User talk:Rich Farmbrough/Archive/2011 April

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


"The" versus "the Beatles"[edit]

There is a vote taking place in which we could use your input. — GabeMc (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category replacement script has errors[edit]

It appears as if the script you use for the semi-automatic category replacement in album articles has an error (or the log file it is based on is not correct), since many of the more recent ones didn't do what they were supposed to do, according to the edit summary: [1][2][3][4][5]. Fram (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Aware of problems and resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

FYI, see Mysterious glitch (cont.)[edit]

See Mysterious glitch (cont.). 75.47.154.175 (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puducherry[edit]

Please, read this discussion! --Treisijs (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot and {{tone}}[edit]

Hi, looks like there's a minor error with SmackBot doing a replacement on the {{tone}} tag. I noticed that in an article it replaced "tone" with ":Inappropriate tone"... the extra colon at the front broke the syntax (diff). I removed the colon at everything's fine now. --Drm310 (talk) 14:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like an intermittent problem, will investigate further. ~~

ISO 3166 templates[edit]

There are 5895 templates in Category:ISO 3166 code from name templates, 4060 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code templates, 245 in Category:ISO 3166 name from code country templates, and 1868 in Category:ISO 3166 code from name country templates, or in total some 12,000 templates you created over 6 months ago. At first glance, none of these is used anywhere. Can you indicate whether and where these are used (and if so, which categories of these are and which aren't), or if they aren't used, why they shouldn't be deleted (per WP:TFD, "Reasons to delete a template 3. The template is not used, either directly or by template substitution (the latter cannot be concluded from the absence of backlinks), and has no likelihood of being used") Fram (talk) 12:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a likelihood of these being used as they are designed particularly for infoboxes, where I intend to use them. Rich Farmbrough, 13:31, 26th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).
Could you give an actual example for each of the four groups of where and how you intend someday to use them? Fram (talk) 13:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to think of examples where people would prefer to type "ISO 3166 code Hungary Veszprém City" instead of just HU-VM, or if it has to be templated anyway, why it would be easier to have 12000 separate templates than one (or four, or at most one per country) like with Template:CountryAbbr, which actually is in widespread use. Fram (talk) 14:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the lot at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 January 27. Fram (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot: spacing before stub tags[edit]

Last month, the stubs guideline was edited so that it now recommends adding only one line, not two, before stub tags. I recall that, at one time, SmackBot performed these types of edits as part of gen-fixes; I am not sure if that is still the case but, in case it is, I wanted to let you know of the change. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon, that's weird. Because the text was there for two years and it was changed as minor edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not that surprised because I have noticed that 2 spaces now seems to be a little too much, and put it down to the DEFAULTSORT, persondata, and other new gubbins, but it could be that the css fix that we wanted years back has finally gone live. But I hadn't seen anything about it anywhere. Rich Farmbrough, 21:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Rich Farmbrough, 09:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

This page shows that 2 blank lines are needed to have the desired spaceing. One and zero are the same as we said in the referenced discussion (referenced in the change to the docs). Rich Farmbrough, 22:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Only thing we should change is to count the DEFAULTSORT as not interrupting the blank line count. Rich Farmbrough, 22:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
After the guideline was changed, I made an AWB request at WP:AWB/FR#One blank line before stub templates. If you disagree with the change to the guidelines, you should make your point here before AWB is changed. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened the discussion here. Debresser (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot: Commons template[edit]

SmackBot broke a Commons template, causing the Commons link to disappear, and creating a DEFAULTSORT conflict. This also happened a few days ago; if it helps, I could try to pore through my contributions to find where I fixed it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's due to the redirect using a superfluous : "#redirect [:template:blah]" - code (and redirect) fixed. Rich Farmbrough, 19:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Errors[edit]

If you correct an error you made[6], please make sure that your correction (or your earlier edit) are actually relevant. Adding an "uncategorized" tag to a good article with 20 categories is not really appropriate.

And you didn't correct this instance of unsubstituted dates...

Test stubs[edit]

Hi Rich... just came across this in the list of wanted categories... should you perhaps think about uncoupling the cat from these tests, or are you still working on them? Grutness...wha? 14:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, takes me back.... I deleted most of the test pages, cat should be empty. Rich Farmbrough, 10:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot[edit]

Hi with regards, to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Rasner how can I help, can you please clarify, how, or where this needs to be "cleanup" I would appreciate your thoughts, many thanks Theillusioner (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I didn't tag it, but maybe things like the non-sentence "Known for funny close-up magic." ? "is asst to the principal at"? Also there are some WP specific style issues, capitals in headers, header for the lead, links in the body text are not usually done, rather they go in the "external links" section or as references/footnotes. Rich Farmbrough, 09:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Many thanks for the reply; only your name is sited in the watch list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmackBot

Anyhow, I will take your suggestions under consideration, thank you, I do feel it’s much better that editors take time explain where we go wrong, not just delete our work… “of acorns grow”

But pray tell, who keeps putting this "close connection with its subject" and closing off the article. Initially, thought I had written this in an "neutral point of view" I even corrected some errors here too;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_401#Credits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercy_Streets#Cast http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Visitation_%28film%29#Cast

If I may be candid, rather than just close off an article without any detailed explanation, or solution, I do think it would be more productive to open the talk page then we can discuss amicably, and I can help to comply and make the article a more notable piece…thank you

FYI I have never met or spoken to the subject

Theillusioner (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 11:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Request[edit]

Hi, Rich! Are you taking any requests for bot maintenance runs at the moment? I have a relatively small batch of replacements that needs to be made. Please let me know either way. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2011; 16:20 (UTC)

Tell me what needs doing and I'll AWB it if I can, else we can find someone to take care of it. Rich Farmbrough, 17:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
It's about updating the articles using {{Infobox Russian inhabited locality}}. It was originally designed with a field for the 2002 Census figures. However, with the 2010 Census results forthcoming, the existing setup will quickly become confusing. Here's a list of changes that need to be made:
  • pop_census parameter needs to be replaced with pop_2002census;
  • pop_census_rank parameter needs to be replaced with pop_2002census_rank;
  • pop_census_ref parameter needs to be replaced with pop_2002census_ref;
  • where there is no pop_census_ref parameter available (which is most cases) but there is a value in pop_census, the following parameter needs to be added:
    |pop_2002census_ref=<ref name="PopCensus">{{ru-pop-ref|2002Census}}</ref>
I've already updated the infobox template to support these parameters, so it's just the matter of replacing the old instances. The maintenance category you can use for this task is Category:Russian inhabited locality articles requiring maintenance. If you could help with this, it'd be greatly appreciated! Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2011; 18:20 (UTC)
I've just noticed this, and thought that before you start it on the large scale, I should ask if you could leave the template name as it is (even if it's a redirect like {{Infobox Russian city}}, and place the pop_2002census_ref (note that in that diff you used pop_census_ref) after pop_2002census and pop_2002census_rank, if it's not too much trouble. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 24, 2011; 20:27 (UTC)
Can all be done. Rich Farmbrough, 21:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks a bunch! This was immensely helpful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2011; 13:51 (UTC)

New AWB snapshot available[edit]

Better download this http://toolserver.org/~awb/snapshots/AutoWikiBrowser5201_rev7660.zip Optimised loading, much faster and less buggy. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ty. Rich Farmbrough, 10:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 4 April 2011[edit]

Barn Church[edit]

Hi Rich: How can I best pursue a request to have the Barn Church page renamed? Please see my comments on that article's Talk page. Thanks Headhitter (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Rich Farmbrough, 10:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot[edit]

How do I delete my Daniel Sargent article? I don't want to be considered a vandal, but I'm the one who made the article in the first place. I'm going to move his research from published works to the globalization article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indevar (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I requested it be speedy deleted per a request of the creator and referenced this talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 10:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Apparent violations of AWB rules and of your editing restriction[edit]

I may have missed something, but at first sight you violated AWB rules of use and your editing restriction when you made 300plus edits removing a ":" after "redirect", even though this doesn't change the way these redirects work or look at all (e.g. [7][8]). Any reason for this? Fram (talk) 07:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that these edits also include pages where you didn't even remove a ":" or change anything else (perhaps removed a trailing space or inserted a space after "redirect"), like [9][10][11][12] or just changed the capitalisation of "redirect"[13]. This also included changing "nowikied" text in two year old AfC pages, like [14][15][16]. Fram (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ThisparticularobsoletesyntacisnotedforcausingproblemsforthatreasonIhaveapprovaltoremovethecolon.Ontheotherhandthefewwherethespacewasinsertedseemedworthwhilesavingasspacesareimortanttoreadabilityalthoughperhapsyoudontagree. Rich Farmbrough, 11:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

