User talk:Primefac/Archive 11

Active discussions
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12


Hi, I tried to fiddle around with AWB, but I couldnt get the hang of AWB with RegEx. If given an example, I will be able to understand everything very easily. Would you please be kind enough to tell me how to achieve following result?:

Assuming, we want to target articles with the tags of particular English, for this scenario, british english. Now we want to change all the words from american english to british english (color —> colour), excluding the ones inside templates/parameters, how should we do that?

Thanks a lot. :) For me, asking somebody else is very embarassing as I am a level 4 expert in C :-/
usernamekiran(talk) 06:09, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Usernamekiran, in that particular example you wouldn't even need regex. Just do a simple find/replace for color/colour. However, you run into a major context issue, because while an article may be about a British subject, the text of the article may be written entirely in American English. It has long been held that whatever English variant a page is written (regardless of subject) it should not arbitrarily be changed. Obviously, if it uses "color" in one paragraph and "colour" in another, one of the two should be changed, but that's really not something that AWB would be good for, because there's no good way of finding pages like that. I think you're best off finding other things to fix. Primefac (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
What if we tell AWB to edit only the articles with {{Use British English}}? That way, the target pages would be easy to acquire. Maybe we can include entire british, and american english. There are way too many words: centre-center, favour-favor, favourite-favorate and many more. —usernamekiran(talk) 14:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
You know, I was looking for that template when I was replying above and couldn't find it. I must have misspelled something...
Yes, you could load up all pages that transclude that template. However, you then reach another issue - that template is used on over 150k pages. That is a massive undertaking, and would be most appropriate as a bot task. I'm not 100% sure, but I think that sort of bot proposal has been shut down in the past. I'm not saying that you can't do it yourself, but a) it will take forever, and b) it will take forever. You might also get someone complaining about the massive number of edits you're making (of course, you might find that the majority of those pages do use proper British English, so with luck you might only have to edit a few thousand pages). Primefac (talk) 14:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Such a bot would be against WP:FDB#Fully automatic spell-checking bots. Even if permitted, you would need to guard against altering quotations, and if altering American spelling to British, you would also need to keep away from computer code, such as the color:#a80000; declaration in my signature. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that might have been a CONTEXTBOT issue. But, if you were actually checking what AWB was changing, you could avoid such improper changes. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, there are those who run AWB without checking before saving, contrary to rules of use no. 1. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

oh poop. If initial edits/exeriments gone as expected, then I was hoping to create a bot that would exclude code, and quotes.  
usernamekiran(talk) 23:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


Thanks for answering that message on my talk page! I was at work and unable to at the time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Always happy to help out when I can. Primefac (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RFC Close....

Hi, I have closed the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion.Please don't forget to sign.As a side-note I found it problematic to introduce(wiki-link) the URLs as discussed.Please look into the matter.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 12:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Signed. Primefac (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


Hi, do you know of any way to fetch a list of articles created by a particular user in AWB.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 13:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: You can load from Special pages in AWB, if even there is nothing specifically for Contributions. --Izno (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@Izno:--The special-pages sub-sub-section on WP:AWB/MAN#Make list allows a skim through an user's contribs. but that's not very helpful.I tried URL scraping from XTools Article creation page but it's too of no use!Did I miss anything?Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 16:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric, the short answer is "no", the long answer is "yes, but not directly". If I'm doing something convoluted like getting all pages created by a user or all pages edited between X and Y date, I go to the appropriate page on-wiki, copy the list, and put it in on of my subpages. Then I can load that page into AWB and have all the links. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Need Help For my startup

I'm Ankit desai.I want to chat you for help so when you free msg me. Ankitdesai (talk) 09:14, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ankitdesai, I'm not really sure what you're wanting to chat about, but please make sure to message me here if you reply, not on my bot's page. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming etiquette

I added a section on bots to Wikipedia:Welcome committee#Welcoming etiquette, but I'm not sure if it's worded well enough. If you want to improve upon my edit, feel free to do so.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 19:11, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot flooding watchlist

Can we slow this down? El_C 20:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, El_C, can do. I apparently turned down the delay period at some point. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


Hello, hope you in good health, can you please assess my request? Thanks --Alaa :)..! 01:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Been rather busy lately, if I get a chance I'll take a look. Primefac (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks --Alaa :)..! 22:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Few pages left

Hi. Caan you please help in fixing the last 60 pages left in mainspace with ISBN magic words. After we are done we cn report to Phabricator and ask the devs to starting removing it from the code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ???? There are over 56,000 pages left in mainspace with ISBN magic words. Also see Category talk:Pages using ISBN magic links, which still applies, AFAIK. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Jonesey95 AWB onyl loaded 60 pages in last run. No idea why. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, AWB only loads 60 mainspace pages because it can only load 25k pages from a cat, and since it does this semi-randomly it's grabbing all of the non-mainspace pages first, leaving only the 60-odd pages that can't get fixed by a bot. Primefac (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Code fart in Task 13

Sorry, did I mess up your day?

This edit by PrimeBOT, while intending to fix the magic links, accidentally blanked the page. It was fortunate that it was stopped very soon afterwards. Do you know the cause of this glitch? Parcly Taxel 02:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Parcly Taxel, I got a popup message saying that one of the servers was lagging, but that's the only reason I can think of why it would have blanked a relatively small page like that. Primefac (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Definitely an AWB hiccup. I've seen things like this a handful of times. Nothing in the code could cause a lack of edit summary except a random glitch. ~ Rob13Talk 06:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks + 2

thanks for all the helpful advice! I appreciate it and have been putting more work into varying and diversifying my welcome messages on User:DoctorWho42/Welcoming templates. As always, please let me know anything I could do better and thank you.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 01:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: should I keep User:DoctorWho42/Welcoming templates updated? I wasn't sure if it was helpful or superfluous but I'm willing to keep it current for everyone's sake.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 02:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I made a list of users (both unregistered and registered) I'd like to welcome. Please let me know if it would be okay to do so or if it would be better to hold off.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 10:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
DoctorWho42, I'll be completely honest, there are a lot more effective things you could be spending your time on than welcoming random editors. Primefac (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Primefac that's fair, plus I have been behind on articles I should start. For what it's worth, I'm open to recommendations.-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 08:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

BOTN discussion

The discussion regarding the edit summaries of Magic links bot has been moved to WP:BOTN#Concern about Magic links bot. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:11, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Animal Cognition (journal)

I just want to remind you that you have put the "under review" template on this draft, Draft:Animal Cognition (journal). It has been more than 12 hours. Plum3600 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yup, still working on it. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diplomacy

  The Barnstar of Diplomacy
To Winged Blades of Godric, Primefac, and Tazerdadog for the absolutely brilliant close of the "Recent changes to policy about verifiability as a reason for inclusion" discussion at the Verifiability policy. It's an example of the very best behind-the-scenes work that can be done here at Wikipedia. Thank you and best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Animal cognition

Just realized the reason for the link and was on the way to revert my revert ...

