Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

See this diff. It seems that the bot is putting some refs in alphabetical order. Refs are often placed so that the most relevant ref is first, then the next most important, etc.. Please fix the bot so that it is not putting refs in alphabetical order by default. People using the bot should ask the editors of the page first before doing this. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a default update by AWB that orders by footnote number. Also, this isn't a bot, but rather a semi-automated editing tool. As for whether the first reference must be the most relevant, is there a guideline for that? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not a regular editor of the page, and what you are doing is rude. Please stop reverting until this discussion gracefully ends. I have around 49,000 edits on Wikimedia projects, and 51,000 edits on Wikia. There is no guideline requiring references to be in alphabetical order nor in footnote order in the wikitext. That would be ridiculous. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

One does not have to be a "regular editor" to change an article, and there is nothing rude about the changes I made. What happened is that you reverted without understanding because you reverted before starting this conversation rather than after it. Also, this playing to experience is getting ridiculous (esp. as I have a lot more). Nevertheless, we're not talking about putting references in abc order. AWB puts the footnote numbers in numerical order, apparently for consistency/readability. You will need to ask the AWB devs to explain further. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not rude to use AWB. Granted. But it is rude to keep reverting a regular editor of a page you do not regularly edit when I have asked for a guideline saying your choices are better than my choices. Feel free to get the AWB devs to fix their mistake. Or at least to remove their choices from being default choices until this discussion finishes. I assumed this talk page was for doing that. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to prolong an argument over who is actually rudest here as that's really in the eye of the beholder; but what I know is that regular editors shouldn't be engaging in ownership-grade complaints. Also, you haven't yet made a case that this specific change is even a mistake. Until you make that case, there's nothing for me or anyone to do. Last, you're actually on the incorrect talk page for this and the previous discussion -- this one is for AWB typos only. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). The way the page was originally was not a mistake. And the reference order being changed by AWB was definitely a mistake as I explained. These were the choices I saw at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser:

Where should these threads be moved to? --Timeshifter (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Timeshifter: Here: Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser. That is where general issues with AWB are discussed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I moved this discussion from Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos to here. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Not a dev, just someone getting fed up of the number of conversations that are escalating far higher than they need to this week. The reason the references were re-ordered is so that the article complies with the Harvard Referencing style, judging by the above comments neither of you actually looked at the change it made for the reader of the article. I humbly suggest that you both go and look at what difference the edit made to the article, ignore the source code, look at the article. - X201 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I did look at it and fully understand the change I made. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

So the difference to the reader in the article is? - X201 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I already stated what the difference is at least twice above. It helps to read the discussion before commenting. The references were reordered and here's the AWB general fix being employed: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#ReorderReferences (ReorderReferences). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(unindent)I think what we have here is a conflict between a reference ordering guideline and what editors may see as a necessity to put the most valuable reference first. I don't know if there's a guideline regarding the latter, but it seems like a reasonable concern. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Stevietheman. Reference formats, citation styles, footnote order, etc. are decided by the editors of a page, not by AWB. See WP:CITEVAR. Incarceration in the United States has over 200 references, and does not have one single reference format or citation style. And the footnote order is very important for some of the reference groups. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything about footnote ordering at the link you gave, but as I said, there is a genuine conflict in my humble opinion. Also, it's not really AWB "deciding" here -- the change is based on guidelines. Someone not using AWB could order the citations sequentially and be following guidelines. So, how can this be resolved on an ongoing basis? Anyone? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See also: WP:CITESTYLE which is just above WP:CITEVAR. It is pretty clear that between the two of them it says that all reference decisions are made by the editors of the page. Technically, by the consensus of the editors. In actuality there is no consensus. No one citation style is preferred. And good luck enforcing it. Many editors drop in. Footnote order is part of citation styling from what I am reading. So since I gave a good reason why footnote ordering is a problem in some cases I suggest it not be a default setting of AWB. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of footnote ordering. The ordering is not the same thing as the style. Therefore, I don't see what you're seeing. Also, I've been using AWB to make this kind of change for well over a year, and this is the very first article for which I've gotten or seen a complaint related to this issue. Since this is an AWB-recommended change, there is no reason for AWB users to discontinue using it. What you need to do, as you're the one with the concern, is convince AWB devs to remove this change. I won't request this because I agree with the change overall, despite the very rare conflict we have here. All that I will do is no longer make this change in this specific article. And if AWB takes this change out, obviously, that will be another reason for me to not do it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. I can see why it is not important for most pages. I left a note in this section: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#ReorderReferences (ReorderReferences). Something along the lines of this: "An article may have a fact that is supported by several references ordered by importance, and not numerical footnote order. This may be the choice of the editors, and so AWB changes may be reverted in this case. See WP:CITESTYLE and WP:CITEVAR." --Timeshifter (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't really agree that these links solidly back up your position, but I'm not opposed to the warning in general. If the editors on a specific page genuinely want a specific reference ordering by importance, then a revert is fine by me. But I would also recommend that you add an HTML comment to the subject article for editors (including AWB editors) to see that there's a preferred ordering there. That way, you will reduce the likelihood of the change happening again by someone other than me. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs should be presented in the order they are used according to pretty much every style guide out there. ^{[3][2][5][1][4]} is just plain silly, and supported by no style guides I know of. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) This comes up from time to time, but I have never seen an external style guide that recommends ordering inline references by importance and nobody has ever linked to one (as far as I remember). So, once again, can anyone point to one? Mr Stephen (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia where it is not uncommon to have 3 to 10 references for one paragraph or set of sentences. There is no guideline on Wikipedia that requires something as silly as putting references in numerical order. I have been editing since 2005. This is the first time I remember having this AWB problem. I suggest that AWB users be advised to listen to people reverting them more. That would solve most problems. It is a little unrealistic to expect hidden notes to stop unexpected AWB changes. So it would be nice if my note, or a variation of it, was left at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#ReorderReferences (ReorderReferences). Then maybe Wikipedia would lose a few less editors. This type of petty stuff drives away a lot of editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure no AWB user wants to upset you or any other editor. But, do you have an external style guide? Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a Wikipedia guideline saying that there is some OCD requirement for numerical order of footnotes? --Timeshifter (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Without a guideline, let's instead ask the question of whether it looks consistent and aesthetically reasonable to a reader to see footnote numbers out of order. Also, wouldn't a book publisher ordinarily keep them in numerical order? (I believe they would.) I'm not sure if there's a wiki guideline that spells this out explicitly. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it is not unrealistic to expect visible HTML notes to stop AWB changes. Despite its name, AWB is not automatic. AWB users are expected to review their changes before saving. If I see an HTML note to keep something a certain way, I skip that recommended change. I also have been an editor since 2005 (2004 actually - heh), and what I know is if one hasn't ever seen this problem until now, then perhaps it's a very, very rare conflict. But, as I stated, I have no problem accepting there's a genuine conflict in this case, but really, put in a comment -- it's easy and can prevent an edit you don't like. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: would a "NoRefFixes" style option in the bots template be a possible solution to this? - X201 (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe also, a hidden template I can paste into the article that the bot sees: {{NoRefFixes}}. I think it is unrealistic to expect AWB users themselves to see the relevant hidden notes. The template will probably be added after a problem, and not before. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A workaround requiring no software change is to insert HTML comments between any references that the general fixes must not switch. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In many, perhaps even in most, cases where multiple adjacent citations are present, they are simply in the order that editors found and added them, with no particular significance. But in some cases they might be in order of significance, or in some other order intentionally chosen by the page editor(s). In such a case, I would consider this ordering part of the page citation style, and not to be changed without consensus, or at least without discussion. But how is an editor new to the page, whether using AWB or not, to know this? I think the suggestion of an HTML comment, perhaps along with a talk page note, is a good one. If edits are made changing the order of citations without discussion in the presence of such a comment and note, then there would indeed be grounds for complaint directed to the editor making such changes and "it is an AWB standard fix" wouldn't hold much water in my view. AWB users are supposed to carefully reveiw the changes that are to be made before clicking SAVE. DES ^(talk) 18:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Most editors just add additional references after the other references. Usually the more important references are already at the beginning. If the order is important to someone they reorder it. Most of the time the order is not important. But a semi-bot like AWB can do massive changes, and it can mess up lots of stuff at times. Other times the order is not important, and the AWB changes are not a problem. It is only the bots that cause significant problems. Once the problem is seen how about a {{NoRefFixes-AWB}} template specific to AWB. That would be simple to place on the top or bottom of the article page. Functioning in the background invisibly. Similar to the {{NoAutosign}} added to some user pages. See Template:NoAutosign. --Timeshifter (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I like the idea of preventing any ref fixes to a page. Are there really cases where all ref sequences on a page need to be protected? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as the AWB editor (or any editor) doesn't have to do mind reading or a deep review of the references listed. An HTML note is a clear signal to keep things a certain way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Another workaround idea: Drop the less important cite.  :) I mean, really, if one reference is that much more important than the other, use just that one. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Now you are just being rude again. An edit summary is very clear. It shouldn't have taken mind reading on your part to stop reverting right away, and start discussion earlier, and let it finish gracefully before imposing your AWB-backed changes with further reversions. WP:Bold, revert, discuss. See this history of the page. I don't often edit that page, and I did some intensive editing of references. A very technical task that few people like doing. So I have now wasted a lot of time here on this AWB page. The absolute simplest solution is to put a big note on the top of all the AWB help pages, saying to remember: WP:Bold, revert, discuss. And "don't drive away editors". --Timeshifter (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not being rude at all. But it does seem like every time someone tries to honestly provide ideas for dealing with this issue, you try to ratchet up emotions. Perhaps that works with others, but It won't work with me. No, an edit summary is not clear in terms of informing any editor who may drop by. I don't see why this simple point is being lost. Also, just because someone has reverted something with a vague edit summary, that doesn't mean other editors are being rude because they think your position is vague and they are reverting back. The edit conflict is over -- so drop it. And my last workaround idea is a solid one. Consider it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

My reversions of your initial AWB changes were clear to you, as were my edit summaries. It looks like you have violated these rules: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use. Since we are in agreement (among several editors here) that this is something to be decided by the editors of an article and not by an occasional AWB editor dropping in, then in the future I suggest you immediately go to the talk page, and ask why you were reverted. And ask what reference changes are OK, and which are not. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, they were not. They appeared to be reverts due to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it took a while to get to an understanding of your position. And now I do. And as you saw, I didn't violate WP:3RR. We have discussed this pretty well, I think. Again, the edit conflict is over, so drop it. I'm sorry if it seems rude because I and others aren't agreeing with every last point that you make here. You have workarounds to avoid these kinds of edits in the future. Why not use them? Besides, this new template idea is a mere proposal right now, and all things being equal, it may not come into being. Last, all the suggestions you've made to me equal all the suggestions I could make to you regarding your behavior in this matter, so it's a wash. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on you as the AWB operator. See: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use:

1. Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale.

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have followed the guidelines of a Wikipedia editor (which is generally no different from an "AWB Operator" -- we're just plain editors using a tool). We've discussed and settled this. Your interest in keeping this ratcheted up is beyond my comprehension. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Maybe use a more specific template: {{StopAWB-ReorderReferences}} --Timeshifter (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm opposed. A perfectly good workaround exists for a specific clump of citations (and an HTML comment works fine too). I'm sorry if this is "rude", but it's really just my opinion. I think a template is overkill and nothing should stop changes to all references on a page. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

People are not going to go around adding dozens of hidden HTML comments just to get an AWB user to listen. Anyway it is not your call. If the editors do not want bots and semi-bots to change certain things, then that is the way it is. --Timeshifter (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

An AWB editor is an editor. A comment works as well for any editor. It's not difficult to add comments -- it's probably about one of the easy wiki-tasks imaginable. If there's really a consensus by regular editors of an article not to change something, and that consensus isn't against any hard guidelines/policies, have at it. But there has to also be a consensus for a template like this to be created. And I oppose it. I think it's unreasonable to block AWB recommended changes in such a blanket manner. Now, something on the order of {{Not a typo}} is something I can go along with. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes#ReorderReferences (ReorderReferences) reorder the references inside {{r}}? If not, then perhaps that is a better alternative to some special flag template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See this diff. Wikitext is not the same as HTML, etc.. Wikitext is simpler. That is why <br> is used. It is used in many places on Wikipedia, and it serves absolutely no purpose to make it more difficult to use by making it harder to remember. And it is also ridiculous in that there is a space inside <br />. So it can wrap in the wikitext window itself, and further confuse people. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your complaint seems to be with HTML itself as <br /> is valid in XHTML and HTML5. Further, <br /> is similar to other wiki constructs like <ref name="thename" />. Also note that AWB doesn't include this change as one of its default changes. An individual user (in this case, me) may be making this change for consistency while doing other substantive updates.

This is a common mistake with editors who edit both web pages and wiki pages. I also edit both. But wikitext is not HTML nor XHTML. You will not find a guideline requiring <br> to be converted to <br /> in wikitext. So please stop doing it. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree there is any mistake. <br /> and other (X)HTML is used in wiki articles rather commonly and <br /> is (X)HTML. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Guideline? I have around 49,000 edits on Wikimedia projects, and 51,000 edits on Wikia. <br> is wikitext and is fine. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I have much more edits and have been editing Wikipedia for 11 years, and have been doing web development more or less for 20. Your concept of 'wikitext' as applied to (X)HTML needs clarification. Have a guideline related to this? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the one needing a guideline, because both <br> and <br /> do the same thing. So where is the guideline that says one is preferred over another? There is none. You obviously do a lot of bot edits (please don't be technical), but bot defaults are not guidelines. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed they are the same thing as far as display is concerned. And changing these is cosmetic, for sure. But when making other substantive changes, we're allowed to make cosmetic edits to enhance consistency. I don't know if there is a guideline per se that involves cleanup of wikitext for the sake of consistency. But I also don't know if there is a guideline that backs up your idea that <br /> is 'wikitext' and not (X)HTML. Also, I don't do any bot edits. I use this semi-automated editing tool called AWB to make edits. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Consistency that makes it difficult for readers to go to the best reference first is not a good idea on many pages with a lot of references. Such as Incarceration in the United States‎. AWB should not be changing <br> to <br />. Wikipedia wikitext is not (X)HTML. Wikitext is converted to HTML. Wikitext is for easier editing by readers. <br /> is harder to remember, and pointless, since wikitext is converted to HTML. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Best reference first" pertains to discussion below this one. As for this discussion, "Wikipedia wikitext is not (X)HTML. Wikitext is converted to HTML. Wikitext is for easier editing by readers." looks like an opinion, the first statement of which I find to be inaccurate. Wikitext in articles commonly includes (X)HTML, and <br /> is (X)HTML. Neither <br> or <br /> is a wiki construct. I would argue that <br /> makes for easier editing for editors because they stand out better and look similar to other wiki (X)HTML-ish constructs like <ref name="thename" />. But the bottom line for these changes is a lint-style kind of change for the sake of consistency in the wikitext. Consistency is the reason for this particular change. If you don't like consistency in the wikitext, I guess we'll have to disagree. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. This is not the first time I have had this discussion. But ask yourself this question: How many editors of Wikipedia also edit HTML and XHTML? Very few. So let's keep it simple for most editors of Wikipedia. <br> is used on many Wikipedia pages. Often in table headers for example. <br> is a lot easier to remember, and it clutters up the table headers less. See also Help:Sorting (a page I help edit). <br> is used in many places there. If you went there and converted everything to <br /> it would rapidly be reverted, because we are trying to make things simpler, not harder, for most Wikipedia editors. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). I will leave this discussion here since it seems like a typo-ish kind of discussion to me. Feel free to move it anywhere else if necessary. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

(unindent again) I think this is not a typo-related discussion because AWB/Typos doesn't cover this. Anyway, my edits here don't force anyone to not use <br>, and if someone wants to revert any cosmetic change I make, I don't revert it (note that you reverted all my changes in the subject article, not just cosmetic ones). If there is a preference to keep a particular article formatted in a particular way, I'm fine with that. However, on the overall point, I disagree for the same reasons I stated before. I particularly disagree that <br /> is not plenty simple, and that if we're asking editors to understand a construct like ref, they can easily handle <br />. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

AWB does not change the br tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

By default, it doesn't. As you know (and others may not), AWB users use "Find & replace" to tack on additional edits. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Stevietheman then contact the people who do that directly ans ask them to stop. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, technically, this discussion should be in my user talk. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use:

1. Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit. If in doubt, or if other editors object to edits on the basis of this rule, seek consensus at an appropriate venue before making further edits.

--Timeshifter (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Just for information, <br> is valid wikimarkup nowadays, but it was poor practice in the past (before c. December 2012), see e.g. here. We (at en) had a tool to fix it without intervention, but I think (might be wrong) that it was flagged for fixing at WPCHECK. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I typically make that edit because I use this syntax highlighter which is available under Preferences/Gadgets/Editing. I don't know how many other people use it, but I find it quite helpful and I suspect more people would use it if they knew about it. One particularity of the highlighter is that it differentiates between a <br> and a <br/>, as it says in the documentation "For performance reasons, the highlighter requires all tags to be valid XML. For example, make sure that if you start a <p> tag you end it with </p>, and use <br/> instead of <br>." Hence, I do it because it helps some people and doesn't hurt anything.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

How much of a performance difference does it make? Does <br/> without the space in it work? Because <br />with the space in it is too picky and arcane for wikitext in my opinion. It would make wikitext in tables (table headings, etc.) more complicated than it needs to be. I edit Help:Sorting for example. <br> is frequently used in tables, especially sortable tables. Can syntax highlighter be recoded to live with just <br>? --Timeshifter (talk) 00:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a coder, but you might be able to get an explanation at User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter. Lately, I've been going spaceless (<br/>). That doesn't make a difference to me. Also, of course, I never make those changes unless I'm also making some substantive change. Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I want to make a bot using AWB but I don't know how to get it approved for AWB A8v (talk) 20:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRFA

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos § minor issue with .7B.7BCommons.7D.7D .E2.86.92 .7B.7BCommons category.7D.7D conversion

 – GoingBatty (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't that big of a deal, but whenever the 1st unnamed parameter in template:commons begins with the "category:" prefix, AWB converts {{Commons}} to {{Commons category}}. In most cases, this isn't an issue, but when an article topic has both a commons gallery and category with the same name, using both templates yields link boxes that appear identical, but link to different pages. E.g., if you run the current version of AWB on the amphetamine article, it will attempt to convert the 2 commons boxes that link to Commons:Amphetamine and Commons:Category:Amphetamine in the Amphetamine#External links section (shown below to the left) to the set of boxes below to the right. Might be worth disabling this fix or preventing the change when a commons gallery and commons category with the same names are linked to via the {{commons}} template. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Left column: original; Right column: after AWB fix

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Amphetamine. Wikimedia Commons has media related to Category:Amphetamine.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Amphetamine. Wikimedia Commons has media related to Amphetamine.

Edit: I replaced {{Commons|Category:Amphetamine}} with {{Commons category|Amphetamine|Category:Amphetamine}} to circumvent the problem in this example; the general issue still remains though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't AWB/Typos related. Please move discussion to the general discussion area. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to use AWB to download files in a list?

I am working on a separate wiki (not a Wikimedia project), and I have used AWB to generate a list of all pages in the "File:" namespace, however I am not sure how to now download those files.

I am aware of mw:Exporting all the files of a wiki, however I was hoping to use AWB to achieve this task (I do not have familiarity with Perl, and I do not have FTP access to the server).

Thanks! —danhash (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Moved from Template talk:AWB § AWB is removing date.3D parameter in references

 – 00:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

See. Checkingfax (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: As stated in the talk header you kindly added to this page, "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AWB template." Instead, I suggest you post to Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser with some explanation (e.g. Do you like this undocumented feature? Is there a problem with the removal of this blank field?) Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

GoingBatty, will do. The date= parameter is not deprecated and I don't agree with its removal even if empty. Having empty fields ready to go speeds up later population of the parameter, especially by novice editors. Here is the CS1 guideline on parameter deprecation. Checkingfax (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Upon further inspection, I noticed that the reference before the AWB edit was |date=May 2004|work=State of New Jersey Commission of Investigation|author=|date=|. One of AWB's general fixes is to remove duplicated fields. GoingBatty (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks GoingBatty. Nice catch. Monkbot managed by Trappist the monk as seen here is clearly considering the date= parameter to be deprecated, which it is not. Checkingfax (talk) 00:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Monkbot does not use AWB's general fixes (see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Monkbot 1), so now I suggest you contact Trappist the monk directly. Sorry for the runaround. GoingBatty (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: Another user mentioned the same issue at User talk:Trappist the monk/Archives/4#bot error?. GoingBatty (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Which see.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage, we seemingly regularly approve requests for access to users with less than 500 non-automated mainspace edits. I believe this figure was originally just mainspace edits, and not non-automated mainspace edits. I am in favour of going off of the latter simply because one can easily make 500+ edits to the mainspace using rollback or Twinkle, and still not be competent with the English language. I even created a tool to assist in identifying such non-automated contributions. I think we can safely decrease the prerequisite and still be able to sufficiently evaluate the user's English and their editing ability. My proposal is to cut the number in half to 250 non-automated mainspace edits. Any insight on this? Pinging admins who are (semi)active in responding to requests: @Graeme Bartlett, Nakon, and Worm That Turned — MusikAnimal ^talk 03:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Earlier I was using the figure of 400 non automated, but if I see quality writings or corrections I would give the AWB with lower figures. Sometimes there may be a specific reason given, such as categorising, or adding projects to talk pages, that would require proof that the user can do that job manually. But I find that most users are pretty vague about why they want AWB. So I would be happy with alert about under 500 mainspace edits, or under 250 non-automated. Can the bot also detect that a different user added the entry? Every so often I find that an IP adds a request for a user, and I have to ask them to log on to do their request. For me to check it is a bit of a pain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Graeme Bartlett: 500 mainspace / 250 non-automated sounds like a good compromise from what we have now. I will implement that shortly. I could add a task for the bot comment if the requester is a different user than whom the request is for, but I suspect this doesn't happen that often? What if we instead took it a step further and autocorrect the username of the request so that it is the same as the user who added the entry. This would also ensure spaces are used instead of underscores, etc. When this occurs the bot would also leave the comment "The username for this request has been autocorrected or changed to the user who added the request". How does that sound? — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't get the bot to correct the username, as getting their own username right is part of the test. Applicants have to be able to read and follow simple instructions. If users do not follow the instructions they should not get AWB. If the bot "corrects" then it will make my work much harder to see what the user themselves did. However the bot could make a suitable remark to ask the user with a similar but differning username (say in caps or underscores) to read the instructions carefully and follow them. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'll look into doing that instead. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 20:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible for a c# custom module to know the name of the page that AWB is editing?

For example:

	string PAGENAME = some_function_that_returns_article_pagename ();
	string regex = @"regex to find something in PAGENAME";
	if (Regex.Match (PAGENAME, regex).Success)
		{
		do_stuff ();		// article title dependent stuff gets done here
		}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)

Doh! Never mind.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I run a bot on a wikia that has two nearly-equivalent templates, one of which is an italicized version of another. The templates are called S2 and S4, with S4 being the italicized variant. I have a question about regex - is there any find-and-replace regex that can replace the italicized [sS]2 template with the S4 template without hitting any bold-text false positives? (So that ''{{s2|x0x}}'' and ''{{S2|x0x}}'' would both be altered to {{S4|x0x}}, but '''{{S2|x0x}}''' would not be altered.) ONR (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Try replacing (?<!')''\{\{[Ss]2\|([^\{\}]+)\}\}'' with {{s4|$1}}. This uses a negative lookbehind, meaning the double apostrophes only match if not preceded by a third apostrophe. (This, however, won't change '''''{{s2|x0x}}''''' into '''{{s4|x0x}}'''.) SiBr₄ (talk) 19:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ONR (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to use AWB to make some edits in Dagbani. How do I get started for example to make list from that incubator? Thanks—M@sssly^✉ 18:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll created allready some articles in a small wikipedia and it worked.

But if I have article names with comma in the csv file/text file, like:

Autauga County,Alabama,43671.00,17662.00,....

Baldwin County,Alabama,140415.00,74285.00,....

...what do I have to do, that AWB uses "Antauga County, Alabama" as article name and not "Antauga County" only.

--Howan Hansi (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried putting it in quotes i.e. "Autauga County,Alabama"? Rjwilmsi 07:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

You can also change the separator to something other than a comma. For example, use Autaga County, Alabama|43671.00|17662.00|... in your .csv file, and set the field separator to | in the plugin. SiBr₄ (talk) 10:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, I'll try both recommendations. --Howan Hansi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Recently I've upgraded both my desktop pc and my laptop to Windows 10 from Windows 7. Since then both were unable to start AWB, even after downloading the newest versions. On opening the .exe I see the normal startup/loading screen, but the bar doesn't progress and after a few moments Windows reports that the program is not responding. Is this a known issue and does anyone have a possible fix for this?

With kind regards, Kippenvlees1 (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be a problem with Windows 10 compatibility, because the program starts with no problem when started in compatibility mode to Windows 7. - Kippenvlees1 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I get this as well sometimes—go to C:\Documents and Settings\user name\Local Settings\Application Data (you may need to check "show hidden") and delete the AutoWikiBrowser folder, and it should go back to normal for a while. ‑ iridescent 20:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I just upgraded to Windows 10 on my laptop and AWB is running without incident so far. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Long time wikipedia user, first time awb user. All I want it to do is check certain tennis categories (for instance, European tennis biography stubs), and remove the stub tag "Europe-tennis-bio-stub" from articles if it is longer than a stub. I see it's usually 500 words. I have been told that there are many tennis articles that are really no longer stubs but the tags have never been removed. I have no idea what to do to get it to fix only that. I can open the awb... I can make a category list that shows all the appropriate articles... I can log in... I can see the start tab and the start and stop buttons... but I can't figure out how to tell the program to check for stub removal. Any guidance or pointing to how to use this program would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Fyunck(click): Removing stub tags is one of the functions of the "Auto tagger". You turn these on by ticking the "Auto tag" checkbox on the "Options" tab. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks...At least I figured out how it works. I'll have to play with this more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes I will run a typo check or other kind of cleanup against all the articles in a city or state WikiProject, and I've noticed that it starts out very zippy but then gradually gets slower and slower as it steps through the 1000s of articles. I've done this enough where I don't think it's merely my imagination. I wonder if this is an API thing where the servers deprioritize excessive requests coming from the same IP, or might there be something at issue in the AWB software itself. Any thoughts on what's going on? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It takes longer and longer to add new article names to saved and skipped lists under the logs tab as those lists become longer. Clear the lists if you don't need them and AWB speeds up again.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clue here. I disabled logging and the progressive slowness went away. I'm going to log an issue to request this logging occur in a separate thread so it won't disrupt the list processing flow. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

rev 11718 cuts the skip/save logging time in half. The time left is now mostly the time needed to resize the columns on the Logs tab; we do that each time an item is added or removed and it takes longer and longer as the number of items grows. Logically we only need to do that if an entry with the longest data in one of the columns has been added or removed, or perhaps if the Logs tabs doesn't have focus we could only refresh it when the user opens it. I'll investigate whether we can be smarter about the column resizing to improve the performance further. Rjwilmsi 22:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix. I guess I jumped the gun on asking for this process to be threaded (not having looked at the code). If performance can be tweaked without doing that, all the better. As for refreshing the logs tabs, that makes perfect sense that they wouldn't be refreshed unless they were currently open, or being opened. Otherwise, who is the refresh benefiting? All it's doing is dragging down the list processing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How to localize autowikibrowser? I want to localize it, especially some needed strings in summary like "using AWB" etc. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Shuaib I can do this for you if you tell for which project you want it and if you help me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Magioladitis, I want it for urdu wikipedia. Where should I send you the translated strings? Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Shuaib you can type them here. I firstly will need "using AWB". -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Yeah, here are some needed strings:

Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Muhammad Shuaib I also need "removed". -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, removed = حذف Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I also was searching about this. Please you can do this for Sanskrit also ? Thank you.. NehalDaveND (talk) 12:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Namste... I am AWB user in sa.wikipedia. Here I want to ask that, here You can see kind of work is done. Therefore Month's Second date that article will be display in main page. Now I have this kind of work.

1. I have arrange category with [[वर्गः:साङ्ख्ययोगः| 59]], [[वर्गः:साङ्ख्ययोगः| 60]] etc...

2. I have some text. Ex.

1> यदा संहरते सम्यगुपसंहरते च अयं ज्ञाननिष्ठायां प्रवृत्तो यतिः कूर्मः अङ्गानि इव यथा कूर्मः भयात् स्वान्यङ्गानि उपसंहरति सर्वशः सर्वतः एवं ज्ञाननिष्ठः इन्द्रियाणि इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः सर्वविषयेभ्यः उपसंहरते। तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता इत्युक्तार्थं वाक्यम्।। तत्र विषयाननाहरतः आतुरस्यापि इन्द्रियाणि कूर्माङ्गानीव संह्रियन्ते न तु तद्विषयो रागः स कथं संह्रियते इति उच्यते

this above text is for [[वर्गः:साङ्ख्ययोगः| 59]].

2> यदा इन्द्रियाणि इन्द्रियार्थान् स्प्रष्टुम् उद्युक्तानि तदा एव कूर्मः अङ्गानि इव इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः सर्वशः प्रतिसंहृत्य मन आत्मनि एव स्थापयति सोऽपि स्थितप्रज्ञः। एवं चतुर्विधा ज्ञाननिष्ठा पूर्वपूर्वोत्तरोत्तरनिष्पाद्या इति प्रतिपादितम्। इदानीं ज्ञाननिष्ठाया दुष्प्रापतां तत्प्राप्त्युपायं च आह

and this text is for [[वर्गः:साङ्ख्ययोगः| 60]]

Both texts are different and I have 7000 text bunches for upload in sa.wikipedia.org. But problem is I have AWB rights than also I have to do this past work manually. Can you please teach me how to do mapping with proper page to respective text.

Ex. [[वर्गः:साङ्ख्ययोगः| 59]] ----mapping-- with---->

1> यदा संहरते सम्यगुपसंहरते च अयं ज्ञाननिष्ठायां प्रवृत्तो यतिः कूर्मः अङ्गानि इव यथा कूर्मः भयात् स्वान्यङ्गानि उपसंहरति सर्वशः सर्वतः एवं ज्ञाननिष्ठः इन्द्रियाणि इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः सर्वविषयेभ्यः उपसंहरते। तस्य प्रज्ञा प्रतिष्ठिता इत्युक्तार्थं वाक्यम्।। तत्र विषयाननाहरतः आतुरस्यापि इन्द्रियाणि कूर्माङ्गानीव संह्रियन्ते न तु तद्विषयो रागः स कथं संह्रियते इति उच्यते

and

[[वर्गः:साङ्ख्ययोगः| 60]] ----mapping-- with---->

2> यदा इन्द्रियाणि इन्द्रियार्थान् स्प्रष्टुम् उद्युक्तानि तदा एव कूर्मः अङ्गानि इव इन्द्रियार्थेभ्यः सर्वशः प्रतिसंहृत्य मन आत्मनि एव स्थापयति सोऽपि स्थितप्रज्ञः। एवं चतुर्विधा ज्ञाननिष्ठा पूर्वपूर्वोत्तरोत्तरनिष्पाद्या इति प्रतिपादितम्। इदानीं ज्ञाननिष्ठाया दुष्प्रापतां तत्प्राप्त्युपायं च आह

This work is very important to increase sa.wikipedia. 7000 paragraphs are not small thing. Please help me for this. Thank you.... NehalDaveND (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify: do you have 7000 different pieces of text, or only these two? If the first, CSVLoader is a handy AWB plugin to add different texts to different pages. If the second, CSVLoader would work too, but it would be easier to just create a separate list of pages for each case, and do two AWB runs. SiBr₄ (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes @SiBr₄: I have 7000 paragraphs and pages to upload in sa.wikipedia. Can you please explain how it works ? Thank you NehalDaveND (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

With CSVLoader you can import a .csv file containing your data in a format like

Page 1,Text 1
Page 2,Text 2

to put Text 1 on Page 1 and Text 2 on Page 2, etc. Wikipedia:CSVLoader has a lot more details on how to use the plugin.

Not understanding Sanskrit or reading Devanagari (and not being able to find an online translator), I can't easily help with creating the list itself. How do you currently have your 7000 texts stored (on-wiki or local, separate files/pages or one big one)? Do you have the target page names, or only their category sort keys?

P.S., {{ping}} doesn't result in a notification unless you add the template and a signature in the same edit. SiBr₄ (talk) 13:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@SiBr₄: I have sent you a mail. Please check. NehalDaveND (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Although the documentation on how AWB's general fixes will fix non-breaking spaces says the units supported include inches (but not "in"), AWB seems to add non-breaking spaces for "in" in some instances (e.g. Veroboard). Could someone familiar with the code please update the documentation? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi all, I was under the impression that AWB condensed repeated citations. Am I wrong? Any idea if there's a setting to do this? For instance: here (around line 648-ish) AWB adds titles to the references.

Before: <ref>http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/breadwinners/listings/</ref>

After: <ref name="thefutoncritic.com">http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/breadwinners/listings/</ref>

But as you can see, the same reference is used multiple times and AWB didn't condense them. I had to do a second pass with reFill to convert the repeated citations to the shortcut version, i.e. <ref name="thefutoncritic.com"/></ref> Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And then oddly, in this edit, AWB named a reference, and condensed the second instance of that reference. ?? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

References used within templates are not condensed. Reason being that for example in infoboxes some parameters may conditionally not be displayed, so if we condense later refs and the first instance of the ref doesn't end up being displayed, we get a references error. If other tools always condense such references they risk causing ref errors, unless they somehow check that the first instance is definitely displayed on page. Rjwilmsi 23:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, it's now sinking in after this explanation. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you Rjwilmsi. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a bug or a huge error on my part but I can't seem to get these two plugins to work. Putting in the files/categories works just fine and a correct list is created afterwards. But after starting the process nothing seems to be found, nothing is renamed, removed or commented out. Only some minor fixes like replacing underscores with spaces are suggested (even though no automatic changes were checked by me). The normal single file/categories options in the "More..." tab work just fine though, so I'm not sure what's the problem could be. Any ideas? --ShardofTruth (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Details of update here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

In the article about Rangitoto Island Volcano, the seperate words 'mass produced' are regularly changed to the hyphenated pair 'mass-produced' which is not correct in the phrase '... was about equal to the combined mass produced by all the previous eruptions in the Auckland volcanic field...' Is there any way of blocking AWB users from repeatedly making this change? Dinobass (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Try the {{sic}} template?

{{sic|mass| produced|hide=yes}}

mass produced

—Trappist the monk (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the related templates, I think the one desired is {{not a typo}}. --Izno (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added {{Not a typo}}. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How about adding 'that was', as in '... was about equal to the combined mass that was produced by all the previous eruptions in the Auckland volcanic field...'? Chris the speller ^yack 16:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

So I registered then downloaded the AWB file to my computer, but I am not sure how to unzip the file on Windows 7. Any help? Volcanoguy 02:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: According to Microsoft, in Windows 7 you should be able to right-click on the file and select "Extract all" from the menu. Any joy? -- John of Reading (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy and John of Reading: When I downloaded AWB, the first two downloads were corrupted and undersized a tad and Windows said there was nothing to extract.

The way I extract on Windows is I create a New Folder ... then I right-click-drag the AWB file over the folder ... upon releasing the mouse clicker I get a menu and I pick "Extract all" ... a wizard pops up and I follow the yellow brick road.

The reason I use a new folder for extracting is you never know how many files you are extracting and you might end up with 50 of the buggers on your Desktop. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@John of Reading and Checkingfax: I'm not sure what the problem was but I got it working. Volcanoguy 05:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe somebody wants to play around regexes? I have such three cases:

• Want to find incorrect headings, like == Foo === and === Foo ==. My current regex is ^(=+) *(.*[^\s=]) *(?=\1)\1$ (with multiline switched on), which needs quite a lot of tweaking at the = part. Two separate regexes (one for == Foo === and second for === Foo ==) will be completely fine
• Want to find typos in year links (yes, I'm from another Wikipedia), like 1995.
• These ones are messy: [valid_url link text [[linked text]] some more], which end up as "link text linked text some more".

I think that the first and third would be useful also for enwiki. Oh, one extra question - is it possible to replace all page content with something. There should be something better than using {{subst:void}}. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

For the year links try something like \[\[\s*([12]\d\d\d)\s*\|\s*[12]\d\d\d(?<!\1)\s*\]\] - the clever part there is (?<!\1), looking back to check that what we've just matched is not the same as the stuff that was captured on the left of the pipe. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: Playing around with regexes is always fun:

1. ^(=+) *([^\n=]+?) *=+\1 *$ or ^=+(=+) *([^\n=]+?) *\1 *$
2. answered, maybe you don't have to care about whether they are same
3. \[(https?://[^\s\]]+) +([^\[\]]*)\[\[(?:[^\|\]]+\|)?([^\]]+)\]\]([^\[\]]*)\] should be basic check for one internal link inside an external one
4. ^(.*?)$ with singleline/dotall and without multiline matches the whole page

Matěj Suchánek (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Detecting unbalanced equals signs should be possible in a single regex, using John's trick above: ^(=+) *([^\n=]+?) *(=+)(?<![^=]\1)$. Automatically fixing them, on the other hand, may require Matěj's separate regexes, depending on what you want to replace any matches with. SiBr₄ (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for help. Still have to learn, especially some clever tricks. And nice trick for page content removal Matěj, I should have to think till that myself :) Found out, that my Wikipedia is quite clean for these cases, except internal link into external link, which has quite much results. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 08:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Namste.... I want to make a list of wikipedia pages, in which no single image is exist nor infobox. Can you tell me how can I make this list via AWB ? NehalDaveND (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: You can try taking an existing list, setting the Skip tab to skip if it contains )[\r\n]+ and checked SingleLine in AWB. --XXN, 08:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

XXN, you're welcome (though it's not my idea—I've seen this in other users' code). A few followup points:

There are some pages where either a leading or trailing space exists before the infobox's closing }} that you might otherwise miss, but having either *}} * or }} are up to you.

Also, I should mention that if the page has multiple infoboxes (as some in WP:AST do), then you'll want to change the leading (.+) to (^.+?). The ^ means it starts looking at the top of the page (as long as "Multiline" is UNchecked), and the ? forces .+ to stop at the 1st infobox alias, instead of the last. And yes, I left out the bit about "SingleLine", it indeed needs to be checked.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there currently any functionality in AWB to skip pages over a certain size? For example, say I'm looking at tagging stub articles and I'm pulling based on WikiProject stub categories. Those get out of date, so as an extra QA measure I want to skip articles that are above, say, 5KB in size. Is that currently available in AWB? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 there is a feature request for that. You can still use regular expressions to achieve it. Enable skip if contains box with regex on. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

If I understand right, you're suggesting something like (?:\n|.){1500,}, correct? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 exactly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, AutoWikiBrowser can only edit pages. I was wondering if there is a way to make AutoWikiBrowser semi-automatically rename pages or if there is an alternative to AutoWikiBrowser which can. I would like to quickly rename pages in a specific category to add “(disambiguation)” after the title if it is not there already.
―PapíDimmi (talk) 03:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

To editor PapiDimmi: Why would you want to add "(disambiguation)" after the title if it is not there? Disambiguation pages that don't have the qualifier are reserved for subjects that do not have a primary topic, and there are almost always pages with the qualifier that redirect to them, e.g., Calumet (disambiguation) redirects to Calumet.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  02:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: This is not Wikipedia; it’s a wiki which uses “(disambiguation)” after all disambiguation pages.
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 15:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I think there's a bot that does that, but I have no idea what it's called. As far as I know, AWB does not have that functionality. But truly, I'm no expert.  Wikipedian Sign Language Paine  16:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You can do cut-and-paste moves with AWB, by replacing the contents of "Foo (disambiguation)" with those of "Foo" and redirecting the latter to the former. Of course, history moves are preferable if possible (which they should be with a bot), but cut-paste should be OK if attribution is given via the edit summary. SiBr₄ (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@PapiDimmi: mw:Manual:Pywikibot can be used for this task. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm used to use AWB for edit (mostly on french and breton Wikipédia and Wikisource) but is it possible to generate statistics? For example, I'd like to get all the publication year of books on Wikisources (stored in a template in the Index: namespace), is it doable with AWB?

Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 14:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: It is doable with Pywikibot. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 15:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Does AutoWikiBrowser have any option to mark checkwiki's errors as done like WPcleaner?Yamaha5 (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Is there any way to set a variable in AWB, which can be used in regexes?

I want to run a task which involves several regexes, each of which needs to use the same string: countryname. I can hardcode the countryname into each regex, but it would be much easier to be able to set the value centrally (e.g. countryname=Mongolia) than to edit each regex every time I start working on another country. There would also be less chance of error if only one fix was needed.

I did look on Phabricator to see if there was a request for such a feature, but I didn't succeed in figuring how to search only in the AWB entries :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. With a custom module:

public string ProcessArticle(string ArticleText, string ArticleTitle, int wikiNamespace, out string Summary, out bool Skip)
	{
	Skip = false;
	Summary = "edit summary goes here";

	string pattern = @"regex find pattern goes here";			// local variable to hold regex pattern for reuse
	string replace = @"regex replace string goes here";		// local variable to hold regex replacement for reuse
	ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, pattern, replace);	// repeat these three lines for other rules

	ArticleText = Regex.Replace(ArticleText, @"regex pattern goes here", @"regex replace string goes here");	// a rule that doesn't change

	return ArticleText;
	}

Copy the above into a text editor (Notepad++ is good but anything that is just a plain text editor will work). Anywhere the example says that '<something> goes here', replace the '<something> goes here' string with your find pattern, replacement, etc. Save the file. Copy it all to your clipboard.

In AWB, Tools->Make module. Click Enabled. Language is C# 3.5. Replace the stuff in the lard text box with the content of your clipboard. Click Make module. Start simple. Disable everything in the AWB options tab. Create a test condition in your sandbox and see if AWB will edit it with the module rule.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Resolved

As part of a task I'm trying to do with AutoWikiBrowser, I need to be to skip over any pages which contain a certain regex. However, if the pages do match the regex, I don't want to remove the from the list I'm using. If it doesn't match the regex, then I do want AWB to remove the page from the list when I skip over it. Is there any way to do this? Omni Flames (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: So you're not making any edits in this phase, correct? Just skipping pages without regex and keeping pages with it? In that case, look into pre-parsing mode. More info at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User_manual#Options. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for, thank you for that Rob! Omni Flames (talk) 05:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Can AWB be used to take a list of articles and put them all in a category? Thanks. SharkD  Talk  07:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the append text feature.--Racklever (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I would suggest "Add category" feature, that is available in one of the tabs. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there any special user registration steps needed in order to use it on Wikia? SharkD  Talk  14:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

@SharkD: A quick search lead me to [6], which tells me that the criteria is basically the same as here: your username needs to be on Project:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for the specific wiki you wish to use AWB on. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 14:56, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Only if that page exists on the wiki. If not, there aren't. SiBr₄ (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The documentation for {{catimprove}} says It is recommended that this template be placed at the bottom of the page, where readers will look for the categories. That leaves it open as to whether it goes before, or after, the existing categories. AWB seems to move it to be before the categories, and also before DEFAULTSORT where present. It seems to me more logical to have it after the categories - "Here are the cats we've got, please add some more". Is there any documentation which suggests it should go before, rather than after? See here where I noticed a change to an article I'd just created, and a test checking its placement relative to DEFAULTSORT.

I'm relieved that AWB doesn't insert {{catimprove}} between DEFAULTSORT and the categories, because when stub-sorting an uncategorised biography I routinely add {{subst:L|birthdate||Surname, Forename}} {{catimprove}} (on two lines); the "subst:L" bit creates the DEFAULTSORT, which needs to come before the categories, and then the "Living people" and "nnnn births" etc categories. And then I've got {{catimprove}} after those cats. PamD 16:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@PamD: I'm the opposite, I always place the tag before the categories. I'm not sure why, probably because it just seems weird to put a tag at the very bottom of the page. I believe that's how Twinkle does it too, though I'd have to double check. Omni Flames (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Omni Flames: Just experimented with Twinkle: it gets it wrong by adding the {{improve categories}} not just after the cats but after the stub tag too! Example. PamD 23:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

We need to synch the various automated tools. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Installing AWB on a Mac

 – Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 08:05, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've tried multiple ways of installing AWB on my Mac, including using WineBottler; using Homebrew; dual-booting Fedora Linux; and using Fedora through VirtualBox, none of which have worked. Is there any good (and free/open-source) way to install AWB? —Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 03:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

No one I know with a MAC has been able to get AWB to work on Wikia. I doubt it's any different here. You might try asking one of the devs directly. GustavoRomeo68 (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser#Frequently_asked_questions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: I read "Wine on a Mac using homebrew" and tried it (this was last year), and it didn't work. Will try again, if it is actually supposed to work. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Appears to work; never mind. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 12:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I've tried using KingbotK to do manual assessments, however I cannot see the article or any statistics about the article when the assessment form pops up. The user guide also didn't help me. Is it outdated, or am I doing something wrong? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Read User:Kingbotk/Plugin, User:Kingbotk/Plugin/User guide and User:Kingbotk/Plugin/Generic WikiProject templates. I ll check later which pars are outdated. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

In the user guide, it says The plugin displays article statistics (leeched from AWB). Does that mean that it will give AWB statistics about the article (words, etc.) or something else? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:16, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Can AWB be used to add {{DISPLAYTITLE}} template to articles that don't already have them? Thanks! SharkD  Talk  09:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Or articles listed somewhere. This is for Wikia. SharkD  Talk  09:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

How do I populate the list with pages listed on any special page, not necessarily one included in drop-down box in the Special Pages dialog window? Specifically, I'm interested in Special:UncategorizedCategories.

Tried: 1)"Links on page" (nothing's produced); 2)"Special Page" + put the name (with or without "Special:" into the Page: field in the opening Special Pages dialog (some unrelated set is produced). Ivan Pozdeev (talk) 09:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What Browsers support this? Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This application is Windows-based, not web-based, so the edits made using this application are not made within a browser. However, you can open articles/pages listed in AWB in a separate web browser, which is the web browser of your choice. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

With "Highlight syntax in edit box" turned on, is there a way to select what kinds of elements are highlighted in the edit box? I just want to know what changes are inside refs and templates (esp. quote-related), for instance. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I want to change name of these articles. Ex. now जनवरी १ is page name, but I want to change with १ जनवरी. Please tell me how can I do this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NehalDaveND (talk • contribs) 08:27, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: @Rich Farmbrough: Similar to the point I raised at Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Archive_29#Why_does_AWB_put_.7B.7Bcatimprove.7D.7D_before_cats.2C_not_after.3F , where Mag... commented We need to synch the various automated tools ...

Why in this edit does AWB help an editor to move {{Use dmy dates}} and {{EngvarB}} from top to bottom of the article? The documentation for Use dmy dates specifically says to put it at the top; I can't find anything to suggest that EngvarB goes anywhere other than the top, and certainly most editors seem to have put both at the top of many many articles over time.

Before trying to synch the automated tools, we need some agreement on "rules" for them to follow.

I suggest it's time that WP:ORDER went into even more detail about just where the various bits of infrastructure of an article should go, so that we don't keep seeing things "corrected", cluttering up watchlists etc, unless there is actually some "rule" (well, MOS guideline) to justify the change. PamD 17:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

That would be useful. But this movement was purely manual on my part.

For those interested, I have attempted to restart the discussion at ::Template_talk:Use_dmy_dates#Placement. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC).

PamD Hi. This is not AWB's general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Why does AWB replace {{bda}} with {{birth date and age}}? I've often seen it do that but I don't get why that's "better". I realize it's just resolving a redirect, but I doubt about the usefulness of that in the case of short template names, because they're valid "shortcuts". Or is this the sort of thing I should take up with the editor, rather than with AWB? –Sygmoral (talk) 22:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

If this minor change that makes no difference to what the reader sees is all the editor (using AWB) changed, that is generally considered a misuse of AWB. However, if a substantive change was made at the same time, then it is considered reasonable to show the full name of the template to aid other editors, who may be new, especially given the full name of a template is decided by editors to be the more complete description of what it's about. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

• Does it matter that using a template redirect instead of the actual template can increase the time it takes for the servers to parse the page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/Worklist&oldid=735564794 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jo-Jo_Eumerus/Worklist&oldid=735564842 differ insofar as the first uses the {{to do}} template and the second its redirect {{to-do}} and the latter according to the wgPageParseReport in the HTML takes a little longer to parse. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I guess that's another reason to change it to the full name of the template, but still only as a minor change accompanying a substantive one, as saving an edit has a processing cost too, and I'd bet it's costlier than the difference in parsing time (accumulated in views) as you describe. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I consider the answer already given, that expanding the shortcuts especially of templates in order to aid inexperienced editors, is the best answer. When I was a newly registered editor back before AWB was used, I had to take an extra step or two just to figure out what something like "bda" actually stood for. And for many years I argued that when new editors take that extra step, it's part of a learning process that actually increases the speed of editing over time, which it did do for me. I learned more about templates simply by having to take those extra steps. Over the years, I've been in many discussions about this, and I can tell you that the trend in present times is to argue that one of the reasons new editors don't stay with Wikipedia is because the wikimarkup is often so cryptic, and that this is due in large part to the use of cryptic shortcuts like "bda". In the most recent discussion about this, I was actually ganged up on by several editors who strongly believed that cryptic shortcuts were a large reason for new editors leaving Wikipedia. I used to think that expanding the shortcuts without making "substantive" edits was just editors racking up edits; however, I don't think that way anymore. I don't think that it "is generally considered a misuse of AWB" to expand shortcut names only. It really does seem to be a particular thorn in some editors' sides to see cryptic shortcuts, so it has become a growing trend to correct that and to expand the names of shortcuts. Many still use WP:NOTBROKEN as an argument against, but others argue that a cryptic shortcut that beguiles new editors is indeed a "broken" redirect. So after several years, I have had to modify my own beliefs about this, and I haven't done so lightly. I presently consider the expansion of cryptic template shortcut names a "substantive" edit, and I don't think it should be considered "misuse of AWB".  Rules of enpagement Paine  14:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all for your opinions! As a software developer myself, I certainly understand the need for clear code, so in that sense "birth date and age" is obviously vastly superior to "bda". But it is a very widespread 'trend' on Wikipedia to use shortcuts, and in some cases (like "nat fs g start" versus "National football squad start (goals)") you can understand that seasoned editors like to type the shorter variant. But the same argument you have all touched is valid here too, because new editors will no doubt be confused by "nat fs g start". Now, if that is indeed the conclusion, should we not do something about it for the greater good that is Wikipedia? Should Wikipedia then not officialy discourage creating and using cryptic template redirects, until they can eventually even be phased out? The collaborative element would certainly be an argument for that. (I know, a bold idea with huge consequences, but I like trying to launch these as otherwise nothing ever happens.) –Sygmoral (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Sygmoral, AWB's developers don't decide Wikipedia policies/guidelines, they just implement them (conservatively). This reads like something good to discuss at WP:VPP. Also, I would note that as a 12-year seasoned editor, I take the opposite stance and always spell out templates. This is part of my stance against unnecessarily abbreviating/shortening things (based on a number of factors, including not throwing off beginners). And as an AWB user, I know these templates will be ultimately expanded anyway. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Paine, I should note that it's not my opinion that expanding template shortcuts only is a misuse, it's actually in the AWB rules of use under #4: "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits. An edit that has no noticeable effect on the rendered page is generally considered an insignificant edit." My interpretation is that if you're not making a change (as part of the set of changes) that is visible to the reader, it's best to not to save the changes. However, I agree in principle that these shortcuts should be expanded, or not used in the first place. But given the rules of use, I would recommend making an edit that's visible to the reader at the same time. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, we'll just have to agree to agree. ;>) There are, however, significant edits that are made regularly that cannot be seen by readers, such as page-protection-related, invisible comments, removal of deprecated templates and unused parameters in infoboxs. The point seems to be that the expansion of shortcut names in redirects is fast-becoming significant and substantive. And the statement under #4, "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits, and its subsequent explanation, are vague at best and probably need to be better-explained. At any rate, we'll probably be seeing changes soon in whatever policies and guidelines apply, if they haven't been made already.  Rules of enpagement Paine  18:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Might be a bit off-topic, but the rules should really be clarified. Another AWB editor once warned me for bolding the title of an article in it's lead. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

"Off-topic", not off-topic, no biggee – sometimes editing Wikipedia is knowing how and when to stand your ground. And a large part of that is knowing your policies and guidelines, and also knowing if, when and where WP:IAR applies.  Rules of enpagement Paine  18:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and it deserves mention that standing your ground must be accompanied by civil discourse, but of course!  Rules of enpagement Paine  19:41, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unless it was some kind of rare case, bolding the title in the lead is a Manual of Style fix that should have been imperative for that or any article. I'd like to see what went on there, because at face value, that other editor was in the wrong. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it wasn't a rare case. In point of fact, DatGuy had made two edits that were challenged by another editor with the #4 rule (I found the discussion in DatGuy's talkpage archives). Anyway, in both cases rule #4 in fact did not apply because both edits had made changes that altered the page to readers. One edit moved a clickable map down a bit so the hatnote would cross the entire page, and the other edit put a different page's title in boldface type in the lead – both edits were made using AWB and both edits altered the pages' appearances to readers. So the other editor, who by the way stated that it was okay to make these edits manually but not with AWB, was definitely in the wrong. I happen to know the other editor, who is by far one of the better editors on Wikipedia. So the problem/challenge that really needs to be addressed is the vague nature of rule #4.  Rules of enpagement Paine  03:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I meant "rare case" in terms of the subject bolding guidelines where it's not as straightforward as usual. Anyway, the other editor is incorrect to distinguish between AWB and manual edits, as they are both done by a live human editor -- AWB just helps us find what to fix faster and makes the edits more convenient. There is a misconception out there that the tool is fully automated and users robotically accept its suggestions, and that would be against the #1 entry in the rules of use. We're responsible for our edits, no matter how we are editing. As for the #4 rule, I've run up against only a few editors who object, usually because they can't find the reader-visual change(s) among the other ones. Making #4 less vague might help slightly, but I don't think the attitudes of editors who have a distaste for "automated nonsubstantive" changes will change, as they are basing their objections on policies/guidelines outside of AWB's control. I would submit it's more their misunderstanding of policies/guidelines at play (specifically, a heavy-handed application of WP:AINT). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 08:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

A few days ago. the Preview function of AWB changed for me. It now formats the article in a much more basic way than it always has. For example: the entire page seems to use Times New Roman; broken links are no longer identified in red; the TOC is formatted as a list but not as a box; wikilinks are formatted with underlining. I didn't consciously change any settings. I've tried changing my default browser back to IE, in case Firefox had changed something, but it's made no difference. Any thoughts? Colonies Chris (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Does no-one have any suggestions? Could this be caused by a corrupted/deleted CSS file somewhere? The page is rendering, but in a pretty rudimentary way, as if it didn't have a full CSS spec to follow. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I can confirm that my previews also changed at about the time you made your report here. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Same here. I don't use the previews very often, so that's why I haven't chimed in. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks - it's useful to know it's not just me. I've created a bug report. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if it's considered a bug or not, but I just want to note the issue here. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

One of the automatic template redirect replacements in AWB's cleanup converts {{cite document}} to its redirect, {{cite journal}}. The rule was added here in 2013 by GoingBatty according to Wikiblame. Can someone remind me of the reason for this particular conversion? (Background: reversion of my edit using AWB by Ritchie333.) TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

{{cite document}} has redirected to {{cite journal}} since its birth in 2010. I don't know the back-story, though. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it's considerably older than that. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The background by that revert was (I think) related to semantic differences, the source is a letter to an official body from a recognised rail action group, so it's a "document", not a "report". @Redrose64: might be best placed to give a definitive answer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm going by the history of {{cite document}} which you can see goes back to 2010 and started as a redirect. Of course, there could have been something with the same name before that, which was deleted, but I can't know for sure, as I'm not an admin. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's a document, but no way is it a "journal" in the sense of something published for sale at regular intervals. I'd use {{cite web}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

@Smith609 and Rich Farmbrough: as creator and last editor of {{cite document}}, can you shed any light or offer any opinion? TIA Mr Stephen (talk) 21:21, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It was removed following a discussion here, section 20 in 2014. It appears to have been added back in as part of a batch here by SMcCandlish early this year. Unless there is an objection, I'll take it out later. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

No objection by me; was just trying to cover missing template redirs. If we want that one to be left alone for semantic reasons (I agree it might be confusing to have a cite to a one-off document refer to it as a "journal"), then the redir should probably be changed to use the cite web template, if the parameters are compatible. It is, however, likely that some uses of {{Cite document}} or {{Cite report}} are for non-online works, and I think {{Cite web}} will throw an error if it does not get a |url= value. I would actually rather see a return of a {{Cite document}} that did not require a URL, and did not italicize |title= like {{Cite book}} does. We somehow lost the ability to create a generic CS1 cite; {{Cite}} redirs to {{Citation}}, which is CS2. But we need to be able to do this, since odd situations come up all the time. E.g., the CD cover/insert or other product packaging may be a source for the system requirements of a vintage video game or other software package, or the titles of the songs on an album. It's a "document" in the broad sense, but not a book, a journal, or a website.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave it as is for a while and see if there any any problems. Regards, Mr Stephen (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi! I want to change name of these articles. Ex. now जनवरी १ is page name, but I want to change with १ जनवरी. Please tell me how can I do this? NehalDaveND (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: hi! You can't do it efficiently with AWB, only page by page. You can use pywikibot (python). If you want, I can do it. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: Thank you. List 1 have name which I want to change with list 2's name. I don't want to delete list 1's pages, but I want to redirect those pages to new pages of list 2. NehalDaveND (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@NehalDaveND: I haven't forgot about you, will try to do that tomorrow. I won't be using those lists, so to confirm and not to make mess... For example, the article title is "<month name> space <number>" and you want to move it to "<number> space <month name>" --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 20:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Edgars2007: yes but number should be in Devnagari like - १, २ etc. not in roman 1, 2 etc. EX. "<number> space <month name>" = "१ space जनवरी" Thank you for help. NehalDaveND (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to make a list from a Category without starting at the beginning of the category? I am currently working my way through a maintenance category with over thirty thousand entries and AWB only picks up twentyfour thousand of them; if i could start my list at M instead of the beginning, i'd be able to get to those at the end of the alphabet. Can it be done? Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 11:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Is there any sort of guide for bot use of AWB? I keep finding out things that aren't mentioned at WP:AWB/UM, such as AWB being {{bots}}-compliant by default [7], and that editing a bot's talk page will halt the bot until it is restarted (per {{Bot|awb=yes}}). Is there anything else I should be aware of as a bot operator? - Evad37 [talk] 04:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Evad37: That's really all there is to it. There's some stuff in the "bots" section of AWB but it's all pretty straightforward. There's just one thing you might want to know: admins and bots are able to create lists of unlimited size using AWB if they load an extension, whereas normal users can only create lists of up to 2500 pages (well actually this isn't strictly true; I once had to create a very large list on a bot account and it maxed out at a million). Omni Flames (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I added a note to WP:AWB/UM#Bots. - Evad37 [talk] 12:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello.I am allowed in Arabic Wikipedia.How to create a new page using AWB?How do I replace nothing with text?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)