What problems? Approved where and by whom? Apart from that, very funny, but the readability of redirect pages is not really important, and trailing spaces (or the capitalization of "redirect") have no real benefit even for this... Fram (talk) 11:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership/personal attacks[edit]

Hey, just a quick question. Is repeatedly accusing another editor of article ownership considered a personal attack? I am curious. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 20:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's an interesting question. I would say it depends on the context. Really citing WP:OWN to a putative owner is only useful if they acknowledge it, or at last stop being OWNy. Which is only going to happen if they are being OWNy. but on the substantive point, I would say it is not a personal attack if it is a.) done in good faith and b.) done to improve the encyclopaedia. I would add a rider that "accusing" is not very often a good idea, as it a conflictive approach, softening words can make for far more productive discourse. Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
As you might imagine, I am not asking simply out of idle curiosity. I have been accused, more than once, in the past week, of article ownership, in cases in which I believe the accusation to be false. The editor who made said accusations has since reverted my edits, with edit summaries that are, at best, snide and accusatory, and certainly not designed to elicit a positive response. The situation is going to continue to worsen unless I decide to stop editing the article, which I refuse to do, since I believe my edits have, overall, been positive. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, well then, ask them to stop the "accusations", ask them to discuss the content and generally promote the D part of BRD. Certainly they should not be making "snide and accusatory" remarks in the edit summary, the edit summary should address the edit, not other editors. And discussion, while it does sometimes take place in summaries should ideally be on the talk page - where consensus can often be reached if there's more than two editors. Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Ok, I realize that was hopelessly vague, so why don't I give you some specifics?
On the 8th, I removed a film from List of steampunk works because the film article never describes it as steampunk, and the ref. provided was questionable. Andy Dingley reverted with his first edit summary accusing me of ownership issues. Andy and I have differed in the past, and he has accuse me of article ownership before.
Then, on the 10th, I removed an addition to the Steampunk article, stating that the ref. provided was to a primary source and thus not reliable. Andy reverted, stating that the individual in question is notable, which was not the issue. I reverted, restating my original argument, and asking that he not simply revert my edits on sight. He reverted yet again, stating, essentially, that I should find a reference. Now, one can argue that, as an editor, I share the responsibility to source the articles that I edit. But, that does not mean that I should refrain from removing content that is not adequately referenced. I would still argue that the content in question is of unproven notability (regardless of the notability of the composer) and the source provided is still a primary source that proves nothing more than that the piece exists and was commissioned by Carnegie Hall. That said, I am not going to revert again.
The larger issue, I believe, is my ability to edit these articles without having to pass muster with Andy Dingley, who, by his actions, is showing some ownership issues of his own. I would like this to stop. I do not want it to continue to escalate. I am asking for your advice/intervention, both as an administrator and an experienced editor. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Femto Bot[edit]

Why does this bot keep recreating Category:Articles with trivia sections from October 2007--Jac16888Talk 00:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it keeps becoming non-empty. Rich Farmbrough, 00:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Note: Feature needed to cite a member page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

SmackBot[edit]

NL-Aid has published a list of evidence against the organisation. Less proof has been submitted for UFO's around the world. I would take it very serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joop Versteggen (talk • contribs) 18:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Non-free game cover[edit]

I can't figure out why, but your recent change to the template is causing {[[:Category:|Category:]]} to be added to image description pages. Could you take a look at it and see what's wrong? Reach Out to the Truth 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.  Done Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

NASA images[edit]

Does NASA have images without border boundaries? Answer here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive there's something called the "blue marble" collection. Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm looking for maps of the middle east, do you also know if I am allowed to edit NASA images? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You need to check the specific image, but the majority of NASA product is I beleive public domain as a product of a US Federal agency, which means you can do what you like with it. Rich Farmbrough, 22:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Stationyears[edit]

