User talk:JeffDoozan

• 2020-2023

Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki-editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

• Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy on Wiktionary's page formatting; all entries must conform to it. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing same-language entry, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
• Check out Language considerations to find out more about how to edit for a particular language.
• Our Criteria for Inclusion (CFI) defines exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary; the most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
• If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
• If you have any questions, bring them to Wiktionary:Information desk or ask me on my talk page.
• Whenever commenting on any discussion page, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) which automatically produces your username and timestamp.
• You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage to indicate your self-assessed knowledge of languages.

Enjoy your stay at Wiktionary! Ultimateria (talk) 19:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

There are apparently 2 different paradigms for this verb, and your bot switched at least 39 of the inflected forms to the wrong one: e.g. lloviznéis used to have {{|tl|es-verb form of|lloviznar}} which generated "only used in os lloviznéis, second-person plural present subjunctive of lloviznarse", so switching it to {{es-verb form of|lloviznar<only3s>}} was definitely a mistake. The "39" is the number in CAT:E, but I have a hunch that there are others that aren't calling attention to themselves by throwing an error- but are still wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. by Autodooz introduced a bolding glitch (2004 quotation in the verb section). It turned out to be 'caused' by an apostrophe in a parameter of a "sic" template usage in the text that Autodooz embedded in a "quote-text". I 'fixed' it by changing the straight quote <'> to a curly quote <’>. I imagine this is well towards the rare end of the scale and hardly worth the bother of fixing. (Were one to do so, one might find oneself changing the "sic" template—perhaps simply to add a note in the documentation.)— Pingku^dimmi 04:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Weird! The ' in {{sic}} should not be interpreted as formatting. I added a workaround to the documentation on {{sic}} and opened a discussion on Grease pit that might lead to a better solution. JeffDoozan (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm not familiar with Lua. What are the effects of your bot's recent edits to quotation templates by adding |propagateparams= in some cases and modifying |allowparams= in others? Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: Any param names listed in |propagateparams= is passed along to the module for handling, so |propagateparams = url has the same effect as writing url = {{{url|}}}.

|allowparams= lists the named and numbered params that are handled by the template, which allows for parameter checking (the template will throw an error if the user makes a typo like |txt= instead of |text= or tries to included a parameter that won't be used) JeffDoozan (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see ... I'm probably going to keep coding the templates without using these parameters as I'm still a bit unsure about how to use them, though. — Sgconlaw (talk) 22:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: That's fair, the bot can figure out what should be in |allowparams=, and |propagateparams= is just a shortcut. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hi, Jeff. Could you explain to me what should be put into |allowparams= and |propagateparams=? Your bot removed |section= from a quotation in cough as an unused parameter. I realized this was an error in {{RQ:Wodehouse Summer Lightning}} so I reverted the change and added |section= to the quotation template. Your bot then added "section" to |allowparams= when it invoked Module:quote. However, the bot removed |section= from the quotation a second time and I'm not sure why. Thanks. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: The bot edited cough a second time because it was using the template data from the data export on 2/1/2024 and not the live version. I've fixed that so it shouldn't happen again and I've reviewed all of the bot's edits to avoid dropping data that wasn't being generated by the template, but I'm sure I've missed some things so in the next few days I'll make you a list of all of the bot edits so you can double check that it didn't drop any other important data.

|propagateparams= is a list of the parameters that, if passed to the RQ template, will be used directly by {{quote-book}}, minus a few parameters it always handles: "brackets", "footer", "passage", "text", anything listed in |textparams= (and, if |pageparam= is set, also minus "page", "pages", and all variables listed in |pageparam=)

|allowparams= is a list of parameters the template should "allow" users to specify even though they won't be used directly by {{quote-book}}. It's pretty must just a list be a list of every variable used in triple braces inside the template. JeffDoozan (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining. I'll see if I can get this right when I work on quotation templates. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sgconlaw: User:JeffDoozan/lists/history contains a list of all the bad params the bot detected in pre-conversion RQ templates. They've all be renamed, removed, or added to supported params in the template and no immediate action is needed. However, it's possible some of the data was useful and in the future someone may want to adjust the templates to add support for the removed data. JeffDoozan (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Identify and correct pages where a reference comes before a punctuation mark. For example:

Incorrect: According to Jones (2020), the term is

Correct: According to Jones (2020), the term is

Ioaxxere (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere: There are 6000 refs before a punctuation and 51,000 refs after a punctuation so it looks like there's a consensus that refs should be after punctuation. Can you browse through some of the 6000 refs that would be affected by this and let me know if there are any exceptions I should look out for: is there anything in that list of 6000 that shouldn't get changed? JeffDoozan (talk) 01:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I found a few cases where the punctuation is on both sides, so make sure those are handled properly. On menstruation there are two different punctuation marks which would probably have to be handled manually, but there should be relatively few of these cases.

Super incorrect: According to Jones (2020),. the term is

Ioaxxere (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JeffDoozan: The bot is causing issues in which the punctuation is worse than before. Ex: having the period in between references. There is happening on several pages, but two of the ones on my watchlist include: Jeju 으시 (-eusi-) and Igbo ụ̀tụtụ̀ ọma. I also think that if there is a consensus on this, it should actually be formalized and placed somewhere rather than solely discussed on a user page before implementation. People with backgrounds in other languages, ex: Spanish where both options are correct, may edit differently and until there's a policy, we shouldn't unilaterally adopt one or the other. AG202 (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@AG202: Thanks for mentioning those two pages: the bot wasn't handling references that were a single tag, but that's an easy fix and already running as I write this. I regret opening this particular can of worms, have no opinion on the formatting, and am certainly not trying to unilaterally implement anything. Given that it was nearly 90% one format it seemed like a non-issue to fixup the remainder, but I should have asked @Ioaxxere to check for formal consensus before running this. JeffDoozan (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

No worries about it and thanks for the fixes! Your analysis was valid and made sense; I just wanted to make sure that more people had a chance to see it, as some people may have done their references like that on purpose and may now be confused. AG202 (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I recently noticed that because of changes in language data, Korean terms are no longer transliterated if the script code is given as Hang (or Hani or Cyrl or Armn, but I fixed those cases). There are some cases in link templates that I put into a list: User:Erutuon/lists/ko not with Kore. The solution is just to remove the script parameter when most of the characters in the text are Hangul. Then automatic script detection will assign an implicit |sc=Kore, which will enable transliteration.

Could you remove the script parameters in these cases? I've done some bot tasks like this in the past, but I'm reluctant because I'm slow at writing the code for a new task.

I'm not sure what should be done when the term is in Latin script and |sc=Latn (for instance, {{t+|ko|DVD|sc=Latn}}). Latn is not one of the scripts assigned to Korean, so I guess this is a matter for Korean editors to decide.

There are some other cases in my list of best script not matching |sc= parameter where the |sc= parameter could be removed, like when it's just a difference between various different Arab script codes. It won't have as noticeable an effect because many of the Arabic-script languages don't have automatic transliteration like Korean does, but I could print out the parameters that need to be changed if you want. — Eru·tuon 18:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I had the bot remove |sc=Hang from templates matching {{t|ko}}, {{t-check|ko}}, and {{t+check|ko}} on the pages you listed because it was easy to manually verify that the bot's proposed fixes matched what was listed on your page (I can't read Hang or Hangul). The remaining handful of mismatches are probably faster to fix by hand than by bot since the bot is dumb and might propose removing a valid |sc=Hang if there are multiple matches on the page. User:Erutuon/lists/best_script_not_matching_sc_parameter looks interesting, if you can make me a machine readable list with , for only the items that need to be fixed, I can have the bot apply your changes. JeffDoozan (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

forgot the ping @Erutuon JeffDoozan (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'm working on a list of fixes User:Erutuon/lists/best script not matching sc parameter/fixes here (not in the correct format yet). I've got to write the correct edit summaries and possibly remove things that don't need fixing so that I can find some more rules that can be applied. Scanning the list is inefficient. — Eru·tuon 22:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's possible that some of the printed templates won't match what's in the wikitext, because I dump the templates as name, redirected name, and parameters as an array of key-value tuples and that means I could be printing numbered parameters in the wrong way. (In this format, {{m|en|term}} isn't distinct from {{m|en|2=term}} for instance.) — Eru·tuon 22:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: Ok, I was hoping to be lazy and just do direct string replacements, but I can write a function to compare templates that matches implied/explicit numbered parameters. JeffDoozan (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

A literal replacement should work in the vast majority of cases. It's fairly rare for people to use explicitly numbered parameters and it's not very common for the templates to be changed after the dump is released. But here is a format with template name and parameters as key-value pairs. I would probably whittle it down further to the parameters that actually identify whether the template needs changing (language code, term, alt, maybe sc, with explicit nulls when the parameters are missing) and the name of the script parameter to remove. Then if someone only changes an irrelevant parameter (for instance, |id= or |tr=) after the dump was released, you can still remove the |sc= parameter. — Eru·tuon 18:22, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually, scratch that. I don't have a way of determining what the name of a missing parameter will (for instance for alt, |3=, |4=, |alt=, |alt1=, etc., depending on the template). So, the bot still has to identify the template by all its parameters and bail out if something has changed. Unfortunate, but it's probably fairly rare. I also realized that there could be multiple changes per template (like if {{affix}} has multiple unnecessary script parameters; though apparently there are no cases right now), so I've changed the format to account for that. Also added edit summaries. Going to regenerate from latest dump (up till now, it has been from the 2024-02-01 dump). — Eru·tuon 20:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, sounds good. I'll do an exact match on template name and all param names/values and have it log anything where it doesn't find the expected data. If possible, can you wrap the whole page in brackets and add a comma after the end of each line so I can load the file as JSON without having to preprocess it? JeffDoozan (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can if you'd prefer, but another way would be (or ) if you're using Python. I like JSONL because it can be written in a loop (letting the program be interrupted) and be read bit-by-bit if the file is very large. — Eru·tuon 23:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: Thanks for adding the formatting. I ran the first 30ish entries and everything seems to be working. I added the template name to the summary and removed any duplicate log messages. Please check that the edits look like what you're expecting and I can run the rest of the fixes tomorrow. JeffDoozan (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Checked the edits in popups and they look good! The only minor change is you could link the template name as it's confusing when it's a single letter: T:l, T:bor (or ], which looks like {{l}} in an edit summary). — Eru·tuon 01:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: I linked the template name using the {{l}} format, see ahad, Allah, alur. Ready to push this through on your approval. JeffDoozan (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Looks good! I forgot to mention (though perhaps you noticed) that some of the templates ({{bor-lite}} for instance) have "action":. I think you haven't hit that yet in your test edits, so you might want to run a few of those or do them in a second pass after the "remove" ones. — Eru·tuon 18:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon: Ok, I added support for the "add" action - it will add a parameter if it's missing, or set the value if it already exists, see ba. All template actions are executed in order upon matching a template, so it's theoretically possible to add, modify and then remove the same parameter which would just generate a big summary message with no actual changes - I'm guessing you haven't done this but mentioning it just in case. Anything else? JeffDoozan (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's it and you should be good to go. I was surprised, but there weren't multiple actions for any of the templates (at least in the version from the first dump this month). So nobody inserted |sc1=Arab and |sc2=Arab into {{affix}}. — Eru·tuon 21:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Erutuon:  Done I'll keep the script around in case you come up with any other fixes. JeffDoozan (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help! I definitely will. I'm filtering out the handled cases from the list and have already found some more fixes. And people are likely to insert more incorrect script codes of the types already identified. — Eru·tuon 15:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've filled up the list with a bunch more changes that you can run whenever you have the time. I'm pretty confident with the list now because I've looked it over by filtering with a script and eliminated a bunch of dubious changes. I added language information to the edit summary to make it easier to search for edits if necessary. (Though now edit summaries might run up against the character limit when there are multiple changes per page. Maybe less likely if you can eliminate duplicates with something like "; ".join(set(summaries)).) — Eru·tuon 21:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Done JeffDoozan (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! In time for the next dump in a few days. — Eru·tuon 03:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The list of template parameter errors has already been helpful to me in correcting those errors and others in organism name entries.

