Contents
- 1 Martin vom Brocke
- 2 Greek socialists
- 3 Mistletoebird
- 4 Need help to deal with remaining duplicated reflists!
- 5 ISBNs obtained from Wikidata
- 6 Broadcom (disambiguation) AfD?
- 7 ISBN for book written before system in use?
- 8 Incomplete removal of Multiple issues
- 9 Oshkosh Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR)
- 10 same sex marriage
- 11 Capsella bursa-pastoris
- 12 Mugo Kibiru
- 13 Left you a message
- 14 False positives on CheckWiki ISBN list?
- 15 ISBNs
Martin vom Brocke
Hi Yobot / Magioladitis! The article Martin vom Brocke is no longer an orphan. Will you change this "issue" information of March 17 or should I do that myself? --DownUnder36 (talk) 12:49, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Magioladitis! Herzlichen Dank für die schnelle Erledigung - und das andere Problem löse ich auch noch ;-). Ich schreibe Deutsch, weil Du schreibst, dass Du das kannst. Still being very much impressed about your > 750,000 contrubutions to Wikipedia. Gruß aus good old Germany--DownUnder36 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- DownUnder36 Danke sehr! Happy editing! -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Greek socialists
Hi. I came across Union of People's Democracy, recently started article. I had previously understood that ELD was a front organized by the Socialist Party of Greece and that the Socialist Party later added 'ELD' to its name more as a symbolic gesture. But this article seems to describe the ELD as a political party. Any idea whether they should they be merged? --Soman (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Soman Sorry I did not have time to check this. I have somewhere handwritten notes but I was not able to find them. I may try next week. The greek article is no better at the moment. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Mistletoebird
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Under Yobot, you fixed articles using AWB. What is that? Regards, John sheens (talk) 08:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- John sheens Please read WP:AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Need help to deal with remaining duplicated reflists!
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Dear talk page stalkers,
I need your help to deal with the last remaining pages of Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/078 dump. @Redrose64, Jonesey95, and GoingBatty: et al.!!! -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I did five of them and may have time for more later. Some of them were pretty strange. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Jonesey95 Wow. Yes, I rechecked using the tool. All done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
ISBNs obtained from Wikidata
I have undone your edits to Phantoms in the Brain. The templates you removed are links to Wikidata statements for this book, and allow the information to be maintained in one less place. You can read about it here. I take your question mark edit summary to mean you didn't know what you were dealing with; maybe next time you should ask first. —swpbT 13:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- swpb I think is still not active. Frietjes to help me on that. I have not seen any another pages transcluding Wikidata properties like that. -- Magioladitis (talk)
- @Swpb: (talk page watcher) And just how are editors supposed to know about this? There is no {{tl|#property}}; there is no indication in the documentation at {{Infobox book}}; the link in your edit summary is red; the link you include above leads to very obscure information. Has this been approved by anyone for implementation in English Wikipedia? I don't remember seeing anything about it in, for example, The Signpost. PamD 14:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- To PamD: I wasn't aware there needed to be a formal approval to use every new capability in MediaWiki, or a requirement that all editors understand it; there's certainly been no consensus against using a perfectly functional and useful capability. As I understand, all infoboxes should be using wikidata to end duplication of effort. To the extent that wikidata starts appearing on Wikipedia -- and it will continue to, from editors other than myself -- Wikipedia documentation simply needs to catch up. —swpbT 14:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Swpb: Editors edit pages, including infoboxes. If you start using a facility that other editors don't understand, and about which they can't find information even if they look, it's rude to those editors and causes stress and confusion. That's not the way to introduce new capabilities understood only by the MediaWiki cognoscenti. PamD 14:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I agree that editors should be able to find information on the capability, and I'm dismayed that Wikipedia's documentation has failed to cover it. That's no reason to pretend it doesn't exist. If you want to be helpful, by, e.g., updating the documentation, or revising the infobox to auto-populate as User:Frietjes mentioned, that would be appreciated. —swpbT 14:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
swpb no it's not like that. The infobox should be used without any parameters and the parameters to be auto-generated instead fo explicitly requests specific properties from Wikidata. The infobox should be doing this for you. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Magioladitis Yes, in an ideal world, the template would be self-populating. There's certainly no harm I can see in manually populating it in the mean time. —swpbT 14:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
In addition to PamD: Wikidata#Phase_3 has not yet started. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Swpb and PamD: there are a couple options, (1) do something like {{PH wikidata}} or, even better, (2) update infobox book to use a method similar to Template:Infobox telescope. Frietjes (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, @Frietjes: {{Infobox telescope}} looks a good model - clear information describing what's going on. Please, @Swpb:, do something similar for {{Infobox Book}}, and also notify the people at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books (though of course there are plenty of editors who occasionally edit book articles and aren't part of that project). And perhaps, if introducing something so radical, add a standard hidden comment somewhere in that infobox "This infobox uses Wikidata parameters; for more information see ...". And explain, somewhere, what to do if the information needs to be corrected or updated, how to add more data, etc. PamD 14:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
swpb No. You should not be addding wikidata properties randomly till we sort it out otherwise bots, programs, etc. will come into trouble. I arrived to this page by a tracking categories syaing that the isbn number was not a number as expected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- That sounds a lot like a bot problem that needs to be fixed at the bot end, now or later. —swpbT 14:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, ta the moment when Infoboxes will work like {{Official website}} and not by randomly inserted items. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is a roadmap to use wikidata items. I do not understand why you want to force the schedule forward. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, ta the moment when Infoboxes will work like {{Official website}} and not by randomly inserted items. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I already did. "Phase 3 not started." -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- 1. That's a weak excuse for a "roadmap"; are these phases described anywhere in any sort of detail? This guideline contradicts you, and suggests that my use of wikidata falls under phase two. If using enabled functionality is currently disallowed, your "roadmap" needs to say that explicitly, or you'll see it used by a lot more editors than just me. 2. I said "edit summary". If there's one place a meaningful edit summary (or at least actual words) is key, it's in a revert. —swpbT 14:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This RFC from May 2013 allows templates to be modified to include information from Wikidata when there is no existing information in the infobox, but the option to "in the template call in the article make a call to Wikidata and give the result to the template" was not supported by consensus; this latter option, which did not have community support, is what the infobox template in Phantoms in the Brain was doing. Things may have changed in the intervening three years, but I did not find any newer discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I've left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Books#.22.23property:.22_in_Infobox_Books to alert Books editors of this. PamD 16:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Being too hasty has many problems: First of all, there still no option to edit the Wikidata item directly. Moreover, Wikidata at the moment allows mutliple ISBNs to be saved while infoboxes need only one, usually that of the first edition. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
And now I have to fix ISBN errors in Wikidata too... Especially because some data was imported form English before we fix all ISBN data in English Wikipedia. (Example) Why??? Can't we please make a real plan instead of just creating more noise by pilling more and more errors? -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
VIAFbot added ISBN info in Wikidata from various Wikipedias back in 2013 without making any checks whether the ISBN was a valid or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Category:Pages using isbn values obtained from wikidata. At least I am in Hackathon and maybe we can deal with this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Broadcom (disambiguation) AfD?
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Greetings! I noticed that you've contributed to articles on Broadcom Corporation, Avago Technology, and/or the new merged entity Broadcom Limited in the past. I'm pinging you to see if you wanted to add an opinion to a deletion debate on a disambiguation page (Broadcom (disambiguation)). If so, the debate is here. Thanks! Talk to SageGreenRider 23:34, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank for the heads up. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
ISBN for book written before system in use?
I see you added an ISBN for The A.B.C. Murders by Agatha Christie. For the articles about books she wrote before ISBN came into being (about 1970), other editors have left that blank. The infobox generally has information on the first edition of the novel. I am not aware of rules on this one way or the other; it is just something I noticed for books printed before ISBN existed. If there is a Publication history section, then the later editions with ISBN are listed with it, occasionally (e.g., Dickens The Old Curiosity Shop, while those by Austen, Bronte, Alcott, Twain, Harper Lee in 1960 skip ISBN altogether in the articles). Just wondering. --Prairieplant (talk) 22:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Prairieplant The instructions at {{Infobox book}} says for the ISBN parameter, "(prefer ISBN of 1st edition)". Beyond that, I don't know. Good question. Bgwhite (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Prairieplant cc: Bgwhite you are right but in fact what I did is just to make the problem visible to make a point. If you check the page before and after my edit nothing changed in the visual outcome. Infobox book was recently added to autogenerate ISBN codes using Wikidata. I think this is not a good idea and this is an example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Magioladitis Oh, that is a huge change. All those authors I listed, I checked and at that moment there was no ISBN anywhere on the finished page. Will an ISBN appear on To Kill A Mockingbird? David Copperfield? It is weird, there was no isbn line in the infobox for The A.B.C. Murders, yet there was an ISBN on the page, I had not noticed that odd situation when I posted my note to you. I checked using World Cat, the autogenerator chose a 2006 American edition for that British author. Thank you for explaining. Who thinks this is a good idea? Who wrote the "autogeneration"? Last question, will my work to find first edition isbn be undone by this mystery feature? --Prairieplant (talk) 08:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC) --Prairieplant (talk) 08:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Prairieplant take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Incomplete removal of Multiple issues
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hi, I don't know if Yobot is still doing this, but nobody's noticed that spare 1=
until now. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64 there were 113 pages in the database with |1=
in Multiple issues. I removed it from all places to avoid problems till we fix the bug. Still the bug will be fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
rev 12001 -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Oshkosh Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR)
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Hello Magioladitis,
I kind of picked you out of the Wiki ether to ask this question of you, and simply because Yobot did an edit on a page I created. I'm still learning with Wiki, so hope this isn't too dim a question, and something I should probably be able to sort myself...
I recently spent some time creating a page for Oshkosh's Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR), calling the page Oshkosh Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR).
In the big outside world the Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVSR) is the US Marines replacement for the Logistic Vehicle System (LVS). Obviously I guess! There is currently a Wiki page for LVS, although to be pedantic, it is incorrectly named Logistics Vehicle System when the vehicle is actually contracted as the Logistic Vehicle System. But minor I suspect.
There was mention of Logistic Vehicle System Replacement (LVS) in the Logistics Vehicle System (LVSR) page, but I trimmed this to essentials when I created and linked to the new LVSR page.
The problem I have, and can't sort, is that if I search Wiki for LVSR by acronym (which most will do as this is what the vehicle is referred to as) there is a redirect in place for LVSR that takes the searcher to the LVS page. Yes, you can then link to the LVSR page, but it's got to be better to go directly to LVSR when searching LVSR. How do I get rid of that redirect? Maybe I can't, and maybe only an Administrator can?
Grateful for your thoughts/comments.Wolpat (talk) 16:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @Wolpat: to edit a redirect you need to:
- Click on the redirect LVSR, which takes you to existing target article
- look at the top where it says "Redirected from LVSR"
- Click on that blue "LVSR", which gets you to the redirect
- Edit the redirect to change its target.
- I hope that helps! PamD 17:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Magioladitis. I sussed that out just before reading your message :-).
Thanks again Wolpat (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
same sex marriage
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
He Magioladitis, why is Yobot adding WP Women to all articles on same sex marriages? That seems a bit wide a scope! L.tak (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- L.tak It is not. Look carefully. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
L.tak The edit summary means that that the page has a WikiProject Women related tag but it does not imply that the bot necessarily added a new tag. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm curious about this edit which did nothing other than bypass a redir. It's marked as an AWB edit, so should satisfy WP:AWB#Rules of use - but it goes against item 4. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Redrose64 this is how my tagging system works to avoid duplicate tags. If someone has a better tagging system is welcome to take over the bot tasks. I 've asked other people in the past. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Tagging completed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Capsella bursa-pastoris
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
You corrected the ISBN number I gave. I have changed it to what I first used. I trust you agree? Webb, D.A., Parnell, J. and Doogue, D. 1996. An Irish Flora. ISBN 0-85221-131-7 and: Parnell, J. and Curtis, T. 2012.Webb's An Irish Flora. ISBN 978-185918-4783 Osborne 13:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)Osborne 13:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice job. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Mugo Kibiru
Hello Magioladitis,
I surmise that you are responsible for assisting in returning the page in question to it's original content after something happened during editing and the page was jumbled up. Thank you. However, can I continue to edit the page properly or is there an issue with my editing? Richard Mwangi (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Left you a message
Hi I've left you a message on your "Awards" page. Realizing just now that I should have left it here for you. Hoping to hearing from you! SeaBeeDee 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 16:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeaBeeDee (talk • contribs)
False positives on CheckWiki ISBN list?
I am unable to determine why the following ISBNs are showing up on the CheckWiki ISBN list:
- 1 x ISBN 979-9757078288 : Trebenna (I modified this one to 978, which was also listed in worldcat.)
- 1 x ISBN 9998896924 : Tim Aaron
- 1 x ISBN 9999021565 : East Boston
These ISBNs do not appear to have special characters in them and do not give an error on the Special:Booksources page. The first and last one link to valid works in worldcat.org.
And I wonder why this one does not give an error at Special:Booksources but turns up in the CheckWiki error list. The check digit works. I think the CheckWiki test should be the same as the one at Special:Booksources, so we may need to modify one or the other.
- 1 x ISBN 979-9756134084 : Media freedom in Turkey
Any ideas? – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Jonesey95 these number were not assigned to any books officially. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
@NicoV: for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Jonesey95 I see in International Standard Book Number that no country has 9999 prefix for instance. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
9100000-9399999 is a non reserved area. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
ISBNs
![](https://web.archive.org/web/20160409070953im_/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Yes_check.svg/20px-Yes_check.svg.png)
Just so I don't make the same mistake in the future, what exactly does this fix entail? Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 8, 2016; 19:02 (UTC)
- Ezhiki the letter should be the Latin X and you used the Cyrillic X which is a different letter. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- You know, I was always wondering how people could be so stupid and type a Cyrillic letter where a Latin one should clearly be used. I must admit that after having made this mistake myself, I still don't know the answer :) Anyway, thanks for the quick response and, more importantly, for catching this at all. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 8, 2016; 19:33 (UTC)
Ezhiki Haha. I was familiar with the mistake because I once used the Greek X myself :) Then I had to fix an error I cause by myself. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- How can anybody confuse X, Х and Χ - they're so obviously different. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redrose64 lol. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Magioladitis is Greek. As all western alphabets are derived from the Greek Alphabet, Magioladitis can spot the tiniest difference in letters. As every word, in any language, comes from Greek, Magioladitis can also speak any language. Bgwhite (talk) 22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Redrose64 lol. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)