User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2009/December

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs
It's your call: If you think AWB should fix the second part as well then ok, if not, since SmackBot does it, I could just archive it. -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * I don't intend to change AWB for the second part - rare error. Rjwilmsi  19:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request RjwilmsiBot
Someone has marked Bots/Requests for approval/RjwilmsiBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place  anywhere on this page.

Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters
It seems to me that the following should be deprecated:


 * 1) dateformat (delete)
 * 2) year (move or consolidate with month to date)
 * 3) month (consolidate with year to date)

This (well 2 and 3) are large tasks, not too cosmetic and very suited to AWB/RjwilmsiBot. What do you think? Rich Farmbrough, 14:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC).
 * dateformat can go, but it's of little value to do it – no visible change to page. I don't see a problem keeping year and month separate; often only year is relevant (books etc.). Rjwilmsi  14:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters?
In this edit you removed the "format" parameter from several cite web instances. Where was it decided that it is deprecated? I can't find anything about that in the documentation of the template. (Also, you replaced, which by default yields the British style date "30 June 1905", with the American style date  .) --  _ _ _ A. di M. 16:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, now I see that you added them. Disregard the post above. I'll have to be more careful next time... -- _ _ _ A. di M. 16:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated parameter?
In this edit, I see where you substituted a named ref for a duplicate ref, but I don't see any "deprecated parameters cleanup(1)". Would you mind pointing this out? This is not a complaint (in fact, I really appreciate the semi-automated gnoming), but I am curious. Thanks. —Finell 19:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)  (To preserve the continuity of the conversation, I will watch for your reply here on your Talk page.) 
 * In that particular edit there weren't any. I was running through a list; if the edit was constructive I made it anyway. Rjwilmsi  01:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks.—Finell 19:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk header
Something must have broken and Talk header is not moved on the top anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so raise a bug report with an example of an incorrect edit and an example of a correct one. Rjwilmsi  08:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB and image names
This edit broke the image used in the article. Can you try to tell your AWB script to ignore nonprintable characters in filenames (or whatever caused this problem)? Thank you, and happy editing! — Kusma talk 15:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies. It was a one-off run so won't happen again. I've submitted a rename request for the image on commons to sort out that non-printing character properly. Thanks Rjwilmsi  16:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

5730
Thanks for that! Apologies for not keeping up with the AWB pages as I would wish. Rich Farmbrough, 17:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Otto Frederick Hunziker
Thank you very much for your edits to the Otto Frederick Hunziker article. In particular, it appears as though you spent a fair amount of time manually reviewing and editing the article, rather than relying on a bot.--Rpclod (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You may have me confused with another editor because as far as I can see I have only made one recent edit to the article, and I'm sorry to disappoint you but that was performed using a semiautomated tool. Thank you for your positive feedback though. Rjwilmsi  20:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
i replied to your question Tim1357 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Second Battle of Passchendaele
Thanks for your edits to Second Battle of Passchendaele. They were very helpful in cleaning things up. --Labattblueboy (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

page ranges
I an curious about the basis for changing page ranges within cite templates to use the longer dashes. It seems unnecessary. Can you explain? Alaney2k (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSDASH it's the agreed format of numerical ranges. Thanks Rjwilmsi  14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but in a cite, it seems unnecessary as it's not in the body of an article. Alaney2k (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs
Do you plan to fix more of those or Should I archive it waiting a more general treatment? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's on my TODO list. Leave it for the moment please. Rjwilmsi  16:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you think of my proposal to immediately add convert to en.wiki instead of adding a space? (Lightbot used to do that). Example: . -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB doesn't remove leading spaces from references anymore
Try to to edit this one. AWB won't remove leading spaces from references anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You only ever asked for trailing spaces. Rjwilmsi  02:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I? Anyway, I was thinking of the creation a new tab to handle the different style the editors may want. For example, "group same references" or not. Maybe these changes can be postponed until the release of AWB 5. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do the leading whitespace later. As for the reference name business there's no point having an editor-level option when the discussion is about article-level problems. I think we've reached a reasonable balance now anyway. Rjwilmsi  08:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * for the leading whitespace. Rjwilmsi  11:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

dashes....
Makes me wonder what's wrong with my dashes on all those Baha'i Faith in counties articles. I use a Mac and Safari for all muy work. What's so wrong with all my dashes? Smkolins (talk) 11:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:MOSDASH it's agreed to use en-dashes for page (and other) ranges rather than a hyphen. Rjwilmsi  11:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weird - so which of these is "right"? - – — (they are, apparently, dash, en dash, and em dash.section on "Rendering dashes on computers") On my setup a dash and en dash are visually indistinguishable. Smkolins (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The middle one is correct for this circumstance, it's longer than the standard dash. If in doubt you can use &amp;ndash; etc. Rjwilmsi  14:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting - I can see the difference when viewing the page but when typing the character it's not different. Huh. Smkolins (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm intrigued ... is this, where the only effect is to replace a hyphen by an endash, really worth a whole edit ? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing the point either way, and yes I know what the MOS says. I just wonder if it counts as a 'white space or other trivial edit', whatever the current wording is. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I did go through a bot request where I explained the activity of the bot and it was agreed as worthwhile, and authorised. Personally I would be happy to run the bot with all of AWB's general fixes enabled, in the hope of adding further value to the same number of edits, but there is a feeling in the community that this is not the appropriate thing to do. Secondly, I take the rule on trivial edits to mean approximately "don't waste time making edits that make no visible difference to the page"; correcting dashes does make a visible difference. Thirdly, since there is no concept of half an edit (joke!), then yes such fixes are worth an edit. I'm a firm believer that high-quality Wikipedia articles can be built by a large number of small edits. Thanks Rjwilmsi  11:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with you. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I proposed a similar change a couple places but received little support. It seems your bot is doing something similar but my suggestion greatly expands the scope of the hypen -> en dash change. Please view my proposal here and here. I'm curious if you believe this is as worthwhile as I do.—NMajdan &bull;talk 20:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

death-date and age
Can you adjust AWB to recognise death-date and age as well? This was wrong: -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Rjwilmsi  17:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be more careful with AWB
You boogered the majority of the citations in William A. Spinks. I reverted all of that, and then manually restored your non-citation edits. Not everyone uses Cite journal to cite serial publications in the scientific style, like "40(3): 245", sans "p." or "pp.", that you seemed to expect. If you have not examined the citation style already used in an article, you shouldn't search-replace citation formatting in it. AWB's a very blunt instrument at times. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: You said "volume=vol" in the edit summary but didn't make any changes with regard to those text strings. You also moved  around for unexplained reasons (I did not restore that alteration). —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 06:57, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue over "pp" in cite journal was fixed in AWB under – the original feature request for that functionality had not mentioned that cite journal was an exception. I don't believe I made incorrect edits to many articles. Thanks  Rjwilmsi  09:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI the typo fix was correct – home_in_on. Rjwilmsi  09:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Urrm. Yeah.. It's gone
God knows where. That's quite major... No sign of it in 4.6 also.. —  Ree dy  11:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * —  Ree dy  22:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Article moves
Today you moved a number of lists of rocket launches to comply with WP:MOSDATE, but you neglected to move their associated talk pages as well. That left quite a mess I had to clean up. Please move associated talk pages with articles/lists from now on. -MBK004 04:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And in looking further, you haven't moved any talk pages for your article moves for at least two whole pages of your move log. This is a very serious problem that needs to be rectified immediately before time-consuming history merges will become necessary. -MBK004 04:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought that was automatic. I'll get on to that now. Rjwilmsi  07:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * All done now. Rjwilmsi  07:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually it is automatic as long as you have the box checked in the move panel to move the talk page at the same time, perhaps you would want to slow down your moves from several a minute to ensure that the box is checked? -MBK004 04:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
Hey. Just wanted to let you know that I started a topic on ANI kinda related to you. Happy holidays! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware of the exception for filenames on dashes. I'll not request such renames in future. Thanks Rjwilmsi  08:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB + refs
Maybe you know the answer to this question? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Tooltip texts to "Skip if no cat changed" and "Remove sortkey"
Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature_requests is something for you probably. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am sending you my wikilove! -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Langley Flying School
An article that you have been involved in editing, Langley Flying School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

British hardened field defences of World War II
Your AWB edit made the ref dates a little confusing so have edited to tidy. Regards --palmiped | Talk  22:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That's fine, I have updated the article to use the appropriate fields within the citation template. Rjwilmsi  22:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK fine with that. --palmiped | Talk  22:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)