See User talk:JeffDoozan/lists/template params/errors for some specific comments. DCDuring (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jeff Doozan. Thank you for your recent work on {{taxlink}}. (See User talk:0DF#Gomphocarpus filiformis for my interest in the matter.) 0DF (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello there. Would you mind fixing whatever the problem is that prevents Gomphocarpus filiformis from being properly italicised in Asclepias filiformis var. buchenaviana and Gomphocarpus filiformis var. buchenavianus, please? 0DF (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ODF: It's showing as italacized in your examples, are you saying it should be italacized differently? JeffDoozan (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It doesn't look italicized to me, but the problem seems to be that {{synonym of}} is ignoring italics in in that parameter. I think the italicized version would need to go in a separate |head= or |3= parameter. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I thought you meant in the resulting output of {{taxfmt}} not on the pages themselves. Chuck's right, it looks like {{synonym of}} is adding italics to italics and resulting in bold text. JeffDoozan (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Jeff Doozan: The problem I see is as Chuck Entz describes it. I assume this is a fix that needs to be made to {{synonym of}}. 0DF (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@0DF: how to handle italicization of italicized text is a broader issue. I'm not sure we want to mess with the way {{synonym of}} deals with that, since it probably would have to be applied to {{m}} and most if not all of the etymology templates. For many uses, plain text to contrast with surrounding italics is proper formatting. By the way, pinging someone on their own talk page does nothing and just makes you look clueless. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz: Well, DCDuring concerns himself with this proper italicisation, and I suspect this isn't the outcome he'd want, but whatever. By the way, you may notice that I wrote @Jeff Doozan: to show clearly at a glance to whom I was writing without the link to User:JeffDoozan that would've elsewhere generated a ping; I do know how that works, you know. 0DF (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no fully satisfactory way to have contrasting type faces (italic vs. normal; normal vs. italic) when there is little or nothing to contrast with, so templates like {{syn of}}, {{alt of}}, etc. can do what they will AFAIAC. DCDuring (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see you've already generated a list of these problematic entries. Is there anything stopping you from fixing them? It would be pretty trivial, for example, to replace {{clipping of}} with {{clipping}}. Ioaxxere (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere: I made that list by request, but nobody followed up with specifics on cleaning it up. If someone makes a list of def_template/ety_template pairs, and checks that each ety_template can handle the parameters used by def_template (or, if it doesn't let me know what which of old_template's paramaters need to be renamed or manually-adjusted), I can run the bot to rename the templates. JeffDoozan (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

{{clipping of}} -> {{clipping}}

{{initialism of}} -> {{initialism}}

{{contraction of}} -> {{contraction}}

{{acronym of}} -> {{acronym}}

{{ellipsis of}} -> {{ellipsis}}

{{syncopic form of}} -> {{syncopic form}}

{{apocopic form of}} -> {{apocopic form}}

{{causative of}} -> {{causative}}

{{aphetic form of}} -> {{aphetic form}}

For others, we should either create new templates or subst them, but these ones can be done right away. Ioaxxere (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere: Not all of those template support the same parameters, and many of them need punctuation fixes after being replaced. I'm not interested in writing the code to handle all of the possible corner cases. I configured the list to auto-update every few weeks, feel free to use it to apply fixes manually. JeffDoozan (talk) 14:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Category:Entries with redundant template: taxlink is full of cases of {{taxlink}} being applied when {{taxfmt}} is what is wanted. DCDuring (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I blocked the bot to prevent error continuation and propagation. Let me know if you have a problem getting it restarted once it is fixed. DCDuring (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Thanks. I'll figure out what went wrong and clean up the affected pages when the block expires tomorrow. JeffDoozan (talk) 02:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

More errors are still appearing, I assume due to latency in updating category membership. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

The root cause was the bot not processing the |mul=1 in the {{taxlink}}s when building a database of existing, valid taxlinks. I fixed that and added a secondary check to avoid creating taxlinks for any bluelinks. Don't worry about the number of pages in the category, it's easy and fast to roll back the bot edits. JeffDoozan (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: Please don't roll all these changes back by hand, it takes 30 seconds to do it with the bot. JeffDoozan (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I started doing that, but I stopped a while ago. Now I'm now just working on items AutoDooz hasn't touched: my usual. DCDuring (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then I cleaned out the category, because I couldn't stand it.

What is the state of your runs? I'm not seeing any large numbers of items that need {{taxfmt}} and I am seeing lots of items that have {{taxfmt}}. I will tell you about any items that I find with redlinks, blue links, or unlinked items.

Do you need anything specific from me, either urgently or long-term? DCDuring (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring:Everything the bot can is able to mark as {{taxlink}} has been converted. Almost everything the bot can mark as {{taxfmt}} has been converted, except for text that occurs inside of "ja-r/multi", "ja-r/args", "gl", "gloss", "coi", "syn", "ngd", "cog", "syn of", "synonym of", "obs form", "obsolete form of", "suffix" templates, which I'll convert in a few days.

Lists of taxon things that may be of interest to you:

• Category:Pages_using_bad_params_when_calling_Template:taxlink contains a list of all the pages where {{taxlink}} is used with an unhandled parameters.

