Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:32, 14 June 2009

de:Benutzer Diskussion:DaB./Archiv 2006

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.

That Was Quick

I went back to correct the Newburgh Enlarged City School District as soon as I could get back to the computer, and you had already done it. Thank you. nbhtownclerk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nghtownclerk (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rename proposal

1. Rename Category:Cleanup by month to Category:Misplaced Pages cleanup by month to fit the name of the parent category Category:Misplaced Pages cleanup. (Analogously for the monthly subcategories, from Category:Cleanup from ... to Category:Misplaced Pages cleanup from ...)
2. Rename Wikify from ... to Category:Articles that need to be wikified from ... to fit the name of parent category Category:Articles that need to be wikified.
3. Rename Category:Category needed to Category:Uncategorized to fit the monthly categories Category:Uncategorized from ....
4. Rename Category:Articles to be split to Category:Misplaced Pages articles to be split to fit the names of the monthly categories. Or the other way around, whatever.

• Rationale. Most maintenance categories (not including those that are a subcategory of another maintenance category) follow the logical rule of format that the dated and undated category name differ only in "name"/"name from ....". This can be verified on this page. Extending this principle to the abovementioned categories is logical and clarifying, improves Misplaced Pages housestyle and simplifies template programming considerably.
• Note. This is not the place and the time to discuss the preferability of the word "since"/"from". That discussion will have to be delayed until after the simplifying of the template-category interaction has been finished, of which this proposal is an integral part. Frankly, I wouldn't have though it necessary to bring trivial and obvious improvements like these to a discussion, but recent misunderstanding have prompted some response and discussion has become recommendable. Nevertheless, I hope we can keep the discussion minimal and come to a speedy agree here. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OK I suggest

• getting rid of "Misplaced Pages" as proposed at the naming convention page by me, and elsewhere by W.A.S. and others.
• All should conform to one of the four standards - just one, not a choice form four:

1. Articles to be fooed
2. Pages to be fooed
3. Articles needing to be fooed
4. Pages needing to be fooed

Any all-encompassing cats should then be

1. All articles/pages to be/needing to be fooed

And the daughter cats named appropriately.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

This proposal of yours is a change to present guidelines, see point 2 here. Just taking notice.

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Update_administrateve_categories_section Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

I would not mind it if such a proposal were to be accepted, but myself feel fine with different standards for different categories. But, there should be uniformity within each category. Which brings me to the following point.

For the sake of simplifying {{DatedAI}} and {tl|Article issues}} it will be a big step forward to reach this last condition: uniformity within each category. This is what my proposal is about. You do not think it is a good and realistic proposal? Debresser (talk) 21:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

OK here's the thing. DatedAI and Article issues don't really matter much, because they are largely done. What it is useful for is for new work "going forward". E.G progress box should' just work with {Progress box|descriptor}}, but I had to build in special case handling. There are ways around it, for example reading the list of categories I made gives you the structure and you could automatically do stuff from there. Trouble is every non-canonical usage breaks a tool - the option to fix the tool is path of least resistance - 20 minutes coding vs. submitting proposals, or renaming stuff and getting jumped on by those who WP:DONTLIKEIT - but if it isn't fixed the next tool someone makes will also break, and one's own tool will be more complex and likely to break too. Moreover people will find stuff harder to "guess" - like infobox names. Rich Farmbrough, 22:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

OK I just lost a long comment - possibly edit conflict. Rich Farmbrough, 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC).

Don't close the page until after you see your edit has been processed. That's what I always do. Debresser (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with what you say. I would even support it. Still, in my opinion the simplification and symmetry that can be obtained by "just" obtaining uniformity within each category is very attractive and more easily obtainable. In my vision, this is a project that works in steps: each step obtaining additional standarisation. I know you agree with me in this respect, generally. I think my proposal is the next logical step. If you think otherwise, I shall wait for your steps, and hope you won't overstep. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it is not only about {{DatedAI}} and {{Article issues}}, but also about all templates that sort into these three categories, that can not use ({{Fix}} or) {{DMCA}} unless the categories are uniformised. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I want to make that proposal. Do you have any advice. What and how to say or not to say? Debresser (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I made the first proposal. By way of test. See Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:Articles_to_be_split. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In view of what I think will be the success of the first nomination, I now nominated a seond one here. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Since a certain uncivil editor has reacted to this last nomination by bringing an example from Category:CfD 2009-06 I have nominated that category for renaming to Category:Categories for discussion from June 2009, see Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I have informed all that have been part of the previous discussions. The opponents have shown up right away. I have refuted their argumetns with ease. Now I'm waiting for a few proponents. It was nice that the first reaction was positive. Debresser (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is fierce. But to the point. Interesting. The discussion at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:Articles_to_be_split will be closed soon. I think it will be closed on the alternative. Which is fine with me. Shall I go ahead and create those pages, or should I wait? Debresser (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Once it has closed. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

I feel I can use some support at Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Another concern of mine is that the closing admin of most discussions is one who does not seems to overly appreciate my proposals. Do you have any good ideas? Debresser (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 needs some more opinions. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll try and get there . Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

And please have a look at Category_talk:Pages_for_discussion as well. Debresser (talk) 01:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_4#Category:Articles_to_be_split is the only entry on the page that isn't closed yet. Although all 3 editors have agreed on the alternative. Please also don't forget to add your opinion to Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_8#Category:Wikify_from_June_2009 and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:CfD_2009-06. Debresser (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Now WAS came back and "suddenly" changed his mind about that nomination that wasn't closed. Why wasn't it closed yesterday??? (frustration) Debresser (talk) 12:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You made the right decision there. Audacious. All templates and categories done. Debresser (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical

Template:Technical is made especially for talk pages. Nevertheless there are some (<75) instances where it is used in articles. I propose moving it from the articles to their talk pages. Could SmackBot do that? Do you think {{Cleanup-jargon}} should be added to the articles instead? If it's too much trouble for the bot, I can always do it with AWB.Debresser (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced all instances in articles by {{Technical (expert)}}. Could you program SmackBot to do this automatically in the future, please? Debresser (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to this template causes it to be invisible on the template page. Which makes it a little hard to know what it looks like. Debresser (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Technical (expert)

Now Template:Technical (expert) is not made for talk pages, but the documentation claims it should be put only on talk pages. It is in use one 20 tak pages and 10 articles, which seems to show that I am not the only one with this opinion. My proposal is to delete that line from the documentation page and move all of them to the articles. Debresser (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It even caries a category Article message boxes. So I removed that line. I replaced all transclusions on talkpages by Template:Technical. Could you program SmackBot to do this automatically in the future, please? Debresser (talk) 09:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

OK what I propose is merging the templates. I mocked this up in userspace. Um I'll look for it later. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Merge a talkpage template with an article template?? Debresser (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted Debresser's removal of the talk page requirement. This has been the consensus for a long time. The template is the same as the technical template but with the expert request added. So the same reasoning that puts the technical template on the talk page applies. I don't know where Debresser got the idea that one template goes on the talk page and the other doesn't. It's contrary to what is written in the guideline for the templates. (I also reworded the template to match the wording of the technical template which more accurately reflects the guideline and people seem to be ok with)--C S (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After some heated discussion C S understood that my reason was the word "ambox", which he promtly changed to "tmbox". I personally think it should stay an article namespace template, but if it will be a talkpage template, then so be it. It is not the same as {{technical}} in that it asks for expert attention as well. So I don't know whether a merge would be a good idea.Debresser (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I've revived this discussion here, adding a new proposal. Debresser (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

myasthenia gravis

Wot up hommie G. I edited myasthenia gravis page by adding cholinergic crisis. You delelted the portion...saying they are different. You are right, althought there is still outstanding discussion in autoimmune specialist community whether they should be bundled as sub types of myasthenia or not, as for now they are considered seperate. But lot of people have lot of confusion distinguising these two and understanding the concept of crisis since both of them are type two autoimmne reactions and both have the same symptomps. If we keep them seperate then we still need to mention edrophonium test to differentiate both of them, I will do that now. Le me kno if you O K with it. Thx. Never mind too late someone has already included edrophium test under diagnosis still it would be appropriate to mention that before any other test, due to its importance. I am writing this stuff on your page but I am not very fmiliar with editing Wiki so if I screwedup something or if this is not how you wanted people to reply to you then I am sorry and you can delete this. Keep it real and keep fighting the good fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninad 1999 (talk • contribs)

Reflist

In the two days I've been out of editing there have appeared 140 articles in Category:Pages with missing references list. This is about the daily average, which I estimate to be close to 80. This is clearly too much for any editor to fix on a daily basis, and I am pretty much fed up with it. Do you have any ideas? BTW, Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. as to my questions and remarks above. Debresser (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Together with another user we once fixed over a thousand of them. We even awarded each other a Barnstar for that. For what unexplicable reason did SmackBot stop fixing this? In my experience, over 80% of the cases are either new articles or old articles receiving their first references and can be fixed by a bot adding a references section. The other articles, where e.g. a references section exists but was rendered inactive by a remark or reference tag without a closing remark or reference tag, can be fixed manually afterwards. That is because I do that anyway, but the numbers will be a lot more reasonable. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean that from now on SmackBot will try to fix this error category? There are now only 30 articles left. That would mean some 10-20 per day. That I can handle. Debresser (talk) 00:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just remembered something. Please make SmackBot fix only the articles, not anything else showing up here. We also have templates, category pages and help pages here, but those I prefer to fix manually. Debresser (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The category is filled with over 60 articles. What's with SmackBot? Debresser (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah well the secret is it is not completely a bot, it needs to be manually started. And this applies to every run of every task. And despite appearances to the contrary I have other things in my life than Misplaced Pages. Rich Ffarmbrough, 11:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC).

I had no doubt. But your "secret" really comes as a surprise to me. Why is that? Your bot is one of the most active and helpfull around (if not the most). Debresser (talk) 11:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a certain time of the day you run this reflist fixed? I'm asking because I saw 40 articles again today, and I'd rather fix 15 after you run it. Debresser (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There were 31 "problem" articles at that time . I run it by noon probably. And I re-run it several times a day, because all I have to do is click a couple buttons. But on m,y to-do list is auto running. Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Iwas very suprised your bot doesn't auto-run. Debresser (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Progress box

Nice work on {{Progress box}}. I wonder how hard it would be to merge in the functionality of {{DeletedMonths}}. --Pascal 01:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC).

I couldn't figure out how you did this, so I tested it and whatever you did does not appear to work. I just added an article to Category:Articles to be expanded from December 2006 which caused {{DeletedMonths}} to show it at Category:Articles to be expanded by month, but the {{Progress box}} on that page did not detect the deleted category with an article in it. --Pascal 23:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added the functionality of {{DeletedMonths}} to {{Progress box}}. Anywhere you add {{Progress box}} you can now delete {{DeletedMonths}} from (if it is there). This way they are not both on the same page using expensive parser functions running through the same old categories to see if they exist. --Pascal 08:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I hade a look at Template:Splitting progress. The "All articles" link is redlinked because it uses "All Articles" with a capital. That is a small oversight: don't just add "All", but also turn the capital "A" from "Articles" into a regular letter. Debresser (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed the capitalization issue. --Pascal 17:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot - Bot is making mistake

See this edit for an example of a mistaking edit that needs to be fixed. I have seen many of these already, not thinking it was the bot who made this mistake. But then it became a little too often, and I checked who did this, and guess whom I found? Debresser (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother searching for the mistaken edits. I'll clean them up. Debresser (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I fixed this. But keep your eyes open for anything similar. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Template:Section rewrite

I just noticed that you deleted this template with the rationale "redirect to deleted template." In an above section, it is correctly stated that the template was deprecated, but it was not a redirect to a deleted template. Please advise. Thank you. —David Levy 12:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. Its use is continued by {{Cleanup-rewrite}}, and it has no incomming links apart from the discussion here, but it was not a redirect. He probably meant that it was deleted as a deprecated template. Debresser (talk) 12:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deprecation is not a speedy deletion criterion. To ensure that future transclusions (by users unaware of the deprecation) function properly, the standard practice is to either label the template "deprecated" (as this one was) or redirect it to the template that has superseded it. —David Levy 12:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And then we keep it indefinitely? Mind you, I'm not arguing, just asking about what the procedure is. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. —David Levy 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In that case, I'm sorry I made the suggestion above to delete it. Now let's see what Rich will have to say. Debresser (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual procedure is that it is TfD'd, deprecated, orphaned, dated and deleted. The reason for the incorrect edit summary was that I was also deleting a redirect to it, with the obvious consequence. I must say that this does seem to be a cyclic "lets have a section version of everything" and "lets consolidate these section versions into one" phenomena, similar to many others on WP, which is one reason haven't much worried about template cruft, although I have got some ideas for combating it. Rich Farmbrough, 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC).

It does sound compellingly logical, that sequence ending with "deleted"... Debresser (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The usual procedure is that it is TfD'd, deprecated, orphaned, dated and deleted.

When it comes to longstanding templates superseded by others, that isn't the procedure with which I'm familiar. Historically, there have been widespread concerns regarding potential future transclusions and past transclusions viewable in old page revisions. This is why, for example, long-superseded templates such as {{cleanup-date}}, {{attention}} and {{attention (on talk page)}} redirect to {{cleanup}} and long-superseded templates such as {{mergewith}} and {{mergedisputed}} redirect to {{merge}}.

And that sound even more logical. :) Debresser (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason for the incorrect edit summary was that I was also deleting a redirect to it, with the obvious consequence.

What was the actual rationale? —David Levy 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I await your response. —David Levy 23:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Join the club. :))) Debresser (talk) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC):::

That it was deprecated and orphaned. Rich Farmbrough, 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC).

That isn't a speedy deletion criterion (for reasons noted above). Please restore {{section rewrite}}, {{sectionrewrite}}, and any other templates that you've deleted under this rationale. Thank you. —David Levy 18:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I await your response. —David Levy 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to say undelete them if you like. But I have done so. Rich Farmbrough, 16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Thank you. Have you deleted any other templates for this reason? —David Levy 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that I am aware. Rich Farmbrough, 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Thanks again! —David Levy 08:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot June 2009

SmackBot changed a "fact|June 2009" template coding to "Fact|June 2009|date=June 2009" earlier today in this George Washington article edit. I removed the extra "|June 2009" though you may wish to make a change so SmackBot only inserts "date=" in such situations. —ADavidB 19:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your useful bot work. A minor observation: noticed today that SmackBot doesn't appear to know that {{Fact}} invites dummy parameters; I say this because those present in this appear to have caused SmackBot to see the pipe and assume a date was present. (I won't watch for a reply here but please use my talk page should you need to discuss.) PL290 (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Cat ASOF

I have added Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements to Misplaced Pages:List of monthly maintenance categories given month. Do you think I could nominate Template:Cat ASOF for deletion? Debresser (talk) 19:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Guess it should be a soft redirect to Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements. Rich Farmbrough, 20:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Should be migrated to {{Monthly cleanup category}}. Rich Farmbrough, 21:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

You mean you want to turn the monthly categories of Category:Articles containing potentially dated statements into categories that are standarised with {{Monthly cleanup category}}? You'll excuse me, I don't understand the word "migrating".

Will you take care of that? Debresser (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. But looking in more detail it may not be worth it , or it may be better for Cat ASOF to call {{Monthly cleanup category}}, since it has special code for its slightly special hierarchy. Rich Farmbrough, 22:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

I saw ]. Nothing here that isn't regular in other maintenance categories. Or is there? That's why I thought we should delete it, after discussion, since no other maintenance category has a template to create its monthly categories, and Misplaced Pages:List of monthly maintenance categories given month can do the same (and I have actually added a line there with precisely that purpose). Debresser (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

YEs that's the bit that's puts it in the parent cat for the year. Basically it says if a month was specified then put it in the year cat. If not in the over-arching cat. Rich Farmbrough, 22:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

It does add a leading zero to the sort key, which is good when it's missed but f someone puts 09 it will become 009. This can be fixed with an #expr: in the right place. Rich Farmbrough, 22:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

I saw the use of <includeonly>...</includeonly> and <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags. I would have thought the page of Template:Cat ASOF should be empty, since all text is inside <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags. Nor do I understand the need for the <includeonly>...</includeonly> tags.

So the special thing is the automatic inclusion in the yearly category. Is that enough reason for a separate template? We regularly create monthly maintenance categories with Misplaced Pages:List of monthly maintenance categories given month and just paste the previous month's page with editing the month and year. This would be nothing else. Debresser (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Time context

I really appreciate it you update me about new templates, but in this case...

1. you can see in the history, that I made 2 recent edits to it, so it's likely I know about it.
2. the template does take a date, but does not use a dated category, so is not of direct interest to this standarising project of ours.

There are over 6700 articles in Category:Misplaced Pages articles needing context. Perhaps add a monthly category? Debresser (talk) 23:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate some direct reaction to the other points I mentioned above. And of course any further updates about templates with a dated category, or new progress on {{Article issues}} e.g. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) But

I did another datedAI yesterday. So only notability left. I have also updated the doc page you created a little.Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

So I see. Very nice. As soon as we make a little order in those categories that will allow for significant simplification. Did you notice who agreed to a template deletion proposal of mine, as well as to the category rename? Perhaps now you propose to rename one of the categories? Debresser (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Infobox German location

Hi Rich, I tried to update the above template so it can take account of the latest changes to fields in German Misplaced Pages (without throwing away the existing ones), but it's protected. How can I get it updated? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 18:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Smackbot problem

Everytime it edits savant syndrome a cite error occurs.--125.14.233.56 (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Clean up "et al."

I'm not sure why "et al." is preferred over "et al", however here is one case where it is not correct: this edit broke a template that has "et al" in its name. I must say that use of the template seems very odd to me, but I restored it (I was there replacing linkspam). This is just FYI, no need to reply. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

listas

Please do not do this, it makes work for other people to fix. Gurch (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that I avoided most of the bands. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Or to be more accurate gave them a correct listas. Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC).

Minor Smackbot problem

Hi Rich,

A couple of days back, in this edit to Mono (software) SmackBot changed the wikilink to mod_mono to one for mod mono. Normally this would be the correct edit, but the name of the package and thus the page really does have the underscore in the name.

Can you add this as a special case to the bot's edit rules please?

Thanks Kiore (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Worcestershire

Worcestershire Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Worcestershire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Worcestershire-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WorcestershireWikipedia:WikiProject WorcestershireTemplate:WikiProject WorcestershireWorcestershire ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bishampton

Thanks for your recent clean up of this Bishampton article. This tiny village stub has been subject to constant vandalism since it was created. The various IPs are probably used by one person. If you have time, could you too please continue to help the Worcestershire project team keep an eye on it. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 09:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot bug

In this edit, SmackBot destroyed the "year" unnamed parameter of template:update after. Furthermore, the "date" parameter it inserted is completely bogus, the template was put in the article already in March. — Emil J. 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes not good. Steps taken to stop it happening. Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Infobox Software

It might have been better to discuss the move on the talk page for {{Infobox Software}} ahead of time so it could have instead been done at the same time as the next update of the template itself. Now ~1,100+ cached pages have to be needlessly rebuilt since the template was changed. Tothwolf (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tothwolf. Thanks for your message. I wouldn't worry , 1,100 is nothing to the job queue. Rich Farmbrough, 20:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC).

Yeah, but still, this is the time of day the servers tend to get overloaded anyway... Tothwolf (talk) 21:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline collaboration!

As you know, Penubag is working on a banner to advertise the Outline WikiProject. And he's almost done.

The banner prominently presents the "Outline of chocolate", which of course will become the most widely advertised outline as soon as the banner goes live. The first thing many editors will do after seeing the banner is look for that outline.

The problem is, we don't have one.

So that's our first outline collaboration!

I started a draft this morning.

It needs to be finished and moved to the article namespace before we can start using Penubag's banner ad!

Come join in on the fun. It's chocolate!

The Transhumanist    22:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for reply

1. #Technical
2. #Template:Cat ASOF

Debresser (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

In this edit I noticed your bot is doing what you have been reprimanded for doing on wp:AWB, namely removing the whitespaces in headers. Since there is no reason to do so, and Misplaced Pages default is otherwise (and I personally agree with that as being more clear), please tell the bot not to do this. Debresser (talk) 21:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions for Misplaced Pages categories

The Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (categories) had recently been updated with a pretense of reflecting consensus on a subject discussion you initiated. But in fact it did not reflect consensus at all, but rather the opinion of the specific editor making that change. In this edit I changed that section to reflect consensus and reason. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Who would believe it? Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#William_Allen_Simpson_reported_by_User:Debresser_.28Result:_.29

BTW, see also User_talk:Aervanath#Advice_needed for some more things this editor is doing without consensus. Debresser (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See also this edit of mine. :) Debresser (talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Update_administrative_categories_section and tell me if my behavior in this conflict has been as it should be? Please also advice me what to do if William_Allen_Simpson will return to making these changes of his. If you please write me on my talkpage? Debresser (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The page has been protected. See the end of User_talk:William_Allen_Simpson. To help resolve the stranded discussion, perhaps you could return to the discussion? Debresser (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning the protected verion was the one last edited by me. Now it has been reverted to a version of about half a year ago, with the contested text which was added 2 1/2 years ago by WAS. I have a feeling WAS will not be in a hurry to comply with the expressed wish of the protecting admin to discuss. Debresser (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Fountains

Hi - Regarding The Fountains I added a PROD to it; it is totally unreferenced and it needs sources to show notability and verifiability. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

Hi RIck - boy, your bot is quick :) - I was in the middle of making a change to 59th (2nd_Nottinghamshire) Regiment of Foot (changing it from being merely a recursive redirect into a slightly informative stub (hm.. I should find out how to put in the 'Stub' notice) when it put it back to the original. Cheers, Csalmon (talk) 01:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot broke Infobox

Hi, I would like to report a problem with Smackbot. It recently broke the infobox on Republic of China by removing a "<br/>" tag (or maybe by replacing it by a line break) from the "footnote" field. See this edit. Laurent (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor error

You moved the external links section to a wrong place here. Just to let you know. Happy editing, Spencer 23:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot

"orphan"

Concerning this edit: The only pages in the article space linking to that article are two topics lists and a redirect page (if you click on "what links here", one of the two topics lists appears twice, with two different names, but it's actually only one list). Doesn't that qualify it as an "orphan"? Michael Hardy (talk) 00:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well technically it is an orphan, no doubt. The important question for this article is, is there somewhere it should link from. Else the tag is redundant. The next question is whether, in general AWB should spot and ignore lists in it's count, an it should. Slightly more deeply I have reservation on the concept of orphaned articles being useful. Rich Farmbrough, 03:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC).

There very probably are articles that should link to this one, among those on statistics and those on epidemiology, and perhaps some on scientific experiments.

Do you mean that you have reservations about whether it is useful to label orphans as orphans? Or about whether the articles themselves are useful? If the former, the point would seem to be to call them to the attention of those who might know what links should be added. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

LegoBot reverting your changes

I noticed this at Copthorne, West Sussex. User:Smackbot made these changes. otherplaces3 template moved to the top and Mid Sussex template moved above the categories. Almost immediately, User:Legobot reverted them. I do not know who is right, I am just bringing it to your attention. MortimerCat (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. SmackBot is "right" but this is just an edit conflict, not a reversion as such. Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC).