Operator: Nihlus Kryik ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:14, Saturday, September 23, 2017 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Updating MP listings to adhere to MOS:DATERANGE, e.g. Category:English MPs 1512–14 → Category:English MPs 1512–1514.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Change_the_name_of_sub_catogories_of_Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 6,866
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Fairly straightforward. Requesting bot access as it is more appropriate than using my main account for this high number of edits.
I see the MOS states it should be done, but where's the support to convert the existing ones over? I'd like to see some discussion about this.— CYBERPOWER ( Message) 00:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The keyword here is "should". The closer chose that word correctly since the discussion on preference is mixed. Some wanted it to be a requirement, some wanted it to be the preferred format. New categories are supposed to follow the 4 digit requirement, but can opt not to given good reason. This is how I interpret the RfC, and possibly others will as well. So an argument can be made that the existing categories can be grandfathered in and that having a bot convert these is just pointless work. What I want to see is consensus that a bot should convert these existing categories over.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 16:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC) replyThe community has decided that four year date ranges (i.e. XXXX–XXXX) should be the default style used in Wikipedia.
Other situations with local consensus: Other fields may use the XXXX-XX date range. They may continue to do so if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention in the subject area. In absence of such a reason, XXXX-XXXX is the default.Pinging original requester PBS, as they have moved pages to adhere to this existing policy. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 16:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ User:Cyberpower678 The reason why paper encyclopaedias such as EB1911 tended to abbreviate things link dates and page numbers, and wrote very large paragraphs, is because they were trying to save some space (every page saved was profit for the company). This is not a constraint that Wikipedia has and there is no reason that Wikipedia needs to be tied so old conventions like this.
The result of the RfC was overwhelming. It obviously does not apply to items in quotes (or things like book title). The exclusions you have mentioned are intended to cover case such as usage in tables were space is limited; the exclusions are not meant to be used as an excuse from following the guidance in general cases (such as this) — as indicated by the emphasis on may placed in italics. In this case I came here from the article Henry Herbert (Master of the Revels) which before I edited it had inconsistent usage with some ccyy–ccyy and some ccyy–yy ( see here). I have now altered them all to use ccyy–ccyy in the text ( see here), and so the categories now look odd. As more and more articles are harmonised on ccyy–ccyy the categories will look as odd over more and more articles. I do not see that the exceptions paragraph to which you have pointed to in any way prevent this change taking place.-- PBS ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
{{
BotWithdrawn}}
After researching further, I am withdrawing this as I believe
WP:CFD can handle it. These are also indicative of a larger problem that needs addressed. Thanks. —
nihlus kryik (
talk) 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
reply
I see that you have successfully renamed some categories in articles from one category name to another another eg Robert Aley ( diff). This changed the article from being a member of Category:English MPs 1529–36 to Category:English MPs 1529–1536. Please explain how you intend to move the text of the category so that it is no longer red; and so the move meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a category]. -- PBS ( talk) 08:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Pinging Cyberpower678 for an update. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Operator: Nihlus Kryik ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:14, Saturday, September 23, 2017 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Updating MP listings to adhere to MOS:DATERANGE, e.g. Category:English MPs 1512–14 → Category:English MPs 1512–1514.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Change_the_name_of_sub_catogories_of_Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 6,866
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Fairly straightforward. Requesting bot access as it is more appropriate than using my main account for this high number of edits.
I see the MOS states it should be done, but where's the support to convert the existing ones over? I'd like to see some discussion about this.— CYBERPOWER ( Message) 00:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
The keyword here is "should". The closer chose that word correctly since the discussion on preference is mixed. Some wanted it to be a requirement, some wanted it to be the preferred format. New categories are supposed to follow the 4 digit requirement, but can opt not to given good reason. This is how I interpret the RfC, and possibly others will as well. So an argument can be made that the existing categories can be grandfathered in and that having a bot convert these is just pointless work. What I want to see is consensus that a bot should convert these existing categories over.— CYBERPOWER ( Chat) 16:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC) replyThe community has decided that four year date ranges (i.e. XXXX–XXXX) should be the default style used in Wikipedia.
Other situations with local consensus: Other fields may use the XXXX-XX date range. They may continue to do so if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention in the subject area. In absence of such a reason, XXXX-XXXX is the default.Pinging original requester PBS, as they have moved pages to adhere to this existing policy. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 16:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
@ User:Cyberpower678 The reason why paper encyclopaedias such as EB1911 tended to abbreviate things link dates and page numbers, and wrote very large paragraphs, is because they were trying to save some space (every page saved was profit for the company). This is not a constraint that Wikipedia has and there is no reason that Wikipedia needs to be tied so old conventions like this.
The result of the RfC was overwhelming. It obviously does not apply to items in quotes (or things like book title). The exclusions you have mentioned are intended to cover case such as usage in tables were space is limited; the exclusions are not meant to be used as an excuse from following the guidance in general cases (such as this) — as indicated by the emphasis on may placed in italics. In this case I came here from the article Henry Herbert (Master of the Revels) which before I edited it had inconsistent usage with some ccyy–ccyy and some ccyy–yy ( see here). I have now altered them all to use ccyy–ccyy in the text ( see here), and so the categories now look odd. As more and more articles are harmonised on ccyy–ccyy the categories will look as odd over more and more articles. I do not see that the exceptions paragraph to which you have pointed to in any way prevent this change taking place.-- PBS ( talk) 17:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC) reply
{{
BotWithdrawn}}
After researching further, I am withdrawing this as I believe
WP:CFD can handle it. These are also indicative of a larger problem that needs addressed. Thanks. —
nihlus kryik (
talk) 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
reply
I see that you have successfully renamed some categories in articles from one category name to another another eg Robert Aley ( diff). This changed the article from being a member of Category:English MPs 1529–36 to Category:English MPs 1529–1536. Please explain how you intend to move the text of the category so that it is no longer red; and so the move meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Moving a page#How to move a category]. -- PBS ( talk) 08:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Pinging Cyberpower678 for an update. — nihlus kryik ( talk) 18:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC) reply