  If you go to Preferences, and scroll down to "Gadgets" and enable "Catch My Attention" and then go to any of the pages containing a {{taxlink}} with invalid params, you should see an alter in the page. Also, in the edit preview, there will be a red warning on taxlinks using bad params.

  Are |ver= and |nover= still used, or can I have the bot delete those paramaters from the existing templates? If they're still used, I'll add an exception for them in the template so they don't fill up the bad params categegory.

  Leave nover; ie, It is not an error. It is not necessary to create a category for it, but it is useful infor. These were for taxa that I couldn't find or correct after a moderately diligent search. I have always intended to get back to them in my copious free time. As to ver= I have removed ~170 from a Chinese data module. Your previous work should have eliminated them directly in mainspace. DCDuring (talk) 01:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• User:JeffDoozan/lists/external_taxons/errors - list of taxlinks that share a taxon but have a mismatch in the other parameters
• User:JeffDoozan/lists/local taxons/errors - list of L2 Translinguals that have multiple {{taxon}}
• User:JeffDoozan/lists/ttp with other l2 - All pages containing an L2 Translingual section plus any other L2 section.
• User:JeffDoozan/lists/taxons with redlinks - All redlinks found inside a T2 Translingual section.

  Almost of the ones with initial lowercase letters are vernacular names. Almost all the ones with initial uppercase are taxa. I will work through the lowercase ones. DCDuring (talk) 01:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I thoroughly reviewed the "A"s on that list. I didn't find any item with an initial uppercase that was not a taxon. Let me go through the rest to confirm that hypothesis and delete those that are place names, personal names, etc. DCDuring (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• User:JeffDoozan/lists/possible taxons - list of italacized and/or redlinked items that might be taxons.
• User:JeffDoozan/lists/approved taxons - manually curated list of taxons and ranks that the bot should handle that are not currently used in {{taxon}} or {{taxlink}}

The bot will automatically update all of those lists every time a new data dump is released, ususally on the 1st and 20th of each month. Whenever there's new data, I'll have it apply {{taxlink}} and {{taxfmt}} to any new text that has been added.

The only pressing thing I need from you is what I should do with |ver= and |nover=. I hope the above lists are useful for cleanup tasks, but there's no urgency in any of that. Is there anything else you need from me to help with any remaining cleanup? JeffDoozan (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I never mentioned that there are hundreds of instances of {{taxlink}} on linked taxonomic name in a Chinese data module. The other linked taxa should, perhaps in principle, get {{taxfmt}}ed. We may not ever have to do anything about them. I'm going to work through the "error" categories. If I see any straightforward patterns of frequent errors, I will let you know. DCDuring (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

• You may be amused to know that, per most-linked pages:

  Template:taxlink‏‎ (used on 49,365 pages)

  Template:taxfmt‏‎ (used on 50,984 pages)

• DCDuring (talk) 02:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've extracted some fixes where there are Cyrillic characters in otherwise Latin-script transliterations from the somewhat complete list of instances of non-Latin characters in transliteration. The JSON format is similar to the script code one, except I put the edit summary at the page level in the JSON to reduce the repetitiveness. It'd be hard to add the template names to the edit summary this time, but I can try to do that if you'd prefer. — Eru·tuon 23:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Done JeffDoozan (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Your edit in Template:commons produces an error. “tabletable” now appears on all pages that use the template. Vivaelcelta (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vivaelcelta: Thanks, fixed in diff JeffDoozan (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jeff, AutoDooz running {{cite-book}}: removed trailing empty positional param is removing intentional line breaks from templates, like seen in this edit, instead of removing the duplicated ||, as I assume you intended. -- Sokkjō 00:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Sokkjo, the bot's edits, although lacking in aesthetics, are the only safe way a superflous | can be removed without affecting other parameters. In the diff you mentioned, removing just the | would have the unintended consequence of adding <!-- --> to the value of the previous parameter. In the case of {{cite-book}}, it doesn't matter if |publisher= or |page= suddenly have <!-- --> appended to their values, but that's not true of all parameters across all templates so the bot removes everything from the erroneous | until the next | to be sure it's not introducing any errors into the template's output, even if that affects the visual aestetic of the template source. It does check that any HTML comments removed contain only whitespace before removing the parameter, to ensure that it's not removing important information while doing the cleanup. JeffDoozan (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I understand that the change did not break the template, but removing the formatting on a template is still an unintended edit your bot is making, and should be fixed and avoided. Formatting is not simply a "visual aestetic" but helps an editor parse and modify a template. @Benwing2 -- Sokkjō 20:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo @JeffDoozan In this case I agree with Victar; your bot code should be smart enough to handle cases like this correctly. Benwing2 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. The R AutoDooz adds this

{{#invoke:checkparams|warn}}<!-- Validate template parameters
-->

in many Greek templates: Category:Pages_using_bad_params_when_calling_Greek_templates
In one case, I found the mistake. But I cannot find anything at others.
What must we do? What is wrong? Which ones are bad parameters? Could someone help? Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 00:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Sarri.greek. You don't have to do anything, it's just a cleanup category for tracking unused parameters on template calls, for example adding |author=Homer to {{el-phrase}} won't have any effect, it just gets ignored by the template. If you want to clean them up, you can go to preferences, and then scroll down to "Gadgets" and enable the "Catch My Attention – display {{attention}} templates when reading entries" gadget to see a message on the page telling you which template has invalid parameters. You'll also see a warning when previewing your edit if there are any templates with unused parameters. In most cases, the source of the error is pretty obvious like typos or parameters that were once used but are no longer needed, but there are some complex cases where templates are called by other templates where the cleanup is not obvious. If you find any warnings that seem wrong or that you don't know how to fix, just give me a ping and I'll help as much as I can. JeffDoozan (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

