Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters/Archive 1

Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded
I received a note on my talk page stating that my recent addition of the cite web cite news template parameters has now put this page in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. What are the appropriate actions to take at this point? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean cite news I think. The high number of template uses was not something I considered. We may have to switch to an XML format like the typo rules. For the moment you can put the new ones in source or code tags and AWB will still pick them up. Rjwilmsi  09:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant cite news. I added code tags, per your suggestion, but it didn't solve the problem.  What now?  GoingBatty (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It look's like Rich's change to the template has solved the problem, at least for the moment. Rjwilmsi  13:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Great news! Are the code tags still necessary on this page, or should I revert my change?  GoingBatty (talk) 17:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Something tells me if it ain't broke, don't fix it! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters
FYI, this functionality has been helpful in cleaning up Category:Pages containing cite templates with deprecated parameters (although those articles using day still have to be fixed manually). GoingBatty (talk) 03:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Before adding more links...
Looks like the cite web entries were created based on a database dump. I created the cite news entries by just copying the cite web entries. For the other citation templates (e.g. cite book, cite journal, citation), should I again copy the cite web entries, or does someone want to analyze a database dump again? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest I wonder if a lot of these are even needed. I don't have admin rights but I think the easiest way to determine if they are still needed is to add them to the list of deprecated parameters in the Cite template and weed them out. There are only about 200 in the category now so I don't think it would be too bad. We could start with 20 or 30 at a time adding and removing a group at a time until we have them worked out. In most cases I wouldn't think there would be more than a couple of them although there might be quite a lot of some. What do you think? I could add some of the parameters in the sandbox and then ask an admin to implement them. --Kumioko (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok I did a few as an example here but I could fairly easily apply the whole group to each template. I recommend adding a new category as I did here for invalid parameters so that knowone confuses them with deprecated parameters and tries to delete them entirely. Once this is done I would think that RJ or someone else could fairly easily point one of the bots at it and let it go to work. We could them eliminate quite a few of these from the list (there are quite a few also that we should keep). I also admit some uncertainty of how the logic will recognize casing or if it will just pull anything in regardless of case (for example accessdate, Accessdate, ACCESSDATE, etc.).--Kumioko (talk) 01:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. If you would get an admin to set up the categories, I'd be willing go through them manually until a bot could be set up.  GoingBatty (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The category is easy to setup I just need an admin to implement the code to the template since its protected. I'll leave a note out for them to do that to the current group. I'd be happy to help go through them too. Unfortunately I'll be pretty busy now that the weekends up but Ill try and pitch in where I can. I'll get to work on getting the whole list together in the next day or so. --Kumioko (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested an admin implement the code I just added in the sandbox. It may take a couple days before they implement it though. I also created the new category at Category:Pages containing invalid cite template parameters. --Kumioko (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * They decided that they didn't want to modify the template just to add a few misspellings and that it was better to let a bot run through and fix them than to add them even a few at a time to the template. So, with that in mind I am not going to worry about filling the page with templates. I am just going to keep adding them and then when we hit the max templates per page limit then one of the AWB devs can figure out how to fix it. I have quite a few other projects on my plate at the moment though so I don't have the time to devote to mining through hundreds of thousands of articles to look for these misspellings. If the admin/developers aren't going to let us do the task efficiently then I have plenty of other work to do. --Kumioko (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added more entries based on the current entries for "cite web". However, I wonder if the misspellings that were deleted will be more common than the parameters listed on this page.  GoingBatty (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this is an overall bad idea, creating many, many entries which may, perhaps, one day happen. AWB general rules should be used for regularly occurring problems, not for eventualities that may one day happen. We can create a list of every possible error for every possible template, but I'm not really looking forward to loading those mega- or gigabytes every time. The current additions are pure speculation, no need for them is obvious. Please, can you give me a list of diffs where some of these are used? I don't ever come across updates by this list, making the need for such a long, long list rather speculative. Fram (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there are too problems with that argument Fram.
 * Since knowone wants to add them to the coding of the Template itself to test to see if there are any there is no way to know.
 * Several of the ones that he added are valid and are being changed. If you need examples of some I can provide but at least some of them are generating.
 * I only know of 3 ways to determine what parameters need to be changed.
 * Add them here and let AWB change them if it finds them
 * Write some code that can mine through the articles, look inside the appropriate template and then list out the paramaters used (Not a trivial thing and has limitations).
 * Add the parameter to the template temporarily with a category that will list the affected articles in a category which is the easiest and most efficient way I know of but I was told NO. The common ones could be left in the code to be reviewed periodically (preferably by a bot) while the uncommon ones could be removed from the template code as well as the AWB rename parameters list.
 * If you have some other suggestions of how this can be done I am open to suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Does this even work (would explain why I have never encountered it...). Please check Blues, and run it through AWB. Does it make any "template parameters" replacements? It should, but for me it doesn't. If it does for you, please tell me (us) what settings you use. If it doesn't, then please test this page some more, and give some examples of where it actually does work, so that we can find the difference between those and "blues". Similarly, Boland Hall fire (different template, different parameter, no replacement). Fram (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What version of AWB are you using? --Kumioko (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The current one (no updates are available), 5.3.1.0, on XP and Firefox 8.0. Fram (talk) 15:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I also ran it through AWB and didn't see too much, a couple little things but only one parameter related, publisherlink. Is there a certain one you noticed it should be catching? That might help narrow it down. --Kumioko (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To see examples of where AWB replaced parameters in my edits, you can view my contributions from December 11 between 19:43-20:40 and 22:35-22:53, including, , , , , , , and.
 * In this edit, you took a list based on a database dump and determined which replacements should be removed. I merely used subsets of the list you left remaining for the other citation templates.  I am also open to better ideas as to how to populate this list.  I would also be interested if you could please quantify how the extra 77k I added (not "mega- or gigabytes") is impacting your AWB performance.
 * I'm running AWB 5.3.1.1 SVN 7852. As Kumioko states, when AWB processes Blues, it wants to change publisherlink → publisher, but then AWB removes the duplicate parameter.  In Boland Hall fire, AWB wants to change archivelongurl → archiveurl.  If you think additional replacements should be done in these articles, could you please provide specific information?  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fram, maybe you're not seeing replacement in many articles because you've been using AWB recently to tag unreferenced articles? GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I took a few examples where it definitely needed to replace parameters, but for me it didn't suggest these changes (the ones you get are the ones I expected but didn't get). I have "auto tag", "apply general fixes", and "unicodify whole page" on, no "auto changes skip options", and "regex typo fixing" off. The fact that I never get these suggestions, while you two do get them, may explain partly why I consider them less useful of course :-) Fram (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * According to AutoWikiBrowser/History, this functionality was added after 5.3.1.0. GoingBatty (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'm sticking with 5.3.1.0, the last "official" or "stable" version. But I'll not complain any more that this isn't working then :-) Thanks for the explanations and tests. I still dispute the need to include one-off typos, but things like "publisherlink" for "publisher" seem to happen often enough, just like some of the incorrect "multiple issues" parameters (over detailed for overly detailed and so on). Fram (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't need entries here for "one-off typos". Just wish there was an easy way to determine what typos happen often enough to warrant entry here.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no idea how to determine that. Guesswork coupled with experience, I suppose... Fram (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Requesting help with Infobox company
Per a request on my talk page, I added a section to this page to replace certain parameters for Infobox company. However, it doesn't seem to be working (try Atari or Blizzard Entertainment). Did I do something wrong, or is this a bug? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed (was not applying replacements to templates with first letter upper, broken in in November).  Rjwilmsi  20:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Parameters listed here that may be valid parameters or aliases
A recent edit to this list inspired me to try to determine if any of the allegedly erroneous parameters listed here are actually valid parameter names or aliases. I came up with the following list of possibilities:


