Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive 19

I don't know of any computers that can not read unicode. As far as I know even Windows 95 can do it with a patch from Microsoft. --mboverload@ 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

On more than one occasion I had to undo misguided "corrections" made by this bot. Is there a way to stop this from happening? JdH (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which "bot"? —Reedy 20:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

see Revision history of Woerden JdH (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser is not an automatic bot — edits made using this software are the responsibility of the editor using it. I encourage you to contact the user directly. --mboverload@ 02:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I am using Kingboyk Plugin+AWB for tagging for WikiProject banners for my bot. I observe that the AWB hangs for articles like

Yup, and its reported on the plugin page. There seems to be a bug with the regex used for the template detection —Reedy 12:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The issue happens only when |blp= follows just after WikiProjectBannerShell. -- Tinu Cherian - 12:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed in rev 3264. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- Tinu Cherian - 04:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I used rev3272 from http://awb.reedyboy.net and found the issue is still there. eg: Talk:Butch Huskey -- Tinu Cherian - 05:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Must be an old version of the plugin. It doesn't hang for me on that page. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 05:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I used the Kingboy plugin ( 2.1.0.1 )that came with rev3272. -- Tinu Cherian - 06:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but this pre-release accidentally included old version. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 06:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey.. Kindly let me know if we have a new SVN exe to download -- Tinu Cherian - 07:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Try the rev3272a, i had forgotten to rebuild it —Reedy 09:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It worked on this but hung on Talk:Chris Snelling . Sorry for dumping issues here :) -- Tinu Cherian - 10:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I came here looking for information about the "Only whitespace is changed" option under the Skip tab because that function doesn't seem to be working for me. Interesting, that option isn't listed in the manual but is present in the screencap there. What gives? — TAnthony^Talk 22:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

{{

talk

) 23:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

That much I figured, but anyone have any idea what I'm doing wrong? — TAnthony^Talk 23:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs#White_space_bugGnevin (talk

) 07:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• You just added Category:Living people to the article which isn't really right, might need to tweak your script

I can see that there is a date of birth and no date of death. What is the right thing to do? Lightmouse (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

From the text at Category:Living people: "As per conditions set out in Category:Births of the last 123 years, each individual born after 1885 (if year of birth is absent, earliest period of activity should be extrapolated), whose year of death remains undetermined, should appear in this category. Individuals of advanced age (over 90) for whom no documentation has existed for a reasonable number of years, may be removed from this category and transferred to Category:Possibly living people."--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

There are some feature requests relating to quotes and links. It would be very useful to be able to choose whether to make changes inside quotes and links. I am frequently asked about it. Are these requests just pipe dreams or are they realistic? Lightmouse (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

'User contributions (all)' is not in the make list for SVN3272. What happened to it? Lightmouse (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It was removed. Why would anyone really need to do this? —Reedy 18:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I need the entire list of my own contributions to prevent my bot editing the same article twice. I do not know of another way of doing that. Lightmouse (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Lightmouse, this is a useful feature. I just did a few thosand edits by fixing a bot's bad grammar. The only way I did that is by getting their contributions. Also, if someone makes a buttload of bad edits with AWB (like replacing hippie with commie) then they may need to reload their own contribs so AWB can fix those buttload of bad edits for them. --mboverload@ 00:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a bug or if I'm doing something wrong (which is why I'm asking here), but I tried to make a list of links on a page for Canada at the 2008 Summer Olympics and while the page clearly has hundreds of links, AWB is only listing 10. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Known bug, it's been fixed in "future" releases.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm getting this when I try to use the log in option in AWB while attempting to run my bot. I've checked, and I'm still authorised. Is there something on my end that needs to be fixed?--Rockfang (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes if I'm visiting another language Wikipeida AWB suddenly logs out. Is it supposed to do that? I'm not actually editing the other Wikipeda just the English version. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 04:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi guys, I stumbled on this page a little while ago and after reading the description I am both interested in this software and slightly confused. So, here are my questions regarding the AutoWikiBrowser:

1. Is it like Microsoft Word (or similar) except it is directly hooked up to Wikipedia? So, in other words, can you hit a bold button and see bold text instead of seeing apostrophes and have the program do all the translating into WikiMarkup for you?
2. Why all the restrictions on its use?

Thanks! It Is Me Here (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: no, it's designed as a bulk editor rather than a content creator. Re 2, because it is designed to make lots of changes quite quickly, so access and use has to be controlled. Rjwilmsi 12:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I see - so what sort of "bulk edits" would this be useful for? And are there any screenshots of it in action? It Is Me Here (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at [9] to see the type of bulk edits we are referring too Gnevin (talk) 12:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, I see. Well, it does not look like I will benefit from getting this program, then (at present, anyway). Thanks anyway. It Is Me Here (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It gets real tiring to see stuff like "removing expand template using AWB" [10]; I mean, I wonderfully thrilled that you're using AWB, it's one step less cool than having a trained monkey do your edits, but why did you remove that template? Isn't that what the edit summary supposed to explain?--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you be more thrilled with an edit summary of "removing expand template" and the user not using AWB? Seems to me this isn't an AWB issue, it's an individual editor issue.

Since you are discussing my edits I feel the need to explain why I made them. It began with user:71.202.65.243 adding {{expand}} template to a large number of stubby articles about small moons of giant planets. However those articles can not realy be expanded—little is known about these moons. So I decided to remove templates, because they are pretty useless. AWB was necessary, because I did not have time to do this job manually (taking into account the number of articles).

I should admit that you are right and my summaries should have been more informative. I am sorry if I disappointed you. Ruslik (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Best to talk to individual users if you don't like their edit summaries. If you do it in a nice way, you might get results. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

It's an individual editor issue? So dozens of editors decided to write messages in the exactly same form, carefully linking AWB every time? AWB encourages this behavior; I can't recall ever seeing a "using AWB" edit summary that was actually useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"using AWB" is forced unless it's a botflagged AWB user and should not be considered the justification for the edit - simply a note of which tool is used the same way Twinkle marks itself (TW) or huggle (HG). The fact that the user is using AWB is not a carte blanche to make insignificant, unnecessary, or simply wrong-headed edits. Please leave a message for any users that are doing this, just as you would if they were not using AWB. Note the tagline at

talk

) 16:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. AWB only adds "using

AWB

after the user-provided edit summary, as Xenocidic pointed out. In your example, "removing expand template" was provided by the user.

Yes, AWB can make it easy to get lazy with the edit summaries (even I have been guilty of this), but again, that's the user, not AWB. I use Firefox which helpfully tries to fill in edit summaries for me based on what I've typed in that box before. If I get lazy and pick something less than helpful, is that Firefox's fault? No, it's my fault. And a friendly, gentle

minnow is in order. --Fabrictramp | talk to me

17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Prosfilaes, can you please explain what your issue is and how we can help you. I can't really see how we are in any way related to a user with nondescriptive edit summaries...? --mboverload@ 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

And nobody is infallible. Also, about inappropriate edit summaries, surely something is better than people who leave none...? —Reedy 21:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What in the hell happened to AWB?!?!?! I downloaded the latest copy and it only lets me get 10 links from a page, which is pretty much useless. Then, I see in the archives that there's supposedly an update that fixes this, but that update is chock full of even more errors and every time I login I get nothing by the "microsoft debugger" asking if I want to debug the stupid thing. WTF?!?!?! Dr. Cash (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Why are you shouting at the people who make this for free for you. 2. I can assure you that it is working fine for us on multiple operating systems. Can you go to Microsoft Update and make sure you are completely patched and have all the .NET Frameworks? Also, do you have any virueses, spyware, malware, etc? --mboverload@ 02:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, please provide us the actual error your are getting. --mboverload@ 02:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The links on page breaking wasnt our fault - thats a change in MW, not a lot we can do about that. We fix it, etc. Your the first one to complain, but there is plenty of other users of the software, very happy and contempt. If its "stupid", maybe you shouldnt be using it. And like mboverload says, unless you tell us what the errors are, we cant fix them. We arent telepathic, nor do we have some remote access to your copy of AWB. Auch, those errors, offering to debug it, are usually a pc config issue - Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Frequently_asked_questions —Reedy 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I have the .NET frameworks installed, the same file downloaded from the link on this page. Every time I go to login using AWB, it brings up the "Just-In-Time Debugging" window, and asks if I want to debug using the selected debugger. I even re-downloaded the .NET framework file and selected "repair .NET installation", and it still wants me to debug. So there are definitely major issues going on here. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been approved for AWB yet, but try this... I hope you're good at computers, briefly... Go into Internet Explorer options, click advanced tab, and look for some check boxes for "disable script debugging" and check them. There might be 2 boxes. Takes longer to write it than fix. And someone please consider me for AWB even if I don't have 500 edits. I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

it's most likely your enivronment, not AWB. I'd suggest deleting your current version and redownloading it... the updater doesn't always work flawlessly. also, which .NET frameworks do you have? -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I keep getting the check page error every time I load AWB now (Check page failed to load, etc...) Any chance of whatever is causing this being fixed, as I think I've got AWB to work once in the last month. Orderinchaos 00:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the question you mean to ask is "When is Geek Squad going to fix my computer so it can run AWB, which works fine for everyone else." =) --mboverload@ 00:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

wouldn't this be more likely to be something with Chaos's web settings? In a very strict environment, AWB might not be allowed to access the web, wouldn't that generate this error? I'm sure reedy or someone else would have some other ideas. I think we should try to be a bit more helpful to new users of the software... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, double check your firewall settings and make sure AWB has full access. – 

iridescent

 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to use AWB to change the formats of date all in one go? For example, change "05/07/2006" to "[[2006-05-07]]". Thanks. - plau (talk) 13:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

yes it is possible to do a change like that, using the find and replace functions with

Regex, also take a look here. If you have specific questions for a change you'd like to do, look at the AWB Regex page or ask here. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria

19:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that he corrected such a format at: List of Digimon Data Squad episodes. Frankly, I am surprised that such formats were used and survived for more than one edit cycle. Lightmouse (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those were done by hand on a computer without AWB. - plau (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I tried to enter http://pinataisland.info in the custom project preferences but that site doesn't use a /wiki/Main Page structure, it uses http://pinataisland.info/viva/Main_Page . Will it be possible to use AWB there? –

Mine gives me a login page and such... Ok, it wont load some of the project stuff... —Reedy 15:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I just changed my user name (approved before, approved now) and now whenever I load AWB and try logging in, I get the debugger popping up trying to debug a script error (and thus not being able to use it). Everything's updated to my knowledge, so I'm wodnering if it could be a monobook issue or something else...

See the last 2 items of the FAQ above. —Reedy 08:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I have used awb many times. Just downloaded newest; only get 10 links (includes redlinks) when I attempt to make a list.

Newest release? If so, its broken due to an API change in MW. Already fixed for next release —Reedy 22:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

So when can I get the one that works?

Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR)

22:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

See the SVN snapshots link at the top of this page. Rjwilmsi 06:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

• the regexp spellchecker seems to contain this error
  Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR)
  03:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

• I found the error
  Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR)
  06:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

[11]

=D

Need to discuss with Max a plan of action for implementing this now!