You might also be interested in User:JeffDoozan/lists/template_params/errors where you see all of the errors together to decide which pages are worth visiting. JeffDoozan (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I will go to User:JeffDoozan/lists/template_params/errors because I never use 'Gadgets', I do not know what they do. Sometimes, at infletional Templates, such unused parameters are provisional for optional change of Template (e.g. X template does not use them, but if one switches to another declension, they would be needed). ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 03:11, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's great! that you show all typos. I will gradually do all mistakes concerning Modern templates. For some, I can see the first 10 that you show, but there are more! I hope your clever robot will go on adding them! -but it will take some time to do them all. Please, if you wish, give me instructions of how to mark done and finished, or 'done and please add more'. Thank you very much for this assistance. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 07:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: I'm glad it's helpful. I re-generated the page with full entries for all of the Greek templates so you should now see everything. It looks like {{el-adj-form}} and {{el-noun-form}} have a lot of uses where |1= or |2= is a transliteration, probably from a time before the templates could do the transliteration automatically, so I filtered out all of those to just focus on the real errors. If you think it's okay to automatically remove all of the transliterations, I can have the bot remove them. You don't need to mark anything as "done" unless it's helpful for you, the page will be refreshed every 2-3 weeks and anything that has been fixed during that time will automatically be removed from the lists. JeffDoozan (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, Thank you, Sir! It is so good, to work in pairs! you know programming, I know greek, ... wonderful. I had no way up to now, to see these mistakes. While I remove the dated transliterations, I add more things (ipa etc), because it is a good opportunity to review old lemmata.

If you have time -sorry to bother for more: I became greedy-. Do you know how to do statistics?, like Pages with modern Greek and Ancient Greek only or Pages with modern Greek, Ancient Greek and Ls'...? There are double, triple and quadruple pages (with dialects). If there is an easy way to do this could you just type the command, and I will add it at the WT:... of these languages. It is interesting to see total Greek (e.g. many ancient and modern words coincide). I am waiting for Medieval Greek to be added as a new L2. Thank you. ‑‑Sarri.greek ^♫ I 15:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sarri.greek: For the statistics, I think you can search for incategory:"Greek lemmas" incategory:"Ancient Greek lemmas" to find pages with both Greek and Ancient Greek. I added parameter checking to {{el-adj-form}} and {{el-noun-form}} so those categories should start slowly filling up on Category:Pages_using_bad_params_when_calling_Greek_templates if you really want to manually fix all of the transliterations. JeffDoozan (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree with the "merged pages= into page=" change. Was this discussed anywhere? I can't find a discussion about this.

If you look at the help text for cite-book, you see that these parameters are clearly distinct (the help text of cite-journal isn't so clear, it seems): "The page number or range of page numbers referred to. The parameters page and pages can be used together to indicate that the citation refers to, for example, “page 3 of 10”.

IMHO having "page" (specific page reference) and "pages" (range of pages for the whole text) as distinct parameters makes a lot of sense. I don't see any justification for merging them into one, as your bot did. tbm (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @tbm! This is part of a bigger project to make the cite- templates share the same parameters and programming as the quote- templates because the quote- templates are better documented and support more advanced features. Unfortunately the use of |pages= is one of the few places where the two template families act differently: in the quote- templates |pages= is used when a quoted passage spans multiple pages and is used in place of |page=, while in cite- templates it is sometimes used the same way, and sometimes used in combination with |page= to indicate a larger range. It's only this last case, which is very useful but not widely used, where the bot made any changes, where it merged "of PAGES" into the existing |page= value to achieve the same output without using both values simultaneously. If you think it's important to maintain this as a separate parameter, I can add support for a new parameter that could be used by both the cite- and quote- templates (and re-do the bot edits to use the new parameter). What do you think? Do you have any suggestions for names for the new parameter, maybe page_range? JeffDoozan (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@tbm, FYI, I added the original cite-book page/pages handling to Module:quote so it will now work as before on all quote and cite templates equally and I'll roll back the bot changes where it merged page/pages. JeffDoozan (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for not replying. I was drafting a reply in my head and got distracted. I'm happy you resolved this. Thanks so much!

Thanks for working on unifying cite- and quote. I didn't realize there was such a big difference.

BTW, is the merge from first/last into just author part of this unification, too? If first/last is removed everywhere, can you also look into updating the reference templates (R:...). tbm (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@tbm:, There's no merge from first/last into author as part of this apart from a few places where I manually converted "first" to "author" where the cite- templates included only "first" without "last". Both quote and cite templates can handle either "author" or "first"/"last". When using "first"/"last", the quote templates will display "first last" while the cite templates will display "last, first" (both display "author" exactly as given). JeffDoozan (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought for sure there were some changes to the author information, but I tried to find them and can't find anything... so not sure what I (mis)remember.

Anyway, thanks for your work and speedy replies! tbm (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

We now have a module error at 肋巴骨 because Module:quote is looking in your userspace instead of the template namespace. Please fix. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 fixed, thanks for the heads-up. The calls to my userspace are temporary while I cleanup invalid params on existing cite- template uses. JeffDoozan (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Where was it decided to changing T:cite-* |1= to |lang=? I have to say I disagree with this change thoroughly. -- Sokkjō 02:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sokkjo: Template_talk:cite-book#quote-book_compatibility. What are you concerns about the change? JeffDoozan (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll reply there or start a discussion in the Beer Parlour, but I really think you need to slow your roll on these bot changes to the citation templates. -- Sokkjō 03:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Woof, just ran your bot anyway, huh. -- Sokkjō 17:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know not what motivated you or @Erutuon’s bot to work upon this (I only see a revert of an automated change to {{R:ALGloss}} in my watchlist), but you two broke your own sleek template code in {{R:CAL}} linking the entries in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, employed in virtually every Ancient Aramaic page. Fay Freak (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Fay Freak:, the changes to {{R:ALGloss}} that I reverted were an attempt to fix links that are getting double encoded. Right now there's a temporary workaround in place while I work on a better fix, see here for that discussion. If you're currently seeing broken links on a specific page, please pass me a link and I'll check it out. JeffDoozan (talk) 23:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hm, the issue is the absence of a link in the entry url. I don’t know surely if it is an issue absolutely, because typical readers may react differently to it, but last time I used the CAL templates I had to click the consonant string, and now I am used to it. I see that the number has the working link, but why? You see I didn’t even find it until looking closely now. It is not even consistent with other templates we still have, e.g. {{R:fa:Steingass}} linking the headword. Fay Freak (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak:, I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with the CAL templates so I'm having trouble understand what you're saying, can you give me an example? Is there a specific page that is broken because of something I changed? JeffDoozan (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

