User talk:Meno25/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk pages for redirects from people

Hi, Is it WP BIO policy to create talk pages for all Redirects from people? or all that represent living people? This spring I created some such redirects for living people, and expanded hundreds of existing redirect pages with code including one or more relevant redirect templates or categories (e.g. Year of birth missing (living people)). I created no new redirect talk pages, or next to none, and several now show up on my watchlist. --P64 (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@P64: Hi and thank you for your message. According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment#Class parameter, it is written that:
So, I assume that the answer to your question is yes. Best wishes. --Meno25 (talk) 13:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For maintenance of that list, I wonder whether those talk page banners all need the parameter assignment listas=lastname, firstname. Or whether the redirect page needs {DEFAULTSORT:lastname, firstname}, or both. --P64 (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
@P64: Hi again. As far as I know, all talk pages tagged with {{WikiProject Biography}} need the listas parameter to be set according to Template:WikiProject Biography#Listas. See also Category:Biography articles without listas parameter. --Meno25 (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

16:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

13:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Bot edits necessary?

Are edits like this one approved?

I don't mind these type of edits if you are doing important edits at the same time, but by itself the edit seems unnecessary.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Commander Keane: This is WikiProject Check Wikipedia error 64. See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MenoBot 4 for the approval of the bot's task. Fixing Checkwiki errors is a task done by many bots. Ususally this task is done by @Magioladitis: and @Bgwhite:. I only do it when they are not available. --Meno25 (talk) 06:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
But that approval was for AWB, it seems WPCleaner did the "bad" edit. Hence why I asked if it is approved.--Commander Keane (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
@Commander Keane: WPCleaner is better than AWB because it reports back to the Checkwiki server that the article processed was fixed, so that, other bots working on the error know that it was fixed, while AWB doesn't do that. --Meno25 (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Meno25 and Commander Keane: during the past year many AWB users silently switched to WPCleaner due to its clearer edit summaries and user friendly environment (I guess). I worked in the collaboration of the two tools and the synchronization of both tools with CHECKWIKI program. A year ago using WPCleaner in bot mode would not be a good idea because it could also remove a pages from the CHECKWIKI list without actually fixing the "error". Now, WPCleaner is fine on this direction.

AWB is certainly recommended because it does multiple fixes at the same time and we save bot runs.

I think the best approach is what I do: Run AWB in all errors and then WPCleaner to report fixed errors.

PS I do not have strong opinion on whether to allow a bot solely working with WPCleaner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Meno25, see that WPCleaner states that the bot mode is experimental. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: This is actually what I do on Arabic Wikipedia. (Running both WPCleaner and AWB on Checkwiki errors as you recommended.) Will do the same on English Wikipedia. However, I don't think that I will do it that much because you and Bgwhite are doing most of the work. Thank you. --Meno25 (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. More concerns just for why WPCleaner is not indicate in bot mode unless it is combined with other tools:

  • AWB allows the bot to stop when a message arrives, while WPClenaer does not.
  • WPCleaner removes the page from the CHECKWIKI list after the main error has been fixed and that may prevent fixes of other errors.

There is a try that the AWB and WPCleaner collaborate further. So any inconsistencie between the two should be reported. Thanks for your constant effort to help. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Thank you for your thoughts on this. Much appreciated. --Meno25 (talk) 09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Anytime. For instance, today we discovered an inconsistency in error #47. We are working on it. Another example: Error #69 was updated in CHECKWIKI. Now we have to update regexes to AWB and WPCleaner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

21:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 September 2015

17:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Arabic MOS question

I asked an Arabic spelling question at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Confusion on differing Arabic apostrophe like symbols. Being a native Arabic speak, you probably know more that anybody. Bgwhite (talk) 23:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied there. Thank you. --Meno25 (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

16:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

18:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)