Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive 18

Autotag / general fixes make disputed capitalization changes

 * By the way - the autotag tooltip is now inadequate since it seems to do a lot more now. – xeno talk 15:29, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When we date the tag who cares what the capitalisation is afterwards. The ANI thread is all about only changing the capitalisation. Rjwilmsi  16:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree with Rjwilmsi. I don't see this as a bug. An undated template is replaced by a dated one the same way that goes to  (redirect bypased too). In fact I never saw anyone complaining in capitalised maintance templates but only for sole capitalisation. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * *shrug*. Issue came up here. – xeno talk 16:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I will offer a compromise for consideration: the current logic does not support 'keep with current case' and I can't see the point in changing it back to upper->lower or stay lower from the now current stay upper or lower->upper. However, I had considered that we could change the date tagger to load a list of templates off an AWB sub page, to allow community maintenance of the list. If that is requested and you have enough people politely ask for it, I will undertake that its solution would implement 'keep current case'. Rjwilmsi  16:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I grep where you're going with that, but I think, in general, AWB should not make an inconsequential change that represents what is largely a personal preference. This is similar to the controversy over AWB changing the citation style, albeit much more trivial. – xeno talk 16:41, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whether anyone sees this as a bug or not is irrelevant; if more than one person has questioned it, it demonstrably does not have consensus.  Now I reported this to Rich in the hope that it could be dealt quickly and quietly—other people wandering past might be more minded to just block again, and I would prefer that upstream AWB not be the cause of that.  —Sladen (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB doesn't cause anything. Everyone is free not to use AWB. Moreover, there isn't any consensus that casing shouldn't change. I like most of the maintenance templates capitalised. Btw, I agreed that SmackBot must stop capitalising because I like clean diffs and not because I find them harmful. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Double negatives there... but there isn't census for casing adjustment either (repeatedly evidenced by large numbers of people showing up on Rich's page). With very little effort AWB could get on doing what it does best (adding dates to templates/fixing syntax) without the undue risk of antagonising/upsetting other editors in the process.  The issue of re-/un-capitilisation has been raised explicitly this time, and I hope that the default general fixes rules in AWB can be adjusted so that they maintain initial capitialisation for those templates that do have it (and equally maintain initial non-capitalisation for those that don't).  Just like human editing, the preference should be to make the least alteration in any change.   —Sladen (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB doesn't change cite web nor reflist. The rest were done for a long time and I think they are generally accepted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem people seem to have with the caps changes is that it's being changed on templates that have been lowercase for some time, and it's considered the standard for the article. Dating is generally done on templates that have been added within the last week or so, by hand (eg unref, uncat), so it's not something that's been established over time, it's just there because people don't generally capitalise templates when they type them out. Which is to say: nobody cares and it doesn't matter. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And I would like to add: Most of the maintenance templates are short-lived. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...many habits have been going on for a long-time (cf. Rich's unauthorised use of AWB), but what is tolerated and what is accepted are different. The result of all this coming to a head is that we have heard more than one objection to the subject.  Please consider altering the default "general fixes" rules in AWB so that more than just merely being tolerated, the actions of AWB users move on to becoming accepted ...and perhaps even one day universally appreciated.  Doing necessary actions only, leads along on to that path of appreciation.  —Sladen (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for the perception Sladen but I am getting the impression that you believe that AWB is new with limited usefullness. That truth is that AWB is used for much much more than simple syntax fixes and has been around and accepted for a long time. You make it sound as though we AWB users are a misinterpretted data cult. The functionality in AWB allows us to make changes, additions, etc to articles in WP at a rate far beyond what a normal editor could do moving from article to article manually. Without AWB WP would be a much much less reliable site than it is today. And your vocalization that AWB is a tolerated nuisance is quite out of place.

Back to the subject at hand, I personally prefer that template start with upper case but I also know that is my preference and others feel differently. In the end it doesnt really matter because WP treats it the same and I feel as though we are spending a lot of time on a nonproblem. In WP there is always someone who is going to disagree and thats something we have to deal with. With that said I like Rj's idea that the date tagger be a subpage so that users could potentially modify it as is currently done with the typos. So here is my suggestions:
 * We start a conversation somewhere visible that solicites conencus on the upper or lower case template issue and live with the outcome. Remember thought that there may be a great deal of effort involved in changing the AWB logic to compensate for all the variations of upper and lower case.
 * Maybe Rj could make the page with the date tagger logic and we can implement that as part of this disagreement. --Kumioko (talk) 14:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a remark: If someone disagrees with a common practice that doesn't mean that we don't have consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Thats why I think we need to pu the question out there and solicite a real determination instead of continue to go back and forth on which side is right. If we are going to change the code for something like this then we should make sure that the community agrees before we spend the time doing it. Just my opinion. --Kumioko (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The current Signpost mentions a new book that discusses "consensus being between 51% and near unanimity" it is quite a leap from that to "if more than one person has questioned it, it demonstrably does not have consensus." Very much "le sigh" (I can speak French me.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

And my unreserved apologies to the AWB community for being the trigger of this. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC).