All equally, including in the documentation. Compare to output of the CAL and the Steingass templates. I just remember that it was different in the CAL, equalling the behaviour of the Steingass. There is a drive to click the term between the “”. Fay Freak (talk) 23:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fay Freak: I think this diff should fix the display on R:CAL. JeffDoozan (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does. Though you have {{attn|escaped URL found in param: entryurl}} now in the documentation, as on {{R:ALGloss}}, but I guess you will get rid of it over the days. Small issue since it is not transcluded. Fay Freak (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

About this: so what do I do if I want to refer to a headword in a chapter in a book? Vahag (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vahag AFAIK, there's no good way to include headword/chapter/title (else I would have applied it to the template). You could experiment with |chapter_plain= to include both chapter and headword, maybe something like |chapter_plain="{{lang|tr|{{{1|{{PAGENAME}}}}}}}" in "Kuruçam Köyü Sözlüğü". This isn't a change in the behavior of {{cite-book}}, it has never displayed both chapter and entry, but soon it will show warnings when using parameters that conflict with each other and my edit was part of a preemptive clean-up before turning on the warnings. JeffDoozan (talk) 17:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vahag I've updated the cite- templates to handle both "entry=" and "chapter=". JeffDoozan (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Jeff. Vahag (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you know what happened to separating authors by a semicolon? Now they are separated by a comma. In {{Template:R:lzz:BLS}}, one can't tell which author ends where. Vahag (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I think your edit to {{cite-web}} broke the entry links in {{R:GDoS}} (and possibly other templates). Einstein2 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Einstein2 Good catch, thanks. I fixed {{R:GDoS}} directly and I'll check later to see if there are other templates affected. It should be pretty uncommon, since mixing |entry= with |titleurl= didn't work on the old, pre-module {{cite-web}} template so it should only affect templates that took advantage of that feature mix during the last couple of months. JeffDoozan (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this synonymous with lowdown? PUC – 19:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: No, at least not in the Midwestern US dialect I'm familiar with. To me, lowdown is modern and colloquial while chapter and verse sounds dated (although it may have been colloquial back in its day). Personally, I would only ever use sense 1 of lowdown and in that sense I would use it almost as a colloquial synonym of gossip or non-public information, as in "Now I know why John is getting divorced, his sister gave me the lowdown". I don't think I've ever actually used chapter and verse and I would venture to say its use would sound dated in modern usage, but I would recognize and understand sense 3 (senses 1 and 2 are, to me, both literal or almost literal) and almost exclusively in the context of a criminal confession, although I doubt I've encountered it even 10 times in my life. To me, the phrase "Now I know why John is getting divorced, his sister gave me chapter and verse" would sound very unnatural but would still be understandable from the context. Additionaly, "Give me the lowdown, what's happening between you and John" sounds modern and conversational but "Give me the chapter and verse, what's happening between you and John" would likely be unintelligible. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PUC I agree with Jeff here. I only would use chapter and verse in the expression "to quote chapter and verse", which is sense 2 (to cite an authoritative document in support of a position). Benwing2 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PUC: For me, it emphasizes the detail and comprehensiveness: the analogy is to the difference between merely making a vague moral argument and making an argument backed with a list of passages from the Bible that support it, complete with references to show exactly where to look them up. It can be references to some authoritative source, as in sense 2, or it can be information, as in sense 3. Usually it's in support of some point being made or some scenario being laid out- you wouldn't give chapter and verse about all the fun things you did over the weekend. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks everyone for the detailed explanation. PUC – 07:43, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I am in the process of changing Module:quote so the aliases and other settings currently handled in the template call to Module:quote are instead handled inside the module itself. The reason for this is so that |type2= works correctly for all types; currently it only works for book and journal. Do the cite-* equivalents also have support for |newversion=? If so we should move the cite-* settings into the module as well. How different are these settings for cite-* templates vs. the equivalent quote-*? If they are similar enough, maybe we can merge the support instead of duplicating it. Benwing2 (talk) 02:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: Cite templates handle |newversion= just like quote templates, see nine-day_wonder#References and Template:R:sdc:Muzzo for example uses. My goal with Module:quote was to make quote and cite as similar as possible by using the same code to generate as much of the text as possible and plus some cite- specific code to maintain the established citation formatting (credit before date, "last, first" name display, and inline passages) so unless you're introducing a new function that will be called directly by cite_t, I would expect any changes made to |newversion= to carry over automatically to the cite formatting.

The aliases should match exactly, the cite* template code was copied exactly from their quote-* counterparts, only changing "quote_t" to "cite_t", except for {{cite-web}} where I added "entryurl" and "trans-entry" to the aliases (which I've been meaning to copy over to quote-web, just to maintain 1:1 compatibility between the templates)(edit: done).

After moving the alias handling inside the module, will RQ: templates still call "call_quote_template" to invoke a template to call back into the module? Is there enough overhead in the module->template->module calls to make it worthwhile to avoid that? I think it's just cite/quote-av templates that include additional logic inside the template. JeffDoozan (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

There are several templates that have additional logic in them: {{quote-av}}, {{quote-song}}, {{quote-newsgroup}}, {{quote-mailing list}}, {{quote-hansard}}, {{quote-us-patent}}, {{quote-wikipedia}}. These will move inside the module so that |type2= works. There won't be any change the the RQ: templates calling call_quote_template, which should still work. I don't think the overhead of calling between template and module is such a big deal; at least, I wouldn't worry about it until and unless we start seeing memory or time issues. Benwing2 (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your bot's last edit there. It turns out that the "Requests for transliteration of quotations by language" subcategories have an illustration of the template with a |quote= parameter, so they all started throwing errors. See Module:category tree/poscatboiler/data/entry maintenance line 727 for the source. I don't know if we need to add that parameter or remove the example, but there's no reason to have dozens of category pages in CAT:E in the meanwhile. You should probably check for links to templates in all namespaces before you change that parameter in the future. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, @Chuck Entz. The error was that "Category:Pages_using_bad_params_when_calling_Template:rftranslit" has no entries, but does have subcategories and the bot only checked for entries before deciding that it was safe to switch from warn to error. I've adjusted it to check for subcategories as well so it shouldn't happen again. JeffDoozan (talk) 18:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since you're the expert with the quote and cite templates, maybe you can help me with something. If you look at the references for Swahili abee, you'll see that the two quotes use different formats (one is a block quote and the other one is embedded in the text).

I guess this is because the reference template for the first ({{R:sw:Eastman:1983}}) just uses cite-journal whereas the other template ({{R:sw:Almasi:2014}}) has logic that chooses between quote-book and and cite-book.

My question: should all Swahili reference templates have that logic? or what is the proper way to handle this? (Bonus question: is that something you want to clean up for all references templates ;) tbm (talk) 10:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @tbm. The difference between the two cites is due to the length of the text cited. By default, all "quote-" templates always use block citation and all "cite-" templates use inline formatting unless 1) the length of the quote exceeds 300 characters 2) the quote contains "<br>" or 3) the quote is > 120 characters and also contains a translation. In the case of abee, the first quote has >300 characters and is displayed as a block while the second doesn't and is displayed inline. I just added support for an |inline= parameter for both cite and quote templates so you could add |inline=1 to {{R:sw:Eastman:1983}} to force inline mode, or add |inline=0 to {{R:sw:Almasi:2014}} to force block mode. If there's consensus within the Swahili community for forcing block mode or inline mode for all of the templates, I can help with adding that by bot to all of the R:sw: templates. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the clarification!

I'm not sure about forcing one style for all of Swahili (although I personally quite like block more). I might discuss that with other editors.

Although, if I may follow-up, you didn't fully answer my question about the Swahili reference templates being different. The first one I mentioned uses plain cite-journal whereas the other has logic to choose between quote-book/cite-book. Are all reference templates supposed to have that logic or is it not needed (especially after your harmonization work)? Can we simplify/standardize that somehow? tbm (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@tbm: Only about 200 of the thousands of reference templates use the dual cite/quote logic like {{R:sw:Almasi:2014}} so it's not a requirement and it sort of breaks the "R: is for cites, RQ: is for quotes" rule by letting you add |instead=1 to a R: template to turn it into a RQ: template. Now that the quotes and cites share the same codebase, it should be possible find an easier, more standardized way of making "dual" templates, ideally while still respecting the R/RQ prefix convention. I'm not sure what that would look like, or how it would best be implemented, but I am interested in pursuing it. One way could be to have some sort of a "stub" that could be added to the R/RQ partner so you could make a simple R template and then the corresponding RQ template would just contain {{#invoke:call_r}} to tell it to invoke the R template with an extra flag telling it to display as a quote instead of a cite. JeffDoozan (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I wasn't even aware that RQ templates exist!

Thanks again for the explanation and for working on this. tbm (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you lower the threshold to, say, 3500-times used? P. Sovjunk (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@P. Sovjunk,  Done. JeffDoozan (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

• The new update is wrong - has a buttload of terms that aren't missing. What's up? Denazz (talk) 12:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Denazz For some reason the 20 May database export had null entries for lots of valid pages. Hopefully today's export will be better. JeffDoozan (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

• How about going down to 3000? Phacromallus (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Phacromallus  Done. JeffDoozan (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you revert all edits of this type? The Wikipedia link was removed even though the article Andrew Feinberg exists. Ioaxxere (talk) 05:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Ioaxxere:  Done At the time of the bot's edits, there was a bug in Module:quote that generated an error when using w:AuthorName and another bug that cause quote-journal to always generate an authorlink from the given author name so removing the w: prefix removed the error while still generating the link. Now that both bugs have been fixed, I've reverted all of the bot's edits. JeffDoozan (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just noticed that the bot converted instances of ] (social media) to {{taxfmt|Mastodon|genus}} (evidently, a taxonomic genus). If the edits were reverted and changed to {{l|en|Mastodon}} etc. would this solve the bot from making these edits? Thanks, LunaEatsTuna (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@LunaEatsTuna: This is an error with the bot, it shouldn't apply taxfmt to single word taxons unless the taxon page contains only a Translingual section. Since Mastodon has Translingual/English/French/etc it shouldn't have made any changes. I'll track down the bug and fix the edits. Thanks! JeffDoozan (talk) 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've just referred to this at GP. The undifferentiated list was never very useful for me, but I would really like a list of Translingual L2s that are not linked to from principal namespace. There are various problems that might become thereby identifiable: headword misspellings/alternative spellings, poor prioritization, missing {{taxfmt}}, etc..

