Template:Cite url
11. Cite web
12. Misplaced Pages:Cite web
13. Template:Cite blog
14. Template:Cite Web
15. Template:Cite webpage
16. Template:Cita web
17. Template:Lien web
18. Template:C web
19. Template:Cit web
20. Template:Cw
21. Template:Cite tweet

all redirect to {{Cite web}}, and from the 6 September I started to pick these up. Capitalising is an added bonus (the majority of templates are capitalised), although there are some people that have objected, notably Amalthea for reasons of watchlist noise (which seems valid), for that reason I have created a new manual version of the clean-up rules that skips some of these corrections. Rich Farmbrough, 04:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Actually, whether capitalizing templates really is a "bonus" is yet to be determined. I haven't seen objections to bypassing redirects, but many complaints about changing e.g. {{cite web| to {{Cite web|. I think I see your reasoning, and can see it as a good guideline to improve readability in meta templates. Not so much in articles though.
You'd save yourself much grief (and, from the looks of it, an ANI thread or RFCU sooner or later) if you just stopped changing capitalization of the first letter of transcluded templates (cites, tags, reflist, ...) and looked for consensus at some pump first. As I've said elsewhere, I'm in principle all for cleanup tasks and canonicalization, but this is a consensus driven community project – if members of the community object, you'll need to look for consensus, as annoying as it may be. I know you don't normally have BAG approve all your tasks, and you've been given lots of leeway since you generally stay within the important BAG guidelines. In this case though you aren't. Amalthea 12:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed in meta-templates it has the big advantage of making .....{{{{entity and ....{{{{{Entity clear nine times out of ten (or more). But there is not really much objection except to the Cite family, and that mainly since I have been busy manually over the last few days - and I understand the reasoning since "cite" is seen as something that fits into running text (I did cap a lot in numbered or bulleted lists with no complaints). In fact it rarely isin running text, it is usually offset from (or at least within) a sentence with ref tags, but as I said I have done a rebuild so I get a separate manual fixes that won't cap inline cites, unless it's replacing a redirect. (Well at the moment it will ail with most redirects but that's another story.) I completed one of the 8 tasks I was working on yesterday, another will be done in a couple of minutes, one I think I can bot (I will have to check my BRFAs) and the rest I might put on hold anyway as I want to look at 0.8, and work on Mirror Bot. Rich Farmbrough, 12:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

I don't understand what "redirect" has to do with this. When you actually go to the Template:Cite web page, the examples are in all lower case. This has nothing to do with page names, but instead is the fact that the examples and the new text do not agree. As a result, I think it is wrong to use mixed case anytime, even when "it's replacing a redirect". Q Science (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted in several other places on just the recent talk activity, the lowercase is used in examples and the lower case seems to be want is preferred. If you wish to change the direction of Misplaced Pages, this can be done by gaining traction for a policy on the matter, rather than eroding the standardisation that there is. —Sladen (talk) 17:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Flagicon

Hi,

I just wondered why you interchanges {{flagicon}} with its redirect {{Flag icon}}, like you did here and here amongst many? Anyway, I thought that general Misplaced Pages consensus is you don't make an edit to a page just to update the template name, according to WP:R? lil2mas (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yes you are quite right (by and large) you don't make an edit to a page just to update the template name, in the first edit I replaced mark-up with a template ( Edit summary - replace markup with template and general fixes.) in this case <br clear="all"> with {{Clear}}, added a DEFAULTSORT and a couple of other minor changes, in the second (Datefixes and general fixes) replaced "22 April 22" with "22 April", and {{bda}} with {{Birth date and age}}. And there also lies the nub (or the rub, or the rub of the nub) - "bda", <br clear="all">, "flagicon" and "commonscat" (common scat?) are less readable than "Birth date and age", "Clear" "Flag icon" and "Commons category". And what is more they are less memorable, don't conform to simple rules to help users predict and remember the names of templates (whole words, normal capitalisation, no extra underscores, hyphens, Infobox foo, not Foo infobox etc.). And while none of these things is insurmountable, a simple interface encourages new users - I do remember when the only mark-up I knew was == - and a few minutes earlier not even that. There is a steep learning curve with Misplaced Pages, and we need to make it as shallow as possible. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Help with the A&R representatives editing their clients' articles

Twice in this month, I've found some funky wtiting, and look to the talk page of the article, only to discover that the Kaki King article was being edited by one of her record label executives, using a copyrighted photo which had been hanging in King's MySpace ..."with King's permission".  ?!! Today, the Easy Star All-Stars page had an album inserted into their article. A photo of former members from that band that I uploaded a year ago to Wikimedia Commons came under scrutiny by a new user at Commons, who asked to delete the image "because the people in the photo were no longer in the band". (I should have guessed this was the problem).. my response was to ask whether I should delete photographs of Mick Taylor since he no longer plays with The Rolling Stones! I was incredulous that anyone would ask to delete a photo that could be used in discussing the history of the band from Commons!! Today, I read on the talk page that the primary editor of what is a redundant article- with the text merely repeating the lead-- identifies themself as a new editor but never registered in the usual manner so it's not possible to leave a template on their talk page if they haven't got one! What to do with these people??!!--Leahtwosaints (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tbanks. I never learned how to really interact with other editors on the Wikipedias, mainly being a Wikignome type, cleaning up after others. Just wanted to be sure that my efforts with these outsiders with definite POV interests regarding their clients don't screw up the BLP pages. I watched while others had a helluva time with the record folks on the article for Josh Klinghoffer (Red Hot Chili Peppers backup guitarist)-- who has now taken John Frusciante's place in the touring band, if not permanently. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Worcester

Hi Rich Farmbrough! an article you have contributed to, has been selected for the Misplaced Pages Version 0.8. offline release on DVD and iPhone. If you would like to make any last minutes changes or improvements, you are most welcome to do so. Deadline is midnight UTC on Monday, 11 October. See also: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Worcestershire#Worcestershire articles have been selected for the Misplaced Pages 0.8 release.--Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool! Rich Farmbrough, 04:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

Talkback

BTW if you're watching my tp anyway, I'll drop these silly tb templates.

Level two headline

Hello. Concerning your edit here, one minor point: Clicking on the icon "Level 2 headline" above gives automatically "== abc ==", not "==abc==", hence you should adapt your general fix accordingly or you will find yourself always editing against the general format trend. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You would think so, however "==abc==" outnumbers "== abc ==" 5 to 1. Rich Farmbrough, 10:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

How you know? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I counted them. Rich Farmbrough, 10:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

My impression, however, is quite the opposite, and that Misplaced Pages has automated the task to "== abc ==", not "==abc==" gives it much more force. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand, however the decisions of MediaWiki developers 10 years ago, however sagacious, aren't really too relevant. Rich Farmbrough, 11:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Whatever, you can propose a Misplaced Pages-wide change on the relevant talk page, but meanwhile I revert it on Andrew Wilson (and any other article I created). Thanks for your understanding. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

By all means. Rich Farmbrough, 11:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Bracketing the place of birth is actually encouraged: Check out Misplaced Pages:Persondata#Using the template, the Magellan example.

It is also quite implicit recommended below: "For example, there's no need to link "Mount Juliet, Tennessee" as "Mount Juliet, Tennessee" (resulting in "Mount Juliet, Tennessee") when "Mount Juliet, Tennessee" ("Mount Juliet, Tennessee") is available." Please do your homework. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes I beg your pardon. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Radio City 1386AM

Rich

You posted an Orphan article notice on the article I posted about Radio City 1386AM any chance you can take another look I have added some more links just curious how many links are required for an article to not be classified an orphan?

Thanks David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks Alot, new to the Wiki World so not sure on the etiquette of removing what others have added.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by DABenji (talk • contribs) 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

SmackBot

Hi Rich, Please, check the article "Tjaarke Maas", which was improved. since you taged it. Thanks (Yuryo (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

Thfnks Rich, for giving me a hand. Its looks better now.(93.45.20.221 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC))

SWAT and WADS conferences

Hidden maintenance categories don't make an article properly categorized, and neither do the presence of categories on redirects. If SWAT and WADS conferences doesn't have at least one visible content category directly on it, then it's still an uncategorized article that needs to be tagged as an uncategorized article. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categorization does say that every article needs to have at least one category on it. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any good reason why certain articles should be exempt from the rules that apply to most others? If so, then why bother having a category system at all? Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Categorization tagging isn't something I do because I particularly like being perceived as an obsessive-compulsive little "rules for the sake of rules" geek. I certainly don't enjoy sitting here for hours on end clicking "save" in AWB over and over again — but when there's a backlog of almost 50,000 uncategorized articles, as there was two months ago when I started devoting almost all of my Misplaced Pages attention to this particular task, it's something that has to get done. I don't really see the point in essentializing it into a debate about whether there are "inherent" reasons why the rule is what it is. The simple fact that the rule is there, in and of itself, means that it's not particularly my responsibility to justify why an article should be categorized — it's the job of the other person to justify why a special exception to the rule should be made in their particular case. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

• News and notes: French million, controversial content, Citizendium charter, Pending changes, and more

• In the news: Wikimedia moves into India, critical conference, Vandalism detection contest

• WikiProject report: Designing WikiProject Architecture

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: EEML amendment requests & more

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Parser functions on my userpage

I got the following warning message in preview mode of my userpage. I'm not sufficiently technically-minded to appreciate what it means. Any help in deciphering it would be most appreciated:

Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls. It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 546 calls.

I suspect it may have to do with the cleanup category boxes I just included there. Thanks. --Ohconfucius 01:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed it is quite irritating that "expensive" parser function calls - in this case "if exists" are hard limited to 500 per page. You can call Template:Some template that doesn't exist or make a red redlink - which must invoke some kind of "exists" functionality - which mean that blue links do too, so it is kinda silly (maybe a bugzilla). And I wanted a nice dashboard of all the progress boxes, sigh. However, good news is ... (as documented on my blog - currently broken!) the progress box on the right which is a rely helpful management tool for working with SmackBot. Rich Farmbrough, 03:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Making work

Hi Dude! Made a little AWB re-work (month days) for you here (See history record) with an edit conflict situation. I got most of it (your updates to the old) manually... but had to balance a stale edit I'd started hours back and left in my que. If it matters run the BOT again to lengthen those month names! Be well. // FrankB 01:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll pick the article up again sooner or later, or someone/something else will. Rich Farmbrough, 03:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

British Waterways, AWB and the cite tool

Hi Rich. Regarding your recent edit to British Waterways article. I noticed that AWB changed the template names from cite to Cite. Reason for commenting is that the two cites I added last week used the new popup cite template tool in the editor: cite is being added by this new tool, rather than Cite. This would seem to be creating extra work for you (well, for AWB!) -- EdJogg (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks for the note. It's not a big deal and the latest versions of my manual tools are skipping it anyway, but useful to know. Rich Farmbrough, 08:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Based on the number of separate conversations opened precisely on this topic, I think the capitalisation adjustments are "a big deal", and not just for the odd person. Please, take heed of the crowd and remove the rules performing capitalisation adjustments from circulation. Please put the controversial rules beyond use and ensure that they do not silently re-appear a few months down the road (unless it is with a clear, documented, project-wide mandate). —Sladen (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarify date from /// format

Hello. Please can you keep AWB out of the title= parameter of cite templates, as in this edit. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.... Rich Farmbrough, 09:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Please stop capitalisation adjustments for template names. There are four unarchived topics on the this Talk page in the last week alone. Rich: you have been repeatedly asked by increasing numbers of editors to not make such changes. Rather than being vague and non-committal. Can we please have some action: please stop the bot activity (Smackbot and your "manual" ruleset) until such as time as the rules have been removed. The continuance is causing conflict and stressed editors, and these are not things that I like seeing on Misplaced Pages. —Sladen (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

this topic is about dates not capitalisation. Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Find sources

Hi Rich. Two things:

• Adding "Find sources" to {{unreferenced}} was a great idea.
• Shouldn't it also be in {{BLP unsourced}} as well? Alzarian16 (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks!
• Done. Rich Farmbrough, 10:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Thanks. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Correspond with me

Do you want to correspond with me e-mail? I from Czech Republic and I want to be better in English. Write me on my takl page. Hi K123456 (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think, private e-mail. My e-mail is XXXX . I know, how it goes on wiki. K123456 (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Rich Farmbrough, 10:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

It means yes? K123456 (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Rich Farmbrough, 10:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

OK :-), I will write you, about me as soon as possible. I can not wait. Hi K123456 (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

main page tagged uncategorised - really?

192.93.164.28 (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty silly mistake tbh. Especially since it took 13 minutes to fix... Modest Genius 15:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NOtified 15:20, reverted 15:21- Between 0 and 120 seconds. Took you at least 180 seconds to say how slow I am. Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

Ehhh, everyone makes mistakes. :/  f o x  15:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphan

Hey, Mr Farmbrough. Does Neuroscience stubs count as a category? Basket of Puppies 15:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not for the purpose of "uncategorised", "orphans" are pages which are not linked to by another page. Rich Farmbrough, 15:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

I added Category:Symptoms and signs: Nervous and musculoskeletal systems to Vertiginous epilepsy. Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC).