User talk:D6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Picture of the day
Bang Pa In floating pavilion, Ayutthaya province, Thailand

Bang Pa In Royal Palace
Photo credit: Dan Smith
Archive - More featured pictures...

D6 is a bot operated by User:Docu running pywikipediabot.

Section headers have been added by User:Docu to the talk below. Please use User talk:Docu for discussions not directly related to the bot's operation.

Contents

[edit] TLAs

Wouldn't it make sense to put Category:TLAs into Template:TLA? Marnanel 17:05, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It sure would, but that template isn't really used much, so I added it directly to the pages. -- User:Docu

[edit] Years

What on earth do we need year categories for? Would this mean World War II would get categories 1939, 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945? I don't get it. Everyking 19:35, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see, it's for things like such in such year in sports, science, etc? Well, I suggest that not be extended infinitely into years for which we have no such articles to categorize. Everyking 19:36, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It's been suggested and discussed at Category talk:Years. The categories should be for events specific to a year (see Template:Yearcat). -- User:Docu

Wanted to thank you for adding the "riot" articles to the year categories. I never knew such things existed. --Duemellon 01:56, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And more thanks. I've been trying to get some of the pages I've worked on into categories, so more folks may see them - and here you are, doing such a nice job on this! Wonderful job! --avnative 04:38, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Year of birth/death categories

[edit] Categories

Chinese surnames appear before given names. The surname of Soong May-ling is Soong. Please take this into account when inserting categories. --Jiang 20:45, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I spotted some of those and fixed them manually. A few Spanish names are sorted inconsistently as well.
I plan to compare the sort key generated by the bot with the ones set for other categories in the same article. I can't do this before the next download is available though. -- User:Docu
See now: Wikipedia:People_by_year#Checking_sort_keys -- User:Docu

[edit] exagerated categories

Why not make a "Male" and "Female" category btw.... User:Cyprus2k1

As in Category:Male ? -- User:Docu
i think that its exagerated... - --Cyprus2k1 12:43, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Yup, adding two more categories to each and every biographical article sounds a bit... bizarre. In many cases there are already three or even more categories. After adding another two (births and deaths) the whole categories line becomes too crowded. I'm afraid that your concept might only lead to greater mess. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 00:00, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)
Lyndon B. Johnson had nine categories before .. I doubt the two additions really make it worse. Many biographies don't have any categories at all.
I won't add Category:Male BTW -- User:Docu

How about Category:April 1 Births. Honestly, can you hold off running this bot until consensus is developed? I think there's enough controversy on these categories that you ought to. Cool Hand Luke 18:34, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I would like to point out that these categories violate both of the criteria on whether a category should be created at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Snowspinner 20:10, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Why not make a category:People with blue eyes? or category:People with brown hair? et al, just to add that extra little bit more elitism in Wikipedia? ZlatkoT 13:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] checking for disambig pages

You might want to have the bot check if a page is a disambiguation page before adding a category to it. For example Bob Carr. older≠wiser 12:51, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They will show up in a subsequent update of Wikipedia:People_by_year/Reports/Sortkeytest (I had spotted Bob Carr BTW. -- User:Docu

Before adding more useless year categories, you may at least want to determine if they are correct, for example in the case of Kim Deal. Such verification might slow you down a bit too, so I wouldn't have hundreds of edits to wade through on my watchlist. Everyking 13:06, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I will run a variation of Wikipedia:People_by_year#With_categories to check the plausibility of the information by Wikipedia. -- User:Docu

[edit] Birth/death categories

You might want to check that the birth/death categories you're inserting aren't already present in an article, and that you're assigning it to the right year for the right name. Dwight D. Eisenhower already had the relevant categories, and Harman and Ising assigned one person's years of birth and death to both of the subjects of the article. (I've fixed both.) -Sean Curtin 06:31, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. It looks like there is a bug in this bot. See for example [1] where two death categories have automatically been added using different lists and giving conflicting sorting. -- Solipsist 18:46, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It's a known problem. If the sort key is different, the bot adds another category. It will be fairly easy to find them once an updated dump of categories is available (i.e. tomorrow, or the day afterwards). -- User:Docu

[edit] Approval

I was just wondering if you can give me a link to where this bot got approval to run, and for what, exactly. Snowspinner 20:04, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy

I don't particularly care for these categories, but they're even worse if incorrect. John F. Burns was just marked as having a died in 2003. He had a byline yesterday, and he's very much alive. He's not listed in Deaths in 2003. What is the source of this bot's information?--Jkiang 20:21, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's my manual input that was incorrect. Thank you for pointing it out (and fixing it). - User:Docu

[edit] Suspended

I've suspended this bot. The category addition is clearly controversial, and, though the bot was approved, the original request said nothing about category addition. I've opened up discussion at Wikipedia talk:Bots. Please go explain what you intend to use this bot for, and get it reapproved, and I'll lift the block. Snowspinner 20:40, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

It was approved for running pywikipediabot (which includes the category.py package). The year categories have been discussed and kept. Thus, please unblock the bot. -- User:Docu
Although the pywikipediabot contains the categories package, it also contains other things, and not all pybots are used for all purposes. I think the categories are a terrible idea, obviously, and that, regardless of the deletion debate, they violate policy. That said, my real concern here is that the bot was given approval purely because there were no objections, and there was no particular discussion of what the bot is going to do, and now it's generating controversy. I'd like to at least wait a week and see what kinds of objections arise to a request for bot status that specifies exactly what you intend to do with the bot. I promise not to object myself, and if there's no one else but me and Netoholic that minds, I'll unblock it. Snowspinner 21:46, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
It mostly used for adding categories, but it was never used for adding categories we didn't want at all. Obviously, few cared about Category:ATC codes being added, but it got them off Special:Uncategorizedpages anyways. -- User:Docu
I'm unblocking it, because I'm leaving the project for a while. Snowspinner 00:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Resuspended

I'm re-blocking it (when in doubt, you're supposed to block the bot... I'm in doubt). There seems to be some evidence of significant objections to its current procedure. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For the discussion of the scheme see Wikipedia talk:People by year/Delete. I think I adressed all the concerns in regards to the way the bot implements the scheme. -- User:Docu
Since the deletion discussion, many objections have been raised about the category scheme and the bot's activity and accuracy. Nowhere in that vote do you mention to what ends you would go to implement your goal. -- Netoholic @ 14:21, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
IRC: <Netoholic> like I said, I don't know what "authorized" really means anymore, 
                 but he knows there are strong objections to the category scheme, 
                 and the fact that the bot is making mistakes with the categories
Objections to both the category scheme, and the bot's accuracy have been noted many times on this talk page, Docu's, Wikipedia talk:People by year, and Wikipedia talk:Bots. -- Netoholic @ 05:58, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)