Isnt it usual for the english Wikipedia to differ with the headline Animal Cognition (Journal) and Animal Cognition instead of linking to the other article with the same name?Etron770 (talk) 17:21, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Etron770, we have a fair number of instances like that (e.g. Red meat vs Red Meat), and if I were to have it permanently at Animal Cognition (Journal) we'd have Animal Cognition pointing at it anyway, so it would become unnecessary disambiguation. It's the upside and the downside to having case-specific article titles, I guess. Primefac (talk) 17:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible refinement to PrimeBOT id=ISBN change

In this edit, PrimeBOT changed "id=ISBN 0761992774, ISBN 978-0-7619-9277-6" to "ISBN=0761992774, {{ISBN|978-0-7619-9277-6}}" inside a citation template. This generates a red citation error message and means that a gnome has to do additional cleanup.

Is it possible to adjust PrimeBOT's code such that it leaves behind only "ISBN=978-0-7619-9277-6"? That would be ideal.

You can see the affected pages (so far) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors. Do a find on that page for "{{ISBN|". Thanks for considering this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

An id=ISBN 1,ISBN2 works fine, since the module parses them out, so I'll tweak the code to ignore those circumstances. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, there's another similar case where things go wrong: When PrimeBot replaces the "id=ISBN ..." by "ISBN=..." and another "isbn=..." or "ISBN=" parameter exists already, you'll get an error message as well. See, for example, here: [1]. A possible tweak would be to leave things as they are when "isbn=" or "ISBN=" is already present in a citation template or (even better) to convert "id=ISBN ..." to "id={{ISBN|...}}". Yet better would be if the citation templates would accept multiple such parameters. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac: id=ISBN 1,ISBN2 results in magic links, which we want to eliminate. See this version of A. P. Patro, from before your bot's edit. Some sort of action is needed with citations of that sort. If you think that my suggestion would overstep the remit of your bot, I will understand. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah. In digging through the cite module I thought it formatted the ids separately to use templates, guess not... making it work won't break my brfa, but if I can't get it to run properly on some test cases I'll just drop it and leave it for either another bot or a human to fix. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
It appears as if your bot uses "ISBN=" rather than "isbn=" in citation templates. Technically, they are both correct, however, the lowercase version is the preferred form. A few parameters are also supported in uppercase for user convenience, but they are exceptions. This applies to all parameters which are supported in both cases. Since it doesn't matter for a bot, I suggest that your bot should use the preferred lowercase form. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, your bot now even completely removes id=ISBNs if another ISBN is present in isbn=. Please don't do that! If you don't manage to properly convert the id=ISBN into using the ISBN template, just leave it alone - it doesn't cause harm to leave it as it is, but it does cause harm removing valid ISBNs! Books may have more than one ISBN printed on them. If so, they may be used for identification purposes and as search strings. By removing them, you are making it more difficult for users to locate information inside and outside of WP, and in cases where you remove ISBN10s in presence of ISBN13s for books issued before 2007 you are even invalidating the reference, as ISBN13 weren't printed on older books, so the reference no longer represents the book the author of an article had in front of him. If an editor gave multiple ISBNs he probably had a reason to do this, and unless you own the same issue of the book yourself to check, you cannot decide if an ISBN was calculated only or is actually printed on the book, so you must leave that decision to the authors of an article and not remove one of them blindly.
--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Matthiaspaul, I only removed the second ISBN if the core numbers (i.e. not the 978 or the parity bit) were the same. If valid/different ISBNs slipped through, you're welcome to correct them. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot problems

[2]. And more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

[3] This is also a proof that your bot and Magic links bot do not use the same regex and conditions since your bot edited after the Magic links bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

First link - that's a single curly brace. {ISBN} isn't the same as {{ISBN}}.
Second link - {{ISBN 978-981-02-2241-3}} is not a properly formatted template, nor is it a properly formatted magic link.
The two bots are using the same regex, but I believe that mine is more inclusive as far as what actually gets changed. Primefac (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, AWB is probably more inclusive (Magic links bot: regexes exclusions). — JJMC89(T·C) 19:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

OK. So you basically say that we have crap in crap out situations in the example I gave. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

I brought up this situation at the Magic links bot talk page. These pages will turn up at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors, and there are so few of them (less than a couple hundred out of the half million or so affected pages, I would guess) that it is not a big deal. I'll fix them from that Checkwiki page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New article

Hello I would like to write an article on World Endoscopy Organization. The same article was previously deleted and it was suggested we first contact you before writing a new article: A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted. If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below. 13:27, 23 May 2017 Primefac (talk | contribs) deleted page World Endoscopy Organization Waiting for further instructions, thanks! Ines V (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

  Administrator changes

  Happyme22Dragons flight

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

SPI closes

Hi, just wanted to let you know that after you've done whatever you need to do at SPI (thanks for your help there), you can close the case by changing the parameter at the top, like this. Hope this helps. Thanks, GABgab 14:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

GAB, good to know. At some point I seem to recall talking to someone (I thought it was either a CU or a clerk) where they said only those two groups of folks should "officially" close SPIs. I guess in clear-cut cases that doesn't matter so much? Primefac (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Only they can archive cases, but admins can close cases, too (WP:SPI/PROC) GABgab 15:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's what it was. Cool. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Kobi Arad

Primefac: three questions:

1. My name is Michael, Arad's manager, and therefore do not edit his articles. Is it ok if I edit draft through WP:AFC?

2. Does the following notability specifics seem fair as to be incorporated within the draft:

Subject meets notability in following sections:


Non trivial and objective coverage by reliable sources such as:, Jewish Week, All About Jazz (article) and Israel Times.

WP:MUSICBIO (Although single section notability is sufficient, Arad meets notability in 3 different sections):

Section1: Multiple Reliable Publications:

Section 7:

● Arad is a world-wide authority in the Third Stream style, as he is the first and only (as of 2012) musician to earn doctorate in the field.

Sources: - Letter from Dean of New England Conservatory of Music to Kobi Arad (dating 2012): - -

Section 9:

Arad participted in multitude of interviews which featured panel discussions, airplay and interviews in Israeli National Radio, IBA (


- - (Letter from Iba editor Zmira Luzki) - (BMI international airplay statements) - (BMI international airplay statements)

3. In case the requirements are fulfilled (links are alive, and you find #2 satisfactory), are you going to be willing to assist in living the draft and unsalt 'Kobi Arad' article?

Thanks :=) Ee212 (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

I have been busy cleaning up after your bot

You are adding a lot of articles to duplicate template arguments. Check my edit history to see the screw ups. (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call them screwups, I'd call them "exceptions to a bunch of rules I have coded". Either way they would need to be fixed/updated, so while I appreciate you cleaning up after me I'll see what I can do to code in a few more exceptions. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I find it hard to believe that you didn't notice this while you were going through the BRFA. It sounds like you coded up something for the BRFA, then started messing with the code without checking the results. You really should look at all of these. It's not just a problem with an ISBN13 duplicating an ISBN10. (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13 and Jonesey95: can probably help you figure out what went wrong (especially here). (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Please stop. You have not fixed the problem! (talk) 02:28, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
It's more like playing whack-a-mole. You keep finding novel instances. Honestly not sure what happened with Vatsaraja, because I made sure I fixed that error yesterday... Either way, I'll leave the |id=ISBN alone for now. Primefac (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
And no, I didn't just start "messing with the code" - I've tweaked some things based on suggestions given to me, but to imply that I'm just willy-nilly throwing around regex on a 250k page task is rather insulting. Primefac (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Your bot should not run automatically while you fix this bug. You want a negative look ahead and look behind for the isbn parameter with the "any character" regex in the lookahead/behind set to [^{]* or [^}]* so you don't look outside the one template. Ill be back in town tomorrow so ping me if you need help fixing this bug. ~ Rob13Talk 02:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
I wasn't; thought I fixed it. Clearly didn't. Will cease operations until it's fixed. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
If you throw me the regex you're using on IRC, happy to help. I've dealt with similar problems in my bot in the past. ~ Rob13Talk 06:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13 and Jonesey95:, clearly operations have not ceased even though problems have not been fixed. blocking the bot would fix it. (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Please examine that diff, Primefac. It's concerning for multiple reasons; it appears to be a bug. Please email me your code for the lookbehind/ahead for duplicate parameters; I can help you debug that portion. ~ Rob13Talk 01:56, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I had disabled that functionality per the previous run's issues, but somehow managed to not save it for this session. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. Primefac (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Bot mangling pages

I have reverted this edit. Is it possible to go back to check to make sure this is the only one? Frietjes (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jonesey95, BU Rob13, and Redrose64:, I found more [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], someone should really go check all your bot edits. Frietjes (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Frietjes, there was a glitch in my code. I've removed/fixed the issues. I will go through my edits and attempt to find all of the erroneous edits. Primefac (talk) 14:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Please ignore non-magic-link ISBNs in title= parameters

This edit by Primebot was erroneous. The page was not apparently in the ISBN magic link category, so I don't know why Primebot targeted it in the first place. In this case, the ISBN followed by a number was legitimately part of the citation title, and it was not forming a magic link. I suspect that many of the 392 pages in Category:CS1 errors: URL–wikilink conflict were caused by this error, since that category typically gets just a single-digit number of new pages per day. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, I suspect you're right. As mentioned somewhere in a thread above, AWB can only load so many pages in a category (i.e. it can't load them all) and since the front half of the category is non-mainspace pages it never loaded more than about 50 articles. I had to improvise a little with my page gathering, and apparently cast a bit too wide of a net. If I get a chance later today I'll go through the error page and see about correcting what I can. The good thing (yay?) is that as near as I can tell we're out of mainspace, so I can start loading straight from the cat again. Primefac (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
That was my assessment as well, but I didn't want to make accusations. I just like having problems fixed, and the bot is doing a lot more good than harm (100:1 ratio at least). I suggest working on the 33,000 pages left in the category, after which we can try to figure out if there are more conversion targets out there. Keep up the good work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll leave the last thirteen (which aren't related to the ISBN issue as near as I can tell) to folks who know what they're looking for. Thanks again for letting me know about this. Primefac (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It's curious that the citation title is "Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author . Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3" - extra information seems to have been added in error, the citation title ought to be "Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The title of the page in the HTML is the cited title (that is, "Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author . Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3"). It's a little silly, IMO, but that's probably the basis for it (probably some mix of lazy programming and SEO). I would suggest that this is not necessary to identify the cited text and could be removed, indeed. --Izno (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is lazy or SEO. I think this is how Publisher's Weekly titles their book reviews. See their book review page for plenty of examples. Other publications probably do this as well, as a convenience for readers, just as we provide a Special page that links ISBNs to Worldcat, Amazon, and other sources where a reader might locate the book in question. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:26, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it's a direct copy of the <title>...</title> element - but that doesn't mean that it is correct. Consider the review in question: clearly this is a review of a book that is titled "Blood Hollow". If I view the page source, and search for "Blood Hollow" (case-insensitive), I find that it occurs six times. The last two of these are in sales links; the first four are as follows:
<TITLE>Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author .  Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3</TITLE>
<meta property="og:title" content="Fiction Book Review: BLOOD HOLLOW by William Kent Krueger, Author .  Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3"/>
<meta name="twitter:title" content="BLOOD HOLLOW"/>
<div class="review-single-body">
  <div class="cons-author"><strong>William Kent Krueger, Author</strong> .  Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3</div>
The <H1>...</H1> element is the important part, and it is clear to me that in the <TITLE>...</TITLE> element, "William Kent Krueger, Author . Atria $24 (352p) ISBN 978-0-7434-4586-3" is not part of the page title, but is extracted from the text that follows. Viewing the page, it's even in a different font face (sans-serif instead of serif) style (italic instead of upright) and is also a smaller size, so it's not intended to be read as part of the title.
Many websites construct a <title>...</title> element based on the first <h1>...</h1> element plus a little bit more - we even do it ourselves (for example, the title of this page is "User talk:Primefac" and not "User talk:Primefac - Wikipedia"). That little bit more is what we should be ignoring, or at least removing intelligently. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I think it's almost-certainly SEO or lazy programming, per Redrose (I can imagine obvious reasons for the latter, but I would assume those reasons bring with them the former's benefits). --Izno (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

ISBN magic links inside of citation templates

Causing this problem over and over again example DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Sagecandor, you're going to have to be more specific, because I'm pretty sure that diff fixed an error. Primefac (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point, the bot is causing the errors that then need to get fixed. Sagecandor (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I fail to see the point of your note, because clearly I am fixing them. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the same issue as the "ignore an ISBN in a title parameter" section above. --Izno (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, your "fix" in Sagecandor's link above is not correct. The phrase "ISBN 12345" appears in the title of the cited article, typically a book review. Putting the ISBN in the |isbn= parameter is not accurate, since that parameter in a citation template refers to the ISBN of the source, not the ISBN of the reviewed work.
The correct fix is to undo the bot's edit, like this. Please undo your erroneous fixes and the erroneous bot edits. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Please revert these pairs of edits. I have done a few for you to show you what should be done. I would take care of them for you, but I do not have AWB and there appear to be about 350 affected pages in your contribution history. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Jonesey95, with due respect, you request me to revert, and two editors two threads up (RedRose and Izno) have no problem with the edits. While I have no issues with undoing my previous edits, I'd rather not get caught in the middle of an edit war with myself over "how it should be" (as mentioned by the others, including the entire title of the web page simply for the fact that it's there seems a bit unnecessary, especially given how stonkingly long it is. I agree with that sentiment, which is why I'm not jumping to revert myself, because I would bet that then they would return here and ask me to revert again). Primefac (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Redrose64 and Izno for input. Right now, there are 300+ edits like this that are erroneous. The bot took an ISBN followed by a number in a |title= parameter and converted it into {{ISBN}}, still within the title parameter. Then Primefac turned that ISBN template into |ISBN=123456789. Before the bot's edit, the citation title matched the title given in the source. After the two edits, there is an ISBN parameter in the citation that does not match the ISBN of the work that is cited (in this case, Publisher's Weekly, which does not have the ISBN in the citation). The end result is clearly an error. How would you like to see this error resolved?
My proposal is that both edits should be reverted on each page, leaving the citation titles as they appeared in the original sources. Do you have a different proposal? Thanks for your consideration. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The second edit compounded the problem of the first. Undo both, and then remove the extra info - everything after the book title. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Redrose's proposal, per the discussion above. --Izno (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Izno, Redrose64, and Jonesey95:, in that case I'll go through and amend the amendments. It looks like the titles follow the general format of "<title> by <name><profession>; <publisher><price><pages><isbn>". At bare minimum I think the last five should be removed; I can make a case both for keeping or deleting the "by <name>", so I'll probably leave that in. I'll also leave this here for a bit for feedback before starting. Primefac (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

OK with me. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your offer to help create some templates on the ht wikipedya. The first thing I tried was to simply see if the infobox on Medical diseases and conditions could be copied to the wikipedya. That didn't work. I have an incomplete understanding of how to make templates work that begins and ends with my efforts to copy the work of other editors - and so far that has worked for me. But templates in Kreyol ayisien need Kreyol titles and parameters, not French. So what is the first thing I need to do?

Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS)   16:58, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


You seem to have restored a validly removed A7 tag, one removed by a fellow administrator. That is not an acceptable way to proceed--you should rather use AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I restored and AFDd the page almost an hour before you made this post. Primefac (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
sorry -- I should have rechecked. DGG ( talk ) 13:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries, it happens. I apologize for pseudo-wheel-warring anyway, it was improper of me. One of these days I'll remember not to edit Wikipedia right before bed; I get too reactive to simple situations. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Not at all oddly, ditto for me at the same time, which is probably why I didn't check further--see the nom's usertalk. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

??? Just curious...

Did you get my email the other day? Atsme📞📧 19:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I did, but the user in question was removed shortly thereafter so I didn't think a reply was necessary. The draft was accepted by a reviewer that's been around since '14, so I let it be. Primefac (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
One more question that's unrelated but important nonetheless because it appears to be a COI or perhaps an advocacy but I'm not certain which...Atsme📞📧 20:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)


-🐦Do☭torWho42 () 04:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)


  Just curious... since inline text citations are necessary when establishing WP:V, especially for a BLP, and a reviewer comes across several BLPs created by the same editor and none are cited/sourced, (wondering how they passed AfC), is it the responsibility of the reviewer to provide the citations or can the articles be moved to Draft Space with a notification to the article creator that citations are needed? Atsme📞📧 11:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, it's not necessarily our responsibility to add sources and/or inline citations as necessary, but if a whole string of articles was created by a user that don't conform to policy then they should all be moved to Draft, a note left, and hopefully they'll get the point and fix the issue. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: Silent Hill: Betrayal edit - Primary sources

Hi there

Thank you for your comment on my Silent Hill: Betrayal draft. You mentioned there are way too many Primary sources, although I have seen wiki pages with far less sources that me. I've been reading through what primary, secondary and tertiary sources are in the wiki docs, but I was wondering if you could guide me as what would be the best type of sources to use? Maybe with an example or two. Would it be sites referring to the interviews, rather than the interviews themselves? I'm trying to wrap my head around how best to get this article approved — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowolfdg (talkcontribs) 14:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Shadowolfdg, the easiest way to put it is that if the author of the book wrote about it, talked about it, or was otherwise directly involved with the content of the reference, it's a primary source and thus discouraged. This means his blog, and any interviews he gave. As a note regarding those "other pages" - every page is judged on its own merits. If there's a bad page out there, it should be improved or deleted; it's not an excuse to create another poor page. Primefac (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok thank you for clarifying. So this link would be a good source as an indication of the author of the novel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadowolfdg (talkcontribs) 13:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

US Presidents navbox

Greetings Primefac! Thanks for closing the merge debate about {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}}. However I'm puzzled by your notices stating that both templates will be deleted. The process I had in mind was:

  1. update {{US Presidents}} with the contents of Draft:US Presidents navbox proposal C;
  2. redirect {{US Presidential Administrations}} to {{US Presidents}};
  3. remove any duplicate uses of {{US Presidents}} and {{US Presidential Administrations}} in the same article.

Anything wrong with this approach? Did you have another process in mind? Sure, we could delete {{US Presidential Administrations}} instead of redirecting, but the redirect does no harm. Thanks in advance for your input. — JFG talk 20:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG, I'm assuming you're talking about the {{being deleted}} notice placed at the top of the pages. There is a "merge" parameter that shows a different message, so I'll add it to the page to avoid further confusion.
As for the merge itself, your approach sounds like a perfectly logical and normal way to merge two templates. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  MergedJFG talk 15:43, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Dua Malik


I want to retrieve my draft article, Dua Malik, which had been deleted a couple of months ago. Plum3600 (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done. In the future, Plum3600, it's a good idea to include a link to the page you want undeleted so the admin doesn't have to fish through your history to find the page in question. Primefac (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


I requested protection for Jodie Whittaker at RFPP, but there is usually a backlog and most requests don't get done for hours after, WP:AN gets a better response IMO. JMHamo (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

At the moment there's pretty much no backlog, but I've handled it. Primefac (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Broken infobox

This bot's edits need to be reviewed again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Already working on it. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Removal of depreciated infobox field, by bot?

Prime, could you review the talk page consensus at Template Talk:Infobox video game#Distributor? If you agree that a consensus appears to be established, would you be so kind as to work up a bot task to remove |distributor from articles using the infobox?

Thanks -- ferret (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

ferret, sure. I agree that it's a fairly strong consensus. I notice you say in your last comment that you're going to wait a while before making the change live - do you want me to have it ready at a specific time, or just file a BRFA whenever I'm ready? Primefac (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
If you can go ahead and prep towards BRFA. The sandbox is ready. Week of June 17th sound good? That gives 2 more weeks for any opposers to pop up. -- ferret (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure thing. Primefac (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
All set to go, ferret, so I'll file whenever is best. Primefac (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks -- ferret (talk) 18:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Prime, check this edit out. Bot failed to fully remove the field. -- ferret (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, a double-nested template call. Didn't expect that. Only 4k pages left to parse (5k edited, 13k skipped), but I'll fix the regex to handle that case. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
People sometimes go as far as a collapsible list, with VGRs inside, with ref/cite inside those. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Ugh, sorry on IP comment revert. Followed alert and clicked edit on that diff. -- ferret (talk) 00:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
No worries. It happens. Primefac (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Another one here. May need to do a second run through edited pages to check for this condition? -- ferret (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

ferret, went through and checked everything over (-100), since anything smaller was unlikely to have nested templates. Pretty sure I got them all, but it's an easy fix if not. Thanks for being a second set of eyes through this. Primefac (talk) 03:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)


Sometimes I just don't understand some of the decisions that are made, so please forgive my inquisitiveness (or just revert my edits). I've already leaned on Kudpung for answers and he's been such a trooper explaining some of the crazy stuff I've found in the NPP queue dating back to 2005+/-. This last one made me scratch my head - Lost In Oz - I slapped a speedy-d on an incomplete article comprising a single sentence and a huge list of promotional ELs collapsed at the bottom of the page - same exact name as the finished article except for the "i". Instead of deleting the tagged article, it became a redirect to the article at AfD. So my questions are:

  1. Is Google sending them to the wrong article because it exists?
  2. Is this an example of our outdated search technology that WMF refuses to fund and correct? I can understand a dab but some of these redirects are silly.
  3. Is a redirect the best option in cases like this or is it better to just delete the one that's misspelled?
  4. Don't you just love being the "go to" for stupid questions?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the issues at NPP & AfC that could easily be resolved by a simple delete so what we endup with are thousands of nothing burger articles that are redirects. We're perpetuating the mistake by allowing it to stay. Yes or no? In the interim, I shall return to my foxhole and hope that my latest round of tiffs in the turbulent waters of WP mainspace don't drown me - no good deed goes unpunished. Atsme📞📧 14:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Atsme, to somewhat answer your numbered questions:
  1. Doesn't really matter, but it shouldn't. If Google sends them to Lost In Oz they will be automatically redirected to Lost in Oz.
  2. It has less to do with outdated search technology and more with accuracy/specificity. If I search "Lost In Oz" it gives me both that and "Lost in Oz", but both results will result in my at the "in" version. See WP:DIFFCAPS, where they have some good examples.
  3. This is, ideally, why we have both capitalizations and other seemingly "silly" redirects; a user directly typing in "Lost In Oz" into the URL will be sent to the correct page, rather than think the article doesn't exist and attempt to create a duplicate.
  4. It can be fun, or educational (I often learn things when answering others). Rarely annoying.
In the case Lost In Oz and your A10, the only reason it wasn't deleted outright was because there used to be a redirect there, so it was essentially reverted to the "last good" version. If it were a brand-new article, it would probably be deleted. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the timely response, Primefac. Just one thing - if the miscapitalized article never existed (and wasn't indexed) - wouldn't Google simply bring up the only article there is instead of confusing readers with a choice? Do you see my point? By not having it indexed in the first place, it would not need a redirect. Oh well, I get the point. Cheers! Atsme📞📧 16:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Redirects aren't indexed, so searching any capitalization of "lost in oz" gives the proper page. It actually takes a surprisingly large amount of effort get specifically to a redirect (especially if you're not using {{-r}}) in order to convert it into an article. I've never really figured out how people get there. Primefac (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
So relieved to read your comment. I thought it was my ignorance in navigating the deep and often turbulent waters of the WP ocean that was the reason I could never get back to a redirect. Now I just scan my contributions in hopes that it will show up. I still haven't figured out how the "tag filter" works and wish it could be as simple as using a few keywords to pull up the relevant posts. Wikipedia dreamin'(to the tune of the Mamas & Papas ;) Atsme📞📧 18:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the tag filter is almost useless, and is really only good for finding out when vandals blank a page. There is an edit summary search tool, but I've used it maybe twice and have no idea where it is.
If you're not using it yet, I highly suggest User:Anomie/linkclassifier. It colour-codes many of the links on Wikipedia. For example, every redirect is green, and pages nominated for deletion are pink. It's customisable (though I've never bothered) and while it does take some getting used to I have found it invaluable for navigation purposes. For example, I can quickly scan through my or your contribs and determine which pages are redirects. Primefac (talk) 19:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
The Edit summary search tool may be found at the bottom of the contribs page for any registered user, fifth link from the left. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well... there you go. Nice to see it's in a sensible place. Primefac (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64 Atsme📞📧 03:59, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, July 2017

Bots Newsletter, July 2017


Here is the 4th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.

Highlights for this newsletter include:


BU Rob13 and Cyberpower678 are now members of the BAG (see RfBAG/BU Rob13 and RfBAG/Cyberpower678 3). BU Rob13 and Cyberpower678 are both administrators; the former operates BU RoBOT which does a plethora of tasks, while the latter operates Cyberbot I (which replaces old bots), Cyberbot II (which does many different things), and InternetArchiveBot which combats link rot. Welcome to the BAG!


We currently have 12 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing!

New things

Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!

Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

(You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

But really...

come back! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

My life is surprisingly busy at the moment. I should be on evenings for the next few days. Glad you found the newest Derek sock, though I would have liked to nab 'em myself. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Template Help

Hi, is there away to get this template [9] to also read for Commonwealth Youth Games? If so, can you please go ahead and implement it? Thanks!! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Sportsfan 1234, the somewhat awkwardly-named {{FlagIOC2}} can take custom parameters for the Games being played. Just as we don't have a sub-template for the Olympic Youth Games, there doesn't seem to be enough of a need (or indeed articles about) the CYG to merit making a new template type.
However, I've been meaning to condense all of those templates, and during that process I might be able to add in extra functions for the Youth variants of the various Games. Primefac (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I see, I will use the IOC2 parameter. Thanks! Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Modifying deletion log archives

Hello, PrimeBot shouldn't have made this edit to Wikipedia:Deletion log/September 2002. Is what I did subsequently a good way to stop the bot from editing other such instances? Graham87 03:33, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It seems to be fixing isbns in a lot of unexpected places. User talk pages, deleted articles that have been moved into userspace etc. I've no idea if it is necessary but it seems unlikely. - Sitush (talk) 03:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Sitush and Graham87: Basically, the end rendered result will be the same (well, nearly the same - the template adds a wikilink to ISBN) as the current magic link. Magic links are going away, so what currently renders as a link to a ISBN search would no longer render as such without the introduction of this template. This is appropriate even in archives, etc., except where the magic link itself is explicitly being talked about perhaps. ~ Rob13Talk 03:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Seems like a lot of unnecessary work outside of mainspace and it is causing my watchlist to become remarkably active but hey-ho. - Sitush (talk) 04:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: in the case of the deletion logs, it's quoting the article text ... so I don't think it's that appropriate here; it's an anachronism especially for the logs from 2002 and 2003, before templates even existed. Graham87 15:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, see my comment in the section below, as well as this thread at BOTN. Basically, I've done my run through all of the pages, minus some exceptions, and going forward I don't expect much except for the Article and Talk spaces to need modification. In other words, I don't plan on running the bot through the WP space again. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Graham87: Depends what we want preserved; plain text or rendered text. I would expect the latter. ~ Rob13Talk 16:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: not always, Rob: this explanation does not make sense anymore (granted, that is a very old archive that no-one reads anymore, but I am sure that one can find such explanations posted in the last months). this was not the original quote. And editors who want to see what you meant here, might be puzzled when they see no apparent change in the original wikicode if this edit would have stayed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. Graham87 22:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Modifying my talk page comments and archives...

