User talk:Multichill/Archives/2012/September

Link to Commons on NRHP lists
On these NRHP articles National Register of Historic Places listings in Houghton County, Michigan, National Register of Historic Places listings in Keweenaw County, Michigan, and National Register of Historic Places listings in Marquette County, Michigan, there is a link to Commons in the External links section. Could you reprogram BotMultichill to avoid edits like this? Chris857 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a one time run, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places. I'd rather keep it consistent with the other 2000+ lists so I replaced the inline template with the normal one. Multichill (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

about a bot to cross-check pics in NRHP list-articles vs. individual NRHP articles
Hi Multichill. The ErfgoedBot you are running to support the U.S. WLM campaign is working great, in conjunction with all the rest that you set up. I am really glad you got involved in improving the U.S. NRHP list system over the last year or two. It's really paying off now!

I wonder if, when you have time, you could comment at Bot requests/Archive 49. I put in a bot request there a couple days ago, not seeing similarity to your ErfgoedBot. It is not an urgent request, is probably something to address after the WLM campaign is over, but your making a brief comment there would be appreciated. Thanks, -- do ncr  am  12:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

NRHP refnum problem
Hi Multichill ... I've come across a disconcerting error in the refnums generated by the BotMultichillT bot. So far, I've found errors in the following New Hampshire county lists: Rockingham, Belknap, Cheshire and Sullivan. I stumbled upon it while I was editing the Cheshire County table when I happened to notice that several refnums were duplicated in that list. This prompted me to check the other New Hampshire lists. Only the aforementioned 4 lists had these errors. The other 5 New Hampshire lists don't have duplicates, but I didn't check each and every listing to confirm that it had the correct refnum. I only looked for duplicates. I spot-checked several Michigan lists since they were modified by BotMultichillT immediately after the New Hampshire lists and didn't find any duplicates in the 4 or 5 that I checked. But I did find another duplicate in the Gallatin County, Montana list. Aside from the fact that our tables have inaccurate information, I'm concerned about the functionality of the tools you've developed for keeping track of which sites have images on Commons. They rely on the refnums, don't they?

If you want to research this problem, you can see the edits that I made this evening to the refnums in the above-mentioned lists. Do you know if there's something unusual about the New Hampshire listings that led to this error? Do you think it's likely that other lists have this same problem? How wide-spread might it be? Is there a way to fix it with a bot? --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The same problem with Switzerland: . ISOC villages do not have the KGS numbers, and I removed the KGS numbers from Commons. I am not sure what these numbers are, but they send the pictures from Ticino to other cantons. Thanks in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found some more duplicates in the New York lists. How did the bot go about assigning refnums? In some cases, the names of the listings are similar. In some cases, the refnums are close. But I think there have been a few cases where I couldn't see any obvious reason the bot would have assigned the wrong refnum. I hope this isn't the tip of an iceberg! --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:47, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey, I see your making multiple edits to list-articles, and I speculate you are trying to address this. I'd like to offer to try to help, and to get others to help, if we can.  I wonder if changing the NRHProw template to actually show the refnum for a while would help in allowing a number of editors to go over list-articles and look for problems.  For one thing we could compare refnums in selected counties vs. refnums displayed in corresponding www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com pages, or compare to Elkman outputs.  Or, maybe you have specific understanding and specific solution already.  Just want to say though that the refnum work I think is spectacular, in terms now of helping with the WLM campaign, and if there is some error in the implementation I am sure it is understandable.  Thanks for what you've done and are doing. Cheers, -- do  ncr  am  20:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I managed to get this tool working again. With this tool you can find duplicate id's in lists. I think adding the same id might have been caused by two listings having the same address. That tool combined with the list of unused id's should make it a lot easier to fix refnums. Multichill (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Erfgoedbot and the Kingston Trio
On WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Unused images, Erfgoedbot keeps readding images that have already been used (File:Paris Post Idaho.jpeg, File:Church Street Historic District.jpg) or are not buildings (File:Sunnyside.jpg). Is there any way to stop the bot from stuffing them into the category? Thundersnow 07:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Something went wrong at 82000286, I see it multiple times at National Register of Historic Places listings in Bear Lake County, Idaho. Same story for 82003884 at National Register of Historic Places listings in Lexington County, South Carolina. File:Sunnyside.jpg is a name collision with commons:File:Sunnyside.jpg. Should be transfered to Commons under a different name. Multichill (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
SarahStierch (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

ErfgoedBot did not run
ErfgoedBot did not run last night/this morning. Did we break it? Thundersnow 18:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Thundersnow, the database server was unavailable so the bot didn't run this night. Database is now available again so I expect it to run this night again like usual. I'm happy to see that you're working on the unused images page! Multichill (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I dreaded Erfgoedbot breaking. I am lazy, and the bot and the pages it fills makes editing easier. Thundersnow  06:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Template:IsLocal
What about using this template for User:Multichill/Free uploads? This this, files that have been moved to Commons will automatically disappear from the gallery. You may have a look at an example at User:Leyo/Swiss. --Leyo 16:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you have any comment on that? The template might also be adapted to the specific needs. --Leyo 13:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm a bit occupied with Wiki Loves Monuments. Sounds like a good plan I'm only afraid it might break template include size or make the page even slower. Did you test that? If that's ok, I can modify the code. Multichill (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I just wanted to avoid . :-)
 * It's used a lot in de-WP. I haven't noticed any problems over there. I simplified the code, since for this usage we only need the GALLERY (and not the standard IMAGE or LINK) option. What is the maximum number of images per page? --Leyo 19:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I reformatted the longest list, User:Multichill/top self uploaders/Hyacinth, to use Template:IsLocal. It seems to work nicely. --Leyo 19:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Multichill (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! BTW: Your bot reverted [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Multichill/top_self_uploaders/Hyacinth&diff=513420678&oldid=513420474 my previous edit]. --Leyo 18:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:User:Multichill/top_self_uploaders

 * [#bodyContent Re:User:Multichill/top_self_uploaders]

Is it possible to update this list? It would be more helpful to not have it polluted with files moved to Commons and part of gallery links is red Bulwersator (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Multichill (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Dissertation including Bot Operator Interviews now available
Hello-

Thank you again for participating in my study of bots and bot operators earlier this year. I wanted to let you know that the completed dissertation is now available on my website. I look forward to any comments you may have, either on the blog or via email.

I felt like I just scratched the surface of the world of bots on WP with this project, so I plan to continue chatting with the bot community once I get through the IRB approval at my new institution (and check with the WMF Research Committee, of course!). Along those lines, if you know of any other members of the bot and semi-automated tool community who may be interested in participating, please do forward my name and email to them. And if you'd like to chat more about this stuff, please let me know!

To possibly save you some time: The manuscript is a bit long (~320 pages) and includes some pro forma dissertation stuff (literature review, methods chapter, etc.). Most data collected from interviews appears in Chapters 5 and 6 (if you want to skip to the good stuff).

Again, thank you so much for your help with this project, and I look forward to seeing you on WP and IRC...

Randall Livingstone UOJComm (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. I'll take a look at it. Multichill (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

NRHP unnumbered list
I have started tagging images on WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Images without refnum and have two questions: Thanks in advance. Thundersnow 03:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Do I need to remove the images from the list, or will ErfgoedBot do that on its next visit?
 * 2) How often does ErfgoedBot check Commons for unnumbered images? How often does it update the list?
 * Hi Thundersnow,
 * Whatever you feel like. The bot will just overwrite it on update, but you might want to remove it so other users won't do double work
 * At the moment when I run it. I'm not sure if it's ready yet to run every day/week. I'll run an update now
 * Keep up the good work! Multichill (talk) 18:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No one else is working on it, but I will still delete the items in case they do.
 * Feel free to not run the bot for a while, maybe after October 1st? The list looks like the Augean stables, and I do not want the "cow" continuing to pile things up just now. I am not shoveling that fast. Icon eek.gif
 * I love your bot; thanks for your good work! Thundersnow  11:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in Worcester, Massachusetts
Someone reverted National Register of Historic Places listings in Worcester, Massachusetts so that it no longer uses NRHP header and NRHP row. As a result, none of the entries include the "upload" button included by NRHP row. Can you have the bot re-convert this page? It'll be a lot easier and faster than if I try to do it by hand :-) —Tim Pierce (talk) 12:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ouch, that's a hard one. Not sure when I have time for it. Last time it was reverted because the list is too large for the template system. Do you see any possibilities to split up the list in smaller (logical) chunks? Multichill (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh my. I didn't realize that was the problem. I don't have an easy answer but I'll think about it. Thanks for the prompt reply. —Tim Pierce (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, I edited the page to add just a UploadCampaignLink button to each table row. I scraped the bot's version of the page to get the NRHP refnums for each site. The page appears to render correctly and the upload buttons work, so I hope this doesn't cause great trouble, but obviously please revert it if there's something direly wrong with this approach. Thanks for your help. —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)