—Reedy 06:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yay, moar comments on that page. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

My intention is to add the parameter "|music=yes" to {{

like
Find : {{WP India(.*?)}}
Replace: {{WP India$1|music=yes}}

But I am not able to do for banners in multiple lines like

{{WP India
|class=
|kerala=yes
}}

I tried using
Find : {{WP India\n(.*?)}}

and many other combinations , but it didnot work . Any idea how to do this ? -- Tinu Cherian - 04:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Tick the box named SingleLine in the find & replace screen. Rjwilmsi 06:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Itz working ! -- Tinu Cherian - 04:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what that was for... --Izno (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can't see the error (and know nothing about regexes), can someone fix this one? – 

Fixed by yours truly a few hours ago. Did you see someone make a mistake? --mboverload@ 01:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoops! No, it came up as a false-positive on mine but I now realise I hadn't refreshed the typo list (begs humble forgiveness). – 

iridescent

 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am getting false positives due to image links. This issue is not confined to AWB, it is the same for monobook scripts. I was asked at User_talk:Lightmouse/wishlist#Image_glitch_again if I could make the script highlight '[[Image:' and '.jpeg' and '.jpg' in the diff, perhaps by colour. I have no idea how to do it. Perhaps images could be removed before the code parses the text and then images replaced. Just scratching my head for ideas. Can we do anything? Lightmouse (talk)

You're doing that using normal F&R? In that case you just need to check the ignore external links, etc checkbox to make it ignore images. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. I have an AWB script that I add to 'Make module'. I also have a monobook script that a few other editors are using. I was entirely unaware of the checkbox you mention and I am delighted to know about it. However, I am not sure it will help me, unless I can take bits of the code and use it in the 'Make module' and in the monobook script. Lightmouse (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

HideText ht = new HideText(true, false, true);

//. . .

text = ht.Hide(text);
// do your work
text = ht.AddBack(text);

MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As soon as I add:

• HideText ht = new HideText(true, false, true);

The script stops working. Also, I presume that:

• text = ht.Hide(\[\[Image:[^\]*\]\]);
• my code blah blah
• text = ht.AddBack(\[\[Image:[^\]*\]\]);

would work for upper case '[Image' but not lower case '[image'

Lightmouse (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I can't help you with your script if I don't have its source. ht should preferrably be declared outside of ProcessArticle. Second, it's supposed to catch even [[ image:whatever]]. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving you the source. The monobook script is at:

• User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js

I have various AWB scripts that could all benefit from your excellent tip. One is:

• User:Lightmouse/javascript conversion

If I can get it working even in a basic form, I can build on that. I will try putting it outside ProcessArticle in the AWB script but there isn't a ProcessArticle in the monobook. This would be really great if I could get it working, false positives relating to images are a pain. Lightmouse (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That wont work outside ProcessArticle, its got to be in a method. —Reedy 09:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am quite baffled by this. My knowledge of scripting is very basic. I would like to be able to avoid images for the whole script. Can this be done? Lightmouse (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancy pasting your code somewhere so we can try and help? —Reedy 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[12] - Done —Reedy 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. I have some further questions, if you don't mind... Firstly, does it just do images or will it do URLs too (if there is some reference, I could take a look for myself)? Secondly, is there an equivalent that would be suitable for User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js ? I really appreciate your help. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Its just setup to do the [[Image:]] style. As for the script.js, it would be possible to probably write a javascript equivalent, but it wouldnt be a simple process. Are you wanting to change that to an AWB custom module at some point? —Reedy 12:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If it does just images, that is a welcome step forward. Thanks. I have several AWB scripts and one monobook script. There is a lot of overlap between them all. The monobook script is useful because it provides eight toolbox buttons including 'delink all dates to dmy', 'delink all dates to mdy', 'delink common terms' and 'add metric units'. AWB does not provide options. Furthermore, a few other editors are using my monobook script without having AWB access. They are complaining about the false positives from images/URLs and so far I have been telling them that there is nothing that I can do. Lightmouse (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I got AWB running and can edit articles in a given category (Category:Barnstable County, Massachusetts Registered Historic Place stubs). However, I want to edit all the Talk pages of that category (in order to add them to appropriate wikiprojects), rather than edit the articles proper. This is to follow up after an editor who created stub NRHP articles without adding them to the NRHP wikiproject and/or to other wikiprojects that apply.

Is it possible to set AWB to work on the Talk pages corresponding to a given category? Any tips would be appreciated. I'll watch here. Thanks! doncram (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Right click on list → convert to talk. Please read up

the manual. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!}

) 05:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! And I modified the manual's coverage to provide the essential info that you need to right click in the List area, as you suggest, in order to access the "convert to talk pages" operation and some other operations. doncram (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I know (or believe) that the various {{lang}} templates make AWB skip over foreign terms... is that correct? Second, more important question: is there a template to make AWB skip a word unconditionally.. when I know the spelling in the article is the correct one?

thanks

First question (lang template) yes. Secondly, AWB typo fixes also skip the {{

quote}} (and blockquote, cquote etc.) templates. Rjwilmsi

06:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

tools:~dispenser/temp/AWB_weekend_reviewed_13Sept2008.patch

• Rearranging option menu for better grouping
• Renaming a bunch of items for self-constancy and constancy with the way Windows does things
• F&R been tweak with tooltips
• Bigger buttons for often used function in toolbar
• Bug 1505 (spam filter block) has since been fixed

Unresolved questions

• Clear and Reset buttons are unclear in substTemplate, I’m guess one is a duplicate of another button
  • Buttons seem to be unclear, but they do do different jobs. —Reedy 08:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Follow redirect not working right on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_15
  • Not a redirect. —Reedy 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Add version # in title bar
• "Do not apply changes automatically" is much better expressed as Apply changes automatically”
  • rev 3320 —Reedy 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Can't use Special:linksearch
  • Waiting on bug 14869 ideally for this. —Reedy 08:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
• Why is typoscan breaking my build?
  • No one else has reported a problem. Whats up? —Reedy 08:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Not sure but the only way I can get it to build is by removing it. Info: Microsoft Visual Studio 2005, Version 8.0.50727.42 (RTM.050727-4200), Microsoft .NET Framework, Version 2.0.50727 SP1, Installed Edition: C# Express

This patch should be ready to commit, its a less comprehensive do over of the last patch uncommitted patch. — Dispenser 08:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and im going to get the DBScanner protection level stuff done this weekend! —Reedy 08:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the protection level stuff looks to be deprecated and might not be updated anymore with the mw:Protected titles table handling protection. It looks like the devs are moving towards unix style permissions on pages. So I've removed what I've done until its clear what is going to happen. — Dispenser 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

rev 3311 does all but the DBScanner changes. rev 3312 changes the more than and less than round in the Text tab, but seeing as I had already made a few changes, which i commited this morning (not seeing this, and the way the designer moves the file around for no reason at times), i cant work out if there are any other changes you made that im missing? If there is, let me know/please create another patch. Thanks! —Reedy 09:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I removed the protection/restriction tab, and change "Ignore Redirect" to "Ignore redirect". Not much else comes to mind right now. I'll try helping out more after I get some sleep. — Dispenser 09:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. —Reedy 09:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

There's some breakage in the SVN version now:

Status	Fixed in the next release
Description	Exception: InvalidCastException Message: Specified cast is not valid. Call stack: at WikiFunctions.Parse.FindandReplace.RowToReplacement(DataGridViewRow dataGridRow) in C:\Documents and Settings\RJW\Desktop\AWB_SVN\AWB\WikiFunctions\FindandReplace.cs:line 72 at WikiFunctions.Parse.FindandReplace.MakeList() in C:\Documents and Settings\RJW\Desktop\AWB_SVN\AWB\WikiFunctions\FindandReplace.cs:line 127 at AutoWikiBrowser.MainForm.LoadPrefs(UserPrefs p) in C:\Documents and Settings\RJW\Desktop\AWB_SVN\AWB\AWB\UserSettings.cs:line 344 at AutoWikiBrowser.MainForm.LoadPrefs(String path) in C:\Documents and Settings\RJW\Desktop\AWB_SVN\AWB\AWB\UserSettings.cs:line 308 Rjwilmsi 12:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
To duplicate:	Unknown
Operating system	Microsoft Windows NT 5.1.2600 Service Pack 3
.NET FW Version	Unknown
AWB version	4.3.2.1, revision 3314 (2008-09-13 13:44:43)
Workaround	None
Fixed in version	Unknown

Could you post/pastebin your settings please? —Reedy 13:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

rev 3318, Thanks! —Reedy 13:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be move the the AFD model of discussion for bugs and requests where by each bug is listed at a subpage and a template is used to link and sort them such as

Edit summary issue

Status	New
Description	Edit summary here links AWB to [[Category:Uncategorized_stubs]], which isn't correct. Rjwilmsi 17:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
To duplicate:
Operating system	XP
.NET FW Version	Unknown
AWB version	SVN
Workaround
Fixed in version	Unknown

Cool. Would love to know how it did that. lol. —Reedy 21:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Bugs/testbug2

Discussion

This model would allow the bug/feature requester to watch their specific issues and should provide a fast responce from users when devs request feedback Gnevin (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like its a good idea to me. Makes life easier like you say, and makes it easier for archiving and such. Opinions of others? —Reedy 12:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A other advantage of this is that it would allow categorisation of the bugs/requests. So that when {{AWB bug}} is added with status open, the template could automatically include in it Category:Open AWB bugs , then a dev could say this is a UI bug and manually add Category:AWB UI bugsGnevin (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:AutoWikiBrowser new exception bugs, automatic category Gnevin (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Extremely inconvenient

That way I can't keep an eye on every subpage, which is vital. Sorry, but I've undid all subpage-related changes. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thus you watch the main pages like you already do , with no noticeable change Gnevin (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

What Max is presumably meaning, is that, with it being on subpages, we cant tell unless we're watching each individual one, if theres been activity. —Reedy 18:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How do you currently tell , do you view the diff's as I know when I was watching the main pages i would miss dozen's of edits and so just removed it from my watchlist only going back every so often for bugs i suggested . Surely watching the sub pages would be a minor inconvenient when compare to the benefits of categorisation ,instantly seeing which bug/features are active not just the main pages, quicker reply times etc ? Gnevin (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Unrevert the changes and use Special:RecentChangesLinked to watch the categories they are placed in (which is a function of RecentChangesLinked). Does that work? --Izno (talk) 03:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[[13]] seems to work anyway Gnevin (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That means two watchlists to check instead of one. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

But your current watchlist is very patchy and lets stuff fall thru the cracks. Where as

A) Watching the sub page when the bug/feature is created

B) Watching the link above would give a more complete picture

Both of which also offer the advantages listed above Gnevin (talk) 08:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just like to say thanks to all the Devs who worked on the latest version of AWB, that is an impressive feature list for a update . Keep up the great work! Gnevin (talk) 17:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

=). I was just looking at that myself. A lotta changes!! Hopefully for the better ;) —Reedy 17:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking something similar myself. I have made a lot of good use of the filtering by title. It is a great application that just keeps getting better and Wikipedia is better for it. Lightmouse (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks to the devs. Many fixes and improvements. Just makes me wonder whether it would have been useful to push out more regular releases (monthly?) to get fixes out sooner? Rjwilmsi 18:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I would not recommend forcing an update unless it fixes something very important. This last update caused me a minor inconvenience because I was in the middle of something with two live instances of AWB. But I know it is worth it so don't treat this as a complaint, just information about context. Is there some lesser action that you could take, for example that would not affect the running application? Lightmouse (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean mandatory updates (unless there's some critical fix), just optional updates fixing bugs affecting some users, which could be made mandatory at a later date. Rjwilmsi 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. Non-mandatory updates of the release version makes no difference to me, I always go for the latest SVN version. I think you just need to make a judgement, and that might involve time and/or significance of changes. Lightmouse (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Generally, if your running, unless you get logged out you should be fine to carry on. Unless we really have to, (ie major critical bugs/broken stuff with MW), we wont disable the old version straight away. When we know its pretty much stable (ie no big show stoppers), ie a week or 2 later, we will probably think about disabling the older versions.

As for Rjwilmsi's point about more frequent release, it would be a good idea... Next stop, APIEdit! —Reedy 21:10, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. I had two instances running with different login names (one for me, one for my bot). The bot was running but the one in my name got logged out. For some reason, the update requirement stopped the bot running too. Lightmouse (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where has the "clear list" button gone? It doesn't seem to be either an obvious button, or an option on the List menu. – 

Right click, remove, all... Not the most obvious... —Reedy 21:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I received the following report on my talk page:

I've noticed that (whilst making other edits) the Lightbot is collapsing the blank lines before stubs (for example, this edit). This seems to go against the guidance at

WP:STUB

:

It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it.