 * It turns that tagging pages is more important than fixing them. :( -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Kumioko: the post you've replied to, uses the phrase "going on for a long-time", surely this is incompatible with suggesting that the author of that post believes "that AWB is new"? I fully support the use of AWB and similar automated tools when reviewed by a human because, as you say, they do speed up editing of Wikipedia which is a good thing.
 * The conflicts I watch arise when automated edits are submitted faster than a human can review. If a bot can make five-edits-per-second, and a human can review five-edits-per-minute, that's an awful lot of human time (60-to-1 duty cycle) to review just a single bot in real-time.  Yes, it is faster for the bots' owners, but if those edits need to be reviewed, it could well be slower for Wikipedia as a whole.
 * Going by the recent review I did of 100 SmackBot edits for Rich, that appears to have taken 20 minutes (including providing highlighting/feeding back on five of those)—plus Rich's time, my time, your time ... all following up the bot issues afterwards. I'm happy to put in this time if it enables AWB to make better quality edits (and leave less carnage), but I do expect the bugs to be fixed when they are raised.  nb. the smaller the diff, the quicker a human can review—human editor review time here is far more valuable that bot processing time.   —Sladen (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not to be a troll here but your still under the impression that what AWB and smackbot did were "wrong". Other than continuing when an editor raised the point they worked correctly and as I stated before just because one or two editors dont like the edits that are being made that doesnt make them wrong. Now smackbot has stopped (and a lot of good edits aren't being made) Rich is presumably not making any edits either judging by his contribs and thats a lot of good edits not being made. All over what amounts to a trivial disagreement. If this is such a big issue to so many people then they should bring it up for a vote and get concensus, which I still have not seen. Just a lot of folks debating who's right and wrong. --Kumioko (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rich is (at the moment) being the sensible one here. He's forwarding the errors discovered in gen-fixes to this page, and I hope you will give Rich the credit for that.  100-edit sample, 5 highlighted issues, 3 currently reported bugs on this page. Reported bugs == unsupervised AWB "doing wrong".  Amplifying that 3-percent failure rate across one-million edits is 30,000 failures. —Sladen (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a note: None of these errors are related to capitalisation. Btw, next release of AWB fixes tenths of problems in logic. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Reporting bugs so that they can be fixed is the primary reason for doing so.  —Sladen (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Rjw, changed the code so it maintains the original case. Check . In my mind I had as a general rule to capitalise permanent templates like Commons category and Infobox and maintaince templates that go on the top. I'll start a discussion on the Manual of Style seeking a consensus on these two cases. --Magioladitis 22:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have not changed the case behaviour of the tag updater. In its current format it can't support keeping the existing case. Rjwilmsi  22:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. The discussion appears to have been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.  —Sladen (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really a MOS issue according to the first responder. Perhaps an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Template messages or something? – xeno talk 13:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I really don't have opinion on Cite/cite dispute. I like "cite" for no particular reasons but I never changed the case of this template. But they are some templates that go on the top of pages that I think it's more natural to be capitalised. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile there are others who think it's more natural to be in lowercase ("coding style"). In the end, it's an entirely personal preference for which no consensus presently exists either way, so AWB should not be breaking it's own rules of engagement by applying ucfirst to the case. It leaves operators in a situation whereby they have to accept that AWB will make these undesirable changes, or turn off general fixes. – xeno talk 14:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a patch ready to do the enhancement I described, I'm just waiting to commit it after the new release (to allow for proper testing). We can all stop posting about how horrible it is to be changing template casing. Rjwilmsi  10:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate and thank you for your efforts, if it's the one described here:, I don't see how it is going to solve the issue. The issue is unnecessarily changing case - if we have a subpage that lists the templates and how "local consensus determines they should appear", it's still going to be binary (ucfirst or lcfirst) and then there will still be undesirable/unnecessary case changes. – xeno talk 12:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't understood. Read AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates and post on my talk page if you're still unclear. Rjwilmsi  13:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The first-letter case of the template is kept in the new template name." Ok, thanks for clarifying. – xeno talk 13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Switched to AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates. Rjwilmsi  08:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Exception in MainForm.Save
I think this only happens when I first click the "watch" button. David Hollman (Talk) 19:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Like David Hollman above, I had clicked the "watch" button before saving.&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  11:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you catch the bug on demand? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to happen every time if I click "Watch" and then click "Save".&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  06:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I duplicate the bug by demand in 5.0.3.0 but I can't in 5.1.0.0 so I guess we fixed it at some point. Please re-report if you catch it again. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-parsing should recheck for "dead end" status

 * Some bugs in whether pre-parsing would call general fixes/tagger again have been fixed. Please try again with the new release (overdue). Rjwilmsi  10:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tried again with same article in 5.1.0.0, and had the same issue. GoingBatty (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was a different problem, now fixed. Rjwilmsi  10:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Did not add wikify or dead end to article with no wikilinks

 * We'll need to extend the tagger's template exclusion list to include maintenance templates, and extend maintenance templates to include advert and other common ones. Rjwilmsi  10:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maintenance templates list updated to include Advert. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed too. Rjwilmsi  14:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Changed Uncategorized to Uncategorized stub, then removed stub template

 * Fixed. Logic was in right order, just a minor problem. Rjwilmsi  10:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Clicking in Alerts box not consistent

 * History was too brief, explanation in the reference manual is clearer: "If you have "Highlight errors" activated in Options menu, alerts become clickable and clicking focuses the edit box on the first highlighted alert after the current cursor position. Clicking again (with the cursor after the alert) will focus the next highlighted alert, if there is one. Note that not all alerts are highlighted." This is not perfect, but was as good as I could make it. Rjwilmsi  10:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another article where AWB didn't add Uncategorized

 * It has an infobox, which by the current tagger logic means it will not be tagged as uncat. I have asked Reedy whether the API call we use to get the categories would include any categories provided by a template; if yes we can remove that check and allow this page to be tagged uncat. Rjwilmsi  07:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed too. Rjwilmsi  10:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another article where AWB didn't add Uncategorized stub
However, AWB properly added both Uncategorized stub and stub to El Lago del Bosque - so maybe it's the Orphan template that's causing the issue? GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * . Fixed. Rjwilmsi  10:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Slight glitch with changing Cite web to Cite book