[edit] the births/deaths (automatic?) categorization is broken

...because it doesn't check whether the article is already there! Please check your recent edits and correct where necessary. BACbKA 10:45, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Would you give me a sample, I'm not quite sure what you mean. The upload is automatic, not the categorization as such. It's based on manual input. -- User:Docu
Please have a look at Lev Semenovich Pontryagin for an example. Both births and deaths categorization is duplicated. I am the one who has (manually) added the births/deaths in that article, ahead of the bot. BACbKA 13:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's mentionned on Wikipedia:People_by_year#Bot_problems. It happens in the few cases when a year of birth/death category was added since last available download of the database (currrently 2 Oct 2004) and when there is a difference in sort keys (see pywikipediabot bug report). The filtering before upload should be limiting cases where this happens. It's possible that the article shows up on the sort key report with categories to be fixed, but not necessarily, as Category:1988_deaths (and the database available for download) include only one (here that with the explicit sort key). -- User:Docu
Should we be bold and clean it manually when it happens, or will that result, likewise, in a double remove of the category (once by the human and once by a corrections bot)? BACbKA 18:31, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
If there is a difference in sort keys in the download, these categories show up on the sortkey report, otherwise they don't. In both cases they need to be fixed manually. -- User:Docu
In case you didn't notice, today I see another such problem at Mikhail Gromov, and it happened after my last post here yesterday (about Lev Semenovich Pontryagin, which I have just corrected manually). Can you please stop the run and correct the bot to analyze the article *text* of any article modified to check if the category is there? BACbKA 18:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In this case, the category was added with the sort key of Category:Mathematicians. As you omitted the sortkey when adding Category:1943 births, the category was added a 2nd time. It wouldn't have happened if the sort keys were identical or if the manual categories were added before the last download. The categories on both articles needed to be fixed anyways, as the sort keys were missing. -- User:Docu

[edit] Better sorting for year categories

Over the past few days I've been going through Category:2004, Category:2003, etc., changing category references in the subcategories and constituent articles whose titles begin with the year, to make them sort better on the (parent) Category page.

Examples: On 2003 in film, I've changed "[[Category:2003]]" to "[[Category:2003|Film]]" so the entry 2003 in film will appear not under the header 2 but under F. In addition, on January 2003, I've changed the category reference to "[[Category:2003|*2003-01]]" so January 2003 will be sorted chronologically with the other months in the first section (labeled *) on the category page. Finally, the article 2003 contains simply "[[Category:2003|*]]" (See Category:2003 for the effect of these changes.)

I suggest that you change your bot to attempt to do this automatically. That is (for example), if the subcategory or article name (PAGENAME) begins with the same year the parent category name does (followed optionally by the word in), include a pipe followed by the next word rest of the subcat/article name, forced to be capitalized. Similar changes for the month-year and year-only page names. This might not always work properly, but it would significantly reduce the effort required to "fix" the categorization "manually", as I have been doing.

- dcljr 04:56, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) [text deleted, inserted by dcljr 23:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)]

Personally, I think Category:2003 is more difficulte to read than before, the article titles normal sorting separates categories like "2003 in .." and "2003 (xyz)" from others. Obviously, if someone choses A-Z sorting over the other, I wouldn't added more in the other sorting.
For the months, my choice would be to add them to a subcategory of their own. -- User:Docu
One of the reasons I prefer sorting by the first "significant" word is that — to take but one example — there's no logical reason to sort Grammy Awards of 2003 under G, but 2003 Pulitzer Prize under 2; they're both 2003-related pages (as are all the pages listed in the category), so it makes more sense to consistently sort them under the topic of the page (Grammy and Pulitzer). Now, if you want to treat "2003 in..." pages differently and sort those under 2, that's fine with me, but certainly the other "2003..." pages should be sorted "alphabetically" by topic, right? - dcljr 22:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've asked for other people's opinions on this matter at Category talk:Years#RFC on my activities in year categories. - dcljr 23:24, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
FYI, I also asked for opinions at the Village pump policy section (two favorable responses — discussion now moved to Category talk:Years). Friday I placed a short, informal proposal at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. - dcljr 19:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth/death categories (cont.)

[edit] Duplicate cats

The bot is adding duplicate birth/death cats to various pages that have them already, e.g. William T. Sampson, Webb Hayes. It looks like a bunch I added them to in creating "Category:Spanish-American War people" were duplicated. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 16:53, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

It does happen in the cases mentionned above, but they are fairly rare. Anyways, as the bot is now blocked I suppose it wont happen again. -- User:Docu
There is now a fix for this, check: Wikipedia:People by year#Bot problems. -- User:Docu
I don't speak code, but I assume the bottom line of this is "If I unblock the bot, it won't do this again?" Snowspinner 16:32, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
More like "The number of cases where it happens is limited and User:Docu will fix them afterwards". Later today, once the new download is available, I will be able to tell precisely how many times it happened in the past and wasn't corrected. -- User:Docu
What's the timeframe on that download? Snowspinner 17:20, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
The report is available now (Wikipedia:People_by_year/Reports/Multiple_cats). I will go through it later today. There are about 50 of the 28600 articles categorized that need to be fixed. It can be updated once per week, i.e. when the download version is updated. -- User:Docu
Bot is blocked again due to its malfunctioning. Snowspinner 17:57, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Bot is unblocked in any case. Snowspinner 15:34, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. -- User:Docu

[edit] Incorrect date of death

It appears that the bot incorrectly added Zviad Gamsakhurd ia's death year incorrectly. Just giving a heads up in case its happening on other pages. -- User:ElBenevolente

It shouldn't. Thanks for pointing it out. -- User:Docu
It shouldn't, but it did. It appears to have done the same for Felix Rodriguez, which I have fixed. As near as I can tell the only reason it picked 1988 as the year of his demise is because that was the most recent year mentioned in the article. An article in August this year quotes Rodriguez in relation to the recent elections in America and his prior conflict with John Kerry. So he's clearly still around. --BenM 07:11, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not sure, how I could let this one splip through. Thank you for fixing it. -- User:Docu

The article William Turner contained the dates for the painter, not the botanist. Burschik 12:21, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Approximate Years

I deleted the 1927 birth category from John W. Griffin because I don't have an exact date of birth for him. When I composed the article, the newspaper sources I used gave an age. I subtracted and wrote it as "born circa 1927" because I was not certain. Now if it's been agreed that we will include approximates in these categories, I'll apologize for the deletion but I think it ought to be used only when we have a confirmed date. Ave atque vale! PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:People_by_year#Which_category_to_use I'm using those as they allow to locate a person's lifespan on the timeline. -- User:Docu
  • I was not aware of this and have therefore restored the category tag. Thanks for your reply. PedanticallySpeaking 18:04, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Birth/Death categories (talk moved by Netoholic)

Moved conversation from bot talk page to Wikipedia talk:People by year for visibility. -- Netoholic @ 16:27, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

[edit] Birth Death categories added to articles that are not about one person

Birth and death years have been added inappropriately to some articles that are about groups of people, rather than a single person, for example Andrews Sisters and Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Infrogmation 20:49, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Generally a bad idea indeed. One most was selected as it was in a category including mainly biographies, the other as the name starts with a title similar to other biographies. I try to filter them, but must have missed those. I will check past additions with "and" in the title. -- User:Docu
I probably should give the question further thought. It may be usefull to include, e.g. Leopold and Loeb in one way or the other into the categories. -- User:Docu

[edit] Disambiguation Page Birth/Death Year

Marshall Hall had a Birth/Death categorization added, which is innapropriate. The years added are correct for Marshall Hall (physiologist) and should be moved there. There are other Marshall Halls, many are not people at all. Merenta 02:59, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It happened as the article was moved away since the last available (generally weekly updated) download version. A report is run on the download version to fix these cases Wikipedia:People_by_year/Reports/Disambig_pages. Thank you for fixing this one. -- User:Docu

[edit] Jimmy Nicol

I don't know where D6 gets its information, but it recently altered Jimmy Nicol by adding it to the category of 1964 births. Jimmy Nicol joined the Beatles on tour in 1964. I assure you he was not born in the same year. - Vague Rant 08:29, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

It starts out with the first year in the article (if the article is reasonably formatted it's the year of birth). I then screen the list and should correct/throw out all wrong ones .. I'm sure he was re-born that year ;-) .. Thank you for fixing it. -- User:Docu

[edit] Birth/Deaths at beginning of category lists

Hi,

It seems like the birth/death dates are pretty reasonable things to add to articles, but would it be possible to have them added at the end of the existing category lists? Seeing "Categories: 1916 births | 2001 deaths | Prize in Economics winners | Turing Award Laureate | Carnegie Mellon professors" at the end of the Herbert Simon article was more than a little surprising. I've rearranged a few articles manually, to put the categories in importance order. But in just about any article, those are going to be the least important pieces of information. If you could move them to the ends of the lists, I think that would be a big improvement, but I'd be open to discussion. -- Creidieki 03:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Initially the bot added the categories and sorted all of them alphabetically (pywikipediabot standard). Following (a series of complaints, I stopped adding the categories to articles with more than three other categories.
The bot can now also add them at the end of the list. Recently, I started using the later mode, especially with articles with more than 3 other categories (baseball players, e.g.). Note that other bots may still add/sort their additions differently, e.g. at Herbert Simon. -- User:Docu

[edit] Main article in category

[edit] Military slang category

This category has only one article, which is itself "Military slang." I don't see the point. Maurreen 17:18, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If Category:military slang exists, Military slang needs to be in there. As I didn't create it, I don't mind if you have it deleted. -- User:Docu

[edit] Categories

Please stop indiscriminatory adding categories that match article name. Mikkalai 18:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Would you explain which articles are incorrectly categorised (see User_talk:Mikkalai#Unexplained_reversals), rather than indiscriminately reversing other people's contributions? -- User:Docu
Now I am not at all sure that these contributions are of "people", unless you are a cyborg. As for undiscriminately, you are right. Sorry. I will revert only some of them. Mikkalai 18:49, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The initial input was compiled by myself (trying to avoid matching e.g. Roses with Category:Roses). A few miscategorizations may have remained, such as placing Bridge into Category:Bridge, or using categories deleted since the last database dump (e.g. for Ceramics). In the meantime, I think I fixed all of them. Amazing that several of these articles were uncategorized before! -- User:Docu

[edit] Categories and languages

I have removed the addition of Category:Gbe languages to the article Gbe languages and similarly for Kwa languages. I believe that in in the case of languages, Categories and Subcategories can be best used to reflect the language family hierarchy. To achieve that, one should not include the co-ordinating article in the Category, but only the articles of individual languages (e.g. only articles like Ewe language and Fon language should be member of the Category:Gbe languages. Gbe languages on the other hand should be member of Category:Kwa languages.) Mark Dingemanse (talk) 19:43, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Removing the "coordinating article" from its own category makes it more difficulte to locate the category for those starting out with the article. This is one of the reason why it's generally placed in the category (1:article that defines a category), even if it's then in its parent as well. It looks like elsewhere in the language family hierarchy, this is handled in a similar fashion (2).
The sortkey "*" may be used to indicate that Gbe languages is the "coordinating article" (3, 4).
Personally, I'd readd the category, but I understand your reasons. I will try to skip the categories in case of a future update. -- User:Docu

Reading your explanation, I think I acted too fast. Some months ago, there was a similar problem when I tried to categorize some language articles myself. I got lost in all the conventions about categories and the only solution I could find at that time was just to exclude the parent from its category. I was not aware of the use of the asterisk as sortkey. Thank you for providing me with links to the relevant passages and for your kind reply. I'm sorry for my impatient attitude. You convinced me; you can happily readd the category. You can check my last contributions to see the six language family articles I was aware of where I deleted your addition (see edit summaries). Mark Dingemanse (talk) 23:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In case I'll do another series, I will readd the categories. BTW it's convincible that one day it will be done the other way again .. -- User:Docu

[edit] Category:Madhyamaka

When you apply a category to a page, you should remove higher-level categories of which that category is a subcategory; i.e., I removed the "Branches of Buddhism" category tag on the Madhyamaka page. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽

As this is a case where it's acceptable to add (keep) the parent category as well (1: Ohio sample), I don't think the bot should make such a change. -- User:Docu

[edit] Category:Columbus Township, St. Clair County, Michigan

Is there are reason why the bot added this category? It is completely nonstandard. older≠wiser 02:20, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

It was added because it exists. It was created by another bot. Personally I think it should be deleted. -- User:Docu
Sorry, I just saw that D6 had added Columbus Township, St. Clair County, Michigan to the category and assumed it had also created it since there was nothing else in it. older≠wiser 03:30, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fijian people

Hi Docu. I'm curious about why you keep on adding the [[Category:Fijian People]] to the Fijian people article. The Fijian people article is about the Fijian ethnic group; it is NOT a list of Fijians, which your category is. Your category, BTW, includes Fijian citizens who are not ethnic Fijians - and rightly so, but I wonder whether it's suitable to link it to an article that focuses exclusively on ethnic Fijians. Please let me know what you think. David Cannon 09:54, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's mainly because it matches the title and I didn't see earlier that it was reverted (in the unlikely case of another run, I think I should crosscheck the list against previous uploads). In this particular case, I think the inclusion is defendable, even if it only covers the topic partially. At least, I didn't throw it out at a quick glance after the first addition. BTW I added {{catmore1|[[List of Fijians]]}} to the category, which would exclude the future addition of the category to the article with the same name. -- User:Docu
Thanks for explaining:-) David Cannon 21:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Year of birth/death categories (cont 3)

[edit] James Kelly

Why did D6 add Category:2003 deaths to James Kelly? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 10:14, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Good question. Finally I found it. Deaths in 2003 lists (listed) James Kelly as dying on July 16, 2003. Category:2003 deaths was added to all people listed there.
Maybe I should make James Kelly into a disambiguation page as there are at least four people (including a 19th century representative) of that name in Wikipedia and (currently) only 3 of 9 direct links from other articles are about James A. Kelly. -- User:Docu
I went through creating a disambiguation page for the name. -- User:Docu


[edit] Double birth/death categories

This bot is still producing double categories, see Albert I of Germany. Martg76 22:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Ogg files

Hi there! Is there any chance to use the bot to add the Category:ogg files to all .ogg files from the upload logs? I tried to do it myself by hand until I realised that there is actually a lot of ogg files out there and it would take years to complete this.

I believe that such category is needed since there is no list of ogg files so far and the files are listed only by their license categories, not by their type. This can often be misleading, since the ogg file can hardly be called an image... [[User:Halibutt|]] 05:52, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Year of birth/death categories (cont 4)

[edit] Adding birth and death cat to (articles with Template:Lived)

Moved <from User talk:Docu>:

I noticed your bot adding cats for birth and death to lots of bios, which is fine. But it seems to add the cats also when they aren't needed. i.e. when there allready is a Template:Lived in the article. See for instance the Anders Lange article. Thanks. Shanes 06:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The problem is similar to the problem mentioned at Wikipedia:People_by_year#Bot_problems and User_talk:D6#Double_birth.2Fdeath_categories. I will fix it in the next download in the same way. It's less a problem now though, as MediaWiki no longer displays them twice on the article. For easy maintenance, we may want convert Template:Lived into category links by bot and possibly add a check to the bot when running. -- User:Docu
Ok, thanks, I see. But wouldn't it be better to have a bot doing it the other way? To convert the birth/died cat lines into template lived, instead? Templates are nice, in this case it's shorter, and there are stuff you can more conveniently do with templates. Say we someday want to add images for death or birth, or do other stuff with their appearance, then changing one template is really easy and convenient. But converting to the template is of course a rather big change, and I guess this isn't the place to discuss it. Shanes 06:19, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In general, I tend to agree with you, though for now, there aren't that many tools to maintain and use template-based information, especially compared to categories. Besides, given the number of uses I had to fix, Template:Lived isn't as easy as Template:Lifetime (in my version). -- User:Docu

</from User talk:Docu>


[edit] Disambiguating

Hi! Good work disambiguating "Georgia", but please watch out that you're selecting the correct meaning (you picked the wrong one for Boris Hagelin). Cheers! — Matt Crypto 14:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Guess who noticed first! -- User:Docu

I've reverted your disambiguation of Georgia User:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs as the links to disambiguation pages are deliberate and necessary - the note at the top of the page that starts "Please do not disambiguate the links on this page" explains why. If you know which particular Georgia a song in the Generic or Unknown section (the one that links to the Disambig page) refers to, please move it to the correct section. Thryduulf 09:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please excuse, I generally don't disambiguate pages outside article namespace. I exceptionally do, if the section looks like one of a ready-made article. In your case, the updated link was made through a deliberate Georgia (disambiguation) redirect, which whould be ideal (at least for those viewing Special:Whatlinkshere/Georgia later). -- User:Docu
  • South beach disambiguation. Thanks for correcting that, I just assumed the template would be "disambiguation" and "disambig" redirected to it. Guess I should have actually checked :) <>Who?¿? 05:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Doh! I forgot this was your bot. <>Who?¿? 05:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Coor additions

[edit] Embedded template causing problem with coordinate conversion

It would appear that it is not possible to use a template within a parameter of another. This edit demonstrates the problem. Are you using a bot? Can your changes be quickly checked and rolled back if necessary? --Phil | Talk 08:38, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problem and I thought I had reverted all of those cases already (Infobox Country and Infobox Swiss town are a problem). Thank you for fixing this one. -- User:Docu

Perhaps a similar problem with Belgrade. --A D Monroe III 19:36, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for spotting it. I didn't come across it on the log yet. I added Infobox Serbia to the bot's exclusion list (and the WikiProject's list). -- User:Docu


[edit] Protected areas, National parks

Please stop these edits - you have now messed up all the templates for national parks. Not to mention the fact that you didn't discuss this change on the WikiProject:Protected Areas and that is is printing a unreadable chararcter for minutes instead of just using '.

On the Protected area template you have replaced

  • Longitude: xx° xx' N
  • Latitude: xx ° xx' W

with

  • Longitude: xx ° xx′ N xx° xx′ W

Please revert these changes. Rmhermen 23:04, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I was checking the different changes, e.g. Capitol Reef National Park and the main change needed it appears to be a change of "Longitude" to "coordinates". Alternatively, "Longitude<br>Latitude" could go in the same cell. The coordinates formatted according to the manual of style display correctly.
When updating the National Parks of Australia, I hadn't found a template or a centeral point for those. The few that did indeed have a infobox, it appears now that it's the one I missed, i.e. the template for protected areas. -- User:Docu


Detailed proposal, see: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Protected_areas#Reformatting_coordinates

[edit] Johnston Atoll

Moved from: User talk:Docu

FYI, the User:D6 appears to format degrees decimal incorrectly. If the lat/lon is 97.123 N,120.234 W, D6 uses coor dm|97|.123|N|120|.234|W|). It should use coor d|97.123|N|120.234|W| -- Check out Johnston Atoll for an example.

Thanks. I came across that one, just to find that it was fixed (still need to amend the regex though). -- User:Docu

/Moved from User talk:Docu


[edit] Bot damage (coordinates template)

Hi, it looks like your bot was a bit careless: [2]. I've reverted this, and I'll check the other Extreme points of the world articles, but you may want to change your bot a bit. Eugene van der Pijll 23:06, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted Extreme points of Australia for much the same reason. --ScottDavis 23:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was going through the log and was about to revert them. Thank you for checking them. -- User:Docu

[edit] More unlinked coordinates

I found an article with geographic coordinates that aren't linked to template:coor or anything else yet: New Brunswick, New Jersey. It looks like there might be quite a few articles with coordinates formatted the same way, so it's probably a job for D6. I checked three other random articles from Category:Middlesex County, New Jersey and they all had coordinates that looked the same format. --ScottDavis 05:32, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New Brunswick, New Jersey is one of 25'000 rambot entries. I had excluded those from the conversion as most of them already have a mapit or geolinks template at the end of the page. Those already link back to the map sources. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates#Rambot_entries, I'm trying to find an agreement with Rambot/Ram-Man about the format to be used for the coordinates in the text as I'm planning to convert the few (200-400) rambot entries that don't have a mapit or geolink template. For the remaining ones, it might be easier if Rambot would do it during one of his occasional updates, once the definite format for coordinates is chosen. Maybe we could change the template to make it clear that it includes those links. -- User:Docu

Fair enough. I just noticed the coordinates at the top of the article weren't linked, and never thought to also look at the bottom. Thanks. --ScottDavis 11:16, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well as there are quite a few of them, it's preferable that the conversion is included in another update (the bot would easily be busy for 3 days). -- User:Docu

[edit] More grist for your bot

List of volcanoes seems ripe for conversion to coor. -- hike395 06:15, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain dms coordinates break into two lines

They break into two lines, even with only 0.1″ accuracy. For example, see Mount Terror (Washington). Not sure how to fix. -- hike395 17:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] John Taylor

Just noticed that your bot is moving the disambiguation wikilink from John Taylor to John Taylor (disambiguation) which then redirects to John Taylor. Is there something I don't know that this is the correct link? If not can you restore them? Trödel|talk 16:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It makes it easier to figure out which links to Special:Whatlinkshere/John_Taylor. All the links you added had made it really difficulte. Wikipedia:Redirect suggests using it (see also Template:R_to_disambiguation_page). -- User:Docu
Thanks - I just noticed that all these John Taylors don't have a reference back to the disambiguation page so I added them manually. I'll do it the other way from now on. Trödel|talk 16:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Some sort of a template would be great for this, e.g. Template:Otherpersons (it might need improvement). -- User:Docu

[edit] Events by year BC

Would it be possible for D6 to create articles redirecting to the relevant decade for all the the years 1500 BC - 500 BC? Currently this have been done somewhat sporadically. Fornadan 19:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. I checked there are already 613 such redirects (on April 6) and all decade articles have already been created. -- User:Docu
Thanks Fornadan 14:53, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake in selecting date of birth?

Please check the edit [3] to the page Howard Barker. Your bot added Category:1571 births to this playwright born in 1946. This may indicate a bug in the code, because the date 1571 appears in the text as a date connected to one of his plays. Please check your code before the next run. Gdr 12:29, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

Prior to upload, a list is compiled from the years in articles. The list is reviewed (by me) and then uploaded. Occasionally a year such as the sample above escapes my attention. It should be found by reports such the "oldest" etc. I should indeed work on that lists, fixing errors such as that and finding missing years (even more so, but they aren't necessarily in the articles already). -- User:Docu

[edit] Disambig

It's not at all important, but I'm very curious as to why you took the time to edit Bale and change {{disambiguation}} to {{disambig}}. ---Isaac R 21:38, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There were a series of disambiguation pages that came up as uncategorized (mainly because they haven't been edited since Category:Disambiguation was added to Template:Disambig). To have them categorized, one needed to do a null edit on them (this is now done, less then twenty are left). As there remained a few uncategorized pages using the 5 or 6 redirects pointing to template:disambig, I figured it was easier to add the template w/o the redirect to the page directly. -- User:Docu
I just found that it isn't really needed from this point of view as most, if not all pages with template:Disambiguation are in fact categorized in Category:Disambiguation. -- User:Docu
The pages are now all categorized and use the default template. -- User:Docu

[edit] Year categories revisited

I see that last year you added year categories to the various years in science pages. It would be great if you could change these to say, for example, [[Category:1983|Science]] so they'll be sorted under "S" in the respective year categories instead of under "1". The last link there is to a category where you can see what other large series of "year in" articles need sortkeys added to them (namely South Africa, architecture, aviation, film, and gay rights — also note that the various "year in sports" pages haven't been categorized into the individual years but instead only appear in separate "year in sports" categories). Anyway, since you run a bot, it would be great if you could make these changes. - dcljr (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] People still missing DOB categories

There are still a huge bunch of people who are missing their proper categories of "year births" and "year deaths." (I went through bunch of golfers today) So I wonder what's the deal? Does that mean that the bot does not recognize those articles as people articles? I know that some articles were created after May 16 (that's the last update, right?), but some were around for a long time. Does that mean that those categories MUST be added manually? Or is there a way to speed it up (say selecting categories which contain mainly people)? I sincerely want to help, so just let me know if there is something to do. Renata3 06:25, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

The bot generally doesn't added them entirely automatically. I need to review the entries before uploading. An exception used to be the entries generated from lists such as List of people by name or Deaths in 2003 etc.
If the articles are well formatted (with dates or year of birth/death at the beginning of articles), it's fairly easy to do. The best help would probably be to review lists such as [4] (this is outdated) and, where needed, format years in the standard way or add Category:Year of birth missing where none is available (the later category could be added by bot as well). At a later stage, D6 would add the year categories. This would obviously needs some work on my side, especially now that the download version of Wikipedia has a new format. -- User:Docu

[edit] Rivers of ....

Category:Rivers_of_Europe Can Austrian rivers an German rivers be moved to Rivers of ... by D6 ? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd favour this renaming, but apparently it was shortly discussed and then left undecided. Thus I'd prefer if you list them at CfD first. -- User:Docu

[edit] Georgia

Thanks for the disambig. I'm hoping to add the rest of the A-Z over the next week or two and then it'll be quite a big job to perfect all the links.

All the best.

--JohnLeach 15:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Georgia

I'm finding your bot is undoing my intentional separation of "Savannah" and "Georgia". I am trying to create a link to both rather than just a link to "Savannah." If this is against the standards please advise as I want to be consistent, otherwise what can be done?

stilltim 21:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which edit you are refering to, but it's a choice sometimes made when disambiguating, e.g. "[[Savannah, Georgia|Savannah]], [[Georgia]]" links the disambiguation page at [[Georgia]]. If you want the correct pages to be linked, please use [[Savannah, Georgia|Savannah]], [[Georgia (U.S. state)|Georgia]] or simply [[Savannah, Georgia]] as the link to the state is generally not needed ("Make only links relevant to the context"). -- User:Docu

[edit] Vasco da Gama

An article that you've edited before (Vasco da Gama) is nominated for Article Improvement Drive. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 02:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] French departements

Hey what is this "new" ifobox for French departements???? olivier 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Just the same as before, but in a template. -- User:Docu

[edit] Henry the Navigator

An article that you've edited before (Henry the Navigator) is nominated for Biography Collaboration of the Week. If you want go there and vote. Thanks. Gameiro 20:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Over-disambiguation

Although I share your enthusiasm for disambiguation, please don't edit the links on Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages maintenance or other pages that are explicitly intended to contain links to disambiguation pages! Thanks. --Russ Blau (talk) 11:11, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Any link that remains on the disambiguation page complicates disambiguation needlessly. If you must link to the page, please use a the usual redirects (Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages). -- User:Docu

[edit] Speedy Gonzales

Hi, D6. I wanted to explain my recent revert of your changes to Speedy Gonzales. You italicized the name "Speedy Gonzales", but since this is the name of a character, the title should simply be bolded. There is a cartoon short called "Speedy Gonzales", but this article is not about it. If an article is written on that subject, I suppose it should be named Speedy Gonzales (19xx film) or somesuch. Thanks! — BrianSmithson 04:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. I missed that one when approving the change. -- User:Docu

[edit] External link to External links

I saw D6 did a good job formatting movie titles. One annoying thing I keep seeing is film pages where the "External links" title at the bottom of the pages are many times incorrect. It's usually "External Links", "External Link", "External link" or "External links:" of which none are correct. Could this bot fix those pages?

Steve-O 22:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The film titles are now more or less done (at least for articles in "films by year" and various film stub categories). I may try to include part of your suggestion in the future (":", "L"). BTW there isn't much of a consensus on one of the changes ("External link" to "External links"), so it's not suitable for a bot change. -- User:Docu

[edit] Georgia (again)

Why did you pick "Georgia (Caucasus)" for the disambig on Zaqatala when all that does is redirect to "Georgia (country)"? --Golbez 05:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The link was disambiguated as it shouldn't link to the disambiguation page ("Georgia"). I use that redirect mainly in historic articles where it's not entirely clear if an article is about today's country. In this case, I suppose "Georgia (country)" would have been fine. Anyways, either is better than linking to the disambiguation page. -- User:Docu

[edit] categories format

When it adds Category:Living people to pages, it should put it on a different line (i.e. not more than one category per line), see diff on Nicoleta_Daniela_%C5%9Eofronie bogdan 14:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I left them on one line as the category is directly related to the other one. As most people/other bots are going to re-arrange them on two lines anyways, it's probably a good idea though, so I changed it [5]. -- User:Docu
Thank you.bogdan 17:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Living people

Category:Living people is a supercategory of Category:Living classical composers and is unecessary on articles with the latter category. Hyacinth 12:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's an advantage of having them in there as well, but as per your request I put the category on the bot's exclusion list. BTW you can use "Category:Living people" to find composer not yet included there (e.g. John Metcalfe). -- User:Docu
I've just corrected John Metcalfe's entry - Runcorn 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Totally useless this category Living people. fizzerbear 23:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Popped up on a few Scottish politicians this morning too. There's a move debate going on - apparently the category is vetoed from deletion - but still it should be a supercategory and no article should actually be in it. Erath 11:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

From my understanding, its disputing facts or something like that. Andreas Ottl was put there for no reason at all. Kingjeff 01:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Is Andreas Ottl still alive? If not, his bio should be updated accordingly and Category:living people removed. Otherwise the article is categorized as it should. -- User:Docu

It seems that someone may be making a template to accomplish the purpose of this category, so I suggest holding off for a bit on adding more articles to this catagory. As it is, the category is useless to most people since it has tens of thousands of entries. You can see mroe on the talk oage for the category. --nihon 00:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That template doesn't appear to work. Please see my note there. Besides the category was declared "not optional". Anyways, for this morning I will stop soon anyways. -- User:Docu

I'm not sure how the bot decides who is living and who isn't, but it added the living people cat to Frankie Kennedy this morning; he died in 1994, as the article indicates. I reverted, but you may want to examine whether it's a good idea to do this to articles where the bot can't positively determine that the person is alive. --Craig Stuntz 14:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The article had Category:1994 deaths missing, which is why the bot added it to the category. BTW the criteria are outlined at Category_talk:Living_people/Archive01#Articles_to_be_added_to_category. -- User:Docu

[edit] Living people

I think you'll find that Amanda Vanstone comes under Category:Living Dead. Adam 13:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Lol .. not that know much about Australian politics and "a political hyena who takes delight in attacking society's most vulnerable" [6]. -- User:Docu


Dear Bot, you are making mistakes indeed. Khondaker Mostaq Ahmad died 10 years ago, in 1996, as shown in the first sentence of the article. Please correct your code. Thanks. --Ragib 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The article is lacks Category:1996 deaths, but includes Category:1918 births, this is why he was flagged as living. It's not really an error (see Category_talk:Living_people/Archive01#Articles_to_be_added_to_category). In the meantime I added Category:1996 deaths to the article. -- User:Docu

Gyula Milványi-Csesznegi: this guy is dead, but nobody knows when. Could you tell your machine to stop adding him? Dahn 13:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh. Before I forget: this category is the stupidest idea ever. Dahn 13:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It's done, (I added Category:Year of death missing). -- User:Docu

I think you'll find that Bernard Cowan is dead. What criteria does your bot use to determine if a person is living or dead? The confusion may stem from this article's use of b. and d. for born and died. -Dhodges 14:25, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The criteria are outlined at Category_talk:Living_people/Archive01#Articles_to_be_added_to_category. Bernard Cowan had Category:1922 births, but not the corresponding Category:1990 deaths. Thank you for adding it. -- User:Docu

There are some people where the fate is unknown (concentration camp guards). Probably the bot needs to be changed a little to make sure that doesn't happen. Examples are Hildegard Reiterer, Elfriede Mohnecke, Margarete Rabe, and those are only the ones that I have on my watchlist that have been added to Category:Living People February 4, 2006. I don't know if I should just take them out of the category again or what, since if it is a bot, it might just go through again and add them. Rabe was born in 1923, so she might still be alive, Mohnecke born 1922, Reiterer born in 1922. Like I said, it's unknown what they are "up to" now, but likely that they are not alive. Probably this same problem applies to quite a few articles about people involved with the Schutzstaffel. Anyway, just wanted to let you know. BigBen212 23:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I manually checked all entries from 1900-1911 and moved some of those into Category:Possibly living people, alteratively Category:Disappeared people might be used also. The bot skips articles in those categories. In any case, all of those articles need references. -- User:Docu

[edit] Placement of "living people"

Could this bot please be reprogrammed to add the living people category last? At the moment it is adding it first on at least some occasions, but it is clearly not the most useful reader-relevant category for any article. Osomec 18:22, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The current solution came from the placement suggested on Category_talk:Living_people/Archive01#Placement_of_this_category. This happens to make addition quite easy. As it's already the solution for most articles, I suppose it's preferable to leave it as is. -- User:Docu

[edit] Annoying bot

I'm sorry to say, but it's so annoying the updates of this nonsense category... It's a sore eye so many "living people" in my watchlist. fizzerbear 18:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse, we should be done soon. -- User:Docu

[edit] Herschel Grynszpan

IS DEAD. Adam 01:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I added Category:Year of death missing to make sure he wont be marked "living" once more. -- User:Docu

[edit] the return of D6

Is there some way the bot could tell when it has been reverted, so it does not return? Théodore Sindikubwabo is dead, but we don't have a year of death as stated in the opening paragraph. I have reverted the bot for the second time. Thanks, BanyanTree 22:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Please add a year of death category instead (see the note on "miscategorized articles" on Category:Living people). -- User:Docu

[edit] Vagif Mustafa Zadeh

Hi. This bot keeps adding Living people category to the article Vagif Mustafa Zadeh. This person died in 1979, and it is stated so in the article. I deleted this category, but it was added again. Regards, Grandmaster 08:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for advising me. I added the missing Category:1979 deaths which lead to the category being readded. -- User:Docu

[edit] Category:Living people (from User talk:Docu)

[edit] bot

sorry, but, can you throttle your bot a bit? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Given the current low traffic volume [7], it running a bit faster, is this a problem ? -- User:Docu

[edit] He is dead, but not categorized as such (header added by Docu)

[edit] Bas Jan Ader

"He's dead, Jim." scot 20:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I put the article in the appropriate category. -- User:Docu
No problem. I was a bit confused when user "D6" put him in the category "living people" twice. I even searched Google news for him just to make sure his 30 year disappearance wasn't part of his performance art (the last work was, after all, "In Search of the Miraculous"...) and that he'd just come out of hiding. scot 21:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Shelton

Please instruct your bot that when an article reports that someone has died, and gives the date of death, and another user removes the "living people" category from the article, that the bot should not start revert-warring the article. He's still dead, and likely to remain that way. Monicasdude 22:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was missing Category:1995 deaths. I fixed it now, so it shouldn't happen again. -- User:Docu

Same comment as Monicasdude, re. Ebrahim Maka. Tintin (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

From the article I thought that Category:Possibly living people or Category:Year of death missing are the most appropriate. Either category prevents the bot from adding Category:Living people. --- User:Docu

[edit] Brian Spencer

...has been dead since 1988. The bot has replaced the 'living people' category twice.

Thx. I fixed the categorization of the article which avoids this from happening again. -- User:Docu

[edit] Category:Living people

[edit] Robert Coulson

... has been dead since 1999.

Can you make the same fix for that one? -PKM 17:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I added [[Category:1999 deaths]]. Thx for find it. -- User:Docu

Is He Dead?

It says that there are alot of dead people things. Is he really dead, or does he edit dead people pages203.105.88.241 07:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Air Transport Freak

[edit] Max Green

D6 added the category 'Living people' to an article of a man (Max Green) who I clearly marked as having died in 1998. I manually changed the category to '1998 deaths'. - Richardcavell 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:1998 deaths was missing. Thank you for fixing it. -- User:Docu

[edit] Adolfo Constanzo

Adolfo Constanzo died in 1989. Not only is this mentioned in the article's beginning and end, but the article is also categorized under "suicides." Your bot has added "Category: living people" to the article twice now after corrective edits. I added the appropriate 'deaths' category tag, but the bot could be altered to recognize 'suicides' as a valid category to bypass. - Istvanwolf 03:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's based on Category:1962 births. In case Category:Suicides is on the article, I usual remove the category later as it would appear in the following check: [8]. -- User:Docu


[edit] Charlotte Arps

(moved here from User talk:Docu:) Your bot classified this person as living. Have you any evidence that this is true? If you do, it might be relevant to the pending deletion debate, which is currently hinging on the fact that we can't dig up any new information about her at all. -ikkyu2 (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's based on Category:1911 births as per Category talk:Living people/Archive01#Articles to be added to category. In this case Category:Possibly living people may be appriopriate, but in either case, you should make sure the articles complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. -- User:Docu

[edit] Category:Living Bishops of the United Methodist Church

The D6 bot has started to go through the articles in this category, and adding the category "living people". However they are already clearly categorised as living through their inclusion in the "Living Bishops of the United Methodist Church" category, which is a sub-category of (inter alia) "living people".

Please could you ask the bot not to add the extra category in this case? Thanks!

--BrownHairedGirl 19:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Please note the comment by User:Jdowland in the edit history of Category:Living Bishops of the United Methodist Church as well as the discussion on Category talk:Living people#Category:Living classical composers. The category appears to be similar to Category:Living classical composers, thus Category:Living people should be added to the articles as well. You might want to discuss this on Category talk:Living people. -- User:Docu

[edit] Robert Parry (MP)

D6 added category:living people to Robert Parry (MP), who, as the article states, died in 2000. Now this can easily be removed, but who knows who else D6 has "resurrected"? Punkmorten 14:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Parry had been mis-categorized. Category:2000 deaths was missing. Thank you for fixing it by adding the missing category. -- User:Docu

[edit] Sils im Engadin/Segl

Nice to see some real information finally added to this article! Dlyons493 Talk 16:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USCOTW

I saw that you've worked on the Bill Ritter (politician) article, and would like to encourage you to support it in the USCOTW elections. Thank you, Editor19841 22:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yasuji Mori alive? O_O

FYI Yasuji Mori's been dead since 1992 - that's the category I changed him to (kentaru) 83.93.99.120 09:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. Missing year of death categories lead to such miscategorizations. -- User:Docu

[edit] This edit

RE: This edit

Please see Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. --SPUI 12:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I flagged it with {{R unprintworthy}}. -- User:Docu
I don't see what that has to do with "fixing" links to it. --SPUI (T - C) 14:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a criterion on the page you asked me to read (new version of an old page BTW).
As we already got Category:Redirects from US postal abbreviation, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to create more of the redirects in the new form. -- User:Docu
As "redirects from merge" were listed under "unprintworthy redirects", I have removed this clause from Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Redirects caused by merges should NEVER be "fixed" in case the merge is later undone. --SPUI (T - C) 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmm .. that changes the guideline quite a lot, doesn't it? Not sure, if you shouldn't simply remove {{R unprintworthy}} from {{r from merge}}. Afterall, they are printworthy and shouldn't be changed. The same goes for redirects from related words, BA/AE differences, debated spellings, etc. -- User:Docu


[edit] Living people

[edit] Joan McCracken

Re: Joan McCracken. You should not assume that everyone in the 1961 births category is still alive. At least look at the intro to the articles to see if a date of death is given! In this case, the intro makes it pretty clear that Ms. McCracken is dead. (Actually, she was listed in the 1961 births category by mistake; that was her year of death.)--Srleffler 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The missing year of death category led to the miscategorization. Thank you for fixing it. -- User:Docu

[edit] Frederick G. Creed

You put a "living person" category on Frederick G. Creed. I am guessing you might have a robot helping you with this... If so, it has bugs. Creed was born in 1871. -- Geo Swan 06:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Creed had two birth year categories (the second one should have been the year of death category). I correct the categorization. Thank you for pointing it out. -- User:Docu

[edit] 1951 births

It's a bit of an assumption to assume that someone born in 1951 is definitely still alive isn't it? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be based on fact, which is why I don't add Living people to anyone that I'm not sure about. Fair enough to add them to 'possibly living people' as that at least flags a group of people for whom we're not sure about. Markspearce 10:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How recent does the news need to be? Does the bio need to be written in present tense? Most of the time, it's just likely the they are still living, just as :Osama bin Laden is in living people.
Note that even in cases where we are sure about it, it might not be verifiable. -- User:Docu

[edit] Anna Mae Aquash

I was very surprised to see that your bot had added Anna Mae Aquash to the "Living Persons" Category. This is despite the fact she was murdered in 1976, and that the vast majority of the article is devoted to her murder and the ongoing investigation. Additionally, she is already listed in four categories dealing with death and/or murder.