Morning - could you stop editing my talk page archives and my talk page comment on other pages with your bot pls? My archived user talk pages are just that - i don't want them edited, and i'd prefer it if other editors didn't change my talk page comments elsewhere without first asking permission. Many thanks. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I second this - this diff it changes the explanation, and actually it is changing the meaning of what is written there .. slightly ironic in view of the cosmetic edits that are being discussed there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
See section immediately above. I think generalised bots running in userspace without the user's permission have a great potential to cause unintended consequences, and arguably the policies re: not meddling with user's talk pages etc apply. - Sitush (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Another one (very old archive): diff. Not that anyone wants to read it back, but the explanation is now wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I noticed you saw this one already. I agree that most of these are fine, but it does get replaced in explanations and specific comments here and there, where it is inappropriate. Not sure what to suggest here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I've tried to avoid locations such as BRFA and the Village Pump where the actual syntax would be discussed, and I'll stay out of the user namespace for now. I'm sure there will be some instances where there's a legitimate use that gets accidentally corrected, but unless it's on dozens of pages it's probably easier to just undo it. Primefac (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Primefac. - Sitush (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that, but could you make the bot also stay out of the talk pages as well? It is still trying to change all of my comments on talk pages, even where context dependent... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009, I think that's kind of dependent on what you want for your talk page message. This change is doing exactly what it should do - converting a magic link into an ISBN template. I'm not sure why you don't want that to be an ISBN link, but if it's changing things that you want purely as plain text, then you should put <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags around them. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, can you clarify - are you going to carry on editing my talk page comments, despite my request for you to stop doing so? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009, I'm honestly trying to figure out if you're attempting to put non-linked ISBNs in your comments, or attempting to give ISBNs but refusing to use templates. If it's the former, then you're not doing it right, and if it's the latter, then yes, they'll probably keep being changed. I'm not definitely saying yes or no until I actually know why you want to keep them as-is. Primefac (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
a) I haven't used templates in my original comments, for good reasons; b) I don't wish to have my talk page comments edited without my agreement; and c) I've asked you explicitly to stop editing them. I accept that you're doing so in good faith, but you've repeatedly made the same changes now to my comments - three times or so in some instances. You may wish to read WP:TPO, which highlights that even if you think you are being helpful in doing so, "you should stop if there is any objection". That's exactly what I'm asking you to do. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hchc2009, you haven't exactly given me those good reasons. The bot isn't making any contextual changes to your edit, which is why I'm asking you why it's such a big deal. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, as per the guidelines, I don't need to prove to you why you shouldn't edit my own talk page comments repeatedly - particularly when you're on the edge of edit-warring. I'd urge you again to read WP:TPO, and indeed WP:BRD. If you're not prepared to cease editing my talk page comments as per policy, then at least stop while we seek some third party conflict resolution support. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that you do need to say why. This task has consensus to run. There was an RFC at MediaWiki, and then another RFC at en-Wikipedia to perform this task. Thus, it's you who is against consensus. I ask a third time - why is it so bloody important that you keep using magic links in your talk page comments? Primefac (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
That RFC doesn't explicitly cover talk page comments. I'd also urge you to remain in line with WP:CIVIL - strong language isn't helpful. Again, will you please at least halt until we can try another form of conflict resolution? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
It's a simple question......... plus, all magic links are going away. Thus, it covers all magic links, regardless of namespace. Primefac (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
In the U.K., using the term "bloody" is usually considered uncivil; it's not helpful. As I've now said repeatedly, I don't wish you to add these templates to my talk page messages. That's regardless of the wider magic links issue, in which I don't have any particular equity. If you aren't prepared to stop, let's take this to ANI. Alternatively, and more sensibly, let's pause and let's try one of the various conflict resolution methods available on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

If wishes were horses we'd all be eating steak. My bot was approved, as were the other two bots running this task, so if you have further issue with how they are working you should bring it up with the BAG member that approved the tasks and/or bring the entire thing up for review at WP:BOTN; it would appear we've reached the end of productive dialogue here. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: nope. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Dirk, first of all, you don't need to ping me on my own talk page. Second, that's not my bot. I know everyone loves to hate on me, but I'm nowiki compliant. You'll have to take that one up with JJMC89. I did, however, add a {{bots}} exception to keep MLB off the page in the future. Primefac (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
On further looking, I might have to rescind (and/or apologize) for my ping to JJMC - that edit was made almost a month ago, and I'm pretty sure we're all avoiding nowiki tags now. Primefac (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not picking on you, Primefac, at worst only at the system. The ping was a mistake, I earlier replied to BU Rub13, and got confused.
I just noticed that this was one case where one of the bots replaced something that did not need to be replaced, and I think that Hchc2009 asks the same thing - if one of the other bots is not no-wiki compliant, it would still go (and am also worried that other bots will again apply edits that were earlier reverted .., I think that at some point only one bot should do the rest of the task and keep up until Wikipedia adapted to the new system. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, this whole situation is a bit screwy, given the timing (WMF/en-wiki), scale, and having three bots. I'm glad the vast majority are done, and to be honest I'm probably not going to be running this task myself any more. MLB runs automatically (only in article space), and the other bot is under rather close scrutiny, so I doubt we'll have any more major issues like this thread. Primefac (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, is the bot also going to correct the ones that are added since you started the run? People are still used to MAGICLINKS, so I presume that, even after it is shut down, there will be many new ones added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

This task, run by my bot as well as two others, has been running since March, and I suspect that they'll continue updating the new additions until magic links is "officially" turned off. After they're turned off, it's not really our issue to fix what might have been intentional (i.e. use just a plain ISBN with no link). Primefac (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
So the ones that are now reverted back in (the explanatory ones linked in this discussion) will possibly be changed again by one of the bots (or possibly the same?)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Rather unlikely; first, I've finished up the initial run of all non-article pages, and what's left needs to be cleaned manually. Second, I don't forsee anything other than the Talk and Article spaces receiving new ISBNs, so I will only be checking those spaces until magic links are turned off. Magic links bot is only running in the Article space, as is Yobot (as near as I can tell). Primefac (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

‎Roberto de Oliveira

Thanks for your note. My reasoning is basically what's given in the WP:HOAX section on dealing with them:

Hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates. It is usually not enough for just one or two editors to investigate a hoax, as there have been cases in the past where something has been thought to have been a hoax by several editors, but has turned out to be true, and merely obscure. Suspected hoaxes should be investigated thoroughly, and only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion as {{db-hoax}}.

Since there's nothing impossible about the article's content (unlike what appeared in the article I linked in the edit summary), and since the article's existed long enough for the external link to have rotten, I can't see any way that a conclusive argument for a hoax can be made, unless someone digs up some comprehensive sources from which he's missing. However, I agree with the PROD and your rationale for it. Nyttend (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

  Administrator changes

  AnarchyteGeneralizationsAreBadCullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
  CpromptRockpocketRambo's RevengeAnimumTexasAndroidChuck SMITHMikeLynchCrazytalesAd Orientem

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

AfC reviewing, and your Words of Wisdom

Hi Primefac,

My outsider views on AfC are troubling again. This time at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Aqaba Container Terminal (ACT). There, presumably in reference to your post(s) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/2017_4#Stop_posting_discussion_on_AFC_draft_pages.2C_use_the_discussion_page_instead, User:Jcc says to me "you didn't take Primefac's words of wisdom on board last time round". I am really at a loss to find these words of wisdom. Can you help me? NB. I am well aware that these conversations go downhill fast, there is clearly a lack of effective communication.

I think Draft:Fig Tree Hall, University of New South Wales and Draft:Aqaba Container Terminal (ACT) are strong examples of process failures. The first should be rejected and deleted promptly as of no plausible notability, the second should be merged straight to the mainspace parent port article. AfC fails both to execute promptly and to communicate effectively. Seeing this often occur, involving multiple reviewers, it is necessarily a process failure, not any individual's failure.

The easiest thing for me to do is to go back to ignoring AfC. It hurts me because I have now seen people in real life burned by the impersonal patronising AfC process. They were not clueless, and they will not come back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, I genuinely have no idea, I've essentially been away from Wikipedia for most of the week. I think it might have been your criticism of the AFC process that rubbed jcc the wrong way, given your comparative lack of draft-reviewing experience.
I'm not really sure what you're referring to regarding Fig Tree and Aqaba. Fig Tree was deleted, and was only draftified after the creator asked me to do so. If you feel it should be deleted again, feel free to MFD it. Aqaba is being merged; if the end "target" of a merge isn't an existing article with the same name, it's not always easy to tell it should be merged when one is reviewing pages. Legacy is deletionist, but at least by taking it to MFD we end up with the correct result. Thus, I don't see any failure of process (other than some rather strong and rather heated discussions happening at the MFD itself). I do also note that not a single person at the MFD !voted for deletion, which meant that they all recognized that it could be merged. That, if anything, says that we're not all pig-headed about our past reviews/actions.
I'm not sure what your point is in bringing this to my attention, but I've come to realize that while your language is rather brusque and you certainly don't mince words, you do on occasion make a valid point. In this case, the reviewers involved might start making more of an effort to find a potential "merge" target if the subject itself isn't suitable. We can't just shut out those who disagree with us simply because we think they "don't get it". I still think it would be beneficial to all parties if you were to start reviewing drafts, but sometimes having an outsider's opinions can be valuable as well, so I'm not going to insist that it happen.
I hope that makes some sense, I'm a little sleep deprived. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Primefac. Sorry to have dropped this on your door when you need sleep. Hopefully I didn't appear to be demanding immediate attention. I can here because I read Jcc as suggesting that I had failed to take on board something (wisdom) you had said to me. I now think that the thing was that it is offensively presumptuous for an non-AfC reviewer to criticise AfC. This may be a problem, maybe it will be easiest for me to do a few dozen AfC reviews to establish an image of minimal credibility.
My central beef/irritant is the AfC comments not being on the talk page. I think it contributes to AfC submitters so often failing to communicate (I can expand on this with some professional experience). Fig Tree and Aqaba are merely examples of long running inadequate communication. These points were to establish context.
You don't see any failure of process? I guess that "failure" is the wrong word, too strong. "AfC review comments aren't often eliciting ongoing communications from newcomers" maybe? Anyway, sorry to bother you and thanks for your time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, it's hard seeing outside a box when that box has been quite comfortable and it doesn't actually look like there's all that much better stuff outside. However, in looking back I think we were a little hard on you during that AFC talk conversation - you came in with valid concerns, and we just shut you down because "we know better and you don't". I was actually praised the other day by a coworker because I had an outside view, and I'll definitely keep such things in mind in the future.
I think the main concern (at least in thinking about the issue) is that we have no hard numbers with respect to communication with draft-creators. Like with most product reviews (or with ArbCom or any of another dozen examples) we only really see the outlying cases, the 100% satisfaction or the hated-it group. I occasionally see poorly-threaded comments on drafts themselves, but nothing as major as Fig Tree and usually they're pretty easy to clean up. Most draft creators talk to the reviewer on their talk page, and while I have seen it move to the Draft talk, generally it's after a User talk discussion where someone thinks more input may be needed. My point, I think, is that we don't have a feedback system on how it works, so we only see the people who get pissed off (or love it) - if only 5 out of 100 draft creators finds the system confusing, do we overhaul the whole thing? Now, we could get into an esoteric argument about how probably 75% of the reviewers are paid/promo/COI, leaving 5 out of 25 (which probably is worth changing), but that's just it - we don't know.
I'm willing to start a new discussion on the issue, and if so I'll try to remind others to be a bit more civil, because I'm honestly not sure what the best solution is. From a reviewer standpoint, it's very easy to see "declined, declined, comment, comment" all in one place. From a "communication" standpoint, most of it seems to happen at the draft reviewer's talk, but then you do get the issue of collaboration and secondary input (or lack thereof). Some of the folks that come into the the IRC help channel barely know how to edit the page, let alone know what a Talk page is. It might be easier when they have a question to post on draft talk than the user talk. Then again, half the time they've never read the comments left directly on the draft itself, so maybe we're just seeing the worst of the tech-impaired. Plus, talk page stalkers are more likely to see a user talk comment than a draft that no one knows exists.
All in all, I'm a bit annoyed with our collective attitudes towards you (myself included) and I'm willing to reopen the book that is "how do we make AFC better?" Of course, if ACTRIAL comes into play, it might make the whole point moot, but you never know. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

AWB Chekpage

Hi Primefac, hope you are doing well. when you have time could you please have a look at the AWB check page. there are few requests pending since 1st of August. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 05:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Been busy. Will take a look as soon as I clear out the massive backlog of pages on my watchlist. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Netmonger, as a note, your signature is almost entirely unreadable. Please read through WP:SIGAPP and make sure your contrast is compliant with our recommended settings. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Undelete request

Hi. Can you please restore Ilya Shkurin? It was created by a sockpuppet and deleted for the same reason, but the article is in fact a valid one (about a football player who is notable per WP:FOOTYN) --BlameRuiner (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

BlameRuiner, just out of curiosity, why not just recreate it yourself? The current deleted version is a sentence long, and I'm sure you can do better. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Primefac. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

RivertorchFIREWATER 01:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2017 (UTC)


Could you please block user:2A02:C7D:5E02:2E00:91CD:4604:551F:B4DF right away because she is vandalizing after being reported to AIV. (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thomas McNutt

Hi, Primefac, I was wondering if you could look again at Thomas McNutt and WP:REFUND it. It was speedy deleted, but there were two objections to that at Talk:Thomas McNutt, and these clearly cited policy. Plus Template:db-disambig's criteria didn't apply (zero links - there were two) and there were clear WP:ATDs (redirection to either of the entries. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Boleyn, we shouldn't be disambiguating between two pages; this is the reason why the dab page was unnecessary. You're welcome to make the page a redirect to Collin Street Bakery, or make it a redirect to Thomas MacNutt and add a hatnote on that page, but I'm not inclined to recreate a disambiguation page that effectively doesn't disambiguate anything. Primefac (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

We do disambiguate between two topics. Per WP:2DABS: If there are only two topics to which a given title might refer, but per the criteria at Is there a primary topic? there is no primary topic, then the base name should lead the reader to the disambiguation page for the term. For example, John Quested is a disambiguation page for the two people by that name who can be found in the encyclopedia: John Quested may refer to: John Quested (aviator) (1893–1948), English World War I flying ace John Quested (producer) (born 1935), film producer and owner and chairman of Goldcrest Films.

Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but in this instance you're not linking between two pages. You're linking between one subject and one related-to-the-subject subject. I'm going to ping Gorthian into this conversation, because they deal with this thing on a regular basis and an informed third opinion will be helpful. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I linked to two pages - one entry for Thomas MacNutt, whose name is almost the same as Thomas McNutt and would be a valid redirect if there were no others. I gave a second entry, Thomas McNutt, political candidate and vice-president of Collin Street Bakery, which is another valid entry, as it meets MOS:DABMENTION. There is also genuine reason for confusion, as both are involved in North American politics. There was definitely a case for discussion of a primary topic, but it did not 'disambiguate zero links' which is the criteria for a speedy at Template:db-disambig, and as 2 people disagreed with the speedy on its talk page, it can't be considered uncontroversial. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I've restored the page. The relevant text is at WP:G6: "Deleting a disambiguation page which either: disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)"; or disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title". It disambiguates more than zero extant Wikipedia pages, so G6 is obviously incorrect here. Primefac may have a point why this disambiguation page is unnecessary, but that needs to be fleshed out at WP:AFD. -- Tavix (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

I'm afraid you're going to have to up the protection to PC or full protection, since confirmed editors are now adding Zadeh's death. The information seems to be coming out of Iran (one source quoted the information service of Teheran Univeristy, which, as far as I know, Zadeh is not associated with.) I don't believe any of these are reliable sources, so until we see a western new source run with the story, I think soe fuller control over the article is needed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Taken care of by Ivanvector. Primefac (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for removing the death info. If he's died, he's died, and I have no problem with including it in the article, but we shouldn;t report that he has died without confirmation from an RS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Just a note

To say that it is a pleasure to see your name popping up in my watchlist and on new content again. :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Aww, thanks! Been a busy summer so far, but I've got some time off now, kind of nice to be back in the swing of things. Primefac (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Runaway 2: The Dream of Turtle

Hi, Primefac. I just expanded the story about the game Runaway 2 and I would like to know if the story is right or some mistake.

Sorry my english. Bye! Rex Salazar (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Luke Tuchscherer

The reason I left on this article was valid. I would appreciate a full explanation as to why you undid my rejection. I left a fully-justified explanation, as well as some advice. –Sb2001 talk page 21:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Because in three minutes I was able to fix the article and remove almost all of the criticisms you had of the piece. If it's something that, as a reviewer, you can fix in under five minutes of work, it's not a valid reason for declining. This means elinks, quote lengths, section placement, etc. It is far easier for a reviewer to spend a few minutes cleaning up minor issues than it is for the creator to muddle through.
As reviewers, we are concerned about content, not style. If the page is written like an essay instead of an encyclopaedia article, decline as essay. If there aren't enough/the right kind of reference, decline as ilc/v/bio. The "custom" reason for declining should hardly ever be used; the majority of the time I use it is when multiple decline reasons exist (for example, if I need to decline something as failing to demonstrate notability, having improper referencing, and being an advertisement).
If you have any further questions please feel free to ask. Primefac (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC) ping, on the off chance they're not watching. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It did not seem like a stylistic concern. I do not have enough knowledge on the topic to properly cut all of the quotes down to size. It would have taken me the best part of half-an-hour. –Sb2001 talk page 21:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


From Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 6. "Interested users may ask an admin to restore the deleted article to userspace or to draft space." Are you interested in doing it? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. WikiOriginal-9, see Draft:Steven Scheu. Please note that since this was deleted via AFD, it would probably be best to go through the AFC/submission process, and at the very least someone other than yourself should review it before it goes back to the article space. Primefac (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Also, could you undelete the talk page too? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for removing tracking

We have quite enough of that already... (talk) 08:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ivory Coast

Hi Primefac, re my edit at Module:Country alias, the reason for the change is that since moving the article from Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast in June 2012, all of the articles that call up the module and template are titled "Ivory Coast at the ...". So if CIV continues to call up Côte d'Ivoire, the link in the infobox will be redirects. Also the title of the article is at Ivory Coast while the infobox header is Côte d'Ivoire. It doesn't make sense to keep it CIV = Côte d'Ivoire. See Category:Ivory Coast at multi-sport events. Let me know what you think. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Ianblair23, you make some valid points. However, the main purpose of the module was to give the IOC/GCF/FINA aliases for the countries, and the names associated with those aliases. Since IOC uses Côte d'Ivoire we've kind of stuck with that, and "we've always done it this way" isn't a great reason for keeping (or changing) anything. So, both rationales are valid, which leaves us in a quandary.
I think the best (only?) way to sort this out would to be to start a discussion, either at WT:OLYMPICS or WT:SPORTS, about officially codifying the usage (e.g. do we do always Côte d'Ivoire, always Ivory Coast, or is a mixture acceptable depending on circumstance?). I don't know if it would need to be a full-on RFC (though it might, given that OLYMPICS and SPORTS are kind of quiet these days), but I'm happy to weigh in on the subject regardless. Primefac (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi Primefac, I realise that the IOC uses Côte d'Ivoire, so does FIFA. But with the parent article moving to Ivory Coast after several very heated RM discussions (see Talk:Ivory_Coast), all other related articles, categories and templates got moved as well. Even the WikiProject changed names! This RM was where the football team pages were changed. My point is the discussion has been had, everything was moved and simple change to module is all that is required. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Just realized I never replied back. Didn't know all those discussions happened, and the module has been updated. Primefac (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thanks Primefac. Appreciated it. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Strange logic behind reverting comments

It seems that you have reverted a contribution I made under AfC ... again. The comment I left made perfect sense. As you later proved, by removing the AfC template. I thought that they would not want it published in the main space, so said that it was 'not the place'. I also pointed them in the direction of an editor with a lot of experience in arranging meetups—is this not helpful? The other thing that I said involved changing the location from US to UK, as the editor I recommended as an advisor is in the UK. I now ask that you reinstate my comments, as they gave helpful advice, which will be of benefit to the editor who made the submission. –Sb2001 talk page 18:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I've already commented on this at your talk page. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

COI - of a different kind

Hi Primefac. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From WP:NPPAFC. Opt-out. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) .

Mayor of Pichilemu

Happened to be editing Instituto Regional Federico Errázuriz and you have somewhat surprised me. Seems like you have just (incorrectly) deleted a legit article, and removed all links to it in the meantime, and also deleted some redirects (1, 2, 3). -- (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Holy crap. Must have misclicked something. Thanks. I'll get right on fixing that. Primefac (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Sources for The Oreo Cat.

Hi Primefac,

Since I seem to have "a lot of time on my hands" as stated by yourself in the last notes, I will take some time to go through some sources with you here to see if they may be adequate.

Here are sources from News Sites, magazines, Radio shows as well as a television Show: Global News: Daybreak Montreal: Catster Magazine: Catster Magazine: Catster Magazine: Pet Radio Show:

Will any of these work as references?

Photos are on Wikimedia commons:

If none of these work then I can take my extra time elsewhere I suppose.

Regards, ModugnoT (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The refs look better. Good luck! Primefac (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wales at the British Empire Games

I've noticed in the articles for the first two events (I, II), the Wales flag is depicted as the Saint George's Cross. Even though their Red Dragon flag didn't become official until the 1950s, it was still used to represent the country way before then. When we were discussing the all-Ireland flag of the first games, there was a white-and-green halved one on show with the rest of the competing nations' in a commemorative illustration from back then.

Could you change it to the Red Dragon? VEOonefive 16:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

  Done. Primefac (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Château de Montsoreau

Dear Primefac, I checked and added all citations I could find to make the article encyclopedic. I hope it is all right for you? Thank you in advance. All my best, Philippe49730--Philippe49730 (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure? Don't think I've ever looked at the page before, but it looks fine at a quick glance. Primefac (talk) 01:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Psychosocial interpellation and histamines.

Hello Primefac,

How are you I hope you are well in your work? I have edited the copyright material in the references. I have also added my account. Please respond if this is acceptable?

Kind regards,

Mark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drwhomark09 (talkcontribs) 09:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft has been re-reviewed, see that page for further comment. Primefac (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Primefac/Archive 11".