Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Active discussions

AWB accessEdit

I'd like to request AWB access to address the issues in Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax. I have utilized the beta-cluster to get a Find/Replace function worked out to remove [[File: along with any parameters (ex |thumb|right|left|pixelsize|misc caption|etc) following the file name of an image which is inside a template, but leave other files alone. Through trial and error, I found these steps correct the depreciated syntax error. There are 1,523 articles in this category and AWB would make this much easier. Operator873talkconnect 06:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  Done - Also an additional note here, our infoboxes are not consistent in terms of how they handle images in their parameters, so be sure to check your changes from time to time. Chenzw  Talk  07:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Task complete. There are a few articles remaining in the Category that I will have to correct manually. AWB accesses no longer required. Operator873talkconnect 19:23, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

AWB access for Template:Infobox person correctionsEdit

I'm requesting AWB access to correct deprecated parameters in articles containing the {{Infobox person}} template. I will be starting with the alma_mater param which should be corrected to education. I recently requested a new copy of the template be imported (which Auntof6 accomplished) to ensure corrections are up-to-date. I have set up a find/replace for those changes only. I'm not requesting flood flag as I'll allow AWB to correct misc things while running on the 1,481 articles which need corrections. Operator873talkconnect 02:17, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done @Operator873: Note that if you don't use the flood flag, you need to limit your changes to about 100 at a time. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Caveat noted. Thank you! Operator873talkconnect 01:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

AWB accessEdit

Hey, I am requesting AWB access to fix lint errors. See my recent contribs. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I was looking over your recent changes to get an idea what you were wanting to use AWB for and it seems like a decent task to use with AWB. However, these changes may be difficult to accomplish automatically. I'll approve the request and work with you on IRC to fine tune your adjustments. Operator873talkconnect 03:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@1997kB: I forgot to add, please leave a message here when you're done with the tool. Thanks Operator873talkconnect 04:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Operator873: I'm done for now. You can remove it. Thanks! ‐‐1997kB (talk) 12:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  Done Thanks 1997kB Operator873talkconnect 14:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

AWB access for dump analysisEdit

Per my message on Operator873's talk page, I'm planning on analysing the success rate of the automated API calls I made to reFill when using the flood flag, however to do so efficiently (using RegEx to compare the XML dump to the current diff), I need to be on the AWB CheckPage for simple. I will not make any edits using AutoWikiBrowser and this is needed probably for only 24 hours (I may re-request it upon the next dump release when I plan to request +flood again to finish off the rest of the bare URLs). SITH (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: Ok I will add you to the list until tomorrow or whenever I remember to remove it this week. Otherwise you can also let me know when you are done. -DJSasso (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Removed now. Let me know if you need it again. -DJSasso (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

AWB access for DannyS712Edit

Hi. I'd like to be able to use AWB for repetitive changes; I was planning to create {{Illinois-geo-stub}} as a more specific stub type for {{US-geo-stub}}, and want to be able to migrate pages using AWB. I have access on enwiki, and am familiar with the software. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

We purposefully have very few stub tags. I'm not sure if there's consensus to create this one. Vermont (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: There are almost 600 illinois pages that are tagged as US geo stubs, and in total the US geo stub category has over 9,000 pages. I can understand not wanting too many stub types, but 9000 is just too many to be manageable --DannyS712 (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Hm, 600 may be enough. Auntof6, any comment on this? Vermont (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont, DannyS712: We usually want at least 1000, a commitment to actively work on expanding the stubs in the new stub type right away, and general agreement (consensus) to create the new type. My personal thoughts are 1) the person wanting the new type could show their commitment by sufficiently expanding a significant number of the articles in question and 2) it doesn't really require a dedicated stub type to work on stubs. In any case, the new type should be requested at Wikipedia talk:Simple Stub Project.
As far as creating a new type because 9000 in a category is too many to be manageable, we don't create new stub types just to reduce the number in a category. However, make the request on the page I linked above and see what others think. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:52, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree to follow the rules for creating new tags. Given that there are over 4400 articles with just the plain {{stub}} tag, I’d like to be able to use AWB for sorting stubs. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Actually, in the past, stub sorting like that has been discouraged. If you want to expand stubs, you could make your own list of the articles in question and work from that. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I’m sorry, stub sorting is discouraged? —DannyS712 (talk) 04:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: As a stand-alone effort it has been, yes. I do it when I'm making other changes to stub articles, but not just for the sake of doing the sorting. Don't feel bad, though. Many people with good intentions have been asked to stop sorting stubs. Remember, this wiki doesn't do things the same way as enwiki, and stub management is an area where we're quite different. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  Not done Stub sorting is a task we discourage, and the specific stub type in question has not been approved. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: where is the appropriate place to discuss not discouraging stub sorting anymore - even if it isn’t for the creation of new stub templates, it should be (in my opinion) okay to use the ones we currently have DannyS712 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Probably the page I linked above. It has some previous discussions on the topic. It just usually ends up being a lot of changes with little real value for the project. Now, since this page is about AWB and not stubs, please take this discussion elsewhere if you want to continue it. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage".