Wikipedia talk:Dead-end pages/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

No longer running my bot

Hi all, I'm taking a long wiki-break and I've requested my bot to be de-flagged which means it won't be clearing the link lists anymore. If anyone else has any programming experience, I've posted the source of my bot at User:Jayden54/WPDead Source.js. Ask on Bot Requests for someone else to run the bot. I'm sorry for the hassle. Jayden54 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help — and enjoy your wiki-break! Askari Mark (Talk) 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

New layout looks nice, but eats my section edit tags

I really think the new layout looks far classier than the old one. And smaller pages are a Good Thing.

But does anyone know why I'm not seeing per-section [edit] tags any more? --Alvestrand 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

They're there on some sections and not on others. If I click the A-C section, they are there. (And, so are all the sections for A-K). If I click on the G-K tab, they are not there, and only the letters G-K show up. (Well, G-J, since K is done). Not having the section edit tags is a major pain... --Kathy A. 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Found it (I think) - the {{Wikipedia:Tutorial/TabsTop}} template has a __NOEDITSECTION__ in it. Not sure how to fix it - putting __EDITSECTION__ below it didn't help, at least. --Alvestrand 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Found a fix, involving some template-munging and using TabsTopWithEdit instead of plain TabsTop. --Alvestrand 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I think A-C is goofed up. Salad Days 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried to fix it. Check if I goofed. I also linked the talk pages of all the subpages here. Will the next upload be in the new format? --Alvestrand 11:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
AWB just provides the letter headings; it still has to be broken apart by hand. It shouldn't be difficult to split it up this way instead. Salad Days 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Old stuff archived

This page was getting a bit long, so I put all the old (pre-April) stuff in /Archive 2. --Alvestrand 11:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot

I wanted to get some community opinion before even starting, as this relates entirely to this page.

I understand the previous bot to remove deleted pages from this list isn't running, and I am considering writing a new one. But this project is considered important, I was trying to think of other features that would make it better. Here are some of my ideas:

  1. Look at Whatlinkshere, and if the titles of those articles exist in the text then make them links (Excluding disambigs, redirects, and pages marked for deletion)
  2. Remove items that have more than 4 links Bad idea, removed.
  3. If there is another article with the same name in a different case, propose a redirect
  4. If it contains less than two headings, contains no bold text in the first paragraph, or does not contain the article name in the first paragraph then mark it as wikify as well
  5. Search in google for the title, and if less than 1000 results, flag as not notable (Not sure about this, need more opinions)
  6. Search Google News for references, if no results maybe flag as not notable (Same as above)

With all entries it would ignore redirecting/flagging if it had a merge, mergeto, or mergefrom tag, or a afd, db, prod, or other deletion template.

It would also read the notes after the item on the list, such as notability, merge, cleanup, etc. Some such as merge and cleanup would be skipped, whereas notability would have a higher chance of being flagged for being not notable (see item 5 and 6)

When commenting, please refer to the number that you are commenting on, and if possible please use a list that is numbered the same. Thanks, TheFearow 22:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment on #2 -- part of the point of DEP is not just adding links, but also triage, which I'm not sure a bot could do effectively (but I'd love to be proved wrong!). For example, an article from the list I worked on today already was wikilinked by someone else, but my internal spam alarm went off when I saw the article, and I tagged it for deletion. If the article had already been removed from DEP by a bot, I'd have never seen it.--Kathy A. 00:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, thats the sort of comments I want. I'll remove that item, since DEP is more than just about adding links. Any other comments? Matt - TheFearow 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment on #1 - in some cases, I find that the page is lnked from a disambiguation page - in which case the page's title (as written in bold) would be linked by the bot. That's not useful. But the idea sounds attractive.
Proposal #4, #5 and #6 are actual changes to the article. I'm very conservative wrt automatic changes - there's just too much potentioal to get it wrong. But all of #1, #4, #5, #6 sounds like things it would be beautiful to have in an AWB-like "push this button to make it happen" environment. Is that possible? (Note: I don't use AWB, since I don't use IE. But I've read a bit about it and seen other people using it.) --Alvestrand 03:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I like suggestion #4 the most. Flagging these articles as wiki is a good idea. The other options would be fun to experiment, to see how successful they are. Thanks for the offer of assistance! Salad Days 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Also might be good to mark with wikify if there's no bold text in the first paragraph.--Kathy A. 20:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i'll answer your comments. First, I will update it to not add links to disambig pages or redirect pages that link to it, as well as pages that are marked as speedy, prod, or afd. #5 and #6 are a bit advanced, I personally am a bit wary with these features but I decided to post anyway and get opinions by people involved. #4 is one of my favourites, and I will update if it contains no bold text or if it doesn't contain the article name in the first paragraph. I have updated my initial message, feel free to check out the changes, and please comment on them. Thanks! (Note: My original bot request fell through so if this seems like the community is into it I will probably implement it pretty quickly (It wasn't declined, I withdrew)) Matt - TheFearow 22:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Could I get some more comments? I'm going to start work on this bot soon, to remove redlinks and items #1 and #4. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I kind of like #1 and #4 - my "separation of concerns" guessometer says "do this as a separate bot from the redlink remover", but the bot policies of wikipedia may make this hard. For #4 note that sometimes the article name is a shorter or longer version of what should be bolded in the first line - the article may be "Tom French (author)", while the bolded first line has "Thomas Alva French (1922-1944) was an English author" (example is invented). The point is - be careful. --Alvestrand 11:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the comments everyone. Here is a list of what I am going to write a bot to do:

  1. Remove redlinks from the list.
  2. Check the whatlinkshere for an article, and if the exact text of linking articles name appears in the text of the article, make it a link.
  3. If the article contains two or less headings, and it contains no bold text in the first paragraph, it will mark the article as wikify.
  4. Remove redirect pages from list

For all that, it will ignore articles that contain templates for any of the following: WP:AFD, WP:PROD, WP:SPEEDY, WP:MERGE

Can I get any objections here? If not, I will write the bot and put forward a request for bot approval. If you have any suggestions for those features, please say. If you have a suggestion for a new feature, mention it on my talkpage and i'll consider implementing it.

When voting, please state which number you are voting for, such as:

''' Support (1) ''' Reason ~~~~

''' Oppose (1 and 4) ''' Detailed reason ~~~~

Support

  • Support 1-4 (while having misgivings, it's better to WP:BB and learn from experience). --Alvestrand 07:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Support 1-4 All seem useful, and don't have too much potential for unintended mischief.--Kathy A. 12:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is better to try and fail, then to not try. Also, octopuses 04:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Thanks for voting! Matt - TheFearow 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (Note - Even though this appears below the oppose header, it is not an opposition! If i opposed to my own idea, I wouldn't do it)

RBA

Code is almost complete, and bot has been approved for trial on WP:RBA. Matt - TheFearow 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

I have created a new version of this listing based upon the directions given upon it. I have posted it to User:Also,_octopuses/Userboxes/Sandbox. If you would choose to include it in your efforts, I would be most happy. Thank you. Also, octopuses 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering if anyone has a reason for Also, octopuses not to post the updated list? Or is everyone else taking the summer off? --Kathy A. 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm here, and I wouldn't mind - "my" T section is almost empty. --Alvestrand 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

DeadBot

DeadBot completed its first trial run on G-K, see [1] for the diff. If there are any comments from anyone here, see my RBA. Matt - TheFearow 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of adding just the {{wikify}} tag, you might want to add {{Wikify|{{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}}. That will save SmackBot from having to follow behind and add the date info. Same for other tags that might take a date.--Kathy A. 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll implement that on the next update. Matt - TheFearow 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Nit: please use {{Wikify|date={{subst:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}}} - I believe the non-date form also works for wikify, but people are trying to be consistent using the date form, I believe. --Alvestrand 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point. I copy/pasted from the tag AWB places, so I assumed that was the most current method.--Kathy A. 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot has been approved, and I am now starting running it. For now, only the removing of list functions work, Wikify is not currently enabled (needs to be approved seperately, I am not going to bother for now). Thanks for the comments! Matt - TheFearow 05:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a bug here - it removed all the manually-inserted comments from P-T. --Alvestrand 09:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas

1) Some web sites periodically do maintenance to their site, e.g. close on Saturday to Sunday/everyday 3am-6am/2 weeks for big maintenance(some may be so unlucky hacked or forget to pay internet fees and take 1-2 month to recover.) They may be 'temporary' dead. Should we save them and take a 2th/3rd test in different days before delete them?
2) There is a "www.archive.org" backup some webpages some time b4, should we replace the dead link with links to backups in this site?(This site also have several mirrors, some pages are found in some mirrors but not other mirrors. But it may not be good all links change to this site, that would make too high traffic to the site as the site have already many volume of backups.
3) Some links have mirrors, or copies in other sites, and as may have caches in Google, MSN, Yahoo...etc, can we see them and use keyword "selected short word phrases in the search engine cache" to search alternative links to replace the dead links?

Some dead links may be good links and should not delete simply. But when more and more links one day there may be too much links in a page.Gaia2767spm 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you're looking for another wikiproject - this one is about pages that have no outgoing links, not about external links that can't be looked up... --Alvestrand 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thx. Post to the page Wikipedia:Dead_external_links. u may remove the above ideas.:)Gaia2767spm 13:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Hey everyone, I wanted to clarify something. Which of the following formats is being used for editors notes?

  • # [[ArticleName]] - Note
  • # [[ArticleName]] Note

My bot was written for number one, so I want to know which one to update it to. Are we going to stick to one, or just choose any? Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 01:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a standard format? Good luck getting people to stick to it! *grin*
Is it possible for your bot to pick up anything between the "]]" and the line break as a note? That would cover any mental lapses on the part of editors. Er, not that I personally have mind fades... --Kathy A. 01:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably, I'll try doing that. Hopefully it should work :) (And yes, there was a standard format, prior to update EVERY comment used the dash (-) format.) Matt - TheFearow 09:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't remember being consistent, and it turns out I wasn't consistent back then either - see [2]. --Alvestrand 10:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, i'll fix that in time for my next run on Monday/Tuesday. It should read and parse both. Is it possible to make it consistent, or do we all just agree to use whatever style we want? Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 02:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem aiming for consistency (my current style is the first option, which seems to be what is most common). But I can just about guarantee that some editor some time will forget the dash. :) --Kathy A. 13:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so are we aiming for the dash? The comments DeadBot puts in are always using a dash anyway. If we want consistency, I can program DeadBot to read the comments either way however when it outputs the line to put in the dash? That seem's correct, and if you like the idea i'll ask a couple of other DEP regulars to comment. Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 22:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me.--Kathy A. 22:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Bot Proposals

Hey everyone, could I get your opinion on the following changes?

  • Bot updates comments to use a standard format (The format # [[ArticleName]] - Comment) as part of the process
  • Bot adds comments to articles that have certain tags (such as AFD, Merge, SPEEDY, Uncat, Notability, Cleanup, and Advert)

Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll run this through anyway - it's non-controvertial and doesn't cause it to make more edits than usual. Matt - TheFearow 09:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Suggestions: 1) don't add/change comments if comments are present unless it's clearly one added by the bot itself; 2) for dated tags like "notability", pull out the "date=" value into the comment. Would increase the value to me, at least. --Alvestrand 05:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
It already wont add any comments if they already exist, and it would be much harder NOT to change them to a dash ( - ) style. Also, the date value should be easy enough, I'll work on that next. :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Template

What do you guys think of this? If you have any suggestions please comment on it's discussion page, not here. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

More tags to not list

It seems that articles that only consist of a {{wi}} or {{wiktionary}} tag also need to be omitted from the listing. They're redirects to Wiktionary for articles that used to be just a word definition. --Alvestrand 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

They are omitted from the listing if they don't contain the wiki tag at the time of the database dump. Also, octopuses 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Shall I have my bot remove pages consisting of only those templates? (Which is what I assume you meant) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Implemented now. This will work on next run (sometime in next half hour). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

bot error?

The bot added dead-end template to Cohomological dimension. Is this a bot error? How many more links does one need? Arcfrk 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Insertformulahere