This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kingboyk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Again, the issue of the month is inline citations. A Day in the Life, A Hard Day's Night (song), and Get Back have all been defeatured, as they failed to satisfy criterion 1(c) of What is a featured article?, and other song FAs are due for the chopping block. Inline citations are an important aspect of articles—they ensure verifiability and reliability, and they remove original research. Additionally, they give readers the option to read the original source material and view it within context.
Basically:
All direct quotations attributed to Beatles members pooled from interviews need full inline citations.
All critical comments about songs or albums need full inline citations to notable music critics, magazines opinions, or reviews, as opposed to being merely comments by Wikipedians.
Inline citations need: author name, article name, publication date, and name of publication. Such info is still preferable even if quoting from an interview posted upon a website; when this is the case, place the URL link at the end of the citation with the date it was last accessed. (This will help editors retrieve the page using the Wayback Machine, should the link go dead in the future.)
Beatles News
The Beatles are due to release a soundtrack album, LOVE, at the end of November, as a companion to their Cirque du Soleiladaptation of the same name. It will feature remastered and remixed versions of their previously released songs, including some new medleys.
Paul's getting a divorce. Pain, arguing, and fighting abound.
Project News
Featured Article drive: A number of project members are collaborating on Paul McCartney's article, with the aim of getting it to Featured Article status. The work is going well and all help is welcome! Check in at Talk:Paul McCartney if you want to help.
The Wings tours are really nicely documented now (see Category:Wings tours), but Category:The Beatles tours is almost empty. Kingboyk and the rest of us would love to see (and read) articles on each Beatles tour, including the pre-fame tours of the UK—and the Hamburg trips, of course!
Our project members are too modest to report any awards they may have given or received.
From the Editors
Wherever possible, editors should help to trim down on list-like prose within Beatles articles. They should convert list-like sections into fluent, cohesive prose which ties an article's sections together. Lists make articles disjointed, awkward, and difficult to read.
Be sure to take part in the Featured Article drive, and don't forget those inline citations!
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 008 – December 2006). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Wikipedia's standards are improving all the time, with the result that many articles in The Beatles Wikiproject are being nominated for review of their FA and GA status - and many are losing that accolade. It is difficult, with such a large number of articles and the ease with which editors may make changes which are detrimental, to maintain the standard of articles, let alone improve them. As ever, members efforts are both appreciated and needed to keep the Project on course.
Beatles News
A Beatles compilation called "Love", featuring tracks remastered by George Martin (with his son Giles), has been released and has made number 1 in Canada.
The impending divorce between Paul McCartney and the former Heather Mills continues to make the pages in the tabloid press in the UK.
Project News
New to the Project Log is the nomination of four articles for consideration as suitable for collaboration, in the manner in which Paul McCartney is now being edited, once the aforementioned article is completed. The nominations are George Harrison, Apple Corp, The Beatles(!!), all proposed by Kingboyk and John Lennon, proposed by LuciferMorgan. Interested editors should make themselves known on the various article talk pages.
If one is to be mercenary about the subject, it should be noted that Paul McCartney is going to be more noteworthy than usual in the near future as his divorce case comes to court. In that case it is great to note that a small group of Project Members (plus another individual who does not feel compelled to register himself despite important contributions) have worked very hard, and in an atmosphere of good humour, to take the McCartney piece to a succesful Good Article nomination. Perhaps this is the method to use for future articles, a small dedicated team concentrating on one subject at a time. Of course, all members are invited to join any existing group or even go about forming their own. Please note any such action in the Project Log.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 009 – January 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
The ongoing divorce proceedings between Paul McCartney and the former Heather Mills continues to occupy the attention of the media - Heather Mills reportedly receiving unspecified death threats.
The British Post Office have released a series of stamps depicting various Beatles album covers.
Project News
The Paul McCartney article is being primped and primed for submission as a Featured Article candidate.
The good folk who have been working on the above article have turned their attention to the John Lennon page. Everyone is, of course, invited to contribute.
The question of capitalising of the letter "t" in The of The Beatles has been raised again. It appears that UK style references (here and here) also maintains that the letter should be in lower case. If the Project is to be appear professional then it may have to change the format. Polite discussion is invited at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Policy. If possible, please provide sources/references to support your position.
From the Editors
It has been a fairly quiet time with regard to the Project (or at least that is how it seems). If you are reading this and wondering why your efforts in respect of a Beatles article has not been mentioned, it may be that you haven't told any editor. This is your Newsletter, which means you can contribute to it, so please do!
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 010 – January/February 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Kindly restore the following pages
I request that content of following pages be restored for temporary basis. I have some very important information that i compiled over last few months. I'll highly appreciate your assistance.
Please send me an email when the pages are available so i can get the content. I promise i'll get rid of the pages immediately after. Also i apologize for ignorance.
Thanks,
Sameer (sameer81@gmail.com)
Setting up a music wiki
A while back I mentioned that I was thinking of setting up a music wiki, to provide greater detail than is acceptable on Wikipedia, less stringent fair use criteria (i.e. fair use per law not per some Stallmanesque philosophy), a lower notability threshold, some scope for "fan" type discussions, and so on. I've been working on a plan (which is somewhat more involved than a vanilla Mediawiki). If you're here to leave me a message about the music wiki idea, please email me. This is a project which will very much work alongside Wikipedia and not against it, but I don't want to post the ideas here yet until I have something more concrete. Watch this space or contact me. Cheers --kingboyk13:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
George Harrison's handwritten lyrics to the song While My Guitar Gently Weeps have fetched $300,000 (£152,552) in a Scottsdale (Arizona, United States) memorabilia auction (15 January). It contained lines omitted from the final version of the song. Specifically :
I look from the wings at the play you are stagingWhile my guitar gently weepsAs I'm sitting here doing nothing but agingStill my guitar gently weeps
On the reverse of the page appears the lyrics to Hey Jude in the hand of Mal Evans.
Project News
The Project lead article (The Beatles, for those not paying attention) has had its Good Article status reviewed, and the consensus was 'keep'. The efforts of User:Andreasegde in supplying the requested citations, and other editors in helping with general editing, and the strength of arguments for retaining the grade sufficiently impressed the reviewers.
After a great deal of work Paul McCartney was promoted as a Featured Article candidate. Unfortunately it failed to succeed. Among other comments, including the correct length of dash (or hyphen), from reviewers was that the article was too long and also that it needed further information included in some of the sections(!?) The promotor, and driving force behind the insertion of a great many references, citations and facts (and the remover of unwanted text, and splitter of information into daughter articles), Andreasegde vigorously argued the case for promotion but was unsuccessful.
Mimi Smith was successfully nominated for WP:Good article status. The major editor to whom accolades should be directed is... Andreasegde.
The hottest Project page this month was possibly, despite the Article Status related issues regarding both The Beatles and Paul McCartney mentioned above, the third attempt to delete The Beatles trivia in less than a year. As was the case for the second attempt at AfD the result, after an energetic discourse, was keep but with a suggestion that the article be retitled to reduce the incidence of deletion requests. Editors are invited to discuss possible new titles, and/or the need for same, at Talk:The Beatles trivia.
Other Project news - Lar did a bit of a purge of the subscription list during last month's newsletter delivery. Some folks were kept (and are at the active list), some who clearly are not active on wikipedia at all were removed with a "you've been removed" message left (and are at the inactive list), and some folks who were less active but not as clearly completely inactive were given a "this may be your last newsletter" message (and are at the possibly inactive list). A more nuanced subscription list is now here (in several subpages as outlined above), and anyone who wants to tweak their status (moving one's self back is a clear cut sign that we should deliver the newsletter to you!) should feel free. Please respect the rather spartan formatting though, this list is used by WP:AWB currently, and may be used by other automation in future.
Issue of the Month
Hottest issue or concern for this month is the perennial matter of Project articles losing their Good or Featured Article status. The main Project page now includes a status board that gives the current ratings of some of the more important articles. Let's make sure the core articles (The Beatles, John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison, and Ringo Starr) reach or retain Good Article status, if not Featured Article. If you are aware of another major article whose status is at risk, add it to the board.
Issue of last Month
Since there has been no response in the matter of the use of lowercase for the initial letter of the when applied with Beatles from the opponents, it is likely that the case for using lowercase only will be adopted as Project policy by default. User:LessHeard vanU will draw up a recommendation and submit it to the Policy talkpage in a few days.
From the Editors
We are pleased to welcome the contributions of Alexcalamaro to this newsletter. Any editor can include an item of interest or news; this medium can be an excellent tool for getting a comment seen by a great number of project members. As it says below, this is your newsletter.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 011 – March 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
I have gone ahead, been Bold, and amended the Project policy to reflect that the lowercase 't' in the Beatles argument has won the day. No opposing argument was put forward despite a comment in Newsletter 9 and a reference in Newsletter 10, and the authorities provided for lowercase were compelling. As co-Founder, even though appearing dormant regarding the Project, you should be made aware of this change in case you come across it in your reading.LessHeard vanU22:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know. I'm happy to go with which ever argument has won the day, consistency is all I ask for. --kingboyk09:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Peel artists category for deletion
Hi - it is currently likely the category for artists who recorded Peel Sessions may be deleted. I think you contributed or supported it at one time. If you support keeping it please contribute here[1] Thanks Tony Corsini01:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just noticed that you deleted the article about Omaha PO Tariq Al-Amin [2]. Could I ask which reason CSD A7 is? Also, do you have access to that article, that I could maybe upload it into my userspace? Thanks. Smmurphy(Talk)17:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I hope that I'm not disturbing you.... I just happened on your page and noticed that you are on an extended wikibreak, but it looks like you are editing some. I hope that you have returned and just haven't removed the notice. I was also gone for a while due to some personal issues, but I've been back for a bit now. I remember good interactions with you, so I hope that you are not gone. At any rate, I wish you well, and if you desire to not be disturbed, I'll apologize for intruding. --After Midnight000103:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the message. I did desire not to be disturbed for various reasons, but I'm back now - I'm just not likely to be so involved with the meta side of things. Your words were very nice to read so thank you again. --kingboyk09:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Plugins
Can I draw your attention back to the Kingbotk plugin - it is extraordinarily useful, however I have seen not support work being done on it lately. If this continues it will fall in to disuse, particularly as AWB has moved on and the settings format appears to have changed. Life needs feeding! Please don't let this one die. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)10:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, We have got the plugin up to date with the new AWB, apart from the saving and loading of settings. We were discussing about releasing a version, which people could use with the up to date AWB, but that would be the only known main problem. Reedy Boy12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of unassessed articles tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod21:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Delivering WP:Biography Newsletter
I asked on the talk page for the project, but the conversation doesn't need to take up space there. Is there a way for the newsletter to be delivered through an automated process, or will someone have to deliver it by hand? - Mocko1322:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Your plugin
Hi Kingboyk; when the next version of AWB is released in a couple of days, can you update your plugin to ship with the new version? It uses a new checkpage format, and we're going to try and get everyone to update. —METS501 (talk)15:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, We've still got to get the setting saving/loading sorted. I presume the only thing it is actually going to affect is 3.0.4.1 will use the old checkpage... Reedy Boy16:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I'd been deleting so much school kids' out-and-out vandalism and nonsense that I got into a rhythm and let one slip by that wasn't really vandalism. My bad. Realkyhick23:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Your help is needed now to run the Wikiproject. In the absence of Plange's excellent leadership, many important tasks have fallen by the wayside. Please volunteer as a coordinator for the project.
We have begun a new assessment drive to help clear the massive backlog of unassessed articles. Make sure to sign up and help out.
The Biography Portal needs your help! Take the time to nominate or vote on nominations for the portal's highlighted articles, help revise the Did You Know? section, or drop by to add your favorite quotes as future quotes of the week.
Don't forget to help out with the collaboration of the fortnight. And while you're there, why not nominate an article or vote for one of the current nominations?
Everybody needs a break sometimes, and that might go for WikiProjects as well. But the WP:Biography newsletter is back from its hiatus, and the project is healthier than ever. With more than 250 active members and upwards of 20 admins, we are one of the biggest projects on wikipedia. But size doesn't matter - or so they say. The true measure of a wikiproject is how much it contributes to the betterment of wikipedia. Which means adding your name to the rolls wasn't enough. If you haven't already, it's time to step up and help out the project. Volunteer. Contribute. So take a look at the to-do list in this newsletter, and let's get going.
If you've just joined, add your name to the Members section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 2 – April 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
You posed an issue over at WikiProject reform, then I realized you had also asked a question at ArticleHistory.
I've also noticed that templates within templates are not handled well by the pywiki library. I think it is fixable, but it would take some investigation and possibly a lot of code changes. If you're running into the same problem with an entirely different code, then perhaps something needs rethinking with the the Banners template. Regarding the skeleton for ArticleHistory, I sorta thought the example in the documentation would work for copy/pasting. Is that not the case? Getting the oldids is so tedious by hand, though. Gimmetrow20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi mate, thanks for the message. With regards to the first point, I'm using AWB (which is written in C#) with my plugin, which is written in VB.NET. My plugin is a fairly sophisticated regular-expression driven templating tool. However, I don't really see any logical way of supporting this new template for automation. I've asked my users to make suggestions though.
With regards to the second point, yes, your examples are fine for copy and paste, but for only for 2 actions. I like to make computers do the work, lazy though that no doubt is :) --kingboyk21:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking about creating a "job" page where people could list pages, then the bot would convert them over to ArticleHistory. As for moving templates out of the container, can't you use the "WikiProjectBanners" name to indicate location if you need to add more stuff? Note this works:
It isn't necessary to number all the contained templates, though it makes it look pretty. Would this would make it easier for you? You could just find the first template inside Banners and add anything new after that? Gimmetrow21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure and will have to think about it :) I'm a bit rusty on my coding and regexps, having just revisited the project today after quite some weeks. Are you VB.NET friendly? You can have a look at the source code if you like, and perhaps advise on how we might confront this.
I have some more points to say in a more direct response to your questions but I'll save them for now and think about the issue a little longer as I don't want to appear to be a total idiot :) --kingboyk21:39, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm not just using a regex. I grab the template if it exists, add parameters, re-arrange them, then substitute any occurances of the original template with the newly-edited version. My problem is that when a template is inside another template, it's not being recognized, causing a new one to be created. Gimmetrow01:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much what my plugin does too. It explodes a template into template name and parameters, a process which can happen multiple times on one page with multiple WikiProject templates, then throws it all back together with neat formatting, any new params the operator has requested, and sometimes a new position on the talk page (talkheader - much as I dislike it - goes at the top if it exists; any {{WPBiography}} with living=yes gets second priority, and so on). See Special:Contributions/Kingbotk, the bot is running as we speak (just a simple job, tagging WPBio living=yes). A more complex run would be something like this. Here in one run 2 WP templates are being added. Conceivably somebody could be adding 3 at a time (say, Australian military personnel? That's WPBio, WPAus, WPMILHIST). --kingboyk01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Ooh... I didn't know... musta happened over night :) Vinoir was wanting 23 March, but I think any date this year - 20th anniversary - is fine. Exciting news! Cheers mate. --kingboyk08:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Cool... I asked Raul on his talk page sometime in February to consider putting up on March 9th with the 20th anniversary after reading the original Today's featured article nom etc... somebody mentioned that in the original nom too I think... but yeah congratulations! Must be cool after all that hard work. LuciferMorgan02:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Check The Beatles' miscellanea to see if there is anything in it you can use. A lot of 'miscellanea' needs to be trimmed (as linked articles are improved) so please feel free to use anything before certain sections get zapped into the ether...
Bot placing WPBiography banners on disambiguation pages
Hi. I just reverted an addition to Dick Richards (disambiguation). Your Kingbotk program appears to be placing the WPBiography banner onto disambiguation pages. To my knowledge the banner should only be placed on the individual articles. Cheers. 23skidoo18:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
My bot has super magical powers - a form of advanced artificial intelligence - which allow it to deduce that an article contains dubious statements about a living person.
Of course I remember you! Thanks for popping by. I can't believe I've been on here for nearly a year now :) There've been some trials and tribulations but now I'm well and truly addicted to this place :) -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza20:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Songs and singles
I've only just become aware of your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs#Articles should be about singles.2C not songs and think you've hit the nail on the head, there is a difference in what the guidance is for songs and singles compared to consensus. I had been interested in the project and made this point there some time back but couldn't get over this stumbling block and went elsewhere. Although I think it's a case of songs and singles - and that using (single) where there is an overarching article for the song might be a good solution in some cases.--Alfmelmac22:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Conflict
Kingboyk's present efforts to placed unassessed WPBiography templates on talk pages is working against a present drive to reduce the number of unassessed WPBiography templates. Is there any way that Kingboyk can place assessed WPBiography templates on talk pages or avoid biogaphy articles until March 24, 2007 - the end of the present assessment drive? -- Jreferee04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please, we are trying to work through the already 130,000+ backlog that exists. If this could bot could be activated once we have cleared through the backlog that would awesome. As stated by Jreferee stated, if the bot could at least perhaps place a "stub" class so that it can later be reassessed? Thank you. --Ozgod04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I can turn the bot off until after the drive, certainly. I just thought I'd help out by getting the newest living people articles tagged whilst I was working on my plugin code. --kingboyk11:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As per my rant over at the project page (where folks were just complaining rather than at least being polite, as you are), I'm not willing to tag living=yes articles as stubs. The auto tagging of stubs is a feature which skates on thin ice.
I am however more than happy to help out by tagging a batch of articles which have stub templates (many thousands if you like). If somebody wants to give me a list, carefully compiled and checked, I can get onto it straight away.
Also, per my post, the unassessed count isn't the number to focus on, since it is at this stage entirely bogus. The true figure is likely 200,000+. --kingboyk15:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I think our concern is to get those Unassessed articles at least rated so we can get the development moving on them, and 130,000+ articles is a daunting task for a group of people. I think after we knock out a majority of the backlog I see no problem with your bot running (which is wonderful since it gets us focused on articles that haven't been tagged with {WPBiography} tags. --Ozgod14:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Offer still stands about tagging stubs. I must also remember to have a word with the Stub Sorting folks about a catch-all category. --kingboyk16:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not see much harm in your bot going through and tagging any unassessed articles with 'Stub'. If it is able to detect an image & infbox on the page, then a start class. After that it would be mere maintenance and then tagging the articles correctly to the right groups & class. --Ozgod18:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't even read the article. It uses a list I feed to it, which would be a list of talk pages, and applies the template parameters I tell it to. I won't be auto rating at anything other than Stub class as it simply doesn't have - and imho wouldn't get - community approval. --kingboyk18:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see anyone's problems with the bot to be honest. The claim that the Kingboyk is against the present drive is pure horse manure - more articles have been assessed etc. so the drive is doing fine. Tagging unassessed bio articles actually means then the backlog is a true figure of what's ahead, as opposed to being fictional. So, as a person signed up to the assessment drive, it's my thumbs up for the bot being active here and now. LuciferMorgan02:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
AWB plugin
I would like to use your plugin to tag album articles. I am just curious where did you get the list of articles to work on back in August 2006? Jogers (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm... any clue in the edit summaries? If not, it would have been album categories. I recall working my way through the category tree building a list. I also recall coming across a lot of miscategorised articles, so be careful! Sorry I can't be of much more help. --kingboyk18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned about the most recent edit (particularly the edit summary) - not something we really need lying around. Please do. – Chacor14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we're working to rectify it by restoring listas= but with some simple code instead of 10k of code bloat which sometimes causes breakages. Sorting under T: is the natural way of sorting talk pages if there's no other configuration so that's how they'll sort until it's fixed or unless DEFAULTSORT is used. --kingboyk18:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to but in here too but I just noticed the 'undoing of my undoing there' - The merge tag wasn't applied as last time when it received it no consensus and was removed. In this particular case I'm not too fussed because as yet, it doesn't interrupt a reader's navigation though and there isn't much info there - yet. Your comments about songs and singles are appreciated, it is a mess.--Alfmelmac14:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It's proper for it to be merged under current guidelines. If this were just an album track, that would be the end of it imho as I really don't think covers of very famous songs like this deserve seperate articles. Of course with 2 single infoboxes it looks like a right old mess, as I commented b4! --kingboyk16:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi ! I'm Grimlockfr here, but my nick is Grimlock on the french wikipedia. I saw that you have added a comment in the history of this page in order to mention that you and other contributors created this article here. I would like to tell you that it is absolutly uneeded : when I had translated this text, I added at the end a special template (not the interwiki link, but another thing) which points to the version which was translated and in the discussion page of the same article, there is another template who is more accurate and aknowledge the contributors of the original article with the GFDL licence mention and so on. Don't worry about that : all the legal mentions are written :). See you ! Grimlockfr14:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I have paused my editing until we resolve this issue.
The reason I posted the banner on Non-League footballl articles' talk pages is for recruitment purposes - the Non-League Football Wikiproject would benefit from more members. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Recruiting states that "the most effective method is through the use of a project banner template". The guide then goes on to state "The banner should be added to the talk page of any article within the project's scope". I put the NLF banner on the talk pages because they come under the scope of the Wikiproject. Further, I felt it was logical to have the most specific project banner. (For example, all football articles could potentially have the Wikiproject Sport banner on their talk pages, but they have the more specific Football instead).
The reason why I kept the Football banner is because that banner also provides a way to rate the quality of articles, which the non-League football does not. For an example of a similar situation, see Talk:Alberta, which has the Alberta project banner for "exactness"; and the Canada project banner for rating purposes.
"It ought to be blatantly obvious - but seemingly isn't - that you should organise as a workgroup of the main project and share a banner by way of a template". You are quite right, it isn't "blatently obvious". Given that Wikipedia:WikiProject Non-league football already exsists, I fail see why a taskforce (presumably of the Football project) is required. I also don't understand what you mean by "share a banner by way of a template".
Ah... just seen that you corrected things to "share a banner by way of a parameter". That makes more sense :-) It might well have been better to start a taskforce rather than a seperate project, but that's a moot point, as the project exsists. If you feel it should be folded into the Football project, then go ahead and propose it on the NLF project talk page. I've no idea what support/opposion you'll get.
Thanks for the reply and for holding off on the tagging while we talk. The point is that the proliferation of WikiProject banners is becoming a real problem which is causing resentment amongst some editors who aren't interested in them.
Your project probably shouldn't exist as a standalone project, since it entirely a subset of WikiProject Football. You would be better off organising it as a workgroup/taskforce/child project of WP Football, and sharing a banner. That an article is within the scope of the Non-League child project would be denoted by a parameter (template was a typo). For an example of this, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians which is a child project of WP Biography and which shares our template ({{WPBiography}}). They have their own article lists, they get recruitment advertising, but they don't get a seperate banner because they don't need one.
As an admin and also an AWB developer I think I would be well within my rights to issue a block in extreme circumstances of using AWB against community consensus, but there's no need for that since you stopped anyway.
As I said, that "the project already exists" is a red herring. You're a subset of football, you have the same logo, you have no independent assessment scheme. Your banner can be firmly categorised as talk page clutter. --kingboyk20:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that some users object to having too many project banners on talk pages. Also, you don't think child wikiprojects shouldn't exist. That may or may not be true, but such ideas are currently at most a proposed policy, and I cannot see how they could be used to say my actions were wrong. I was acting in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide, which states it is a guideline. You also imply that such banners are against community consensus. Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide encourages their use. As a guideline, it represents community consensus, so I feel it is wrong to say use of such banners is against consensus.
Seperately, you argue seems to be that the NLF project is child of the Football project, so is not entitled to a banner of its own. By analogy, neither is the football project (as a child and subset of the sports project), nor is Wikipedia:WikiProject United States (as a child and subset of the Geography project). Simailarly, none of the children have their own independent method of assessement. As for the lack of distinct logo... that could be changed in about 30 seconds if you feel that strongly about it. If you really feel that the NLF project shoudl be re-orgainsed, please stop trying to convince me of it, and work on convincing the members of the project (and also the Football project) instead. Your views on how wikiprojects should be organised, no matter how wise and true, do not represent community consensus. Granted, you are working towards trying to change that consensus (which is great and wonderful and very much the Wikipeida way), but it would be rather difficult if I had to make edits on a possible future consensus, rather than the current one. Tompw (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Question: how would you feel if I altered {{Football}} to have a parameter like Non-League=yes, which would cause it display the essentials from {{Non-League Football}}? I could run that through with AWB tonight, but I need a fairly fast answer. Tompw (talk) 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. That removes the double tag whilst also advertising your project. Nice work, cheers! --kingboyk 10:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC) PS If I were you I'd create the Non-League Football articles by quality categories, so that your project has it's own worklists. Give me a shout if you need any help with that. --kingboyk11:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Justified AND Ancient
KLF as featured article, that's pretty much why you've been hanging around Wikipedia all this time isn't it? Nice job :) Deiztalk09:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, technically speaking Novels are not a subset of Books, although the projects have a strong relationship. A Novel is a writing form, normally delivered in Book form. Personally I can't see why the less active project has been also marking the Novels and other prose narrative related articles when we have also marked them but that is something to work out. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)09:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you, then, have articles within your scope which aren't books? What percentage of your articles would that be?
What I'm really getting at is the same theme as the Non-League Football above, where your scope is wholly or perhaps only mostly within the scope of another project it's best to share a template.
The alternative is to do what I did with {{WPBeatles}} and {{WPKLF}}, which is to bring in the assessment categories and scope messages of other projects which share scope with you into your template. That way you still share a template, but you share yours rather than theirs. I think that's better for music projects which cover biography, albums and song; in your case I would think you ought to share the Books template even if you have slighly wider scope. British Royalty share the WPBio template, despite conceivably having such things as Windsor Castle within their remit. --kingboyk10:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If we ever went this route - it would take quite a bit of reorganising, template recoding and retagging. Whew infact I feel faint just thinking about it. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)10:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I see. A bot could do it. Well, let's leave it there for now, just don't say I didn't mention it :) --kingboyk10:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. I've said it several times already, I'm pretty sure it's not possible. Talk pages and articles are seperate entities in the database. It would require developers to implement it, and I'm sure they'd say it's not worth it. No harm in asking though I suppose. --kingboyk18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete User:J Di/1? As far as I can tell, it wasn't a CSD, and it was the only thing stopping people from recreating my user page, which I do not want. J Di12:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Housekeeping (empty page transcluding an empty page). I didn't understand that was what it was for (nor that Mediawiki works that way). Sorry. A bit odd that an admin doesn't have a user page though. --kingboyk12:58, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Skeletor vs. Beastman
In all seriousness, Gnarkill are a bunch of guys famous for falling out of trees and shitting out of moving cars who make budget prank calls and screw around with keyboards and mixers in their spare time. I enjoy CKY stuff but it's mindless nonsense at the best of times. That, musically, they are not fit to breathe on the shoes of messrs Drummond et al is beyond question, and knowing as much as I do about the CKY universe, this misses notability by some distance. I really haven't found anything resembling a reliable source for any of this. Deiztalk14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. To give it the appearance of being one cell rather than two, or to remove the internal but not the external borders. I find the wiki table code really difficult so I don't know if it can be done. --kingboyk23:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Take a look at my reply. One thing I didn't do was crop the live photo with the model. Check out the links I suggested and see if you agree. Regards. --Mattnad23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
On February 5, 2007, the Beatles' Apple Corps and Apple, Inc. (Apple Computer) announced a settlement of their latest trademark dispute involving use of the Apple trademark on the iTunes Music Store. In May of 2006, the High Court ruled in favor of Apple, but Neil Aspinall, manager of Apple Corps, vowed to appeal. Evidently, in the intervening months, the two companies negotiated a settlement. The settlement is discussed in this AP story. For background on the case, see Apple Corps v. Apple Computer. For fans, this may mean that Beatle music will be available someday on iTunes. Despite rumors of a February 2007 release, the material is still unavailalble.
The articles Freddie Lennon, Julia Lennon, Mimi Smith, Neil Aspinall and Mal Evans have all been promoted to Good Article status. The identity of the individual largely responsible for this outcome remains a mystery, but anyone correctly identifying said person will be treated to dinner with Sir Sean de Garde (cost of meal, air tickets, hotel and trips to houses of ill-repute will be borne by the Mighty Crestville).
There were no Project article adoptions for the month of February.
Project Policy has now been altered to reflect that the use of lowercase for the letter "t" of the word "the" in the Beatles is now considered the correct rendition.
Member News
New members to the project since the last issue include (although the first is a long time contributor who apparently has only just found the Participants section);
See below. There is genuine concern that the Newsletter is getting stale in terms of content and variety, and that the same individuals are featured each month. Furthermore, lack of "news" is hindering the timely distribution as the editors wait for something to report. All Project editors are encouraged to give their news, suggestions and thoughts to keep the 'Letter vital and interesting. If making direct contributions do not appeal, please give a mention on the Newsletter talkpage and it will be incorporated!
From the Editors
Help is needed for the job of putting future Newsletters together. The present incumbent is finding it difficult to reflect the breadth of the Project, focusing on much the same individuals and articles each month, and has decided to beg for contributions from other individuals. Interested persons need only start working on next months issue to qualify. It really is that simple!
If you've just joined, add your name to the Participants section of Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles. You'll get a mention in the next issue of the Newsletter and get it delivered as desired. Also, please include your own promotions and awards in future issues. Don't be shy!
Lastly, this is your newsletter and you can be involved in the creation of the next issue (Issue 012 – April 2007). Any and all contributions are welcome. Simply let yourself be known to any of the undersigned, or just start editing!
As the project is currently just starting, our more experienced editors are working on the project infrastructure, classifying articles, and listing/assessing red links. Your assistance is welcome. If you would prefer to just edit - and why wouldn't you? - we have a choice selection of red links to turn blue and articles to clean! Now let's get busy.
Project: Add {{WPBeatles}} to the talk pages of all Beatles-related articles. Send a newsletter to members, canvas for new members, and coordinate tasks. Enter articles classed as stubs into this list (under To Expand) and also list articles needing cleaning and other work here.
If you complete one of these tasks, please remove it from the list and add your achievement to the project log.
Want to help on next month's newsletter? Don't want to receive these in future? Don't want it subst'd next time? – It's all here.
Hi Kingboyk, I have a humble request to make as part of my efforts to get the Metal Project assessment scheme in full swing. If I understand the Kingbotk correctly and how it works, then it may be able to help the assessment department of the metal project. If an article has {{metal-album-stub}}, {{1980s-metal-album-stub}}, {{1990s-metal-album-stub}}, {{2000s-metal-album-stub}}{{metal-music-stub}}, {{thrash-metal-album-stub}}, {{metal-song-stub}} or {{US-metal-band-stub}} on its article page, then I'm assuming the bot could detect those specific tags and add a {{HMM}} tag to the talk pages combined with an automated stub assessment?
If this is correct, I'd be real grateful if you could fix this up and get it under way. Many thanks for everything, you've always been a real help. LuciferMorgan12:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't actually do that (but it might in version 2). Currently it has to be fed a list of articles to tag, and the parameters set by the operator in advance. Nonetheless that job could be done simply by building the lists from the categories you mention. If you want auto-stubbing you'll need to add an auto=yes to the template, as I'm not willing to "assess" by bot without recording the fact it was done by a bot not a human.
Well, no worries about adding an assessment, just a tag will do as once they're tagged they'll end up in an unassessed category waiting for me to assess them. So the Kingbotk doesn't go by stub tags then, but by categories? LuciferMorgan19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. At the moment it goes by categories. I might have it load and parse the articles in version 2 but haven't decided yet. --kingboyk20:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks boys. With that contribution you've contributed more to the Metal Project than most of the lazy members added together :) LuciferMorgan22:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed that this IP user has had a habit of tagging barely-created articles for either proposed or speedy deletion. Many(if not all)of those tagged articles have been expanded into decent articles(with offending tagging removed). Just figured I give you a heads up since you warned him/her about the vandalistic speedy-tagging of The KLF which you kindly reverted to the pre-tagging version... ^.^ Ranma961702:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Deletion of "List of multiracial people" page -- why was it done so quickly?
I noticed that the "List of multiracial people" article, which is one I have worked on for quite a long while, was nominated for deletion by someone who does not yet (seemingly) have a Wikipedia handle on March 7, 2007, and after only three days of voting, you deleted it on March 10.
I know that one should not be so territorial about one's work on WP, but I have to wonder why this article was so quickly deleted, without so much as a heads-up to those of us who have worked long and hard on it. I also (understandably) totally disagree with the premise by the unknown poster for nominating it for deletion in the first place. Speaking as a multi-cultural person myself, the list was not "offensive" -- it was a quite valuable resource for myself and others, which is why I and others spent so much time maintaining it. It may indeed "could contain a plethoric amount of names", but it's not as if the list was the size of the Manhattan telephone directory. I have no doubt that there are millions if not a few billion people in the world who have multiple racial ancestry, but not all of them are notable enough to have WP entries, and, therefore, would have no chance whatsoever of appearing on the list.
I find it hard to understand why the opinion of the poster at the IP address 69.120.229.5, a person who has not bothered to register a name/handle here at WP (I could be wrong and I stand to be corrected on this, of course) should have greater weight in determining the suitability of an article's presence here, than someone like me, who has been a contributing Wikipedian for quite some time. What was this person afraid of, that some neo-Nazi group would use the list as a hitlist or something?
I am still rather miffed with the way this deletion was handled, and I would appreciate it if you could shed some light on the issue. On a brighter note, at least the articles that were linked from the list weren't deleted as well. I would have prefered a much better handling of the situation, myself.
I hope to hear from you soon.
P.S.: If the article is not going to be brought back, could you at least send me a copy of it, so that I could maintain my own, private version of the list? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jalabi99 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
We don't vote, we determine consensus, and consensus was already clear. My reasons for closing early were as stated in my closing summary. I'm not willing to provide a copy in this instance, because it's a list not an article and the debate has already decided this isn't the appropriate way to categorise people. You can appeal any of these decisions at WP:DRV but I'd be amazed if they are overturned. --kingboyk16:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, what's with adding the list as a "see also" on every article about a person of mixed race hetitage? Why on earth would somebody reading about Mariane Pearl think "you know what, I'd love to read about other people of mixed race"? Is it such a defining characteristic that it's why folks would be reading about her in the first place? Of course not. So now I have to go remove all these red links! --kingboyk16:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
The Orb FAC?
Heya Kingboyk! I've been doing some copyediting on The Orb and was wondering if you thought it might be ready for FAC. Just a quick glance when you get a chance. Many thanks. :) Wickethewok03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Bot approvals process
Just in case any of you haven't seen the new bot request to track the bot approvals process, this is just a reminder to use the correct templates at {{BAG Admin Tools}} so the bot can correctly identify the stage of bot approval. Also, the approved requests section has been moved to a separate page at Wikipedia:Bots/Approved bot requests for the Bureaucrats to watchlist. When approving a request, make sure you remove it from the main page and place it on that page so that a bureaucrat can flag it. Thanks. MetsBot16:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. This message relates to an old edit, but I'll tell you about it anyway for future reference :) {{WPBeatles}} mimics/imitates the templates of other projects who share scope with us, including the assessment categories, so only our template is needed. I would have thought that apparent from the html comment in this diff showing your edit, but you must have missed it. --kingboyk13:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
ah, now it comes back to me :-) The Song Project had been commented out—not sure why that was done instead of just removing it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
So that folks would hopefully see the comment and understand that the template isn't needed. Plan failed ;) --kingboyk18:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there any way you can look at the new description of StewieBot for me. You can find it here I haven't been getting much feedback and I was hoping to get the ball rolling on approval. Thank you in advance. --D18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree. I'm an admin, it's clearly not going to pass, I'm entitled to close it. Ask at WP:AN if you disagree. Raul can close it properly when he sees it. --kingboyk23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
why deleted the pooya mirzaee rad article?
The article is similar to other articles which my friends made : fardad farahzad . I tried to add references and some sources. everyday I studied the wiki and beforehand I tried on sandbox.
Now when I was getting successful to put some photos with correct copyright way , you've just deleted my page.
there are several websites about Pooya Mirzaee Rad . and I was trying to make a integrated link referenced to each claim on the page.
anyway I don't believe that this article should be deleted. Even I don't have the content to make it better...
what you are doing is not HELP! it's destroying and I'm so unhappy about it.
in the article pooya mirzaee rad there was no advertisement. a user introducing web page or something like that.
it was all about kharizmi festival which is an important event and winners are most important topics to follow.
please advice...
at least I want to know what's difference between deleted pooya mirzaee rad and fardad farahzad which exists?
Pooyarad05:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand
All hell has broken loose at User talk:Betacommand and WP:AN or WP:ANI (I forget which), and it seems to be about the link removal task he's just been approved for. He was removing Google links, despite my pointing out to him that Google is an official interwiki link. The result was that citations to newsgroup postings were being zapped (hardly the most reliable source, but that's not the point). Also, he was doing it under his own account not the bot's, which was presumably a mistake.
I thought that the approval came a bit quick as he hadn't adequately answered my question about how he was deciding what was spam or not. Either way, I think we should withdraw task approval or risk having egg on our collective faces; he can always reapply when the process has been streamlined and has community approval.
In Beta's defence he did clean up the mess; this isn't about censure but about recognising that we've got a bot approval wrong. Agree or not? --kingboyk22:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