And was wondering if this is a fault with the bot, or if there is a some other guidance that says "never have two blank lines" or something? -- ratarsed (talk) 11:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone provide an answer? Lightmouse (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the answer, but I'm in favor of it. I also would extend my favor to the leaving of extra blank lines before navigation box templates at the bottom of articles. In both cases it keeps a little bit of space between the last line of content and the stub or template. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes find that lists are limited to 5000. I recently noticed this on 'What links here'. Is this deliberate? Lightmouse (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. And this limit is active for all types of queries, except for recursive categories (200k). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Aha. What is the reason for the limit and do you think it could be raised? Incidentally, I recently got 296,606 on a recursive category. Lightmouse (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason is the same as why special pages return a finite number of pages: KITTEN! :P MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 21:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I presume that you are referring to server load. I had not thought of that. Lightmouse (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also "list from a category" limits to only 5000. Is there any way to override this? The reason being I am running a bot task on Category:Unassessed-Class Computing articles (18K articles ) and I am not able to stretch no more than the first 5000 entries -- Tinu Cherian - 10:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Found a workaround, use an older version to get the list, save the list and use the latest AWB and import the list and then work on them -- Tinu Cherian - 05:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm playing with the "logging to file" feature in AWB, but I don't seem to understand how it works. I have set the options "log to wiki code" and "verbose logging" and pressed Apply. AWB has created an empty log file on my desktop. However, the status section on the logging to file tab shows 259 lines written to the log file, but yet the log file is still empty. What am I missing? Thanks Rjwilmsi 19:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Revoke User:Lightmouse's approval to use AWB. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lightmouse again --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Please ignore this entirely unjustified complaint against Lightmouse, who is being vilified for removing autoformatting entirely in accordance with the Manual of Style, which deprecates it. I'm doing exactly the same thing, as are other editors. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Colonies Chris Lightmouse/bot edits in compliance to the MOS. Occasional issues with his/her edits are addressed by Lightmouse when reported. Other editors' complaints arise as there's never 100% consensus over the MOS, particularly for dates where the guidelines have recently changed. All any editor can do is comply with the current MOS. Rjwilmsi 12:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks you for the support. Lightmouse (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am getting false positives due to image links. This issue is not confined to AWB, it is the same for monobook scripts. I was asked at User_talk:Lightmouse/wishlist#Image_glitch_again if I could make the script highlight '[[Image:' and '.jpeg' and '.jpg' in the diff, perhaps by colour. I have no idea how to do it. Perhaps images could be removed before the code parses the text and then images replaced. Just scratching my head for ideas. Can we do anything? Lightmouse (talk)

You're doing that using normal F&R? In that case you just need to check the ignore external links, etc checkbox to make it ignore images. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no. I have an AWB script that I add to 'Make module'. I also have a monobook script that a few other editors are using. I was entirely unaware of the checkbox you mention and I am delighted to know about it. However, I am not sure it will help me, unless I can take bits of the code and use it in the 'Make module' and in the monobook script. Lightmouse (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

HideText ht = new HideText(true, false, true);

//. . .

text = ht.Hide(text);
// do your work
text = ht.AddBack(text);

MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As soon as I add:

• HideText ht = new HideText(true, false, true);

The script stops working. Also, I presume that:

• text = ht.Hide(\[\[Image:[^\]*\]\]);
• my code blah blah
• text = ht.AddBack(\[\[Image:[^\]*\]\]);

would work for upper case '[Image' but not lower case '[image'

Lightmouse (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

First, I can't help you with your script if I don't have its source. ht should preferrably be declared outside of ProcessArticle. Second, it's supposed to catch even [[ image:whatever]]. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not giving you the source. The monobook script is at:

• User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js

I have various AWB scripts that could all benefit from your excellent tip. One is:

• User:Lightmouse/javascript conversion

If I can get it working even in a basic form, I can build on that. I will try putting it outside ProcessArticle in the AWB script but there isn't a ProcessArticle in the monobook. This would be really great if I could get it working, false positives relating to images are a pain. Lightmouse (talk) 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That wont work outside ProcessArticle, its got to be in a method. —Reedy 09:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I am quite baffled by this. My knowledge of scripting is very basic. I would like to be able to avoid images for the whole script. Can this be done? Lightmouse (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fancy pasting your code somewhere so we can try and help? —Reedy 11:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

[14] - Done —Reedy 11:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. I have some further questions, if you don't mind... Firstly, does it just do images or will it do URLs too (if there is some reference, I could take a look for myself)? Secondly, is there an equivalent that would be suitable for User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js ? I really appreciate your help. Lightmouse (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Its just setup to do the [[Image:]] style. As for the script.js, it would be possible to probably write a javascript equivalent, but it wouldnt be a simple process. Are you wanting to change that to an AWB custom module at some point? —Reedy 12:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If it does just images, that is a welcome step forward. Thanks. I have several AWB scripts and one monobook script. There is a lot of overlap between them all. The monobook script is useful because it provides eight toolbox buttons including 'delink all dates to dmy', 'delink all dates to mdy', 'delink common terms' and 'add metric units'. AWB does not provide options. Furthermore, a few other editors are using my monobook script without having AWB access. They are complaining about the false positives from images/URLs and so far I have been telling them that there is nothing that I can do. Lightmouse (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I have revived this issue because I have a question about how it works. I have code that delinks date fragments (i.e. does not delink autoformatting dates). It does this by protecting full dates and then delinking the rest. But the image avoidance code seems to be creating errors with dates in image captions. I have created a test page (User:Lightmouse/sandbox) and test script (User:Lightmouse/TestScript). Without the image avoidance code, the date in the image caption works as expected. With the image avoidance code, it does not protect the full date in the image caption. Even more bizarrely, if I add a solitary year just before the full date in the caption, it will work as expected. My suspicion is that there is something in the image avoidance code that is doing this. I would be grateful for thoughts. Lightmouse (talk) 13:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I remember some discussion of "magic words" int AWB's find and replce, such as %%TITLE%% ... is this correct? If so what are they, an do they work in advanced? Rich Farmbrough, 18:09 2 October 2008 (UTC).

As of the current svn rev:

%%title%%
%%titlee%%
%%fullpagename%%
%%fullpagenamee%%
%%key%%

%%pagename%%
%%pagenamee%%

%%basepagename%%
%%basepagenamee%%

%%namespace%%
%%namespacee%%

%%subpagename%%
%%subpagenamee%%

%%server%%
%%scriptpath%%
%%servername%%

Are the current working ones. The function is listed as being used in the Adv FaR rules. Some are duplicates of each other (ie title as that was awb only before, so the duplicate is the mw one) —Reedy 16:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The code freezes for me sometimes. If I run it in non-bot mode, it is fine. It is also fine in bot mode as long as it does not save. When it tries to save, it freezes. Has anybody else found this? Lightmouse (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that it's not longer possible to edit inside a template. Why is this disabled? AWB is almost useless now.--

It works for me. What are your find & replace settings? Rjwilmsi 16:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like to run transclusions of WikiProject banners when I do my tagging so I don't visit articles that already have been tagged. After the new update it truncates the transclusions to 5000. Is there a way around this? It's my one beef with the update. Thanks for making some huge improvements. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have the same problem; the workaround I've been using is generating a cut-and-paste list from Special/WhatLinksHere and importing the resulting .txt file into AWB, which seems to work fine (albeit is a little clumsy). What would be nice is the facility to add New pages and New account contributions to the list (it used to be possible to import these via "Special page",but this option now seems to have been disabled), I used to find it useful to run these through AWB applying general fixes/stub sorting/deletion tagging as appropriate.

Also (I think this may have been asked before), is there any way to generate a list of articles with/without a given tag on the talkpage, other than generating a list of the talkpages transcluding said tag and search-replacing the "talk:" out of the article list? – 

iridescent

 12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Found a workaround for the 5000 limit, use an older version to get the list, save the list and use the latest AWB and import the list and then work on them. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. What limit of returned pages would be acceptable for users? Note that 'no limit' is not an option, as I wanna live :P MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The technical stuff goes over my head but I will take your word for it. I would be grateful if you could increase it to 10,000. Furthermore, we have previously discussed the idea of setting filters before search rather than after. That issue may be relevant here. For example, I often hit the 5,000 limit but post-filtration the number comes down to a fraction of that. Am I correct in thinking pre-filtration would save a few kittens? Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

No, servers will still have to find and serve these page titles to us, so live filtering will do nothing to reduce the strain on servers. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. It is an independent issue then. Thanks for explaining it. Lightmouse (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to ask... Does that apply even if we are pre-filtering by file type e.g. '(main)'? Lightmouse (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This is literally just getting the list straight from the servers. —Reedy 18:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just raised the limit to 25,000 in rev 3427, let's see what happens. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 16:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I look forward to being able to download and try it. Lightmouse (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

25,000 is much better. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

rev3427 uploaded to my snapshot site. —Reedy 19:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am using the increased limit now. It is much appreciated. Thank you. Lightmouse (talk) 10:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See [15], and I'm sure I mentioned it here. AWB should leave (and preferably create) blank lines before the first stub template. Rich Farmbrough, 10:05 5 October 2008 (UTC).

Adden another newline in rev 3435. Your previous posts here were archived and thus remained unnoticed, that's why we have separate pages for bugs and feature requests. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

What happens when AWB gets an edit conflict? I get a dialog that asks me to press OK and I always press it. But if I don't press it, will AWB halt or continue? Lightmouse (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Why were the older versions disabled? I really enjoyed using the 4210 version instead of the other ones. I dont use it on wikipedia, but in my own personal wiki, so why cant i use an older version that suits my preferences better? -201.52.36.198 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

When some important bug fixes are made the older versions are disabled. Rjwilmsi 22:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

But why? Some older versions suits my needs better than the new ones =O -201.52.9.114 (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

[16] - As you can see, the majority of the users are wikipedia users. Therefore, we periodically have to disable it as there are things get broken in AWB due to MW changes, or changes to ruling. Periodically disabling versions enforces the upgrade, as some people dont always. —Reedy 07:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

i want to say first off, way to go to the devs on getting AWB from it's infancy, through OO, and now into multithreading! Even though it seems like all the feedback you ever get is complaining about bugs and asking, "well can i have this now?" I want you guys to know that your volunteer effort is appreciated - been waiting a while for an update :) My only question is that this is the first time i ever ran the updater successfully and for some reason my default settings reverted to a version i had about 2 months ago - i know it sounds bizarre but i'm not sure how it happened, any ideas? -Zappernapper 14:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey! AWB did have multithreading before ;). The list making has been threaded off for a while :P —Reedy 17:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As for the settings, its rather weird. It doesnt touch the settings files at all —Reedy 18:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

i didn't think it would... i know bizarre... oh well... sigh... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Using AWB, how do you search/replace carriage returns and other special ASCII codes?

This would enable multi-line search/replaces, and searching/replacing strings at the beginnings or ends of lines.

Please copy/paste your reply to my talk page, otherwise I'll probably never see the answer. Thank you.

The Transhumanist    21:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Using regex. Contact me if you have a specific requirement you want help with. Rjwilmsi 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there I'm having some diffculties running this. I have

Does it show up in

task manager? If it's running in there, try ending the task and launching it once it's gone from task manager.Louis Waweru  Talk 

17:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the .NET frameworks are somewhat compatible, but you do need v2 AFAIK, even with 3.5 —Reedy 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Reinstalling .NET might help, I may add. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

When I start it, it will show up in the task manager briefly and then it dissappears. I've reinstalled the framework and i still have the same problem Rvk41 (talk) 19:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

is there a version of this software that's Mac compatible, or some equivalent Mac app? If not, would anyone object to me trying to make a port? --Ludwigs2 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

See the 3rd entry of the FAQ. Mac has more luck than other OS's... And i know it has been run successfully before via some method or another. But if you want to have a go, the source code is all freely available :) —Reedy 16:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Jumping in here. I'm successfully running AWB on a non-Intel Mac at home running Virtual PC. (speed is lousy, though). I've heard a couple of users say they're running it on Intel Macs with Parallels. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

yeah, well, I have an old PPC, and I'll confess that I'm allergic to Windows (really; every time I have to use it I get a queasy stomach - lol). let me look at the source and see how much head-pounding it would take. --Ludwigs2 17:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Theres a LOT of code. Mono isnt too far off being sorted, hopefully —Reedy 17:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Are there issues in the latest verion with resolution? I'm getting the various panels of the AutoWikiBrowser main window being cutoff on the right and bottom, almost like they are being resized slightly too big for the overall window. This persists when maximizing or manually resizing the window. I'm using Windows XP - I get this issue with 1280x800 and 1280x1024 resolution. Cander0000 (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved from

WP:AN

Hi; today, I tried to use AWB for the first time in a while. It claimed to need updating; I did so, but now, when I log in, it says "software disabled", even though my name's on the CheckPage. Any tips? Thanks! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 15:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you log in under the same username you're approved for (TreasuryTag)? Have you tried to login in IE separately, then use AWB? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, only TT :P I'll give the IE trick a go later this evening, I use FireFox usually, you see. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether AWB can be helpful for tasks like replacing [list of dead external links] with Wayback Machine archived copies? Or is there a specifically appropriate alternative for this? trespassers william (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am mentioning this here because 'under construction' templates are an impediment to multi-article editing. I think AWB may have been used to purge articles of stale templates. If, like me, you would like to make 'under construction' templates more efficient, please comment on the proposal.

People put 'under construction' on a page to say that they are actively working on articles. But then the templates seem to hang around on the article for hours, days, and weeks. It is sometimes difficult to get them removed because people say 'I haven't finished yet, I just have to get round to it'. Sometimes people even revert removal of the template.

A reasonable proposal (I think) is to merge the templates into one. The one template would have a fixed expiry time visible in read mode. If it expires, the editor would be able to refresh it but would have to take positive action to refresh it. The current fire-and-forget design would be gone. The expiry time would be consistent with real tappity-tap editing where fingers are pounding the keyboard e.g. 15 minutes to an hour.

For more details, debate, and voting, see: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 October 13. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Why does AWB forcibly upgrade to new version? I am seeing an issue with Kingboyk plugin not tagging for

Things are changed that have to be rolled out. We will be doing another compulsory in the next few days to cater for Image changing to File, otherwise AWB could wreak havoc! As for the Kingbotk plugin, does any of the other plugins work? —Reedy 10:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

When I tried for another banner WPBiography, it gives this error " Bad Tag , Please fix it manually or kindly ignore " -- Tinu Cherian - 10:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed in rev 3448 —Reedy 19:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Just curious, when will this change be valable without having to use SVN? I can't get my head around it. Great job guys! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 20:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Next AWB release, or grab it from a SVN snapshot =) —Reedy 20:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the snapshot, didn't realize it's been updated. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Reedy, for the prompt investigation and fix. I tested the SVN.It is working fine -- Tinu Cherian - 04:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone mind taking a look at this section on my talk page and letting me know there what they think? Thank you! :)

There has recently been a discussion about this kind of tidy up at

Wikipedia_talk:Only make links that are relevant to the context#Geographic example. The consensus was that simplifying, for example [[Troy, New York|Troy]], [[New York]] to [[Troy, New York]] is the right thing to do. However, this particular case is complicated by the fact that the Seattle article is one of the very small number of articles on US cities that isn't named in the standard form city, state. (Chicago and Philadelphia are the only other examples I'm aware of.) If you were making some more substantive change to the article at the same time, it would be OK to also convert [[Seattle, Washington]] to [[Seattle]], [[Washington]], but it's not worthwhile enough to be done as a freestanding edit. Whichever way it's linked, the reader can easily access the articles on the city (directly) or the state (via the city article), so there's no significant benefit. Colonies Chris (talk

) 12:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone would have any free time to help me with a regex. I'm currently using find and replaces, but my thinking is a regex would be cleaner? Anyways what I'm trying to do is assess a group of articles as low importance for one WikiProject banner. The possible banner names are OH-Project|WikiProject Ohio|WPOHIO|Wikiproject Ohio|WPOH, within that template if there is importance=low, then it skips. If importance=mid or high replace it with low, and if there is no importance parameter add |importance=low. Is this even possible, if you can do it I'm in absolutely no rush and wouldn't even be able to start the run until Saturday earliest anyways. I'd really appreciate the help, I feel like I ask for it a lot here. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Post a little more info (with a couple of examples) on my talk page within 9 hours of this reply and I should be able to get something to you within 4 hours of that. If not, I'm away for the weekend so can help you, but not until late Monday. Rjwilmsi 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope if posted enough info on your talk. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

User:OOODDD seems to do nothing but cause chaos with their AWB privleges. I have 2 other editors that will vouch that he abuses the tool and should not have access to it. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 02:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed his AWB access because history of his talk page shows numerous complaints about his tagings, and that he blanked them all. This is only a temporary measure, I'm waiting for detailed comments from all interested parties. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems he blanked your message. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just updated my AWB to 4.4.1.0 version but unfortunately I cannot log in Polish Wikipedia at all. In the previous version (4.4.0.0) I had no problems with it. Now when I type login/password and try to press "Zaloguj" (Log in) nothing happens and the status of AWB is "Software disabled"?! (my os is vista). Regards, Patrol110 (talk) 08:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've sloved my problem, but I encountered another one, just have a look at screenshot. Btw, do you mind moving your project under free Gecko engine instead of f*** IE? Regards, Patrol110 (talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes it does that. Needs looking at. Should be already improved for next release. Try pressing the start button on the start tab, should enable it. As for the gecko comment, it might be possible, but if we have to start shipping loads of extra libraries to go with it..... We dont actually "use" the IE one. We use a browser from the .NET framework which is IE based. Hopefully, when some more of the API bugs get fixed up, we will be less dependent on the browser, as we shall be moving to the edit api. —Reedy 17:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answer! Now AWB works properly so that you are right I suppose :) Regards, Patrol110 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are they no images?. Please add them. Without them it looks so dull :). --SkyWalker (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See here for current issues affecting AWB working successfully on mono.

Thanks

—Reedy 17:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if this is the place for proposals (please educate me), but here goes anyway: I believe consecutive wikilinks, which should be avoided per

You're welcome to add feature requests on the

feature requests page. Please make it clear what you want, provide examples and link to Wikipedia manual/policy pages supporting the concept. Thanks Rjwilmsi

10:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I've removed the access to the tool of two users now for making excessive inconsequential edits (of this sort). In addition, looking at a recent BRFA, whether their task should be done at all seems to be rather debated, so I would class this as controversial use of the tool. Fyi :)

They only seem to be doing what User:Lightbot is doing Gnevin (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The approval for that task was also revoked. –

talk

) 13:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonies Chris is using AWB to make the same kinds of controversial edits as the users whose AWB access was removed. Tennis expert (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you point which edits exactly aren't needed? For example, here he changes things per MOS, and here he adds diacritics, which is also a good things. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 04:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused about why "Italy" was delinked in [17]. --NE2 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

For example, Colonies Chris is deleting links to certain (but not all) countries, links to dates, and links to cities. These are the same kinds of deletions that other editors were doing before their AWB rights were revoked. Tennis expert (talk) 06:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

TennisExpert (who has not had the courtesy to tell me he was posting against me here) is not happy that I've been adding diacritics, despite the fact that I've been working within the consensus agreed within WikiProject Tennis (see my talk page for a discussion on the subject), and he's therefore trying to attack me via this page. All my edits are significant and in line with the MoS. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:55, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delink Italy, and why did you create an "

easter egg" link to Salvador, Bahia? --NE2

09:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And I corrected Bahia because it links to the the state of Brazil by that name, but clearly what's meant in that context is the city formerly known as Bahia but now called Salvador, Bahia. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - I understand the Bahia link, and it does appear that that was correct. But why did you leave Brazil linked? Isn't it a "major geographic location"? Where does the line get drawn? Should every country be delinked, or only

European and English-speaking ones? --NE2

11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have unlinked that too, though no doubt someone would have objected if I had. But this isn't the place to debate that kind of detail. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You're (Colonies Chris) obviously too busy doing hundreds (thousands?) of inconsequential/minor edits with AWB to check-out the facts before posting here. If you had, you would have seen that I have not objected to the diacritics you have been adding. And I have not "attacked" you. Geez. Tennis expert (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This is just the kind of abuse and misrepresentation that other editors of tennis articles have had to put up with for a long time. You have a record of edit warring over diacritics and links and of refusing to accept any changes that you personally don't like, even though they're in line with the Manual of Style, while claiming it's because there's "no consensus", even though no other editor will come forward support your view. You had not even the basic courtesy to tell me you were posting against me here. Were you hoping to get me blocked without my even knowing it was being discussed? I've made tens of thousands of edits and not one of them was inconsequential, with AWB or any other way. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I am interested in your use of AWB being treated in the same way that the use of AWB by other editors to make similar edits is treated. It's as simple as that. I regret that you're treating this as discourteous or an attack. Tennis expert (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the participants in this discussion should be aware that you have been reversing many of my delinkings of dates and common terms, in direct contravention of the manual of style. You are clearly determined to have things your own way regardless of consensus, and therefore your views should have no credibility in this forum. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Colonies Chris is doing good work by improving the signal to noise ratio of links. There seems to be a worrying trend here. People that don't like implementation of MOS guidance are misusing the phrase 'minor and inconsequential edits'. Something cannot simultaneously be:

• inconsequential
• controversial
• too important to build into 'general fixes'

You can pick any one but you can't have two. Lightmouse (talk) 10:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me say that Colonies Chris is a meticulous editor and bot-manager who has a fine track-record of fixing not just trivial links and dates, but typos, misspellings (particularly when it comes to non-English-language items) and the more subtle problems in links he encounters that would elude most editors. He is an important asset to the project and has been working away in the background for some years tightening up these aspects of articles. "Italy" should usually be delinked (see WP:CONTEXT).

I note that User:Tennis expert has had numerous squabbles with his WikiProject colleagues on the issue of diacritics and trivial linking, and has taken it upon himself to doggedly undo the good work of others and, on occasions, to confront them in uncompromising terms (ask User:The Rambling Man).

I do not understand the seemingly aggressive approach by some sysops to the use of AWBs to assist WP's editors at large in the massive task of bringing their articles into compliance with our style guides. I would be much more comfortable if the blockings we have witnessed recently were applied as a last resort after debate and clear communication, not as a first-resort expedient in the absence of any form of natural justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 11:40, October 27, 2008 (UTC)

If Colonies Chris is doing a typo fix (including, I suppose, adding a diacritic if the consensus is that the absence is a spelling error)) on every edit then it's not a minor and inconsequential edit. Simply delinking is considered minor and inconsequential and (under the current policy) AWB should not be used for this task. –

talk

) 12:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I always unlink etc, in combination with other fixes, but I don't agree at all that this sort of unlinking is inconsequential - articles are improved for having a clutter of valueless links removed. The AWB rule against inconsequential edits quite clearly had in mind the sort of change that's merely obsessive neatness but doesn't bring any visible benefit to the article (alphabetising the categories, for example), and it's being misused to attack editors who are actively improving WP by bringing it into line with its own Manual of Style - the edits that got Lightmouse and Closedmouth into trouble are not inconsequential, they are beneficial.

And I'll also note that one editor has accused me of acting 'nefariously' by performing spelling corrections and date unlinking in a single edit (he felt I should have done them separately). But of course, if I had, I'd now be in danger of being hauled up before the AWB police - or is this just a one-man campaign by Martinp23?. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said "Martinp23 and his sidekick xeno". It's your opinion that unlinking dates is 'minor and inconsequential', but it's not mine, nor that of many other editors, and it clearly is not what the AWB rule had in mind. And by the way, this page is WT:AWB. Colonies Chris (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was confused as to where we were, and removed my comment. Anyhow, I'd appreciate if you'd

talk

) 13:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Xeno I disagree. I don't see clear consensus of the triviality of these 'delinking' edits beyond the opinion of yourself and Martinp23. I think these edits are of consequence and value, in compliance to the style guides, so must be allowed to continue using AWB (or indeed any other way). To block users from making such edits would first require a significant change to WP:CONTEXT and WP:DATE. To have blocked users' access to AWB before this discussion was inappropriate, per Tony1's comment. Note, any concern over lack of consensus over date delinking is a MOS/WP:DATE issue, not an AWB one, and secondly AWB is not just a tool for fixing typos. Rjwilmsi 13:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

See also this recently denied BRFA:

talk

) 15:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• (outdetn) Xeno, can you point to evidence of this "present consensus", please? On logical grounds, it's an intriguing mystery to me. Are you sure it's not just the opinion of you and your friend Martinp23? I'd like to see this assertion fully justified and evidenced, since it's a major claim. We need to be very careful at this point that justice is seen to be done. I note that administrators are bound by a clear policy that proscribes any admin action in which the admininstrator has a personal stake. This is related to the requirement to avoid a real or apparent conflict of interest. I'd like to be assured that this policy is being observed in any case in which AWB access or usage with respect to style-guide adherence is at issue. It's a critical point. Tony (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just look through the archives of this page or the numerous times that these types of edits have been discussed at AN/I (i.e. [18]). –

talk

) 14:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of discussion, but no evidence of consensus that delinking is trivial. If you don't agree with implementing the MOS, just say so. Lightmouse (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, conflating the issue. Enable typo fix -> Skip if no typo fixed -> Check every edit. Or have a bot approved for this task. This is not about the MOS, this is about AWB. –

talk

) 14:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Is my eyesight that poor? I'm having a great deal of difficulty in locating exactly where this "consensus" is in the link that Xeno provided just above in support of his/her assertion that there is a "present consensus". Can you point out exactly where it is on that page (or elsewhere, if you mistakenly pasted in the wrong link), and I'd be grateful. In addition, please note the official policy concerning the requirement that administrators give "appropriate (as guided by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines) warnings prior to [and after] their actions". It does not appear that appropriate communication occurred before the blocking of Lightmouse's access to the AWB facility, for example, if several people here are still flumoxed by the lack of logic in the assertion that some edits in question are "inconsequential" (or aren't—my head is spinning). The lack of communication and the fog surrounding the claimed "present consensus" suggests that actions are being justified on the hop, although I'm quite ready to be convinced otherwise. Tony (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus has existed for quite some time that minor and inconsequential edits should not be the sole purpose of one's AWB edits. Your line of reasoning however, seems to center around the characterization of date delinking as a minor and inconsequential edit. While I see this as self-evident, perhaps you do not? A straw poll, then? –

talk

) 15:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole purpose of AWB is to support small edits. The 'minor and inconsequential' edits rule was put there to avoid server burden for edits that are not noticeable like removing double spaces. It wasn't put there to permit one editor to stop another editor from carrying out good work. That is just abuse of power. Lightmouse (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, one more point: I'm most concerned to see that when placing Lightmouse on a list of "blacklisted unsernames", User:Martinp23 has used the term "ban" rather than "block", which carries a quite different meaning and appears to be inconsistent with the remainder of the edit summary ("ban lightmouse, for now"). I wonder whether this can be explained. Tony (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
  • While I don't want to speak for Martinp23, I believe the reason was because Lightmouse had his access removed, did not address the issue for the removal, and then quietly re-requested access without seeking approval from the person who removed his access (then continued to make the "minor/inconsequential" edits presently under discussion). Thus, I gather he was placed on the banlist to prevent this from re-occuring. –
    talk
    ) 15:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Was this explained and discussed with LM or anyone else at the time? It seems like an arbitrary process in which such decisions could be wide open to abuse. The communication issue is just one. Tony (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is clear that a number of people here do not see any logic in this assertion. Indeed, my reading of what has been going on suggests that the charge has been trumped up on the basis of a pre-existing rule that was not created for anything like this purpose. It is important that this issue be resolved without delay—I'd have thought pure logic and a reading of the intent of the "inconsequential" rule would be enough to dispell such use of it; otherwise, it will be possible using this precedent at a whim to classify as "inconsequential" a large range of edits that spare editors the manual labour of complying with the style guides. It's clearly open to abuse. Tony (talk) 15:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

As suggested above perhaps the next step would be a straw poll to determine if this date delinking is something that is or is not covered under the minor/inconsequential edit umbrella. –

talk

) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsequential/minor edits (Date delinking) break 1

Yes, date unlinking is of consequence

1. date/common term delinking is of consequence, so is a valid use of AWB on its own. Rjwilmsi 21:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
2. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
3. Lightmouse (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Date delinking is a valid use of AWB.
4. Yes, date and common term delinking are consequential and beneficial uses of AWB. Colonies Chris (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
5. The delinking of dates, other chronological terms, and common terms that most English-speakers are likely to be familiar with is of great consequence, since it significantly improves the workings of our wikilink facility through reducing the dilution of high-value links. The task appears to be ideally suited to AWB application, and it is proper that editors be spared the manual labour of complying with such important requirements of the style guides. Tony (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
6. Looking at the examples given of "inconsequential" edits (removing whitespace etc. – all things that would be barely noticeable to readers of articles), delinking certainly doesn't seem to fall into that category.--Kotniski (talk) 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
7. Yes, the delinking of dates is a consequential and beneficial use of AWB. It helps to apply the style guidelines and improves the linking system. The delinking of common terms, however, should be a bit more selective; how can one draw the line of common country names past the globally known countries. I suggest a more organized approach to how we delink these sometimes-valuable-when-linked terms. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
8. Gosh, yes. It's a large and laborious task absolutely suited to AWB. Those prepared to do it should be commended, not upbraided. --Dweller (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, date unlinking is an inconsequential edit

1. If there is consensus for date unlinking it should only be done during other more necessary edits such as typo fixing. –
   talk
   ) 12:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

   Per a discussion below, I would probably be agreeable to delinking via AWB if it also made the date formats in the article consistent, but absent inconsistencies or typos to be fixed I still don't think simply removing some square brackets is important enough for mass edits. –

   talk

   ) 15:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

2. Date delinking should be done only with other, more substantial edits, whether using AWB or not. Don't clog up watchlists with edits that are trivial. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
3. There is no reason to use AWB for trivial matters such as the removal of date links alone. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
4. As per xeno. There appears to be a lack of consensus for this change anyways per talk at MOSNUM. —Locke Cole • t • c 12:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am rather busy in real life and other volunteer commitments at the moment, so probably won't pay much attention to this in future. I must say that I am quite bemused by the fact that certain users are referring to myself and xeno as some sort of clique. Given that I've never contacted the guy off-wiki and have never really considered him/her as "sidekick", I feel that those claiming that we are somehow in collusion are doing us all a disservice.

Moving on from that, I am quite glad that there's a bit of a discussion here, though I must say that the namecalling on both sites is tiresome, and people should perhaps grow up.

Moving on again, I'd like to say for the umpteenth time that I have no opinion on the issue of delinking dates, in and of itself. Anyone seeking to claim that I am biased and trying to obstruct the progress of consensus is sadly mistaken. As I have stated on three talk pages now, I believe (this specifically said to Tony1, who seems to be under the impression that I'm removing access without informing people at all, despite that fact that he has argued with me across many a talk page), access has been removed for making minor/inconsequential edits only with the tool. Now changing a link does fall under this category - however, this isn't to say that the task cannot be done at all. As I have suggested to a couple of users, it may be possible to have the change added as a general fix to AWB. Failing that, those users who wish to use their own regexen within AWB shouldn't, and needn't, make thee changes alone. A suggestion might be to run typo fixes at the same time, and not make the edit if no typos are fixed. Those arguing so vociferously for using AWB to make such changes might like to look at the reasons that CleanBot was rejected, resolve those issues, and enter a new bot request if they can which, with community consensus, could run with a bot flag to fix all articles.

An idea might be for those who wish to change all existing articles to comply with the MOS by making this relatively minor change to actually develop a community consensus for such an action. What I'm saying is that there doesn't appear to have been much joined up thinking about how to make the changes. A decent discussion on one of the village pumps, linked to from the admin noticeboards and so on, could use the community's brainpower to come up with a doctrine for how to remove these links in an appropriate way (there are all sorts of potential "false positives" which could be weeded out this way), and of course this would be in keeping with the idea of developing a transparent consensus (as opposed to, say, a discussion on an MOS subpage which people have got bored with and are now ignoring (and this happens all the time - I'm not intending to show any disrespect to the MOS editors and their methods)). With a clear set of instructions developped by the community, a sensible bot, or better regexen or scripts, might be able to be coded.

Going ahead making these edits without a proper discussion and really widespread careful thought is likely to be a recipe for disaster.

• I'm afraid that this "poll" above has turned to mush: people are confusing two issues—whether the removal of date autoformatting and trivial chronological links should be done by AWB, and whether they are "trivial/inconsequential" in the first place (see especially Ckatz, who has conflated both issues). Whether the actions in question are trivial is the only thing that matters in terms of this attempt to use pre-existing rules to subvert good work that some people here just [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT|don't like]. It's a farce. You have acted way beyond your admin functions, and I believe that you have breached more than one admin policy rule. Tony (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• • I agree, but dude, civility please. Consider rewriting part of your post? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • No one is trying to subvert anything. Martin is enforcing a long-standing rule that AWB is not to be used for minor edits such as this. –
    talk
    ) 02:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • And that is the biggest contention of this conversation. We must first decide (in that straw poll over there) if date unlinking is really an inconsequential edit. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As long as we're considering whether date/common term unlinking is 'inconsequential', let's consider a few more questions:

Is removing excessive and valueless links in articles inconsequential?

Is adding diacritics inconsequential?

Is formatting journal, book and album names in italics inconsequential?

Is standardising capitalisation of section headings inconsequential?

Because it seems to me that the argument of those opposed to delinking is that any change to an article whch brings it into compliance with the Manual of Style but doesn't change its factual content is 'inconsequential' and shouldn't be carried out via AWB. This is so patently absurd that I can only think that either people haven't thought this through, or that just possibly that they're trying to obstruct the implementation of a part of the MoS they don't like by blatantly misusing a rule that was meant for quite another purpose. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

These are all good questions. May I add that if the opposers are ready to use this term "inconsequential" in what appears to be an entirely cynical way, they should be equally ready to delineate the boundary between what is consequential and what is not. Without this, the term is open to abuse, and presumably no one here thinks that the system should not be perfectly transparent. Tony (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. AWB is good for edits of detail across many articles and not good for copyediting. Normal editing is the opposite. Thus AWB has a bias towards small edits. Lets be clear, small edits are not inherently bad and AWB users should not be told that they can't do good work because each edit is too small. The rule against trivial edits is only there because of technical constraints such as server capacity and monitor lists (Watchlist, Recent Changes). It was presumably chosen as being better than giving each user a maximum number of edits, or a time period. We mustn't let the tail wag the dog, server capacity is there to permit editing and we should keep performance issues in proportion. Amongst other things, AWB is here to support edits that:

• (a) are visible in read mode
• (b) are something that people care about
• (c) move Wikipedia towards the MOS

If the rule stops AWB users from making small edits like those (by coercion or by self-censorship) then it is the rule that is wrong, not the edits and we need to think of another way of working within server capacity. Lightmouse (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To User:Locke Cole: any disagreement about the appropriateness of date delinking means such edits can not be trivial by definition, so the issue isn't an AWB one, it's a MOS/WP:DATE one. Which way are you having it? Rjwilmsi 13:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• Trivial in terms of the MOS and trivial in terms of the net effect of an edit are two different things... They should not be confused. Another issue, if these date unlinking edits are allowed to go forward, is the fact that when users blitz through these articles unlinking dates they often leave it in an inconsistent state with many different types of date formatting strewn throughout. (See
  talk
  ) 13:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• But you're forgetting that our poor readers have had to put up with these raw inconsistencies for many years. Delinking but not ironing them out is not at all damaging the text for our readers, and the great benefit is that it will bring the inconsistencies to the attention of the article's editors rather than concealing it. Date autoformatting has, indeed, been largely responsible for the poor state of our date formats. Tony (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • So you're saying leaving the article in an inconsistent state for all readers is a good thing? I think it's just script users being lazy missing an opportunity. Go the distance, or don't bother. –
    talk
    ) 14:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm almost speechless at the attitude of Smjg (on my talk page) and xeno here. When the unlinking I do brings the problems with inconsistent date formats to their attention (key point - their attention - virtually every other user had been seeing the problem all the time) - they blame me, and even spend time coming here and trying to stop me and Lightmouse and others from sorting out the problems that the unlinking has made visible to them. Did it for one moment occur to you that you might help to fix the problems yourself instead of coming here accusing hard working editors of being lazy? I think readers of this discussion will now make up their minds about what sort of person xeno is, and how much respect his views should be accorded. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • So you think it's ok to "delink and run" leaving the article in an inconsistent state for everyone? I call that lazya missed opportunity: just my opinion. Who is going to clean up after you? Making the article consistent at the same time as unlinking only makes sense, otherwise once its unlinked, someone is going to have to write ANOTHER script to find the inconsistencies. –
        talk
        ) 14:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I operate a script in which those inconsistencies are (with the exception of the problematic ISO dates) made consistent; but I quite understand the reasonableness of running a bot through to wake up the editors to the fact that they've been mish-mashing the date formats for some time in their article, and that they now need to roll up their sleeves and make them right. Rather than treating Lightmouse and Colonies Chris as monsters from the jungle, why not conceive them as good samaritans who are promoting collaboration with local editors over date inconsistencies. After all, it's usually the local editors who put in the wrong formats, because the real formats behind the DA are concealed from them, and its' easy to forget. Without the DA toy, it's harder to get it wrong when subsequently inserting a date. As for the "lazy" accusation, the shoe doesn't fit on our feet, I'm afraid. We work jolly hard to improve this aspect of the project, and engage with editors where necessary. Again, I call on you (xeno) et al. to lend a hand: the script would be a good start, (it delinks trivial common terms too, if you like) and you can transclude it very easily into your own monobook. Just let me know if you wish; we could do with your support. Tony (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to try it out, and as much as "Colonies Chris" doesn't like being called lazy, likewise I don't appreciate his usage of the terms "AWB police" and "sidekick" - a bit of a pot and kettle situation I'm afraid. Can't both scripts be integrated, so that the unlinking and the consistency checks are done simultaneously? This would achieve the double-duty of making the edits less inconsequential. –
    talk
    ) 15:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Xeno, you said delinking is inconsequential. Now you are saying delinking leaves articles in an inconsistent state. The former is an AWB issue, the latter is an MOS issue. As Rjwilmsi says, make your mind up. If you want to work with us to improve date presentation, rather than against us, then we will welcome your help. I could even give you some of the code that I wrote to make date formats consistent using AWB. Lightmouse (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Date delinking alone is an inconsequential edit imo (in the AWB sense), but if it is done at the same time as making the articles consistent in their date formatting, I think we might be in agreeance that this is an "consequential" edit, allowable by AWB and (probably - my eyes bug out when I go over there) supported by MOSNUM. –

talk

) 15:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Would it be possible, under this new system, to hit "dmy" for a total switch to dmy, or the same for "mdy"? I would love such a thing, as otherwise I would have to do what I had been doing with LM's slow, less-automated javascript-based script. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 22:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Somebody please move forward with this implementation, as I'm sure that's likely the best way to work through this. Doing typo fixing as well at the same time - even better. –

talk

) 22:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Posted a feature request here. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I support the feature request. I also support an end to censorship of date delinking by incorrect application of a rule related to performance fears. Date delinking on its own either has consequences or it doesn't. Which is it? Lightmouse (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally with Lightmouse. This is increasingly looking like slight of hand, this manipulation of the concept of "inconsequential" to suit some other agenda. The process must be transparent and, as an administrator, Martinp23 is bound to communicate properly before and after any decision that affects access to AWB. Justice must be seen to be done: that is basic, and there is suspicion that Lightmouse has been treated very unfairly. Please dispel this suspicion. Tony (talk)

Please try to AGF here: as far as I know Martin has no firm stance on the issue of delinking in-and-of-itself (neither do I, for that matter). This is simply an issue of using AWB for what can be reasonably construed as minor edits. It is not simply a PERF issue but also a

talk

) 15:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of AWB is to make it easier to perform repetitive minor edits. This 'issue' of RC clutter is a nonsense. I frequently discover a spelling error and go through dozens of articles fixing that error - and frequently that will involve changing just one character in an entire article. Are you telling me I shouldn't do this because it clutters up people's watchlists? What about when I disambiguate a term - I usually work through all the articles that link to the term - shouldn't I be doing that either? Perhaps you think we should we have a warehouse somewhere where we can store up all these minor edits until there's enough of them to justify performing an update on an article? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You are restating your belief that date delinking is inconsequential. Are you also foregoing your belief that date delinking has consequences? You can't have it both ways. If we can't make progress on this doublespeak, perhaps we need to go to ANI. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You can continue to tie me up in semantical arguments rather than helping things move forward if you wish, I stand by the assertion that simply removing some square brackets is "minor and inconsequential" in terms of the AWB rule against these types of edits. –

talk

) 17:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not the victim here, the victims are AWB users that are being censored. We have a right to challenge the words you use to justify censorship. You went further and stated "Present consensus is that these edits are considered minor/inconsequential." and asked for a straw poll which voted 8 to 4 against. Unless you have any other evidence, we can all move on to using AWB without censorship of date delinking. Lightmouse (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove your access. –

talk

) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

But you seem to be ambivalent about the need to declare that the censorship was perpetrated on contrived grounds. As Lightmouse says, you can't have it both way. Tony (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think censorship is what occured here. A rule regarding making many very minor changes to articles using AWB was enforced. I think that in order for such edits to be acceptable they should be included with things such as making all the dates consistent, and typo fixing and the like - and not unlinking dates that may have some significance to the article. I'm sure if Lightmouse were willing to proceed with this in mind, Martin would be amenable to reinstating his access - as he has done for the others whose access was removed. Moving forward should be the goal. –

talk

) 01:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Script

Special:Contributions/John - Is users doing it with a script any (better/worse)/different than it being done with AWB? Hmmm. Its going to have to be one way for all, not one way for one, and another for the rest —Reedy 20:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like a list of pages that appear in at least two subcategories of

Use the UNIX/Linux command uniq -d. Windows versions from here. Rjwilmsi 07:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For an enhancement to my external module I'd like to be able to know whether 'enable typo fixing' is checked in AWB. Is there a method I can call to get the answer? If no I will raise a feature request. Thanks Rjwilmsi 13:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

There is now - rev 3493.

if (Program.AWB.RegexTypoFix.Checked) 
{
}

That should do =) —Reedy 09:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Error: 'AutoWikiBrowser.Program' is inaccessible due to its protection level
Error: 'AutoWikiBrowser.Program' does not contain a definition for 'AWB'

Unfortunately, not quite ;) I will update the module documentation with this once it's working - are there any other similar accessible properties (is property the right term) to document too? Thanks Rjwilmsi 18:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol, should've really seen that coming (was quickly added before leaving for uni this morning). I've sorted it, but its causing the VB .NET module to not play nicely —Reedy 18:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

rev 3494. VB .NET module currently broken, looking into it —Reedy 18:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and you can access anything that has been exposed in the plugin interfaces —Reedy 19:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

<--Thanks, now awb.RegexTypoFix.Checked is the right thing to use. Rjwilmsi 20:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

God knows, the VB.NET module works fine. Think my checkout/build had become borked —Reedy 22:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems "Variables.MainForm" can be used in exactly the same way. Ahhh welll —Reedy 11:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion brought from request for access page

Permission should probably be requested from the person that removed your access to prevent wheel-warring... –

Agree, there seems to have been some to-ing and fro-ing recently and we'd need to be sure that concerns leading to removal of the tool have been addressed. --Rodhullandemu 14:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. Can you say how/when these concerns will be addressed? There are many editors involved here. Lightmouse (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Martinp's latest comment at WT:AWB seems to indicate he is not against you having the access as long as you ensure that date delinking is done alongside other edits: such as typo fixing, consistency fixes, etc. Would you be amenable to going forward with this in mind? –

talk

) 15:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We are going round in circles. Either the rule to protect the servers and protect change lists was misapplied, or it was correctly applied. We have seen no evidence that it was correctly applied. We don't need to do typo fixes just to avoid confronting an uncomfortable fact that an administrator simply made a mistake. Lightmouse (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then I would suggest you petition direction to Martin to have access reinstated as another administrator granting your access without your reassurance that you would address the concerns he raised would be wheel warring. –

talk

) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Has Lightmouse (or the bot) agreed not to make the same minor inconsequential edits that it was making previously? (Apologies if the user has and I've simply missed it.) I think there needs to be a clear understanding that if the bot or user continues to make the same edits that caused its access removal previously, it will almost certainly be blocked if the inconsequential edits continue. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

We are going round in circles. Either the rule to protect the servers and protect change lists was misapplied, or it was correctly applied. We have seen no evidence that it was correctly applied. If you have new evidence that the rule was correctly applied, please provide it or take this to ANI. Lightmouse (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Inconsequential edits are a waste of resources, clog page histories, and in general are a bad idea. "General fixes" in AWB exists for a reason, and I don't really need to justify anything to you. Martinp and several others have explained this to you. And I don't see any admin willing to restore your AWB access, so you can agree to stop the inconsequential edits or you can simply not have AWB access. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What makes you so sure they are inconsequential when other people say they aren't? Just so that we are clear, I would be delighted if this were included in 'general fixes' as you and Martinp23 have suggested. Lightmouse (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have found a way around this anyways by using a Javascript based editor to automate your date delinking: here, here, and here are just some very recent examples (your contribs are literally filled with these senseless edits). —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the header's issue one way or another. But Locke, you need to remember that the rest of us here as volunteers just as you are. If one user decides they want to edit articles so they conform to a section of the Mos, I wouldn't call them senseless. If Lightmouse was chnanging every instance of the word "the" to the word "teh" I would call that senseless. These edits, no matter how minor you may want to call them (PS we have a box to check if our edits are minor), are in no way senseless. I think every individuals edits need to be looked at the same as everyone elses. I don't call the edits of someone who typo fixes senseless, but typo correction is mentioned in the same MoS dates are mentioned in. Consistency is key. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's just frustrating considering the ongoing discussion at

WT:MOSNUM over whether dates should be unlinked or simply "deprecated" and this editor insists on pushing his view forward and editing hundreds of articles while he knows discussion and alternate possibilities are being discussed. —Locke Cole • t • c

02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke, that script has been around forever. If an editor decides he wants to enforce the MoS and convert all dates to one form, why shouldn't he? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM doesn't represent consensus at present, it represents what a handful of editors insist on pushing on the rest of the wiki. It wasn't discussed widely, and at least as many editors supported the change have turned up over the past two months to complain about these changes only to be ignored. This has nothing to do with AWB, but it's just interesting to note that he's continuing on despite being asked multiple times on his talk page to stop. —Locke Cole • t • c

02:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke, please don't resort to the same old list of strategies to discredit our style guides. They are, in summary: (1) there was no consensus; and (2) MoS is run by a small band of extremists. You need to accept that the removal of DA has wide support at WP, and that the style guides have said for some time not to link date fragments. I suggest you confine your arguments about MoS to MoS, rather than attacking the rights of users to run AWBs to assist WPians to comply with MoS.

I'm surprised to see that MZMcBride et al. above are still talking under the assumption that the removal of DA and trivial links is "inconsequential". No one here has rebutted my stated suspicion that the pre-existing rule about inconsequential edits is being manipulated to suit someone's agenda. Tony (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I need do nothing of the sort. The simple fact is this: twelve, yes twelve editors decided to impose their view of date autoformatting on the rest of Wikipedia (which has millions of visitors and tens of thousands of editors). That simply does not work. I've already tagged the relevant section of

WT:MOSNUM but proponents of date unlinking (who I guess have no problem with the autoformatting so much as the links) are either ignoring the attempt or carrying on like it's business as usual (e.g. - Lightmouse (talk · contribs)). This is unacceptable and disruptive. And it must stop. —Locke Cole • t • c

03:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to people saying that date delinking is inconsequential.
I have no objection to people saying that date delinking has consequences (positive or negative).
Lots of us object to the doublethink where both are said to be true.
We can avoid pursuing this circular debate by taking up the suggestion made by several people (e.g. Martinp23, MZMcBride, Magioladitis) whereby date delinking becomes included in 'general fixes'. Lightmouse (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• Locke Cole, date autoformatting and the linking of chronological items are two different concepts and practices, despite their unfortunate entanglement when DA was first pushed. Please calm down; I'm quite willing to discuss the matter with you, even though it's rather old news by now; but I feel your tone has become a little bossy. Tony (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on discussion in #Inconsequential/minor edits (Date delinking) break 1 above, where majority supported the concept of date delinking being worthy of change by itself, I'm going to reinstate Lightmouse's access (did someone else lose their access in that quarrel, too?) tomorow, if there will be no compelling objections. I suggest all users who want to use AWB for date delinking to write somewhere a detailed explanation of their actions with links to consensus here and there, and to provide a link to this essay in their edit summaries. Of course, the more thigs you change in one edit, the better, so don't forget to enable genfixes and RETF while performing such tasks. However, changing some articles to comply with MOS and not changing some others just because they didn't have a typo in addition to other problems simply makes no sense. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Note that by "unlinking" I mean unlinking, not something else, so people who also change date format for no good reason will immediately get a nice indefinite disapproval from me. Also, I'd like to remind every AWB user to respond in timely and civil manner to every concern raised. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

(moved from User talk:MaxSem

Hi Max—your decision to grant LM access again was excellent and just.

You raise the issue of DA removal via AWB. (I've been one of the key movers and shakers in convincing the community to dump DA a few months ago.) It's not simple; my use of Lightmouse's monobook script, which requires the article-by-article choice of format, has shown me that quite some skill is needed to delink and fix dates. Not the least complicated issue is the country-related one; and where this is not in question (say, "History of space travel"), it's a matter of quickly assessing which is the predominant format where, as so often, there are inconsistencies. I shudder to think of the average AWB user learning to do this, so if the function were ever to be added, I think it should be accessed by a separate button, and users asked to use it only if they know the MOSNUM rules and have read the "how to" guide that someone (probably me) would need to write for the purpose.

The alternative is to incorporate a quick and dirty facility for simply removing double square brackets, which will remove DA but leave inconsistencies and wrong global choices (e.g., US format for a British rock star, or international format for NASA – yes, that used to be the case for the NASA article; and articles where, say, a quarter of the dates are formatted one way and three-quarters the other). I think this is Lightmouse's preferences, which shows a certain practicality. It would at least force the point when editors suddenly see the little messes in their pet articles that their readers have had to put up with for a long time, and is more likely to prompt the editors to get off their backsides and manually correct the dates.

I do, BTW, run a service that's not much used (not yet, anyway) for editors to list articles that need a script-assisted date audit, here. AWB followed by script treatment where called for might be the way to go.

Or we could leave it for now.

Thanks again. Tony (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MaxSem. I don't think anyone else lost their access because other editors accepted constraints (such as abandoning date delinking if typos had not been done) in exchange for not being banned. It has hardly been mentioned here but my AWB scripts also amend units of measurement. I am supportive of general fixes and have done so for many of my edits. I haven't so far used retf. I am happy to use these AWB options on the basis that you suggest. I sometimes reformat dates in accordance with the MOS (e.g. going through a list of American singer articles and setting them to mdy, Australian singer articles get set to dmy) but sometimes I simply pull up a list and delink them without changing the format - I am not as concerned about format as other people are. I am happy to debate the details outside this thread. I support what Tony says in the previous comment. Lightmouse (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New Edit Summary: I was wondering if someone could help me formulate a new edit summary that all of us who are doing to the date unlinking could pick up. So far, I have been using "[[WP:AWB/T|Typo fixing]], [[User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA|date unlinking]] per [[wp:dates]] and other", but I was wondering if that could be improved. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

• I’m coming late to this venue but am familiar with the issues. At least I think I am. Bot-assisted delinking should continue. We registered editors with our date preferences set are insulated from what is going on with autoformatting. But our I.P. users are seeing a thorough mess. Any bot which can A) delink dates, and B) ensure date formats are consistent within an article and have month names consistently and properly spelled out in body text, is a good thing in my mind. The disadvantages of needing to go in later and re-link that rare date that ought to be linked (what should usually be limited to high-value year links in intrinsically historical articles) is far outweighed, in my opinion, by the virtues of fixing Wikipedia for our I.P. users. Greg L (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

MaxSem, you said you were going to reinstate Lightmouse’s AWB access unless there were "compelling objections". Here they are: (1) As evidenced in several ongoing discussions, there is no current consensus to delete existing date links. Therefore, regardless of whether deleting those links is "inconsequential" or "minor", using AWB to delete them without consensus would be very disruptive to the project. (2) Lightmouse’s recent request to use a BOT to delete existing date links was denied on October 22. The reasoning was, "As evidenced by this discussion, this is still far too controversial a task for a bot, there is no consensus outside of the MoS talk pages that date autoformatting should actively be removed rather than simply discouraged, and these edits are too minor for a bot to be worth the effort." (3) Your reinstatement of Lightmouse’s AWB access could be interpreted as "wheel warring". Tennis expert (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop wikilawyering, now. 1) then mark MOS:DATE as disputed and proceed to its talk page to have it clarified. "should not" means "bad", "bad" means "sofixit". This is not an AWB issue. 2) This is not about giving him an approval for fully automated editing. 3) Nonsense. Read

WP:WHEEL to find out why. I'll just add that AWB usage is not covered by WP policies and there's nothing that can prevent me from making a special version that will ignore all checkpages in the world. This issue was thoroughly discussed above, the opponents of unlinking suggested a strawpoll, and the strawpoll ended with 2/ for allowing such edits. Seeing that you had nothing constructive to add to discussion, I've approved Lightmouse, and can only advise you not to kick the dead horse. Not everything in this world go on as we like, sometimes it's wiser to accept this. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!}

) 08:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(1) Your aggressive and condescending attitude is regrettable. (2) As for

WP:WHEEL, here is exactly what it says: "A wheel war is a struggle between two or more administrators in which they undo one another's administrative actions...." Please explain why your approval of Lightmouse does not violate this restriction. (3) As for your surprising statement that "AWB usage is not covered by WP policies", please explain what supports the statement. (4) I have no idea what you mean by, "[T]here's nothing that can prevent me from making a special version that will ignore all checkpages in the world." (5) Only one person, xeno, requested a straw poll, and the results from that poll hardly support your action. (6) "Nothing constructive to add to discussion", huh. You are the one who requested us to post our "compelling objections". I did so. You ignored them without a logical explanation. It appears that you are the one making unconstructive contributions. Tennis expert (talk

) 00:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if I could appeal to have my ban lifted. OOODDD (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is the discussion that was archived:

This is all about your typical responses to concerns about your usage of AWB, which include nothing but silent archival without a slightest attempt to respond or fix the mess you've created: [19][20][21][22][23] That's not exactly the behaviour we expect from a responsible AWB user. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I personally haven't seen anything to support you getting access rights back. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 16:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between "making a mess" and disagreeing with another user's edits. In this case, there is only two editors who strongly disagreed with my edits. I was not going to revert my edits just simply because one lone editor disliked my edits. OOODDD (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

See where it says in large black letters

iridescent

 23:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I find this attitude (I was not going to revert my edits just simply because one lone editor disliked my edits) simply appalling. First of all, there is this graveyard of unanswered messages (so the problem goes far beyond simple misunderstanding of AWB guidelines; in fact, I had a misfortune to ask this user something else in the past just to be ignored as anyone else). Second, even if you are not going to undo what you've done, you are expected to at least acknowledge the inquiry. Third, none of the two most recent AWB-related inquiries were from the editors who "disliked" your edits; they merely pointed out that you had not correctly judged the needs of the projects for which you placed the tags. It was your full right to disagree with those assessments, but, again, you had to either explain why you don't believe the problems had to be fixed or to fix them (it was you who created this mess in the first place!). How would you like me coming into your house to re-arrange all your furniture because I feel that I know a better way to place it? Would you be happy to waste two hours putting everything back after I leave? This situation is no different—you are tagging the articles as you see fit, holding the opinions of the members of the actual wikiprojects in utter disregard. If a wikiproject does not want categories tagged, how is going ahead and tagging them anyway (and then silently refusing to restore the order) not "making a mess"? If, as you claim, you disagree with the wikiproject's practices, how about going to their talkpage and asking them just why the hell do they not want the categories tagged? Maybe they have a good reason not to, or maybe you are right, and they simply overlooked a useful practice. Either way, you need to talk before you shoot; you can't assume you know everything better than everyone else. Until you understand that, I will oppose allowing you access to any kind of automated editing tools, not just to AWB.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a question about using the AWB program on the Swedish wiki. With general fixes applied it insists on moving the {{UA}} template (equivalent of the english {{Link FA}}) before the categories. Is there any way I can fix this so they are placed between the stub templates categories and the iw-links as they should be? Njaelkies Lea (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If what you say is correct then you've found a bug in AWB, so please post a bug report on the

bugs page. Thanks Rjwilmsi

18:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I thought maybe it was something I could set myself, I'll post it in the bugs page. Thanks. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 10:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Will ask though of a possible namechange on svwiki first as I imagine all sorts of bots have a problem with this, I'll return with a bug report if unsuccesful. Njaelkies Lea (talk) 11:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Used to be you could load a list of 500 or so newpages with AWB for cleanup etc. I haven't done this for some time, but when I tried to generate such a list through Make from: special page, I can't find a way to get new pages. Nor can I find anything in the help file or the archives. Was this taken out intentionally, or is there a trick to doing it now?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, just answered my own question. It's not under special pages anymore, it has its own section. Doh!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Can I use AWB to unlink the years in date articles (January 1, etc.) as discussed here? Even though it is under the heading WP:MOSDATE, the reason for unlinking really doesn't have anything to do with that MOS discussion except that it would reduce a lot of unnecessary overlinking. I would be unlinking years like (d. [[1990]]) and nothing else. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 14:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you gurus could help me out? What I want is for AWB to skip an article if it doesn't contain:
| image = NAME.(JPG/jpg)
Where there could be any numer of spaces between | and image, image and =, and = and NAME.jpg/JPG. Is this possible? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You can use \s* or \s+ or " *" or " +" (without the ""). + is 1 to unlimited, * is 1 to unlimited.

So, |\s*image\s*=\s*NAME.(JPG/jpg)

—Reedy 17:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I need to pick up a book or something. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I might have done something wrong with my request. I didn't mean "(JPG/jpg)" that was supposed to represent that it either has .JPG or .jpg . And NAME was supposed to represent any set of characters. Does that make sense? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My first attempt would be to put this in the 'Doesn't contain' field and make sure you tick 'Regular expressions':

(?i:\|\s*image\s*=\s*[^\s]+\.jpg)

That will work for any NAME that does not contain a space character. I think there are jpg names that contain space characters but I am not sure. If so, I can't think of a way of handling a NAME that contains a space character. Somebody else can confirm it. Lightmouse (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably I'd just use this. Rjwilmsi 17:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

(?si)\s*\|\s*image\s*=\s*[^\|}]+?\.jpe?g

What does the 's' in '(?si)' do? Lightmouse (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

s=Single line, i=Ignore case, m=Multiline, u=Unicode aware (\w match all alphabets) or that's how it atleast works in python. — Dispenser 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

And is there a reason for the question mark after the plus symbol? Lightmouse (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess this is for a script to update the WikiProject Bird project banner to accurately indicate if there is a photograph of a bird (almost always the first photographs go in the infobox), and also to do count totals. Over 10,000 pages in the WPBirds WikiProject. see also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#Needs-photo often missing for discussion. I thought this would be easy. Snowman (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rjwilmsi, your code work's great. Thank you. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The regexp manual does seem to be lacking here, should improve. — Dispenser 20:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

...and have posted a new task at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks, in need of somebody to solve it. The Transhumanist    01:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The bot is naming notes in an utterly ridiculous fashion. For example, in the above diff, it named a note "Qtd." because the abbreviation for "Quoted" was the first word in the note. In this article the mass of different choices is staggering. If I went back to work on this article, I would be entirely confused. Please compared the names with the other notes as well. The system makes no sense and will only make editing more confusing.

I'd suggest speaking with the editor who made these changes, as far as I can tell this isn't something that comes standard with AWB. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that.

talk

) 19:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This panel seems to only let me skip articles based on one word or phrase. How can I skip articles based on 10 or words, such as English, Canada, British, etc. Thanks Hmains (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Click the Regular expressions box, then put in something similar to (English|Canadian|British). I think that should work, if it's wrong someone here will definitely chime in. Hope that helps! §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This works just fine. Thanks Hmains (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Prior to the latest version of AWB, on the 'make a list' section of the main panel, there was a button to delete all remaining items in the list. This was very useful, but it has now disappeared. This forces me to go to the filter panel to remove everything, but this loses my current filter settings. Any other way to mass delete the list? Thanks Hmains (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Right-click the list, select Remove, then select All. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This works just fine. Thanks Hmains (talk) 19:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi! According to WP:Stub: "It is usually desirable to leave two blank lines between the first stub template and whatever precedes it." But the general fixes of AWB gave only one line and put the stubies between the cats and the iw. Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

That's the correct spot for stub tags. The reason for the extra lines is just to put the stub category last in the list; they should not go after iw's. It always adds 2 lines when I do stub tags, do you have a diff? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

All the (unnecessary) edits done by User:Yobot as "substituting BD" gave only one line. E.g.: [24] Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I ran a general fix on the page diff and the issue was fixed. What appears to have happened is that the botop didn't have the general fixes set. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 23:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Or that it's only possible to run AWB general fixes before the bot's own script/replacements. Rjwilmsi 23:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I asked the user why there is only one line and he answered : "About the lines before the stubs, I think you have to report it to WP:AWB. I am just using the general fixes of AWB." See here: [25] Kind regards Doma-w (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how, unless his custom mod is overriding the general fixes. A gen fix above shows what AWB normally does. Devs? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 01:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to be able to run two instances with different usernames. That feature doesn't seem to work now. Is it just me? Lightmouse (talk) 11:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I wish to create a list of pages to process using an user page, but if I insert in the Make list window a page like User:Tizio, AWB don't recognize it and don't create any list, or delete the entry if I put it near "+" symbol. What can I do? Thanks 85.18.66.24 (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Have you selected the correct source? And then put it into the pages text box then clicked make list? —Reedy 22:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I've forgot to say that the source is a subpage, like User:Tizio/Sandbox, and I want to do some tests with AWB on subpages also --85.18.66.24 (talk) 23:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Try this: In the dropdown for Source select Special Page, click Make List, set the source to All pages with prefix (Prefixfinder), for Pages: put Tizio, for Namespace select User. That should generate 24 user subpages. Hope that helps. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I've used AWB to rename redirects in the past without any problems. What I want to achieve is simple: Some redirects point to page X, but they should point to page Y instead. Now, what I get is this:

1. make list from redirects to
   No frost
   .
2. click the Normal Settings button and add the replacement from "Frost-free" to "Auto-defrost"
3. press start

The first page AWB displays is

I'm leaving this as is so that other people can reproduce the issue, but obviously I can't leave it in this half-baked state for much longer. I don't know if this is simply a bug, or some new "feature"; I really prefer the old way it simply worked; but for now, if someone could explain how to do the simple change of redirects with AWB, that would help already. Thanks! — Sebastian 06:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to tell AWB not to follow redirects. Cant remember where it is atm, as dont have a copy to hand, hopefully someone who has, can help you out easily enough with it. —Reedy 10:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

It's under the 'Options' menu at the top left. Uncheck 'Follow redirects'. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! (I'm not sure if this was still checked from when I last used it; if not then it may be worth considering turning this off by default.) — Sebastian 00:42, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it change Wiki links from underlines to spaces? Does this actually reduce page size? Cannot find any "policy" around what is included in "general" cleanup? --

its bad linking practice.

β^_command

16:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? — Sebastian 06:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

See A Concise Beginners Guide to Editing Wikipedia. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 06:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...but it seems pointless with images and things where the page name is never shown... I guess I also thought that it would cost time for the engine to translate spaces to underscores? Maybe not...Thanks. --

talk

) 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

A Concise Beginners Guide to Editing Wikipedia even recommends using underscores! It seems there really is no reason to replace them, other than personal preference of the the programmer. But be that as it may; AWB is a good program, so maybe we should gracefully overlook such small idiosyncrasies. — Sebastian 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The "Rules of use" section requires editors using AWB to "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag...". I have been involved in a discussion of this rule with User:TreasuryTag at User talk:TreasuryTag regarding edits such as the following which, he contends, do not violate this rule: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. I am interested in whether I am misreading the rule and its relationship to such edits as these. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Those all look minor to me, since there is a specific mention of both moving stub tags and removing white space. --Izno (talk) 15:18, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The user seems to be making many valuable contributions by correcting typos. However, it seems (s)he hasn't set 'skip if no typo fixed' so some edits are being made consisting of only some of the trivial general fixes. While some general fixes are valuable on their own (bolding of article name, fixing external link format etc.), this user doesn't seem to be making the distinction. You're right to raise the query, and the user has not responded appropriately to your query. Rjwilmsi 16:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I never remotely suggested that they did not violate the rule. I suggested that the rule applied not to individual edits but to my use of the tool and pattern of editing - and I contend that that is not in violation of the rule. The fact is, if I turn on "skip if typo fixed" then the software will not make general fixes, such as removing un-necessary
tags, moving stub notices (which is important if not essential) and fixing links_like_this_with_underscores. Is there any technical way around this? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a simple, non-technical solution: don't save the edit if it's inconsequential. (As in "Check every edit before you save it." from the Rules of Use (again)). -- Mwanner | Talk 16:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I check every edit before I save it, for mistakes. Having to make a moral judgement of whether or not it is inconsequential - a psychological construct - defies the point of AWB. As it is, I have a low rate of such edits and feel that I fulfill the spirit of the "avoid" rule. Please do not speak as if you know all about AWB - a short while ago, you were astonished ("that's crazy") to find that it automated edit summaries! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 16:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact that I'm not especially familiar with AWB is really beside the point. What the rule asks of you is hardly a "moral judgement". It is a very simple rule. So far, three people have seen it as such-- two above, and one on your talk page. In the instances I found, in quite a short stretch of editing, there is no complexity at all-- they involved removing whitespace and moving tags. And if your instances of such edits are as rare as you say they are, it won't be much trouble to stop making them. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that any reasonable interpretation of "avoid" sets the threshold as a percentage of edits. Avoid, I think, can be judged on its own merits without considering them as a share of larger edits.

talk

) 17:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• Is this really that big of a deal? There are clearly non-minor edits (fixing underscored links), clearly minor edits (fixing non-displaying whitespace), and edits which may be minor but some consider important (moving stub/cat tags). Treasury Tag should avoid (as in make efforts to not commit) the obviously minor edits but the rest should be ignored (IMO). And what TT meant (I think) was that asking him to make a value judgment (As opposed to a "moral" judgment) for each edit was against the spirit of AWB. I'm not sure that is unequivocally the case. Rather, you shouldn't be forced to deliberate on a value judgment like that--if it looks minor, don't do it. If there is some doubt then I don't see the problem in just saving the edit. If, afterwards, someone informs you that the edit was minor, then look harder next time. As for the general approach of taking this rule and applying it literally, I would rather we didn't. Protonk (talk) 20:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Protonk. TreasuryTag clearly wants to improve Wikipedia. Other editors may not choose to make such edits but as long as an editor makes more good edits than bad, Wikipedia improves. This rule is sometimes abused by people that simply don't like what another editor is doing. I am not suggesting this happened here but it happened quite recently in a battle over whether delinking dates is 'inconsequential'. We should be grateful to TreasuryTag for wanting to improve Wikipedia even in a way that may seem small to others and I say thank you, TreasuryTag .
The 'inconsequential edits' rule is not self-evident and it appears to be based on some pragmatic issue. Newcomers may find it discouraging to have this rule quoted without the reason for the rule. I can only imagine two reasons for this rule:

• Somebody worried that Wikipedia can't afford to make too many edits. But see Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance
• Somebody thought that other editors need protecting from seeing too many edits in watchlists, recent changes, article edit histories etc.

It is much easier to comply with a rule if you know the reason. I propose that we find out why this rule exists and add some text to the rule. Lightmouse (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, look, if it's a bad rule, it should be changed. I don't see anyone proposing to do away with it. Personally, I find it difficult to see how such edits improve Wikipedia. I mean, take a look at an article before and after such an edit-- where is the improvement? Incidentally, I agree that TreasuryTag has done a lot of useful work. What got me looking at his edits originally was seeing a whitespace&tag-move edit to an article on my watchlist with an edit summary of "general overhaul", which seemed a rather grandiose description of a nothing edit. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In order to criticise an edit, we need a reason why it is bad. If it does a small amount of good ('trivial', 'inconsequential', 'insignificant'), Wikipedia readers are better off. If it is neutral ('useless' 'unhelpful', 'waste of your time'), that is fine for Wikipedia readers too. It is only when there is harm that we need to worry. We have discussed a rule, not a reason. I propose that this rule is deleted unless it is modified to explain the reason for its existence. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The rule contains its own explanation; here it is in full: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." (emphasis added)

One of the primary resources that it wastes is editor's time: every edit that shows up on a watchlist will cause one or more editors to take a look at what was changed (especially when accompanied by an unhelpful edit summary). What makes this edit worthwhile? -- Mwanner | Talk 14:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether an edit is worthwhile or not worthwhile. I am too focussed on watching for harm. There are always trivial edits and obscure summaries in Watchlist, RecentChanges, ArticleHistory. I can't get worked up about it. It is clear that it bothers you and I am not sure what to say except it doesn't bother me. Lightmouse (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Surely watching for harm is easier if there are fewer unnecessary edits to wade through? The rule has been in place since January 8, 2006, when AWB was six days old. Apparently it has been thought a good thing by a lot of people for a long time. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• To answer your first sentence: I agree. Supervision is easier if there aren't many edits.
• To answer your second sentence: I don't agree. A rule isn't good just because it has existed for a long time. The 'waste resources' assertion is a popular misconception in conflict with: Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Until proven otherwise, I don't believe that TreasuryTag has any significant effect on the technology of Wikipedia.

Lightmouse (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it was good because it was longstanding. I said that because it was longstanding, it appears to have been accepted by a lot of people. And if you agree that supervision is easier if there aren't many edits, doesn't that alone justify the rule? -- Mwanner | Talk 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Developers PoV

We know that Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance exists, however, it doesn't mean that we shouldnt. AWB has had usage statistics since 3/3/2008. AWB has been used for over 5 Million edits since then, with nearly 2.8 million on the english wikipedia alone. This obviously doesnt include those where it wasnt reported, and other similar cases... Not sure what % total of the edits this accounts for, but it is significant. Most of the edits are on WMF wiki's, and in which case, accounts for well over 4 million edits. "Page edits since Wikipedia was set up 267,921,188" - 1% of the total number edits, in the last 9 months alone

We try and reduce the strain/load on the servers as much as possible, and with the API edit being open, we should be able to reduce this further (however, we are blocked partially due to some big API bugs, that mean we cant get a full implementation). This would reduce bandwith and similar constraints (same as bringing the diff's internal to AWB), and help further.

There is an outstanding feature request as to differentiating between that of changes (general fixes mainly), that have visual differences, and those that don't. I do agree, that those that only change whitespace and such by AWB, and therefore make no difference to the actual look/feel of the page, certainly are "bad"/"wasteful" edits.

Im wondering if its worth having an actual widescale community review/RfC type thing to see what the wider opinion of people is, and therefore try and establish some consensus for this

—Reedy 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it needs an RFC, I imagine that people would vote to keep it (unfortunately). I like to think that people behave rationally even without rules. I think that most editors use AWB for significant edits most of the time. Only a tiny number of edits are insignificant. You probably saw this rule quoted in respect of date delinking. That was a dispute about the meaning of 'inconsequential' and we have seen similar comments here that the term is value laden. Perhaps we should update the rule to say that 'in most cases, inconsequential means invisible to the reader'. That would have avoided the dispute about date delinking and also address the points made by Protonk above. Lightmouse (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if we can't solve this by a tweak to the tool: if all it finds in a given article are trivial changes, it shouldn't open it for editing. Isn't that the straightforward approach? -- Mwanner | Talk 16:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

According to your argument that a longstanding situation judged to have lasted the test of time, should not be changed: the option rather than restriction on AWB has existed for ages. We have the option to turn offthe inconsequential edits - which will in turn stop some good edits - and forcing it shold never happen. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, I didn't say that "a longstanding situation judged to have lasted the test of time, should not be changed," I said "because it was longstanding, it appears to have been accepted by a lot of people." We still do work by consensus around here, and longstanding acceptance is one indication of consensus.
And how, exactly, does my proposal stop good edits from happening? -- Mwanner | Talk 17:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, while that approach seems straightforward, it will definitely hurt some users who are not making only minor edits. When AWB finds only trivial changes, but the editor is also manually adding significant content, AWB should not disallow the edit.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That seems easy to handle-- the manually added content would override the minor-edits switch. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were proposing removing the ability to edit that article -- perhaps you were proposing to remove the ability to save it? If so, that would work for me.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

No, you're right, I did propose initially that it wouldn't bother to open an article that only needed minor edits. But either approach would work. I dunno. It strikes me as a little odd to worry about losing the incidental, manual edits to articles that are being looked at only because they have extra whitespace or a tag out of place-- in that case you could almost as well have the tool look at a random selection of articles. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I probably use AWB in a different manner than you're envisioning. I frequently use the list comparer to find the difference between two sets of articles, such as articles at

WP:DEP and articles at Category:Dead-end pages, and work through improving every article in that set. I'd hate to lose that ability just because AWB thought there were only minor changes to be made, not allowing me to add things like refs. Sure, I could dump that list to a temporary user subpage, but it's not nearly as convenient.--Fabrictramp | talk to me

21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any need to limit AWBs function(s) at this time. But that's just me. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure it needs limiting either-- I'm just tossing around an idea. And I'm seriously handicapped by not being a user. I'm just here because I didn't much like the way I saw the tool being used by one user. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

All of the edits appear to be within the realms of the

stub guidelines. (Atleast the ones above were) §hep • ¡Talk to me!

21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, we must be talking at cross-purposes. I'm talking about the AWB rule that says "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag..." (from here), which, I contend, this edit violates. How do the stub guidelines enter into the question? -- Mwanner | Talk 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SS says to move the tag, I think part of the issue is that "inconsequential" edits need to be made more clear of exactly what they are. I wouldn't call all "General Fixes" minor and inconsequential. I think we must look at what the devs say and community approved guidelines, if all else fails just ignore everybody and do your own thing! I think the AWB "rules" are outdated and need to be updated to the current norm for what is and isn't appropriate use of the tool. This seems to be part of all the recent discussions here is that nothing is 100% clear-cut. §hep • ¡Talk to me!

23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Once again, the rule is spelled out at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use: "Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space, moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial" (emphasis added). The Rules of Use apply to using AWB-- they don't attempt to embody all other Wikipedia policy. Until and unless their is consensus to change AWB Rules of Use, it seems to me that they should apply to edits made with the tool. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

There also comes the case where the editor has to relaize that through the tool they are editing Wikipedia. Therefore the two guidelines should coincide and not push against each other. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very well-put!

WP:SS encourages such edits; what is special about AWB that means it's not to be used for them, when that's what it's incredibly good at? ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs

─╢ 16:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)