Rich, what was the point of this edit? Your edit summary "make categories explicit" doesn't make sense. A DEFAULTSORT has been added, true; but the rest has little to do with categorisation - some whitespace has been condensed, a {{end box}} was changed to {{s-end}}, and {{stationyears}} was moved. Regarding this last, it was doing no harm where it was - all it does is categorise the article, so I believe that it's best placed with the categories. All in all, I think your edit fails WP:AWB#Rules of use item 4, unless there's something subtle which I've missed. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a hiccup. Rich Farmbrough, 22:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
So I guess you don't mind if I revive the year-span templates. ----DanTD (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a good idea to have content categories transcluded by template. There are many reasons for this – editors cannot see the category in the wikitext; removing or restructuring the category is made more difficult (partly because automated processes will not work); inappropriate articles and non-article pages may get added to the category; sort keys may be unavailable to be customised per category; ordering of categories on the page is less controllable; and the "incategory" search term will not find such pages." Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Article on Ajai R. Singh[edit]

Have added references from reliable 3rd party sources as Section 5.1. You may decide to remove tag. Classicalmusictherapy (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will review. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

request to visit the article[edit]

hi, you are requested to visit the article entitled, Kapil Muni Tiwary and see the references provided there. I am sure some of the tags attached to the article are not necessary now. Thank you for your guidance. Suggestions for improvement are always welcome. --arunbandana 06:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunbandana (talk • contribs) 05:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will review. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 14 March 2011[edit]

Mentioned in ArbCom Proposed Decision[edit]

Here. NW (Talk) 02:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

These edits seem to violate your edit restrictions and the AWB rules of use[edit]

[17][18][19][20][21]. Fram (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Arimaa[edit]

Your bot slapped a "notability" notice on the Arimaa page. I'm sure just a couple of minutes perusing the links at the bottom of the page and a Google search will convince you of Arimaa's "notability." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arimaa

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 16:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brânză topită[edit]

Hello, please take a look at this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brânză topită. Burghiu (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is american listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect What is american. Since you had some involvement with the What is american redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold[edit]

Hey, just to let you know I'm being bold and redirecting Category:Pages using magic words with template syntax to Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word. You created both, but the latter was created earlier and has an easier to understand title. If you disagree, feel free to revert and drop a note on my talk page :) Sorry to bug you! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 March 2011[edit]

SmackBot added a citation template[edit]

[22] I could understand a human wanting a citation template after that sentence, but why would a bot want a citation there? It isn't replacing any previous template. Did it just drop a citation template randomly into an article? Art LaPella (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the AI module seems to have upgraded itself without permission. And I can't seem to access that directory any more.... Rich Farmbrough, 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
(.) Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Never mind, I must have linked two edits together. Art LaPella (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Booth Hi Rich, just been helping with correcting Archbishop Booth's page (& note you were helpfully suggesting where further refs required. My big problem now is how to get his coat of arms uploaded - I am finding this to be very difficult and can only presume it's to do with licensing. Once we are acquainted (ie upon you're reply) and can detail why this is a non-issue. Await yrs Richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.155.28 (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Smackbot errors to revert please[edit]

I hadn't noticed until now, but when smackbot was unlinking years at the very end of 2009 (aha - I was away on holiday!) it unlinked 210 deliberate year links on the page range 1800 in New Zealand through to 2011 in New Zealand, so

For world events and topics in 1897 not specifically related to New Zealand see: 1897 became
For world events and topics in 1897 not specifically related to New Zealand see: 1897

which really kind of defeats the point! Could you please arrange for the bot to fix these? (some have been fixed manually already) dramatic (talk) 06:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can do, or I could remove the sentences? Seems a bit unlikely that someone will get to the end of these articles and realise they actually want to look at the generic year article.
Rich Farmbrough, 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you. I think its still worthwhile having them there. Some readers might be unaware that we have general articles on the years. dramatic (talk) 09:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot causing false positives in table diff?[edit]

Check out this SmackBot diff; lots of table lines marked as changes that aren't really changes. Is this a line-ending thing? 87.82.201.203 (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, effectively that should be a one-time cleanup. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Broken math markup[edit]

SmackBot broke the math markup in transmission line with this edit which removed the trailing spaces from inside the math tags. I am guessing that the line was not recognised as being LaTeX because the tags were not on the same line. SpinningSpark 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I checked the entire database for trailing spaces in math markup expressions some months ago, and found only one which did have the math tag, so I was fairly relaxed about that possibility. Maybe I have to think again on that. Rich Farmbrough, 18:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Fixed release p609. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

D.G.S.Dinakaran.[edit]

Kindly clarify what clarification you would like to have on someone`s Date of birth, place of birth, Parents, etc. after & when they were quoted from a published reference source?--Kumaripriya (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

==Dated cleanup tags==

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Poke[edit]

Hey RF, Just leaving a note here reminding you to take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 40. Thanks! -- Tim1357 talk 05:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ship by year categories[edit]

About a year ago you ran a program that was making changes like this to ship articles that need a "by year" category. I can no longer find the threads where this was discussed but I believe that you ran this using another editor's script. If it's possible for you to dig up that script again I would be grateful if you could run it again. Brad (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember much of the details but I do remember there was some complexity with
  1. ships with no laid down date / launch date etc.. there was a hierarchy of fields to get the year from
  2. the categories only goo back by year to a certain point, and from then are decades and centuries
I'll try and look for the settings, but as it was a one-off I may well have tweaked them as I worked through the groups and only have the comissoned/centuries version left. Rich Farmbrough, 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I found the thread at botreq. It would be the same routine this time around as well. Likely there will be less articles than the last time you ran it. Individual years run from 1850 to the present and by decade from the 1600s to 1840s. But no hurry on this one. Actually, let me think about other chores that could be done at the same time so as not to upset the edit police. Brad (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few thousand candidates at first glance - going by {{Infobox ship begin}}, but most are actually "class" articles. Rich Farmbrough, 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Well I'm not sure whether you're adding the by year categories by hand or by bot, but either way I think you should stop. I found three or four incorrect entries in your last three or four edits. Ship commission dates are not ship launch dates, which is what the "by year" categories list. Ships can often be commissioned years after they are built, particularly in the case of merchant ships purchased by the Navy as auxiliaries etc. Gatoclass (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they have no launch date and no completed date, then I can leave them blank, awaiting further discussion, that's no problem. Of course sometimes there is acquired date, maiden voyage date or laid down date, which I can use if appropriate. Rich Farmbrough, 15:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Unfortunately, you seem to be missing at least some of those as well. I looked over half a dozen edits and found at least three where a "laid down" or other date was there and you still used the commission date. So if you are going to continue this, I think you will need to take more care. Apart from that, I think it would be better if you left the category blank if you only have a commission date. The U.S. Navy had hundreds of requisitioned ships in numerous wars where the launch date was long before the commission date. Regards, Gatoclass (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I did notice some civil war ships were dated (in the title) by the date of acquisition (e.g. USS Calypso (1863)), but I can use launched, completed, failing that and laid down finally, otherwise leave blank. Rich Farmbrough, 18:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Guidelines

By year categories should be added when infobox ship career has:

  1. A year in |launched= or
  2. A year in |completed=

Any other heading is too arbitrary to count on. The idea behind 'ship by year' was to identify what year the ship was built. Class articles are another challenge as classes of ships sometimes span a decade in which they're built. If a class of ships were built during the 1970s then 1970s ships would suffice. But some classes spanned decades and |Built range= is not always filled in for Infobox ship class overview. Any ideas on how ship class articles could be done? Brad (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't know that people were adding year dates to ship classes. That does seem a bit awkward to me. Can you point me to an example?
In regards to the by year guidelines you mention, I would endorse those. There is still the question however of whether we should prefer launch dates or completion dates (I can't see anything about by year categories in the guideline BTW). Gatoclass (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Sam set up the categories he was using launched as the preference, and when I added a lot of ships later I was using the same priority. The first couple I looked at, however included one where "laid down" was equal to "commissioned" this was eminently categorisable of course. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
We have always gone with a preference on launch date over completed. Sometimes one is filled in over the other or both. As for class articles, why would a year category be the wrong thing to do? The ships were built during a decade and sometime two decades. You complain; I educate. Brad (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If classes are to be categorised mayeb they should be
  1. Top sorted
  2. In all the decades which apply.
Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. Top sorted? Brad (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, something like [Category:1860s ships| Brigade class destroyer] so that the classes come before individual ships. Rich Farmbrough, 15:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I think it would be best to not top sort just now. That's something requiring a project conversation. Have you figured out a way of determining a decade for the class articles that don't a built range filled in? Brad (talk) 18:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Pages with missing references list/fix log[edit]

Hi. SmackBot has not touched Category talk:Pages with missing references list/fix log in over a month. Should it still be fixing pages with a missing references list? Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should. I have run it again and will try to implement a regular program. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Criticisms vs. criticism in titles[edit]

Editor Marcus has again requested a move at Talk:Criticisms of socialism#Requested move 2, despite the failure of the 10 December 2010 to 21 January 2011 attempted move. I am notifying you as you were a commenter in the original discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2011[edit]

Error[edit]

I'm sure you will have a better idea of what you meant to do here than I do. As I'm sure you already know, redirecting the category will have no effect if the category is being populated by a template. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes an "s" was omitted. Rich Farmbrough, 12:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Bot inserted a Who tag?[edit]

In [23] this edit, SmackBot inserted a "who" tag. I don't think bots should insert such tags from context automatically. Did you insert it manually (which I think you should better not do with a botaccount for the obvious risk of confusion) or did the bot insert it by some rule? In this case I think enough cites for the "Many" are given after the next sentence, so I would personally just remove the tag... -- Windharp (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(One intermediate revision by one user not shown). Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Scratching head* Ah yes, now that you mention that... Sy to have bothered you. -- Windharp (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious figures within 'undated' datesort[edit]

There are supposed to be four articles in {{Copyedit_progress}} classified as "undated". However, upon clicking on the category, there are no articles. Any idea what could be causing the problem? --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the four sub cats, which are not by month. There either needs to be a fix factor of 4 in the the progress box call, or Category:Monthly clean up category (Wikipedia articles needing copy edit) counter in the subcats. I opted for the latter. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Help.[edit]

Hi, I'm trying to help a friend fixing her David L Boushey article, I usually work with webpages, but this is very different that using Dreamweaver to make a webpage (thing that I know how to do, that is why she ask me for help), So, I noticed that you and others "administrators" left some notes on top of the pages, I fixed already some of them, I think so, can you check that and be a little more specific in what part we still need to fix issues, thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.54.84 (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well chances are that I simply dated them. However I have removed some that seemed fixed and done a general tidy up on the article. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Knn template[edit]

Hi, could you please bring back this template? I am working on some Konkani language articles. I hope to use it there in the case of external links.

Joyson Noel Holla at me! 14:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, however you might consider using. "(Konkani)" it is much clearer meaning in the edit page than "{{knn}}" and only two more characters. Rich Farmbrough, 17:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you! Joyson Noel Holla at me! 05:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your AWB edits still mess up the Persondata[edit]

You don't do may AWB edits anymore, but some of them still have problems with Persondata, like here adding date of birth twice, with different values and capitalization: here you did the same for date of birth and date of death, but this one you corrected afterwards (but with a non-consensus change of uppercase to lowercase); here you changed the capitalization of one template and placed it out of order. Oh, and [24] is the kind of edit you (or anyone else for that matter) aren't supposed to make with AWB or other tools. It's not a lot that goes wrong, but with the limited number of AWB edits you make, it's still a significant percentage that has the same old problems. Fram (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

about emergency shut down button[edit]

message me the code for me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightnurse denise (talk • contribs) 20:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Answered on user's talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hank Bergman page[edit]

  • This is in regards to the Hank Bergman page, Combat Infantry Badge verification needed. Here's the link [25] to the verification, sorry I didn't know how to add it to the page. legwarmers1980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legwarmers1980 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is in there, would be better if it was also as a citation "Headquarter Thirtieth Infantry APO # 3, Special Orders Number 147. etc..." including details of where the records are housed if possible. The other source (http://www.ww2awards.com/person/43078) cites Wikipedia, without saying which parts, so that's not an RS. Rich Farmbrough, 14:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Arrino, Western Australia[edit]

I'm not too sure of the weasel word reference to the above article. Aboriginal , Aboriginal Australians and Indigenous Australians are all pretty much the same. The reason I linked Aboriginal back to Indigenous Australians is that this article includes all Australians considered as Indigenous (not just mainland). If an article existed for the specific peoples of the area I would have linked back to that (but there wasn't one). Could you please clarify as to why these are considered as weasel words? Or if you think linking back to Indigenous Australian is more appropriate then why not make the change? Hughesdarren (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's "which" not "weasel" and I changed the link to Australian Aboriginal languages. Note also that I did not add the tag, merely dated it. Rich Farmbrough, 13:52, 7 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Proposed deletion of Frederick Scott[edit]

The article Frederick Scott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Essentially a disambiguation page for two people who don't have an article on them. Not to denigrate their accomplishments in life, but neither of them seem particularly notable. There was a "first black person" at every university, and designing a chair that itself has no article does not seem particularly WP:N\notable either.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category replacements[edit]

Please don't replace an incorrect category with a correct one, if that correct one is already in the article. Removing the incorrect one is sufficient in that case. You duplicated a category on the 10th[26], and added it a third time on the 11th[27]. I have removed two of the three cases. Fram (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well AWB would deal with most of these pathological cases, unfortunately my AWbing has been severely hampered since September of last year. Rich Farmbrough, 10:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks...[edit]

...for your contribution to the article New Guinea Singing Dog. Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it's very simple, really, at the same time it's also true that the situation there is very complicated. I really appreciate your help. Chrisrus (talk) 02:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semir Osmanagić[edit]

What is wrong with the list of faculty members of the faculty and why is that dubious?

Take care, Borchica (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semir_Osmanagi%C4%87&action=historysubmit&diff=423729057&oldid=423726080 Rich Farmbrough, 22:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hawaii's Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Page[edit]

Hi Rich,

I really appreciate the feedback you left me on my page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii%27s_Opportunity_Probation_with_Enforcement_%28HOPE%29. I'm new to writing Wikipedia pages and can use all the help I can get! I've made some updates to the page. If you have time would you mind looking at them and making additional suggestions if needed?

Thank you, Maria (mcod8582) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcod8582 (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Rich Farmbrough, 11:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Location Format during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kleinzach 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errors[edit]

Unsubstituted dates[28], and adding the same parameter twice, with different capitalization and different value, in Persondata[29]. Both have happened a lot before this, but it doesn't seem to be solved. Fram (talk) 06:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SmackBot edit of 2011 BRICS summit[edit]

Your edit raises a couple/few questions. First, the commentator is the footnoted writer. "A commentator from the Financial Times ..."? "Jamil Anderlini of the Financial Times ..."? Any preference? I thought the comments, not the commentator, were the interesting part; given he's basically substantive, but to me at least otherwise unknown. I'd stick with my original.

Second, what's "Build p609," if I may ask, in your explanatory notes to the edit? I've found hints re "609" in a templates' search but nothing that seemed fruitful.

Thanks. Swliv (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the version of SmackBot - p for perl and 609 is the build number (see previous section) - something I was asked to add, to make bug tracking easier. Note that the bot only dated the "who" tag, however I would agree that a phrase like "A Financial Times journalist" is better than "A commentator". Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

SmithStreet article[edit]

Hi, changes have since been made to the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SmithStreetSolutions to amend its 'orphaned' status. Also, reference links have been added to ascertain notability. Would it be possible to have these tags removed? Please let me know any other ways we can improve the article. Thanks 116.228.36.134 (talk) 03:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on article talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 09:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sue Welfare article[edit]

Hi

I've just put in a couple of new categories for the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_Welfare

I just want to check that I'm getting this right. There was an uncategorized link there but a couple of categories had already been added. I've added a couple more categories that seemed logical. I then deleted the uncategorized link, should I have done this? I'm only asking because the link was left in before when the first categories were added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kotch5 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. The "Catneeded" template was added by AnonMoos here - since birth, death and living categories are not enough. From this point of view "Uncategorized" is inaccurately named. But certainly is the tag should go once there are other categories. Rich Farmbrough, 09:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hong Kong films[edit]

Hi. I just noticed you did this this. Can you fix em or move the templates so the edits don't produce red links? I've redirected templates so they are no longer red.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, done. Rich Farmbrough, 09:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

The Signpost: 18 April 2011[edit]

Greater good[edit]

It is rare I see a greater good argument on ANI. Thanks for brightening my day! PS. You may want to copy your bolded oppose to the beginning of your post, it is easy to miss. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WPDinotopia listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WPDinotopia. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WPDinotopia redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Kumioko (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Krauss[edit]

Hi Rich I've been working on improving the Wikipedia entry on Nicole Krauss - providing links and references and deleting at least one peacock statement. Is it OK for untagging now please? Thanks Headhitter (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice - I've now untagged it Headhitter (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gwyneth Herbert[edit]

I've also been working on the Gwyneth Herbert article and have sourced and added references for all the biographical material. Could this be untagged now too please? Thanks. Headhitter (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that another user has already untagged it. Headhitter (talk) 16:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2011_April&oldid=1089987929"