A quick review of this discussion page clearly shows that many editors are disappointed with the bot's performance. The bot works, more precisely, it works as designed, and I think that's the problem. Until such time as the bot's programmer is able to rewrite its program to properly discriminate between the living and the dead, I would respectfully ask that you restrict its usage. Cheers, Cafe Irlandais 16:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The article was miscategorized as the article was in Category:1970s deaths rather than Category:1976 deaths. I changed it to recognize this category as well as the "Deaths by .." and "Murdered .." categories as well. Up to now, these were found with the catscan tool within the bot's 50,000 additions and fixed shortly afterwards. It used to be a temporary problem. -- User:Docu

[edit] Thank You

Daer D6, Thank you for adding category:living people in the John Katzenbach page. --Cyril Thomas 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome! -- User:Docu

[edit] Living people based on year of birth

Is it really a good idea to add Living people category to articles by a bot purely based on the year of birth? Tnikkel 21:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Is that really what the bot is doing? It did it to one of my articles too. Ugh. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 22:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Particularly when using years as far as back as the 1920's and 30's. What is the actual start year for this bot? Markspearce 10:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Seriously though, did you go through some Wikipedia process to get approval for this? Or what is your rationale? Reporting someone as alive who is actually dead is the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia look really bad. Tnikkel 21:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Tnikkel, which article are you refering to? -- User:Docu
I'm not refering to a specific article but to using a bot to add the Living people category to articles solely based on the birth year cat, which is what I understand your bot to be doing. Tnikkel 21:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it's also checking for the absence of a year of death category. Year of birth categories are meant to go with year of death categories (Wikipedia:People by year). If the year of death category hasn't been added, the article is about a living persons or it had been miscategorized already. If there is no specific article you think is miscategorized, I think the categorization worked as it should. -- User:Docu
Yes, I understood the part about year of death category. My concern is that just because there is not a year of death category does not mean the person is still alive. I know that for a large number of articles I have edited I put in the year of birth category if I know it and I do not add the article to the Living people nor Year of death category because I do now know if the person is still alive or not (and don't have enough time to research it). So for all such articles where the status of the person is unknown your bot is essentially marking these people as living, when in fact the situation is simply not known. For some reason you seem to be obsessed with examples of specific articles, so here is one Trevor Kennerd. I placed that article in the 1955 births category because he date of birth was given, however I was not sure if he was still alive so I didn't put in a year of death or a living people category. Adding one of the "status unknown" category would make it appear as if the person had gone missing and no one in the world knew the persons status. I'm a seasoned Wikipedia user, but what about less experienced users who only happen to be aware of the year of birth category and year of death categories; these users aren't going to go browsing through Wikipedia category trees or somewhere else to find the "Possibly alive people" category; they are just going to fill in the information that they know.
As far as articles being miscategorized, if the article is missing a year of death category or a living persons category we are not giving out any false information. But if we add the Living people category to a non-living persons article then we are giving out false information. I'd rather have an article which is "miscategorized" according to Wikipedia standards but gives correct information over one which obeys Wikipedia categorization rules and gives incorrect information, wouldn't you? Tnikkel 23:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why add "living people" to dead people's articles?

This bot added the category "Living people" to the article Josef Hügi, even the the article clearly states his date of death. Huh? \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 22:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The year of death category was missing. I see that in the meantime you added it. Thanks. -- User:Docu

[edit] Nestor Cerpa

Here is a very good reason why your stupid bot shouldn't have added the Living persons cat to Nestor Cerpa. --Descendall 06:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You might as well add a dead people category .. -- User:Docu

[edit] AfD Nomination: Katie Jackson

An article that you have been involved in editing, Katie Jackson, has been listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Jackson. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

-- Malber (talk • contribs) 16:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Living people + year of birth again

It seems like there are some "false positives" - I was peeking around the Noddy articles and some of the character pages have been tagged with a year of birth, which made the bot tag it with a living people tag. The birth cats are supposed to be for real people, not fictional characters (even if they have an associated DoB), right? ColourBurst 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

They are indeed. The Mr. Plod article was added to Category:1954 births by error, which made the bot categorize the article in "living people". Usual we can spot them, but the article wasn't in a category for fictional people either. Are there any others? -- User:Docu

[edit] BOTed templates

You BOT modified all templates of Winter Sports winners; however, you didn't care to verify that your change had created unpleasant spaces... I had to recorrect all (hopefully... you're invited to verify) by hand. Please next time verify better the effect of BOT actions. Bye and good (more careful) work. --Attilios 23:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be so kind and point me to specific edits? I don't recall recently editing them and I generally monitor quite closely the bot's edits. Possibly there is a confusion between the way the Wintersports templates are rendered with the current version of the underlying templates (after someone changed them, see Template talk:Dynamic navigation box#What broke it?). -- User:Docu
Compare these:

Bye and please be more careful. You create much chaos. --Attilios 16:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This edit wasn't made by D6. Besides, the underlying Template:Dynamic navigation box was changed since, so the version in page history doesn't render the same way any more. Please contact the person who changed Template:Dynamic navigation box since. -- User:Docu

[edit] Swiss template

I spent DAYS in reverting by hand Swiss templates to visualize the "coat" field, and what for... you've changed the name of the field, and now all that work is lost and some users have again placed the image within the "name" field in the ridiculous previous fashion!!!!! It's the second time that I see you BOT edits disrupt format of alread done work. The result of your BOT edit is that, if they solve something, exactly as much handwork is needed to counter the chaos they create. Please reconsider the way you're working, or at least try to check in advance what its effect could be. Frankly, I'm very angry. You ARE STRONGLY ADVISED to create a BOT to solve that chaos as soon as possible. Bye and (if you continue this way) bad work. --Attilios 16:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about? Please be more specific if there is a problem with D6's edits. -- User:Docu

[edit] It:Bot

Bot must be flagged before operating, thanks. Gac 06:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/6/_/User_talk%7ED6_9bac.html"