User talk:Rjwilmsi/Archives/2012/June

Bot request
Hi, I was wondering, can you please run your RjwilmsiBot over the 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season page as it has a number of refs that are missing retrieval dates and publisher information? Thanks. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

CNN - work or publisher?
Hi Rjwilmsi! In this edit, your bot added CNN. Wouldn't CNN be more appropriate? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It may be Reflinks. I find I always have to correct it subsequently; It's easily done enough by script. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 04:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * User:Rjwilmsi/CiteCompletion states Reflinks is an alternative to CiteCompletion. These are two different tools that cause the same issue, right?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe it's related to the metadata in the target. It looks like the CNN website puts its name in a field where others (such as BusinessWeek also put it. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 10:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of work comes from my settings file, it may or may not be right for CNN. As there's continued interest in the right use of these parameters, we'd get much more value establishing a wiki page with bot-readable human-written settings to define for each common work/publisher/agency/newspaper/magazine what parameter(s) to use and standard spelling, and a bot task (I could run) to clean up/improve consistency of articles run off the rules. We discussed this before but it didn't go anywhere. Rjwilmsi  12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. How about functionality similar to WP:AWB/RTP or WP:AWB/TR, so that others could make corrections too?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a great idea to me too. Kumioko (talk) 00:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Cite web versus cite journal
Also, at Mari Gorman and probably other articles, the bot italicizes the titles of magazine / newspaper articles. Article titles are not italicized &mdash; the name of the magazine or newspaper is. This happened when the bot changed "cite web" to "cite journal" regarding articles in The Village Voice. Perhaps the "cite journal" template is flawed, since articles in scientific journals and the like are also not supposed to be italicized. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not to mention the fact that The Village Voice is not a journal at all but a weekly newspaper. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason those cites were changed is that they use volume and issue, which are not valid for cite web. However, without a journal the title is italicised, so that's not quite right either. You've got The Village Voice within the publisher parameter, how about making it cite news and specifying The Village Voice, which will automatically be italicised. Something like:
 * Thanks Rjwilmsi  16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rjwilmsi  16:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Only loosely related to this topic. Given my druthers, I'd like to see the bot change work or other alias to match the cite xxx new bot-changed identifier.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Improper edit
In the article Triumph of the Will was this citation family template:  

The template, though not properly formatted itself, produces a correctly formatted citation that looks like this:



Enter RjwilmsiBot which changes the cite web line to cite book which gives this improperly formatted result:



I was the editor that created the original cite web (with the plea that someone who knew better should fix the citation so that cite book gave the proper results). Since that edit, I have learned how to make the cite book template produce the correctly formatted citation. The article has been fixed.

A bot cannot think, nor can it read. A bot should not modify the Cite xxx line of a citation family template if it does not fully recognize all of the text between the opening {{ and the first pipe character. A bot should never delete text enclosed within html comment markup.

--Trappist the monk (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting this to me. I'll change the logic to not convert cite web to cite book when cite web has an ISBN, though as you've worked out, cite book is needed to get book cites right. Thanks Rjwilmsi  16:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Somehow that doesn't seem to me to be the correct solution to this rather unique, and I suspect, somewhat rare issue. In this unique case, the text between the opening <tt>{{</tt> and the first pipe character is not a <tt>Cite xxx</tt> template identifier.  Part of it is, but there is extra stuff there that your bot won't recognize.  The bot can't know what that text means to human editors so when these kinds of cases are encountered, it is best that the bot do nothing except to perhaps flag the template as peculiar or malformed so that a human editor can know that there is a possible issue and deal with that issue.


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous bot edit
In this edit, your bot added a title of "Search" for two links. I'm not sure where the bot even got that, but at any rate it seems titles like "Search", "Search results", and other generic titles should be blacklisted in some manner. Anomie⚔ 02:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, problem now fixed. Rjwilmsi  07:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Another erroneous bot edit
In this edit, the author's name got messed up. Seems to be Simon King, not A. Week. --Sarabseth (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ...and it doesn't populate the newspaper parameter either. GoingBatty (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Both are now fixed. Thanks Rjwilmsi  17:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

CiteCompletion request
Hi Rjwilmsi! Could you please run CiteCompletion against Rumors, Hit-Girl, Batman & Robin (film), Bane (comics), and Orange (telecommunications)? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikify and AWB
I'm fairly disappointed in the difficulty at getting Wikify feature requests through with AWB. One request that hasn't been looked at since it was made in August 2011 is Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Feature requests. In this specific instance, I am referring to point number 2. "Per Template talk:Wikify, once the parameter is added to the template, do not remove the wikify template if the parameter is populated". In fact, it would be preferable if AWB didn't remove the Wikify tag at all since Wikify is about much more than wikilinks and AWB is not intelligent enough to recognize other issues. The reason I am making this statement is that I was using AWB and recently came upon an unconstructive Wikify tag removal. I didn't make the edit, but did upload it to File:Wikify tag removal by Auto Wiki Browser.png. I understand that AWB is only semi-automated, but the potential for mistakes, especially related to something like Wikify, which most editors don't understand in its entirety, is high. It would be great if that modification could be changed, and even better if you or some other AWB dev's could work with some editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikify to figure some things out. If you are unable to make this change, could you point me to some other AWB developers I can contact? Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I was able to duplicate the issue, I created a bug report. (Note that I made the feature request before the reason parameter was implemented.)  Hope this helps!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryan I share your frustration in these matters. Reedy the lead AWB developer is now a WMF employee so kindly maintains the login/API/security side of AWB, but doesn't have time for genfix changes. Some other developers retired. Other contributors/supporters of AWB such as Magioladitis, GoingBatty and others are very helpful in AWB in supporting user queries, reporting bugs and updating documentation, but aren't really coders. So these things largely fall to me, and I've a full time real life job and my own objectives for wiki editing and bot tasks as well as AWB coding. Now, I'll sort out this specific bug, but I'm very short of time for working on additional AWB features. Rjwilmsi  08:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rjwilmsi! All the work you do on AWB is greatly appreciated!  However, I'm concerned that having only one coder is not a sustainable solution, especially while the community keeps changing how the templates should be used (e.g. wikify, dead end, the upcoming replacement to multiple issues).  If you're interested in doing a little teaching, I'd be interested in getting more involved to help with fixing the smaller issues, which could leave you more time for tackling bigger issues.
 * Do you have any suggestions on how to get more coders involved? Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)