FANDOM

9,369 Pages

Welcome! Edit

1stWikiLogo Welcome to Wiki 24!

Thank you for contributing! If you haven't already, please take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies for guidelines on how to write and format pages. Other pages you might find useful include our pages on editing, linking, placing pages in categories, and making info boxes.

Use the sandbox for your article editing experiments, and if you have any questions, please see the Help link on the left-hand side of the page.

Hi, welcome to Wiki 24! Thanks for your edit to the User:Movebot page.

If the links above do not provide the answer to any of your questions, please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- SignorSimon (Talk) 20:07, 15 December 2009

Bot Edit

On this diff, you mention that the bot will move "a.m." to "am". Isn't this the opposite of what we're planning? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 04:27, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I meant replacing instances of "a.m." or "AM" in each article with the standard "am" we've settled on. --Pyramidhead 05:11, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

Past few hundred edits say "Adding quotes" but shouldn't it be "removing quotes" since that's what it's doing? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:35, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to change that. What I'm doing is removing them first so I can add them everywhere without any doubling over. --Movebot 05:38, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Where was that agreed upon? Hold off on the quotes for a few hours, wait for a few more responses please. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 05:52, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere, I guess, but even before I brought it up, there were pages where both conventions were being used (for example, all the Unnamed characters pages used quotation marks). If we're going to settle on one, it might as well be the correct one, right? --Movebot 05:56, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty but this really has to be the last edit the bot performs which the community hasn't decided on beforehand. I can't think of a reason not to at this point, so I'm fine with it. (other users may disagree of course though). Pyramidhead is there a way the bot can accomplish all these tasks in one sweep? Or it has to be a sort of job-by-job basis? Just curious.
It goes without saying that your bot is doing amazing work otherwise though. Thanks alot Pyramidhead for taking the initiative on these edits! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 20:40, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
No problem! Each task takes some amount of code tweaking, so it's probably best to do things on a job-by-job basis. --Movebot 20:44, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Okay wow, I didn't realize I'd be this bothered by the quotes, but they really make the sidebars and charts look ugly. If I was visiting the site anew, I'd be puzzled by why we even bothered to put them there. I can understand using them in the main body of an article, such as in a BI&N section where it's meant to visually stand apart from the rest of the text in the sentence, but when they're sitting alone in a template, it looks horrible. The appearances template is especially bad since it looks like they're actually asterisks and it's very difficult to distinguish which episodes have notes attached to them. Is there any way we can just use the convention to only use quotes around episode titles in sentences, not in charts? --proudhug 18:43, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think they look right in sidebars and appearance templates and season templates. --SignorSimon (talk/contribs/email) 09:47, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

To bring this up again, I really think we need to remove the quotations, at least from the templates. It's seriously hard to notice the asterisks because the quotes already look like asterisks. I've always thought it hideous. --proudhug 16:55, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Categ moves Edit

I was scanning through UnusedCategories and found that the bot missed "Category:Images (Day 2 10:00am-11:00am)" and "Category:Images (Day 4 3:00pm-4:00pm)". It seemed kind of random that the bot would miss any! This led me to a second question: how is the bot moving categories? It doesn't seem possible. Also, when the bot moves them, the history of the originals is being lost. Is there some way to preserve the history, and also, what other moves result in the loss of history? If this can be avoided I think it should. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:10, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

The bot uses a script to make the new category, then changes the category tag on each image from the old to the new one at a time. There's an option to delete the original category when it empties, but I needed a SysOp password to do that. I don't think there's a way to transfer the history of the originals, unfortunately, but unless I'm mistaken, that would just record the history of the description at the top, right? --Movebot 23:14, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Actually, all the Image categories that don't have the colon should be empty now, not just those two. --Movebot 23:15, January 4, 2010 (UTC)
Now I understand about the categories being re-created, not just moved. Also, what I was saying is that those two categories haven't been replaced yet, and they are the only ones to remain populated with images. All the other dozens of old categories are empty and I've been deleting the empty ones. It doesn't really matter much, but I'm just curious, do you know why the bot missed those two image categs? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:00, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see. There wasn't any way to do them all at once, so I had to move each one separately; I must have forgotten those two. I'll get on that now. --Movebot 03:02, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Bah I was hoping for some random exception thing in the code or whatever. :P
Also, I've been thinking about it, and I don't believe it's a good idea to use the bot for converting "A.M." and "AM" to "am" in the blocks of text and elsewhere. Ultimately we should leave that to editors' discretion; there's nothing wrong with them in article bodies and notes, etc., just as long as links and article titles are consistent.
After removing the white-spaces, what's next for the bot? I can't think of anything that we talked about left to do. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:27, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Nothing big, I don't think. Tomorrow I'll probably go through and italicize all the book/comic titles that aren't already, but that's about it. Might as well keep the account until we need some other big changes done, though. --Movebot 03:30, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
Of course, I have no thoughts to unflag the account or anything. It's a fantastic tool and I'm pretty glad we have someone at the helm who knows it so well. In fact I have an idea for it, but I'm still mulling it over, if it's worth it. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:35, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Other idea Edit

Alrighty, the thing I mentioned above that I have been mulling over is this: should (and obviously, can) you use the Movebot to change all the television serial titles in actor pages under the TV appearances subheadings from quotes to italics, like they should be technically? TiredAlex has expressed interest in this idea over here. The reason is because only television episode titles should have quotes, not the serials themselves. Is this something you agree with Pyramidhead, and are willing to do? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 21:13, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bump! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:19, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Open appearance boxes Edit

Please open all the character appearances boxes in the template, as per Forum:New, single appearances template. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 13:02, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

You just made a million edits with the bot but continued to ignore the community. Why do you insist on ignoring consensus? We asked on the forum page listed above and I asked you here and you have avoided opening the templates. This is an abuse of the bot function. We're entrusting you to listen when the community makes reasonable requests. Can you explain why the appearances haven't been opened? Is there a personal reason, something you dislike? What is going on here? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:12, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean? All the season boxes are open when you click "show." Is that not what you meant? --Movebot 02:18, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
In any case, changing open/collapsed is just a matter of modifying the template itself, so it doesn't matter how many pages I add it to. --Movebot 02:20, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes I know, Simon and I were talking about not having to click "show" at all, meaning they should be open by default, so visually all the content is already there. I'll lift the block just open the silly templates! Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:21, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
So basically the opposite of the changes I made. Sorry I didn't understand, I wasn't trying to ignore the community. --Movebot 02:28, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
You still planning to lift that block? --Movebot 02:43, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
To be clear, just make it so your new appearances template is open by default. I'm not asking you to go and put back the old template, just make the new ones open by default. That means no one will have click "show", yes? Instead it will say "hide". Blue Rook  talk  contribs 02:51, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Right. Should the sub-templates (Day 1, Day 2 etc.) also be open? I feel like if they're all open it would sort of defeat the purpose of moving over to the new format. --Movebot 02:54, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like you unblocked this account (thanks!) but it says I'm still IP-banned. Is there any way to get around that? --Movebot 02:55, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
...I'll take that as a no. Great. Looks like it'll be at least another day before I can change that for you. --Movebot 04:35, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know I fixed it. From now on, the master navbox will always be open with no option to hide, and the child ones will be hidden by default. --Pyramidhead 18:10, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
I was the one who fixed it. The whole idea of hiding any of the appearances at all, whether they be the child ones or the whole template, is brand new and was not mentioned before this point. The idea of hiding anything by default was not discussed when you proposed switching over the templates. When you say now that the "purpose" of moving to the new format was to have stuff closed and blocked off, it's no more surprising to me than to hear you say "the purpose of the new format was to make it easier to slowly migrate the templates into Mandarin Chinese numerical character sets". The reason is because it was never discussed. You only wanted to "streamline" the templates into 1 template.
Over at Forum:New, single appearances template, Simon and I clearly did not want to have to click anything to have to see the boxes. The boxes should always be open because that's what they always have been. As a guide to making changes to the wiki, you need to look to precedent: has there ever been anything hidden here before? I'm 99% certain that the answer is "no". If leaving them all open defeats your previously unstated purpose, I would have to say that we revert back to the prior system. If not, we keep it, giving the user the option to collapse boxes as desired. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 18:28, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Again, I misunderstood what your complaints were and came up with two alternative options that lessened the amount of clicking needed to show all of the boxes. And okay, it wasn't the "entire" purpose, but I wouldn't have spent days importing those templates from Wikipedia if I didn't think we could incorporate at least SOME of the hide/show feature to make the appearances more navigable. Sure, it's not a precedent, but until a few weeks ago we didn't have the code necessary for it to ever be a precedent. --Movebot 18:38, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the feature can stay of course, but the boxes should remain open as they always have. Also, check to see if Movebot steamrolled over Corpse Only appearances like for Kevin Wade. I would check myself but have limited time. Is there a way the bot can realize when it is changing Corpse Only/Live Audio Only to a regular appearance? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 19:47, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Season / Day Edit

There's nothing wrong with those redirects, we've had them since the creation of the wiki. Where is the explanation about why all those redirects were avoided? Any major change that's undertaken needs to be brought up, did you bring this up somewhere? Also, I've noticed that you've been eliminating some "Day #" headlines. Definitely no good, that's another precedent issue that needs to be discussed before it can be changed. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 03:29, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

In my experience, and on most wikis in general, it's usually better to have more direct links rather than redirects. There's nothing stopping anyone from continuing to use [[Day X]], I just thought I might as well change the ones that we currently have since it's incredibly easy to do.
As for the headings, there's seriously no reason to have a single h2 on a page that's only a few paragraphs long. They're not going to be in another season any time soon, and usually the first line says what day they were active during (i.e., X was a Y during Day Z), so it just seemed logical to cut it out where possible. Plus, there's really no need to have them since the entire page fits into one screen and there's no table of contents to make use of it. --Pyramidhead 17:18, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
Don't change it without consulting the community; revert it wherever you altered it. Blue Rook  talk  contribs 01:20, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Concerns Edit

Recently, I've been turning up a number of bot errors from the past for Movebot. Here, Nathanson was given an appearance on Ep1 and his 12noon appearance was lost. A bunch of characters like Claudia Hernandez and Ian (Day 3) lost their *corpse only* appearances note when Movebot changed stuff. Dalton Furrelle lost an appearance in his template. I'm pretty sure there were a handful more... and this was just me checking a few Movebot edits at random intervals. There must have been dozens of others because the bot has done so much work.

I'm not complaining, just trying to give you a few bits of data to see if there is a way to check for other errors. Is there some easy way to check if other appearances were mistakenly added/deleted and stuff like that? Blue Rook  talk  contribs 23:31, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.