 * archive-date
 * archive-url
 * author-first
 * author-last
 * authors
 * chapter-url
 * chapterlink
 * editorlink
 * given
 * isbn13
 * periodical
 * publicationdate
 * publicationplace
 * quotation
 * surname
 * trans_title
 * trans-title
 * URL
 * website

I used the following pages and a text editor with duplicate detection to find these possible parameters.


 * AutoWikiBrowser/Rename_template_parameters
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Configuration
 * Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist

Not all of the cite templates on this page use the Citation/CS1 module. Not all of the templates on the Whitelist are valid in all templates. Would someone bolder than I like to take the next step of verifying that one or more of the above parameters should not be listed as wrong on this AWB page? – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I used the information at Template:Cite web/doc to remove a few entries from this page. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some additional undocumented parameters.  GoingBatty (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Whitelisted parameters being renamed by AWB script
This is a list of parameters listed at AutoWikiBrowser/Rename template parameters that are valid aliases on Module:Citation/CS1/Whitelist. Someone raised an issue that not all Whitelist parameters work in all templates (they should; I found that they don't always), so I've created examples showing them used in each template to show that they work (or don't). All listed parameters appear in the examples.

* Note that website is on the Whitelist, but if used in place of url in a citation with an archive-url value, it generates an error message; it also fails to link to title. It should continue to be renamed unless and until the code is changed to allow it as an alias in the case where url is required. (I have left a message at Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 10.)


 * Ignore this. Pursuant to a response at that talk page, and another review of this page's script, I see that website is an alias of work; however, that means that the script is currently replacing another whitelisted parameter on the citation template. I have updated the list.&mdash; D'Ranged 1 VTalk  00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * With the exception of year in cite comic as noted below, all the parameters listed here should be taken off of AWB's renaming script. I note that in four places, the script has trans_title replacing itself.

I've ended this post with a section; please make any comments there so editors may use the edit section feature to avoid having to scroll to the bottom of this long post.

Discussion
Please confine your comments to this section so editors may use the edit section feature to avoid having to scroll to the bottom of this long post. Thanks!&mdash; D'Ranged 1 VTalk  00:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting this together. It seems that chapterlink (undocumented on Template:Citation) should be a Wikipedia article, not a URL.  GoingBatty (talk) 01:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated WP:AWB/RTP per your fine research above. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 02:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've also submitted Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs so AWB users won't be prompted to manually change these valid parameters. Thanks again!  GoingBatty (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; and thanks for doing the clean-up; I didn't want to mess with something I don't use presently; I wasn't sure if this would be the "fix" or if more would be needed. (I wouldn't have known how to alert folks like you did via the request you made.)
 * I forgot to include a chapter name in the section, so the link didn't link to anything. I've fixed that; it seems that chapterlink does link to whatever is entered in chapter on all templates, including citation, so I don't know that it's a bug. It wouldn't make sense to me for it to be a Wikipedia article, but what do I know? Thanks again for doing the clean-up.&mdash; D'Ranged 1  VTalk  05:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I would recommend continuing to change ISBN13 and isbn13 to isbn. One of the significant sources of ISBN errors in citations – both in templates and free-form – has been people attempting to differentiate between 10 and 13 digit ISBNs with text like ISBN (10) or ISBN-13: . While it is good to have the alias – why there is an alias for isbn13 and not isbn10 I don't know – leaving the numbered ISBN alias in citations continues to make it look as if the template or MediaWiki software distinguishes between the 10 and 13 digit versions. Obviously, it does not (except in how check-digits are calculated).
 * I can see an argument that having the alias allows people to express their desire for differentiation. That is good. However, that is a need only at the time the template is entered on the page by a human. It is not a ongoing requirement for the citation as it continues to exist in the article. &mdash; Makyen (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Valid aliases should not be replaced, even to have the "correct" form continue to exist in the article. It is a waste of time and resources. As for no alias for isbn10, I wasn't privy to any discussions about that, but would have voted against it to encourage editors to use the 13-digit ISBN consistently.&mdash; D'Ranged 1 VTalk  21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion about whether the Citation template should follow the same rules has not yet been closed with a stated decision, so it is too early to treat Citation parameters and CS1 parameters as being interchangeable, even though they are processed by the same module. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I refined my matching process to deal with all upper-case parameters and parameters containing numbers; that resulted in finding 14 additional parameters to remove. I've made additions to the tables and examples above using the color orange to indicate additions. I'm going to go ahead and delete them from the page. Thanks again for your help!&mdash; D'Ranged 1 VTalk  21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry - could you please help me understand how your comment relates to my portion of this discussion? I don't see anywhere that I'm suggesting we "treat Citation parameters and CS1 parameters as being interchangeable".  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You made mention of Citation without making any distinction between it and CS1, so I just wanted to remind you (and others involved in the discussion) that the discussion of how similar Citation and CS1 should be has not quite finished. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I only made mention of the chapterlink parameter in Citation because I think the example was incorrect and the template documentation is incomplete. Each template should have accurate documentation, whether the parameters are interchangable or not.  GoingBatty (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)