 * I am not going to add the names of specific publications to AWB logic. However cite web to cite book doesn't work when work is set, so I will adjust the logic to skip in those cases. Rjwilmsi  07:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't switch to cite book if work is specified. Rjwilmsi  08:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats fair thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

XmlException in MainProcess.ReadArticle

 * The exception would imply that your database dump file is corrupted some how. Where did you get the file from? Rjwilmsi  18:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Special:Export. PC78 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you able to try to generate and download the file again. I really think that it's a corrupt file (a sample export of two pages can be run fine in the db scanner). Rjwilmsi  18:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I had already tried it more than once before posting this report, but I've just done it again and it seems ok. Thanks anyway. :) PC78 (talk) 20:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect DEFAULTSORT placement on transcluded pages

 * Don't automatically add DEFAULTSORT on pages with noinclude/includeonly. Rjwilmsi  16:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Adds "dead end" parameter in Multiple issues instead of "deadend"
I also added this to the list of alerts in the user manual GoingBatty (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * MultipleIssues supports "dead end" with space, known parameters list updated. Rjwilmsi  07:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Persondata didnt work for this article

 * . Fixed. Rjwilmsi  07:26, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

For Citation needed| (with pipe but no date), first pass removes pipe & re-parsing adds date

 * Fixed for the new version of the tag updater. Rjwilmsi  17:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding Stub tag inappropriately
We don't tag dab pages as stub, that's what you suggest? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I took Snowman's comments to mean that he knows that we shouldn't tag dab pages as stubs, but SVN 7290 was suggesting that we should, which is why the bug report was created. I just tried processing Jo Jackson with SVN 7268, and it did not try to add the stub template.  GoingBatty (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Dab pages can be rather small sometimes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Things have changed since 7268, unfortunately introducing this problem. Don't tag disambig pages as stubs.  Rjwilmsi  07:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Persondata incorrectly added
Not 100% AWB. Check my fix. "Band" isn't a valid value for Background. Check manual of Infobox musical artist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, that makes sense. I never looked at that template before. Still, people being error-prone as they are, perhaps it would be better if AWB was more conservative and added persondata only on a positive match in "background" of "solo_singer", "non_vocal_instrumentalist", or "non_performing_personnel", rather than what I guess it's doing now, which is assuming it's a person unless "group_or_band", "cover_band", or "classical_ensemble" are specified?&mdash; Chowbok  ☠  07:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it skips in the cases you mentioned. It's up to Rjw to decide. We can always perform a database scan first and check for errors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * IsArticleAboutAPerson: check for word "band" in background field to correctly exclude some incorrect field value usage. Magio, does the IMA template not have a tracking category for blank or invalid Background, maybe one could be added? Rjwilmsi  07:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I am working on it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous capitalisation of first letter when importing lists

 * Done. Rjwilmsi  12:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

MultipeIssues doesn't catch new tags

 * Tagger: if we've added tags and there's a multiple issues invoke MultipleIssues to catch the new tags. Rjwilmsi  08:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

MultipleIssues isn't called when new tags added
I thought we have fixed that. I guess we need more test because I think we fix something and something else breaks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What error are you reporting? I don't see any problem. Rjwilmsi  11:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One edit added 3 tags and next edit merged them. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tagger: always call MultipleIssues when tags added (Multiple issues template may be needed). Rjwilmsi  14:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Does this take care of "One edit removes tags, next edit "demerges" the single tag left"? Rich Farmbrough, 21:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Yes it will have. Rjwilmsi  21:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We also have Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/Archive_18 for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Expand and stub both replaced

 * I'm not clear what you say the problem is? Rjwilmsi  07:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the page isn't a stub the expand tag could stay I guess. (Of course, the (nonAWB) question is why we need this expand tag anyway?) -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, minor bugfix was needed. Rjwilmsi  08:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Swedish diacritic letters å, ä and ö are switched to a, a and o in category link text
Do you leave special characters in DEFAULTSORT unchanged in swedish wikipedia??? -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * make diacritic removal in sortkeys en-wiki only (other languages can be added back as needed). Rjwilmsi  06:21, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks ~ Dodde (talk) 11:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Moving templates :sl

 * On sl-wiki stub templates start with škrbina/Škrbina rather than end with it. Rjwilmsi  06:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrongfully title change for Danish letter ø in category when performing general fixes

 * It is the sort key of the category that is changed, not the name. It is deliberate. We follow the guidance at WP:SORTKEY: that sort keys should not use diacritics due to Unicode sort ordering. I can't read Danish but the linked Danish page (section Sortering af kategorier) doesn't seem to mention any consideration of this for da-wiki. We can disable the diacritic removal on a per-language basis, but I'd like to be sure that this is what has been discussed and agreed for da-wiki first? Thanks Rjwilmsi  20:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And the category sort order is going to be changing soon... —  Ree dy  18:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note, the reason for doing this, was a technical restriction with MySQL. Sorting by those characters wouldn't have the desired effect, and hence, was pointless. Changing to their simple equivalent (where possible), was the work around. —  Ree dy  14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

make diacritic removal in sortkeys en-wiki only (other languages can be added back as needed). Rjwilmsi 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Changing unreferenced to BLP unsourced loses benefits of description field
-- Magioladitis (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * is better to be renamed to unreferenced section.
 * BLP unsourced section would be the solution for the above case probably.
 * --> Unreferenced section
 * unreferenced section --> BLP unsourced section if article has Category:Living people
 * don't rename unreferenced when first argument is some free text. Rjwilmsi  20:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * don't rename unreferenced when first argument is some free text. Rjwilmsi  20:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Erroneous capitalisation of first letter when importing lists - again

 * You will need to be logged in to wiktionary before adding the pages, since otherwise the default en-wiki rules will be picked up (i.e. with capitalisation). If it still occurs in that situation I'll need more detailed instructions of what you're doing, since adding pages to the list maker manually, or adding them from a file or by pasting all worked correctly for me on wiktionary. Rjwilmsi  08:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Logging in did fix the problem. But it seems like rather odd behaviour. Shouldn't the default be to just leave the first letter alone? Makes more sense to me in any case. Or is there a way to change the default? Would be useful for me because I work on Wiktionary exclusively, and having to log in even when just making lists is a bit inconvenient. CodeCat (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I expect we could change the default but that may introduce other problems, and majority use of AWB is on wikis that operate with first letter upper i.e. wiktionary is in the minority. I'll check with Reedy about this. At least now AWB works for you once logged in. Rjwilmsi  10:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AWB does know what wiki I work on by default, since I don't need to log in for it to automatically load lists and such from en.wiktionary - it does that right from startup. So if it knows what wiki I'm using before I log in, couldn't it derive the proper use of capitalisation from that? CodeCat (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not in the way you envisage it because we load the capitalisation rule of the wiki by an API call, so it's not known from your site settings. Rjwilmsi  11:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, didn't know that. Perhaps AWB could cache the settings for that particular site once they are loaded the first time? Something like this isn't likely to change during the lifetime of any particular wiki, after all. CodeCat (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hard-code first letter capitalisation to false for wiktionary when wiktionary settings loaded (will still be overridden by wiki API on log in). This will fix your issue, Reedy may improve it later if there's a better solution. Rjwilmsi  15:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Allright, thanks. :) CodeCat (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

stub tag gets moved below category (swedish wikipedia)
Stubs must go under categories in all Wikipedias. In German Wikipedia is one row down, in other AFAIK is two rows. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Check WP:FOOTER and, hopefully, sv:Wikipedia:Disposition. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, this is not proscribed in sv:Wikipedia:Disposition and it is not how our editors generally do it. The stub template is a template and in similarity to other templates it tends to be placed where in the text you want it. Tomas e (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see. Is there any way to disable the moving of the tags, as the stub tags are generally placed above the cats on the swedish wiki, and sv:Wikipedia:Disposition doesn't state anything about stub tags? tetraedycal, tetraedycal 16:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm... Stub moving is part genfixes. Unfortunately, moving categories comes with moving stubs. If you want both disactivated, disactivate general fixes. Nothing else we can do at the moment. Why don't just add it to the Manual of Style. Position has to do of how the page is rendered. since all projects use MediaWiki the best position for stubs is under categories. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll make a post about it on the village pump and see what comes out. Thanks for your help. tetraedycal, tetraedycal 16:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Did not replace b. and d. for born/died
It shouldn't. Check the Manual of Style. This one has to be replaced to like that. In fact, since the death date is missing there is now discussion and some editors suggest that we omit the "13 September" and add it in the main text only. Certainly, "b." and "d." should be avoided for dead people. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and we should probably avoid "d." for living people, too. *snicker* So does that mean "b." should be used only for living people, and "d." should never be used? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's explained at MOS:DOB. As I understand it "born" is only used for living people, "died" is only used when only the date of death is known, and the abbreviation "d." is never used. Rjwilmsi  08:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the General fixes page states AWB "Replaces b. and d. for born/died in the lead section of articles", I got the false impression that it would replace "b." with "born" and "d." with "died". Could you please update the General fixes page with a clarification on what AWB actually does?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does change them but only when they are not together. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for updating the documentation to make this clear! GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't always add Category:XXXX births

 * Fixed. Rjwilmsi  08:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Extra header on DB search
Hesitate to report this it's so minor. But I did anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 20:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Done. Rjwilmsi  14:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Underscore exceptions need revising
This mentions the original feature. Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Exceptions for mod_perl and size_t. I see no evidence that at the time of the original request it was already working. Rjwilmsi  21:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The mechanism changed regardless, because of the change of template At one point I made a category, but things move on. AutoWikiBrowser/Pages with underscores in title is a list from the last dump, not necessarily exhaustive. Rich Farmbrough, 00:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC).

Issues with Multiple issues

 * From inspection of the source multiple issues seems only to support copyedit without the space. AWB only supports coyedit with no space. I'll update AWB if multple issues is updated first. Rjwilmsi  16:32, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I submitted a request on the Multiple issues talk page. GoingBatty (talk)  12:47, November 6, 2010
 * Magioladitis was kind enough to update Multiple issues in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Rjwilmsi  10:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Persondata template parameters

 * This is news to me (Rich might have left a note). I'll investigate what needs changing. Rjwilmsi  16:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was a bad idea to change the persondata template, it's just making it harder for third party tools to extract the data.
 * Handle lowercase parameters in persondata holding the data. Rjwilmsi  10:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Persondata on category namespace

 * Was due to category having a bio-stub-like template on it. Not a biography article if on Category namespace.  Rjwilmsi  11:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Category stub template positioning on category namespace

 * Problem here is that we've assumed any template ending in "stub" is an article-namespace stub template. Disable stub sorting for Category namespace.  Rjwilmsi  11:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dead link not always being moved out of citations

 * Sorry found one more related issue. I did an edit and AWB removed the dead end tag from after format= and moved it outside the cite template. The problem was that it left the format =}}. --Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confusing deadurl and dead link. We move dead link out of format, and that's it. format is left so that it's available for its correct usage. Rjwilmsi  07:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, they looked the same to me. thanks for clearing that up. But wouldn't having the deadurl= serve the same purpose as Dead link? It seems like we should use one or the other to tell when we have a broken link but not both. I know thats not AWB's problem per sey though so thanks. Ill bring that up on the template. --Kumioko (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Since AWB highlights this in red I reviewed the documentation for Cite web and the source code and there does not appear to be a deadurl parameter in the template. Unless I am missing something. --Kumioko (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

cut and paste bug
Note: I reported this seven and a half months ago in response to a related feature request. M AN d ARAX •  XAЯA b ИA M  11:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * When text is pasted into edit box, trim end to prevent newline insertion and paste in font format of text in edit box. Rjwilmsi  16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Not possible to create a new page
Try the latest official release for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a deliberate decision on our part to disable editing pages that start or end blank in the SVN snapshots or SVN debug builds to try to get to the bottom of a rare bug whereby pages get blanked. Rjwilmsi  11:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

KingbotK seems to be busted in latest snapshot (7290)
I have the impression ti works for me in 5100. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunno. It won't get alternate names of template either. – xeno talk 03:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We changed the behaviour. In order to get the alternates of WikiProject Football you have to enter (including the brackets) and press Get. Try it and tell me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah - I see now. Much obliged. (I assume there was some good reason to require the user to supply the curly brackets). – xeno talk  03:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Example. I changed manuals/screenshots already. Yes, there is a good reason: Visual Basic is not my thing :P I am working with Reedy to get a working C# version at some point. KingbotK isn't optimal at the moment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, it's doing the multi-line thing again. – xeno talk  04:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I noticed myself. Next week I 'll have some time to work with it. I am taking some notes right now of the work to be done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyway to link KingbotK back in if you don't have Basic? Rich Farmbrough, 06:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Any particular problem that is worse than before? At least now new priority parameters of WPBiography are recognised and living is not deleted as it happened with the version shipped with AWB 5030. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than the fact that I had to write a rule to turn the multi-line tag into a single-line tag, it seemed to work ok. – xeno talk 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions about Multiple issues template logic
-- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) New variations of the parameters are added in Multiple issues but its manual isn't updated.
 * 2) Why have More footnotes and More references together? This is the reason I don't really like more footnotes in Multiple issues. More references implies more footnotes. Maintenance tags are a real mess.
 * 3) AWB merges only when 3 or more templates exist. What's the reason to merge only 2? We supposed to have this stuff to help people get specific instructions how to fix things and multiple issues has the drawback to give shorter messages (and sometimes out-dated).
 * 4) Why do you remove the "See Metadata" note? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply. It all makes sense now and I agree they are a real mess. Especially having thousands of redirects, most with only a handful of links each. To answer your question about the Metadata note. I didnt used too when I had to worry about people deleting it. But now that the Perdsondata is added as a general fix with AWB if someone deletes it, well just put it back on the next pass. As it is now having the comment and a bunch of spaces just adds 60 to 80 characters per article of wasted space (since the note was added to keep people from deleting it its waste now too). Individually 80 bytes is no big deal. Times that by 800, 000 biographies equals about 1.8 GB of space. Now times that by the numbers of snapshots (which is likely in the hundreds if not thousands) and you end up with a huge amount of wasted space saved. Which in turns saves WP money in hard drives space and resources. I hope that helps to explain my reasoning. --Kumioko (talk) 16:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as Rjwbot adds it and AWB saves every revision, we don't really earn any hard disc space. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I should clarify that I only do that as a minor edit if I am making a more meaningful edit. But I am a little confused. When Rjwbot adds the persondata template to the article it adds it with the comment and the spaces. Thereby that revision is bigger. So if I were to come along in the process of making other edits and eliminate the 80 spaces, the article would thereafter take up 80 less bytes of space per revision that is stored on the server. So I guess I am a little confused at how that wouldnt impact hard drive space.--Kumioko (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * We add it to help new editors to work with this persondata. Moreover, in the hard disc everything is saved, not only the current version so it doesn't impact hard space. It also doesn't impact the html produced since comments are omitted from rendering. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand the new editor comment but we dont add it for categories, infoboxes or the multitudes of other things. And if they see it on every biographical article there gonna figure it out pretty fast I think. And, Yes I know everything is saved and each save increases exponentially. I also understand that it does not remove it from the historical copies. But each time the article is saved, another "copy" of the article is saved, taking up more space. So if I am already there, making another edit, and I remove 80 spaces, then thats 80 spaces of space that will not be saved. Thereby makinng the article slightly smaller, therebyb taking up slightly less space each time it is saved, exponentially until the article becomes FA status or the alians from Independance day show up and invade. For example, if you look at the revision history of this article Trefflé Berthiaume, you will see that in the edit prior to RjwilmsiBot the article was 2,810 bytes, when the bot added the persondata with the comment and some spaces it went to 3,174 bytes (and I see where the bot doesnt have as many spaces as the Persondata template so thats good). In the edit that I just made, that eliminated the comment and a few more spaces it went down to 3,114 bytes. Thats a difference of 60 bytes and after I added 22 characters. Now assume that article is revised 16-17 more times (which isnt all that much) that will be a savings of 1KB or 1000B. Now times that by a thousand articles thats a MB and so on. It adds up fast. Now I am not saying we should remove the spaces just for the sake of removing spaces and saving space. But as a minor edit along with other changes we could see a substantial and exponential savings in space over the long term of the WP project. Hard space is cheap, but its not free and I have to assume that WP's storage is in the TB range. Now I have no idea what the cost of running the site is but if we assume that WP has 4TB or hard drive space (which is probably low) and we assume that it costs .25 per week per MB for storage, management and maintenance (which is probably also low) then we get somewhere in the range of $262, 000 dollars a week to run the site. And that increases exponentially as we add and expand articles, images etc. If we can shave a couple gig off that progressive increase then thats conservitavely several thousand dollars a month. Again, I am just guessing at the numbers. --Kumioko (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's keep this bug report to any problems with AWB's handling of the multiple issues template. If there's no problem we'll archive this report. Rjwilmsi  18:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, guess we did go on a tangent there. --Kumioko (talk) 18:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