Would it be possible for you to generate such a list? Would it be easy? When might you be able to get to it? DCDuring (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@DCDuring: All of my lists are generated from the database dumps, which don't include any information about incoming links. According to the search documentation you should be able to append &sort=incoming_links_asc to the end of a search url to order the pages with fewest incoming links first, but the resulting search for incategory:"Translingual lemmas" doesn't find anything with zero incoming links. @This, that and the other is good at generating lists from the live data and might have a clever way of getting this information. JeffDoozan (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response. I'll investigate further. DCDuring (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Incoming links include those from outside principal namespace and include the self-transclusion link. There are many Translingual entries that have no incoming links from principal namespace. DCDuring (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you check for any cases of {{R:csb:ISKJ|{{PAGENAME}}|some number}} and change PAGENAME to a +, so {{R:csb:ISKJ|+|some number}}, and also if it's above {{R:csb:SPK}}, could it be moved below? Vininn126 (talk) 17:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, FYI: in you mixed up publisher and location. --2003:DE:3717:718E:65C8:BEBB:58D6:1D36 09:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi - just FYI, as I know you run a bot for this kind of thing, but I've updated the L2 sorting algorithm in Module:headword/page in a couple of ways:

1. It now ignores apostrophes, in addition to all diacritics.
2. Hyphens are converted to spaces.

I don't know if the second one will make much of a difference, but ignoring apostrophes does change things on a few large pages, due to languages like K'iche' and 'Are'are. Theknightwho (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thansk for the heads-up. I've adjusted the bot's code to ignore apostrophes and convert hypens to spaces. For reference, the python code is here and the tests are here. If you know of any additional language name processing or expected results I should test for, let me know. JeffDoozan (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho, forgot the ping. JeffDoozan (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@JeffDoozan Thanks for this. One other thing: would it be okay for you to update the language list more often? I've noticed the bot is still changing "Äynu" to "Aynu", even though the name was changed a while ago (). Thanks! Theknightwho (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's also changing "Äiwoo" to "Aiwoo" and "Australian Kriol" to "Kriol" as well. There have been a handful of other language-name changes in the last few months as well. Theknightwho (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Theknightwho, Thanks for noticing that, I've adjusted the bot to refresh the list of languages before renaming any sections. JeffDoozan (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fab - thank you. Theknightwho (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You need to undo all of these changes. See تلفون for just one of many. {{ar-verb form}} generates its own definitions. Benwing2 (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

These two-part Etymology numbers are intentional, per discussion with Fenakhay and other Arabic editors. You need to undo all changes like this: تسمين that are adding extra spaces in the Etymology lines. Benwing2 (talk) 05:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I fixed the errors both from this and the previous entry. I also blocked your bot since you're not responding and it seems to be operating autonomously. Let me know when you've fixed it to not make these changes again and I'll unblock it. Benwing2 (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for fixing the errors. I've been busy lately but was planning on fixing it today. The bot's been updated to handle {{ar-verb form}} as a "templates that generate a headline and defs" along with {{ru-alt-*}}, {{ar-inf-*}}, {{ar-coll-*}}, {{ar-root}}, {{ja-see}} and {{zh-see}}. Likewise the parser has been fixed to handle section titles with multiple digits, which will fixes the Etymology 2.1 -> Etymology 2. 1 bug. The bot generates reports autonomously after each new wikimedia dump (usually the 1st and 20th) but I start the fix runner manually and there's a built in safety limit to the number of fixes it will apply without requiring manual review. If {{ar-verb form}} had been used on all Arabic pages, it wouldn't have run amok across all Arabic entries. JeffDoozan (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: forgot the ping. JeffDoozan (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Awesome, thanks! That is good to hear. I have removed the block. Benwing2 (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

There were a couple of cases which changed "Etymology 1" to "Etymology" in addition to the other errors. I have a search link at WT:TODO that looks for numbered etymologies without "Etymology 1", and I already knew about this topic when those turned up- so I just reverted them. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thank you! Didn't realize that had happened. Benwing2 (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

BTW Jeff it sounds like you need to check the code that tries to correct errors in ==Etymology 1== numbering, since some pages have ==Etymology 1== along with ==Etymology 2.1==, ==Etymology 2.2== etc.; that code might not be expecting to see ==Etymology 2.1== following ==Etymology 1==. Benwing2 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz Thank you. With the new fixes, the bot will leave as-is all numbers on any group of sections where at least one title uses a decimal notation. JeffDoozan (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jeff. See أحمل. Please add {{ar-verb-form}} to the list of templates that should not trigger {{rfdef}} addition; this was a mistake for {{ar-verb form}} but will be easy to make until I get rid of all instances of {{ar-verb-form}}. Benwing2 (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Benwing2: I updated the bot and rolled back its edits on أحمل and ترب from 2 September. If there are older edits that I should look for, let me know. JeffDoozan (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I just moved the entry q'eelo to q'eeLo to correct a spelling error in this Klamath word. I notice that there's a link to this entry at User:JeffDoozan/stats/sections/latest/K#Klamath-Modoc. I wanted to let you know, in case you'd want to correct the link. — Äþelwulf (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, A heads-up. The other day I found myself reverting this change, in which AutoDooz inserted a "taxfmt" template around Empusa (a mythological monster) in the definition line of Ἔμπουσα. To be fair, there was no way (that I can see) that the bot could have known better. At the time, Empusa had only the Translingual genus name sense defined, and the monster sense was at empusa. I have since edited the definition to point to empusa and for good measure added an English sense to Empusa, so presumably the bot won't come visiting again. :)

(On the other hand, please let me know if my presumptions about the bot's reasoning are incorrect.)

I thought you might like to know this had occurred. It could potentially happen for other terms with not-yet-created senses.— Pingku^dimmi 08:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'd ask you to reconsider this bot-rendered change. I'm a (very) amateur astronomer, and seeing this inviolable trinity of derived terms split into columns is utterly jarring! — HelpMyUnbelief (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply