Jump to content

User talk:Qwerfjkl/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 35

Wikidata weekly summary #582

Qwerfjkl (bot) – Qwerfjkl_(bot)

Page:Bernadette Armiger

Diff:

Comment/question:It gave me a missing title flag, but I searched the code for title= and a blank, but all the title= spaces were filled. Not sure what it wants. Happy to fix if I can find the error.

Fortunaa (talk) 10:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Fortunaa, you introduced it with
{{cite journal |journal=Annual Index to Hospital Progress |date=1963 |volume=45}}
And fixed it here. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Murdered anarchists CfD

Hi, you closed the discussion on this CfD ([1]), but the CfD is still active - the category is still tagged for discussion and the redirect hasn't been created. -- asilvering (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I listed the discussion at WT:CFDW, for processing by an admin. — Qwerfjkltalk 06:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Aha, thanks. -- asilvering (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot) – Qwerfjkl_(bot)

Page: Reservoir Dogs

Diff: Diff 24 May 2023

Comment/question: Hi, a message was left on my page last month about a missing periodical error, but I could not locate the error.

Spectrallights (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Spectrallights, the error is in reference number 41 (at the time of the edit; it's now ref #42). The reference is missing a |journal=.
Great film, by the way. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Qwerfjkl, can you remove the CSD tags from your pages, they are showing up in speedy deletion categories as requests to delete some of your User pages. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 21:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Liz, it seemed reasonable to just wait for the pages to be deleted. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Bot work

Hi Qwerfjkl, would you be interested in the following task?

On pages in namespace, without a talk page, or if the talk page does not contain any project banners, place the template {{WPBS}}. It might also be good to include the blank class parameter, i.e. {{WPBS|class=}} to encourage editors to assess the article.

There was some discussion and a Quarry query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Articles without Wikiprojects which might be helpful.

Did you manage to contact Enterprisey about that other task yet?

Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@MSGJ, yes, certainly I'd be interested. Do you think it would be worth adding {{WikiProject unassigned}}? I could also look at using mw:ORES/Articletopic to automatically assign WikiProjects (probably noting that they have been added by a bot if so). At WP:BOTR there was some talk recently about using ORES to tags stubs, so I could check if the articles come up as stubs and assign them that class if so. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Relating to Enterprisey's bot task, it seems they rewrote the code in rust which I'm unfamiliar with. I can still have a go at writing my own code. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! You could ask around and see what people think, but my opinion is "no". We now allow people to assess an article without assigning a wikiproject, so there is no longer something amiss if an article has no wikiproject. That is also a huge bloat of a template which just seems unnecessary. Good idea to automatically assess stubs, in which case we should maybe support the |auto= parameter in WPBS to indicate that it has been bot-assessed (I will start a discussion on that). Final request: if the article is a biography, then a blank |listas= might encourage people to fill it in. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:39, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, two things. First of all, what do you think about automatically assigning WikiProjects (no idea how reliable ORES is)? Secondly, how should I detect if an article is a biography? I could use ORES as I've mentioned, or some other method? — Qwerfjkltalk 11:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know anything about ORES, but tagging with relevant WikiProjects seems like a good idea if it can be done reliably. On the second question, again I'm not the best person to ask, but I would guess if the article was in a subcategory of Category:People? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@Martin, here is my preliminary test with ORES using random articles. Looks like it's not accurate enough for our purposes, may vary in accuracy for different topics. User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/ORES test. It looks better when I restrict it to when it has a greater than 90% probability (User:Qwerfjkl/sandbox/ORES test/2). I think I can use that as a start. (Unsuprisingly, ORES is innacurate with disambiguation pages.) — Qwerfjkltalk 09:20, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, this is roughly what the bot will be adding (I've just been looking at articles without talk pages, initially). Do these look good to you?
en:11th Carrier Air Group
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|{{WikiProject Military history}}
}}
en:1300 (group)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|{{WikiProject Politics}}
{{WikiProject Oceania}}
}}
en:131st Regiment (XPCC)
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|{{WikiProject Asia}}
}}
en:1370s in music
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=}}
en:13th National Defence Commission
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=}}
en:13th Parliament of Jamaica
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|{{WikiProject Central America}}
}}
en:13th Screen Awards
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|{{WikiProject Media}}
{{WikiProject Asia}}
{{WikiProject Film}}
}}
en:13th century in music
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=}}
en:1410s in music
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=}}
— Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
This looks great! I think generally we start each project on a new line, i.e.
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=|
{{WikiProject Politics}}
{{WikiProject Oceania}}
}}
but apart from that everything looks good. Traditionally we used |1= in WikiProject banner shell but I don't believe that it is necessary now (if it ever was) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:33, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, yes, I've done that, the syntaxhighlighting just makes it look weird.
As almost no talk pages have WikiProject shell without WikiProjects, for the talk pages missing WikiProjects, I can probably just add that to the top - or is there a certain order for talk pages e.g. {{WikiProject banner shell}} goes below {{Talk header}}? — Qwerfjkltalk 09:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:TALKORDER, {{WPBS}} is number 8 on the list — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@MSGJ, I'll just place the banner below the lowest of those it can find i.e. "article history" if any, then, {{X English}}, etc. Might nt work currenctly if the talk page doesn't follow TALKORDER, but oh well. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I had a look at your 90%-restriction set. List of European Athletics Indoor Championships medalists (women) is not really a biography (though that wouldn't inherently prevent WikiProject Biography from caring about it – I don't know if they follow lists), but if you wanted to exclude similar pages, then skipping anything that begins "List of..." would probably work. Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists could likely be added to any article with such a title. It'd probably pick up the occasional book, but this is unlikely to happen very often.
There were six others marked as biographies but inaccurate. All of them are bios. Were these getting incorrectly skipped? (Missing some doesn't feel like a big problem to me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, if it is marked as yes (inaccurate) that means ORES thinks it's a biography, but the probability is less than 90%. I'm just using the Culture.Biography.Biography* topic. — Qwerfjkltalk 10:11, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Regarding your second point, if the probability is less than 90%, I'll either check if it's in Category:People (if that's relatively efficient and works properly), or I'll skip them. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
For the first run/first months, I suggest skipping anything that seems doubtful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing, @Martin, BRFA filed. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
@Martin, this bot task has been approved, so I'll be running it over the next few days
. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Qwerfjkl,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Anchorage Gateway

Hi, just wanted to ask is there a reason why the bot added {{WikiProject Visual arts}} to Anchorage Gateway, which is a building? Is it due to architecture being considered a form of visual art? Would it not be of more interest to {{WikiProject Greater Manchester}} instead? Many thanks. Mmberney (talk) 09:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Mmberney, the bot uses mw:ORES to determine which WikiProjects to tag the talk pages with. Unfortunately ORES is not 100% accurate, so there are some errors like this, but they should be pretty uncommon. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:10, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

Kennedy Center Honors

Hi.

Just following the process.

So my question is the typical: How did you come to the conclusion of your closure? In particular since there is quite a bit of significant coverage of this. - jc37 18:58, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37, that there is significant coverage of this ward doesn't matter; the arguments for deletion were WP:OCAWARD / WP:DEFINING, i.e. the category has to be defining for those who receive it. As RevelationDirect said, The Kennedy Center galas are lifetime achievement awards who recognized people who are already prominent and typically already have some of the few awards that are defining like Oscars, Emmys, and Grammys. (their emphasis). As for WP:OSE, I don't believe the nominator was actually arguing deletion because of OSE; it had just been brought up in an earlier nomination.
I hope that helps. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, whether it was your intention or not, your close really does come across as a "supervote". And I don't say that lightly. I support the idea of a closer's discretion in closing. But if you've formed an opinion, you probably should not beclosing the discussion. Is there any policy-based rationale for your closure comments?
Additionally, just because someone may have won other awards, doesn't make this award any less defining. Something can be WP:DEFINING for an individual at any stage of their life or career. See also Category:Lifetime achievement awards.
We seem to have somewhat have waived WP:BADNAC #4 at CfD, apparently due to needing more closers, but this would seem to fall afoul of #2 as well.
What are your thoughts? - jc37 16:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jc37, RevelationDirect directly addressed your argument, and the other !voters agreed with them, making consensus that OCAWARD etc. applied.
Regarding BADNAC #2, unfortunately there is a very severe shortage of closers at CfD. If I don't close these discussions, they will likely remain unclosed for months. I do have a lot of experience closing CfDs (I've had my fair share of closure reviews, too), and I try to close these discussions as well as I can. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:30, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
"...and the other !voters agreed with them..." - where do you see that in the discussion?
Second, just pointing to a guideline is fine, until it's applicability is questioned, then the applicability needs to be discussed and supported. None of which happened in that CfD that I can see. See also: Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Just_pointing_at_a_policy_or_guideline. - jc37 16:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jc37, where do you see that in the discussion - Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD, Delete per nom, This runs afoul of WP:OCAWARD
Yes, the nom and Marcocappelle pointed to OCAWARD, but RevelationDirect also gave a clearer explanation for how it applied. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
One editor did, after the others.
And then I questioned that applicability. No one "addresed" what I said, as you asserted above. You (presumably) weighed the arguments and made a determination. My concern here is that no actual "consensus" had been determined in the discussion. For the very reasons I point out here.
I started to add this above, but we had an edit conflict - I'm aware of your experience in closing, and have supported you in the past - Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#consensus?. So I understand. This isn't adversarial in any way. Just the standard process of asking a closer to explain their close, due to concerns about said closure. - jc37 16:47, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jc37, on balance, you're right. I'll relist the discussion, and if there's not consensus to delete it, I'll ask an admin to restore it. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. - jc37 16:53, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Kennedy Center honorees

I would request that you re-open this discussion. I strongly disagree with the outcome. The Kennedy Center honor is the most prestigious award in the arts (more than an Oscar, Emmy Tony, Grammy, Pulitzer, etc.) in the United States. It is absolutely career defining, and the deletion of the category is highly inappropriate. I strongly contest deletion and given that the the cat discussion had such low participation and was divided it should not have been closed with a delete consensus anyway.4meter4 (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@4meter4, CfD typically has low participation, and just because it is not unanimous does not mean there isn't consensus. Regarding the rest of your comments, see the discussion above. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It does, and I have closed many low partticipation discussions at CfD myself. But we should be very careful there. When dealing with low participation discussions, we have to be even more careful about determining whether there is consensus to delete, not less. Low participation should never be a rationale to delete anything. - jc37 16:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jc37, that's not quite what I was saying. Rather I mean that it can be appropriate to close a discussion at CfD with low participation, instead of relisting, because low participation is normal at CfD. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. And as I mentioned above, I agree, though of course with extra due prudence/dilligence as appropriate. - jc37 17:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Spaceflight vs. Astronomy WikiProjects

This bot has been adding the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template to article talk pages that clearly belong to {{WikiProject Spaceflight}}. For example. Is this something that could be addressed? Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Praemonitus, not really, it uses mw:ORES. See #Anchorage Gateway. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
I see. Well nothing like a computer to make us do more cleanup work. So it goes. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate tagging

I happened to notice that your bot added a duplicate WP:Bio tag here. It also added an empty banner shell tag here. I'm guessing neither of these were intended outcomes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lepricavark, the issue here is that the bot is supposed to be creating talk pages, and it ran the query to find the talk pages before you created them. I'll rerun the query to avoid this for the most part.
The empty banner shell tag is intended, though. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Kennedy Center honorees

Thanks, as always, for all your work to move CFD along. It looks like when Category:Kennedy Center honorees was relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 1#Category:Kennedy Center honorees, it was inadvertenty deleted since that nomination was still open. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@RevelationDirect, if you missed it, I responded (just now) at that discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Jeez, I missed it there and in the conversations above. On the merits, @Jc37: has a point about the editors not engaging especially since the original nomination itself was procedural and didn't make much of an initial case. And procedurally, DRV usually closes any low participation XfD as "Endorse and Relist" so there's no reason not to just do that when people are kind enough to come straight to your talk page. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot) – Qwerfjkl_(bot)

Page:

Diff: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?diff=1160762194

Comment/question: I added the title in a subsequent edit, but it still sent me the notification that the reference was missing a title. Here is the current reference:

PurpleComet (talk) 13:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@PurpleComet, the bot notified you at 16:38, 18 June 2023 (UTC), 15 minutes after you added the reference, and you fixed the error at 16:45, 18 June 2023, 7 minutes later. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Terry Joyce". Concussion Legacy Foundation. Retrieved June 18, 2023.

WikiProject tagging

Hi there! I monitor Category:Biography articles without living parameter and run a bot task which adds the appropriate parameter for many talk pages with {{WikiProject Biography}}. There seem to be hundreds of talk pages in this category such as Talk:1987 Taipei Women's Championships – Singles which don't seem to be biographies. Could you please review the pages in this category and remove the {{WikiProject Biography}} template where it doesn't belong? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, this is because the bot determines which WikiProjects to add using mw:ORES, which is not 100% accurate. The false positive rate should be quite low. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:43, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Would you be willing to fix the false positives in Category:Biography articles without living parameter for talk pages that start with a digit? (e.g. Talk:1987 Taipei Women's Championships – Singles) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Another issue is adding {{WikiProject Biography}} to a talk page that already has it, such as your edit to Talk:Abubakar Sulaiman. Could you please update your bot to not add duplicate WikiProjects? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, this is because of the issue described above, i e the page was created recently, and the bot doesn't expect the page it's editing to exist. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Yet another issue: In your edit to Talk:Akira Watanabe (racing driver), your bot added {{WikiProject Sports|auto=yes}} even though |auto= is not supported by {{WikiProject Sports}}. Could you please tweak your bot to avoid this issue as well? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I will fix this issue in a bit, for now I have stopped the bot from running. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
@GoingBatty, the problem is that the bot's edits are not always correct, as you noted above. It might be better to change WPSPORTS and other WP banners to support |auto=. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

Qwerfjkl (bot) questions

Hi. Doing some Gnomish stuff this morning, I came across several articles about locations in Russia which the bot was adding the Sociology Project tag to. Not sure that's correct. Examples: Talk:Bornaq, Talk:Börbaş Särdegäne, Talk:Börbaş, Talk:Arbaş. Onel5969 TT me 11:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@Onel5969, the bot uses mw:ORES to determine which WikiProjects to tag, so it is not 100% accurate. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. Just thought you might like to know. Onel5969 TT me 13:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #583

Your bot: Brynmawr Furniture

Hi, your bot has added Brynmawr Furniture to WikiProject Europe. I'm not sure exactly how your bot operates, but this seems like a mistake.

For one thing, the WikiProject is thought to be inactive. For another, their page clearly states "The Project does not take responsibility for areas of Europe already covered by a project" and a topic in the UK clearly isn't an uncovered area.

I'd like to revert this edit and suggest that you might like to adjust whatever it is that your bot is using to find appropriate pages for wikiprojects. JMWt (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@JMWt, the bot uses mw:ORES through Articletopic to determine which WikiProjects to use. For WikiProject Europe, it will apply that tag if ORES determines the article is about one of these topics: Geography.Regions.Europe.Europe*", "Geography.Regions.Europe.Northern Europe", "Geography.Regions.Europe.Southern Europe", "Geography.Regions.Europe.Western Europe".
I think this is just a false positive by ORES, however. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
quote "The ORES infrastructure is being deprecated by the Machine Learning team"
There is no "thinking" that this is a false positive, it is a false positive.
Fundamentally there is no point in assigning pages to wikiprojects that are inactive and won't do anything about it anyway, so whichever the source is that your bot is using, I suggest you take my feedback as a suggestion that it needs closer attention from you. JMWt (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@JMWt, quote "The ORES infrastructure is being deprecated by the Machine Learning team" it's just being moved to another service as I understand, the actual model won't change.
There's not much harm in tagging pages with WPEUROPE, as far as I can tell, even if the WP is inactive. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Categorisation Barnstar
Your stamina closing out so many CFD nominations and doing so thoughtfully is very appreciated! RevelationDirect (talk) 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Tech News: 2023-27

MediaWiki message delivery 22:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot) edit (task 19)

I don't think Dardanus (Scythian king) falls under the wikiprojects "Europe" or "History". Paul August 11:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@Paul August, see above #Your bot: Brynmawr Furniture, #Qwerfjkl (bot) questions, #Choice of WikiProject banners, #WikiProject tagging, #Spaceflight vs. Astronomy WikiProjects, and #Anchorage Gateway.
The bot uses mw:ORES to determine which WikiProjects to add, and so its not always accurate. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:06, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but how do I fix this? If I remove those projects will the bot simply add them back? Paul August 11:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Paul August, no, this is a one time run. THe bot will not edit any of the pages more than once, so feel free to remove the projects. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:20, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Paul August 11:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Choice of WikiProject banners

Hi, please see this edit. Why is the article Broadsman within the scope of WikiProject Europe? The Broadsman was a purely domestic rail service, it didn't even run to any port serving Eurpoean shipping - Cromer is an inshore fishing port. Articles on British railway topics are generally not so tagged - not even Talk:Channel Tunnel is tagged for WikiProject Europe. Generally, they get WikiProject Trains plus a county or regional WikiProject. From Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe:

The Europe WikiProject is a project committed to improving, expanding and co-ordinating Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to Europe: the continent, its people and their culture. It concentrates primarily on matters of a pan-European, or cross-border nature; including international organisations (other than the European Union, which has its own project).

Accordingly, I have replaced the banner.

Looking at other edits from the same time shows that the selection of WikiProjects is somewhat vague, with {{WikiProject Europe}}, {{WikiProject North America}} and {{WikiProject Politics}} being used. In each case, more specific WikiProjects would have been appropriate. All of the talk pages were given a WikiProject banner shell but only in one instance (Talk:Broadgreen (Liverpool ward)} were there two or more banners to enclose; in two instances there were no actual WikiProject banners at all - what was the point in that? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

@Redrose64, sorry about the late reply, I totally missed this message. Regarding the no actual WikiProject banners at all, as Martin said on the BRFA:
Yes these edits are valuable work in the aim of assessing all articles under the new project-independent quality ratings. Firstly they draw attention to the fact that the article has not yet been assessed. (In fact it kind of worked on 1872 in Bolivia because three days later an editor came along and added a rating and WikiProjects, although they added a duplicate banner shell ...) It populates Category:Unassessed articles which helps editors to find articles which need assessing. And it invites/encourages the assessment with the blank |class= parameter.
Regarding the vague WikiProjects, and why WikiProject Europe was tagged, I explained this here. Essentially the bot uses mw:ORES to tag WikiProjects, which isn't always accurate. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I don't accept that. It reads as if you're transferring the blame to ORES. Comments like about one of these topics: Geography.Regions.Europe.Europe*", "Geography.Regions.Europe.Northern Europe", "Geography.Regions.Europe.Southern Europe", "Geography.Regions.Europe.Western Europe". are unhelpful, exactly how is an article about a railway service about the geography of Europe? Please stop the bot run, and fix the pages that were tagged in error for WikiProject Europe. Either remove the tag, or add something more sensible. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
@Redrose64, I'm sorry if that's how it sounded, that's not what I intended. Rather, I mean that there are inevitably going to be false positives. I have tried to ensure that there will not be that many, but some errors are unavoidable.
I will no longer use the Geogrpahy.Regions.Europe to tag articles with WikiProject Europe; I think the ORES topic does not equate to the WikiProject's purpose. I'll go through and revert additions of it on previous pages. — Qwerfjkltalk 14:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Question from Fico Puricelli (13:01, 6 July 2023)

Greetings. I need help. What sources do I need in order to make a comic book article as accepted? Thanks. --Fico Puricelli (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fico Puricelli, WP:NCOMIC describes the notability the requirments for comic books (it should be noted that that is an essay, not a policy). Generally, try to find reliable sources that are not connnected to the subject. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Qwerfjkl (bot) – Qwerfjkl_(bot)

Page:

Diff:

Comment/question:

4y5hthdrgsefhenb (talk) 18:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

@4y5hthdrgsefhenb, you addwd
<ref>{{Cite web |title=Log into Facebook |url=https://www.facebook.com/login/?next=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FKeirMatherLabour |access-date=2023-07-06 |website=Facebook |language=en}}</ref>

The |title= field is "Log into Facebook", which causes a generic title error. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, is the bot meant to be adding empty banner shells? I just noticed Talk:Adriana Dias (revision 1163378766) -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Kj cheetham, yes; see this comment. — Qwerfjkltalk 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Qwerfjkl, thanks for the clarification. I admit I'd also forgotten that it can now be used without project banners inside it (as per Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 7#Name of template). -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Bot, you're doing a great job

The adding of wikiproject frameworks to talk pages on pages I'm familiar with is A++. jengod (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Classical liberals

Thanks for closing so many CFDs!

Re Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 3#Classical liberals, please don't list cases at WT:CFDW for renaming, when they actually need splitting. The splitting should be done first.

The risk, which did happen in this case, is that if we process as rename while intending to get round to splitting later, then other editors will remove pages from ill-fitting categories, so that we lose some former members. I went through JJMC89bot's contribs to check whether we had lost any; I think in the end I only had to put one back. – Fayenatic London 15:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)