MissingFieldException in MainForm.LoadPrefs
AttoRenato (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Download AWB 5.1 and I expect it will be fine. Rjwilmsi  15:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Commas before and after references can give funny results
Not actually a bug. --- Magioladitis (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple glitches in the add WikiProjectBannerShell logic

 * 1) Agree. This was what the plugin was doing.
 * 2) Never noticed that. Example?
 * 3) Yes we try to avoid that but without standarisation is impossible. DYK usually goes under the WPBS. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding #2 I should find one today and as soon as I do I will post it here. For #3 I think that DYKs and portals shoudl come after the banners. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also found a couple other things I wanted to mention since I posted this.
 * AWB seems to be adding BLP at the bottom of the WikiProject banner group when the person is the article is a BLP without it but I think it should go on the top by the 1= parameter.
 * The other is regarding AWB adding the WPBS template. AWB doesn't recognize the 4 wikiprojects that start with WP so if the article has 4 templates and 2 of them are WPBiography and WPMILHIST it doesn't add it. If this is because they chose not to change to the standard and its too much of a headache to program AWB for the caveats I understand. --Kumioko (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We only support projects in the "WikiProject foo" form. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be working ok without the plugin:. Kumioko, do use use the plugin? -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought so about the WP thing and I agree but thought I would ask. Nope cant use the plugin, keep getting the error you posted above. Also cant use the SVN for a lot of the talk page edits cause the SVN doesnt allow for the talk page to be created when its blank which a lot are. Not all mind you but enough that I dont want to keep switching back and forth. After looking at your example that wasnt exactly what I was talking about. I will post it here the next time I see one. --Kumioko (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Found it. Here you are. New line when 2 parameters are added. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * . Rjwilmsi  10:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB doesn't appear to use Death date parameter from Infobox person to populate Persondata

 * Correct, and a deliberate decision to ensure that the correct date is picked up from the article. I don't plan to change this given your example article is incorrectly categorized. Rjwilmsi  07:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Expand section mistake

 * Fix to "expand section" logic. Rjwilmsi  10:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't merge multiple maintenance templates into Multiple issues

 * Support pov-check parameter in multiple issues. Rjwilmsi  09:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Re-parsing adds |date= parameter to Update after

 * Update after removed from list. Rjwilmsi  08:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProjectBannerShell isn't added in Book talk

 * Talk page genfixes are only enabled for article talk currently. I don't know if they would be suitable for book talk or not. Rjwilmsi  10:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk pages genfixes can safely be expanded to category talk and book talk space but not to template talk. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Enable talk page genfixes for category talk and book talk. Rjwilmsi  19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Colon before infobox

 * What happens is that in moving the dablink (in this case redirect) to the top of the article the colon gets moved to the infobox. So I'll extend the logic to remove colons before dablinks. Rjwilmsi  12:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Rjwilmsi  14:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

skips articles w/o checking them in preparse mode when there's a prob w regex

 * If you get a regex error one article is skipped then AWB stops. That's the way it works. You need to escape hyphens in a regex with a backslash. Rjwilmsi  08:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts I agree that skipping the page is not helpful in this situation. I'll see if that can be changed. Rjwilmsi  09:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've ended up re-preparsing a thousand articles once I realized that I'd lost part of my list while fine tuning regex.
 * I still haven't figured out when characters need to be escaped. Our help page even gives hyphens in a similar example without being escaped. — kwami (talk) 09:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't skip page over regex f&r error. Rjwilmsi  18:37, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't merge lead rewrite into Multiple issues

 * . Rjwilmsi  21:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

FixDates needs reparsing in some cases

 * Fixed. Rjwilmsi  20:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB recreating a deleted page as SVN
I don't understand what exactly is the bug. To avoid non-existent pages just activate "Skip if doesn't exist". Of course, you can create pages if you want with AWB. What you can't do is to save empty pages (0 bytes). -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats not what RJ told me before. I was getting an error when I tried to add a talk page banner if the talk page didn't exist. He told me you cant create pages with SVN's. I also dont see an option for Skip if doesn't exist. --Kumioko (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of the Skip tab are three radio buttons to skip if the Page Exists, Doesn't exist, or Don't care. GoingBatty (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Got it thanks. I thought this was a bug but I guess they stopped the pracice of not allowing AWB SVN's to update a blank page so thats ok with me know that I know. --Kumioko (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW though I still dont think that AWB should do this kind of activity. Maybe adding some logic to see if its a zero byte page not to add banners and stubs to create the article? --Kumioko (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * These templates are just a suggestion. Editor review is adviced. Moreover, we always suggest re-parsing before saving. Btw, orphan tag depends on incoming links anyway and it's unlikely a page gets incoming links while being edited. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the version I build myself, newpages aren't allowed. Maybe this was the method we used last time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure about that last one, I understand all the previous comments and I personally like the fact that I can do this now (especially for talk pages) but I think there needs to be a less ambiguous way of informing the user of what they are about to do. I would think that most users of AWB are not "creating" pages with it but rather general edits so to have it behave this way catches one a bit off guard. I just think that maybe we should have a button that the user must explicity click (or something) to allow new page creation rather than skip by exception. Especially when it seems to be doing it all of a sudden. After 150, 000+ plus edits using it I only had this happen in the last couple weeks so I find that rather odd. If not an explicit button, then Maybe a popup message (like the talk page message maybe) that asks the user are you sure you want to create a page?  --Kumioko (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Snapshots aren't official releases. We use them to detect and fix bugs between the official releases. So, we don't plan to change this behaviour. Just be carefull when using a snapshot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm, if the software is now allowing pages to be created with SVN releases then the behavior is changed. Wether that was the intent or not it is happening. I will be careful now that I know about it but I see this being an issue for others. --Kumioko (talk) 21:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

NullReferenceException in DelinkerAWBPlugin.ProcessArticle
Can you reproduce the bug by loading ONLY the delinker plugin and not all of them? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What were the settings for delinker? Let's both use this talk page for this discussion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just trying to see what it was used for, so it didn't have anything but the default "Remove empty external link sections".Cit helper (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now I'm getting: "Invalid regular expression: value cannot be null, parameter name: pattern"... What is this supposed to mean??? Cit helper (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Did this bug occurred after you pressed OK to save the page or before (while loading)? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While loading, it was "Processing Page..." Cit helper (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So you had all plugins loaded and general fixes with "Skip if no general fixes" disactivated. That was all? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes... Cit helper (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The "Invalid regular expression: value cannot be null, parameter name: pattern" happened even after I reverted to the default settings and plug-ins. Cit helper (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you post your settings file somewhere? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I just posted it on User_talk:Cit_helper —Preceding undated comment added 23:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Unknown parameters in Multiple issues: copy edit

 * Fixed. Rjwilmsi  10:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't merge Primary sources, BLP unsourced,Very long, Cleanup-rewrite into Multiple issues

 * MultipleIssues: support "primary sources", merge as "primarysources". Rjwilmsi  11:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Rjwilmsi  10:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * MultipleIssues: support "very long", "verylong", merge as "verylong". Rjwilmsi  11:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * MultipleIssues: support "Cleanup-rewrite", merge as "rewrite". Rjwilmsi  11:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

More on Persondata template parameters

 * AWB updated. As I've said before I am opposed to the change to persondata to allow lowercase parameters as it adds complication for seemingly no benefit. Rjwilmsi  22:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Second that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree for what its worth. I would prefer adding logic to convert it to upper case but I know thats not concensus at the moment. --Kumioko (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

After AWB adds stub, re-parsing changes uncat to uncategorized stub

 * Reorder logic to avoid need for reparse. Rjwilmsi  23:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Tagging disambiguation pages

 * Another DisambCDs template redirect: Letter-NumberCombDisambig. Rjwilmsi  19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Multiple Multiple issues issues
MultipleIssues: technical valid parameter, convert cleanup-jargon to jargon. Rjwilmsi 08:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

updated list of known parameters to cover ll cases given above (In fact only 1 was missing). -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

added tests for almost all cases above. I didn't add ParserTests when the template and the parameter were equal. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

updated MultipleIssuesTemplateNameRegex. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

task finished by Rjwilmsi. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"wikify" not removed by re-parsing, but removed by processing article again
I guess that by refactoring the page, you reached some threshold were wikify isn't needed anymore. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The piece I don't understand is why the threshold seems to be different for re-parsing vs. refactoring. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikify to match wikify in multiple issues when value is subst date. Rjwilmsi  07:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

PERSONDATA dates added in wrong format
AWB can't decide which format prevails so it uses ISO format. This is a "wontfix". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's for the quick response. Two questions:
 * If AWB can't decide which correct format to use, why does it use an incorrect format? Why not use one of the correct formats and be right at least some of the time?
 * In the bug template, why does wontfix have a description of "Not enough information/very rare bug"? In this case, I believe I have provided enough information, and the bug is not very rare.
 * Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For point 1: Better start a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Persondata. We re just the mindless programmers following orders :D
 * For point 2: Don't always believe the bold letters :) I tried to find the status closer to the situation without really caring on the output. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For point 1, I'm cool if "following orders" means you're choosing to program to adhere to consensus or some other request. Could you please point me to the "orders" you received?
 * For point 2, seems like you're saying AWB is working as designed, and this is not a bug - so maybe notbug is better? Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For point 1, Rjw asked for BRFA for his bot to add Persondata with this way and they were no disagreements on the that. Can you please a start a discussion in the correct place to see what people think on the subject? I don't have strong opinion for any method. The same goes for the use of wikilinks for PLACE o BIRTH/DEATH. I would like someone to clarify me the guideline. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For point 2, fixed for you. "notbug". -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Per your suggestion I asked the question at Wikipedia talk:Persondata. The guideline seems clear about wikilinks: Persondata states "do not link the date".  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. We already don't link dates in dob/dod fields. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason not to use YYYY-MM-DD. I have added it as an option. Rich Farmbrough, 19:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC).

ǅ
Romaine (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the nl-wiki page is at nl:ǅ i.e. single character U+01C5 rather than nl:Dž (two characters) to correspond to Dž on en-wiki. The AWB list maker converts the first character to upper-case. The upper case of U+01C5 is U+01C4 (Ǆ), which does not exist on nl-wiki. The nl-wiki page is then at a part uppercase and part lowercase character and the mediawiki software is not handling the case conversion for it (mediawiki limitation/bug?). Probably you want a redirect for that character on nl-wiki? Rjwilmsi  22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not understand completely what you exactly mean, but I think it would be good to create redirect for this. Could you please make that redirect then? Greetings and thanks! - Romaine (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You have just created the redirect I suggested. Rjwilmsi  12:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Changed "b." to "born", but didn't add Persondata or categories
It may be about persons and not about person. A birth year after "birth" isn't safe enough to do the rest I guess. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I reject (1) because an article can list the birth dates of various people, that doesn't mean it's an article about a person.
 * (2) Is done because category tagging is based on the category list from the API, I'm not sure whether it will be sensible to adjust that. Rjwilmsi  09:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

After AWB fixes fact, re-parsing changes it citation needed
{{AWB bug | status        = wontfix | description   = When AWB changes {[fact}} to fact, re-parsing then automatically changes it to citation needed. Would be better if re-parsing was not needed. GoingBatty (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC) | duplicate     = Try Park University | site          = en.wikipedia.org | OS            = Windows XP | net            = 2.0.50727.1873 | version       = SVN 7424 | workaround    = Manually re-parse | fix_version   = }}
 * If we go down this route we'll have to run everything twice, at twice the time cost. We had better make a wider discussion to see if this is really needed. Rjwilmsi  22:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't want to run everything twice - was hoping it could be resolved by reordering the code to fix templates before TemplateRedirects GoingBatty (talk) 23:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * For performance reasons TemplateRedirects must run first otherwise we 'll have to load all possible redirects to the core code in order to perform general fixes for all cases. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Marked as "wontfix". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't remove date from Multiple issues

 * date is required when expert is used. Rjwilmsi  10:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Alternative account used when using rollback within AWB browser window

 * You're right that the web page part of AWB uses Internet Explorer, so we can't change the behaviour. Rjwilmsi  12:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Valid Allmusic parameters generate alert

 * Fixed. Rjwilmsi  19:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

ArgumentOutOfRangeException in MainForm.set_SettingsFile
I am attempting to add some task forces to some banners on Medal of Honor recipients and I have been getting this error periodically about ever 20 or so pages. If I continue working it will let me continue working and will go away for a while but then will pop up again later. --Kumioko (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Save your settings file with a shorter name. I'll look into fixing the bug. Rjwilmsi  18:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd. Main.cs SettingsFile line ~224 already has logic to handle the 64-character limit. Couldn't reproduce it myself. Rjwilmsi  19:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The path is too long. XP issue due to FAT32. Problem doesn't occur on Windows 7 NTFS. Reedy can probably fix that for XP users. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible out by one error ignoring refs - or not ignoring refs?
I can't see that there is an error in the regex but I reserve the right to be wrong!

Related bug/issue if I set to skip if minor replacements only, with this replacement set to non-minor, it skips, even when the replacement occurs.

Rich Farmbrough, 15:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC).
 * By using * instead of + you will replace "=====" with "======" . Rjwilmsi  16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I got it. The regex should be s/(==+)([^=\n]+)(==+)\n/$1$2$1\n/ - I guess that's what you are saying. The regex will now not replace "=====\n" with "======\n" . Lolcats and roflcopters. However the query about the difference in behaviour between ignore refs on/off stil remains. Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC).
 * With the updated regex skip behaviour is correct for me whether ignore refs is on or off. Rjwilmsi  22:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. But the old regex should match "=====\n" regardless of skip setting. Or am I missing something? Rich Farmbrough, 12:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Rich I'm now not clear what issues over skip behaviour still remain for you? I couldn't find any issues with the skip behaviour. Rjwilmsi  17:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK I think - for fun set Ignore templates... and s/./X/ on User:Rich Farmbrough/temp69 to get http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rich_Farmbrough/temp69&diff=prev&oldid=375990963. Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC).
 * This is a nonsensical example as replacing all characters (dot) will replace even the hidden template, since placeholder text goes in place of the template to hide it. Rjwilmsi  12:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah! That is slightly flawed. Presumably the placeholder text uses some obscure UTF8 chraracter, but even then it will match, for example [^\d]*. Rich Farmbrough, 15:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC).

unrefBLP supported by Multiple issues but generates alert
We shouldn't be supporting that in Multiple issues :P -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Then could you please remove it from Multiple issues and provide the proper parameter, so we can clean up the articles that currently use it? Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There were only 2 transclusions of unrefBLP. Fixed it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong placement of WPBS

 * Fixed. Rjwilmsi  21:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

IndexOutOfRangeException in Tools.RemoveSyntax

 * Fixed. Rjwilmsi  15:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

OperationFailedException in ApiEdit.CheckForErrors
Occurs while editing Suspenders. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

KingbotK needs urgent update to support new priority parameters
I summarise a bit here. This is a to-do list. TO DO:
 * 1) Support new priority parameters i.e. don't remove them and don't add empty priority parameter
 * 2) If a work-group exists and the corresponding priority parameter is missing, add it
 * 3) If a work-group exists and a generic priority parameter exists, replace it with the one corresponding to the work-group.
 * 4) If living parameter is missing, add an empty living field unless class=dab
 * 5) If listas parameter is missing, add an empty listas field Always add listas in manual mode
 * 6)  Fix listas to remove special characters. Diff

-- Magioladitis (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The workgroups are: |a&e-work-group =
 * filmbio-work-group =
 * musician-work-group =
 * military-work-group =
 * peerage-work-group =
 * politician-work-group =
 * royalty-work-group =
 * s&a-work-group =
 * sports-work-group =

AWB Creates the page Api.php
We never encountered something like that before. We think it's a bad config on your part. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Your api is now at http://deadrisingwiki.com/w/api.php. Setting the custom url to http://deadrisingwiki.com/w/, I made this diff. Works for me —  Ree dy  16:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)