I'd like to reinstate that "nominated for deletion" tag, seeing as the enwiki copy should be moved over if the file is kept or a "deleted on commons" tag added if the other file is deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You may have noticed that WP:CFDWR is no longer being processed by Cydebot, despite multiple requests on Cyde's talk page. I have emailed Cyde and received no response so far, so he may be on holiday, but I suspect he has lost interest in this specific functionality. As it does not require admin rights to run this task, is it something that your bot could take on, regularly?
In case you are not familiar with this sub-page, editors make a bulleted list of categories where there was a Keep (or No consensus) decision, and the bot removes the CFD template, with an edit summary along the lines of "CFD discussion closed as Keep". – FayenaticLondon14:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Should it do? I was uncertain about removing that without inside input. I mean if the category isn't tagged/doesn't exist then there is no need that it should remain on the page. ArmbrustThe Homunculus00:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess it is not important to do so. If there are none, then let's remove that statement from the Instructions.
Oh. Well, if it's not going to be automatic, the instructions need a note to ask you to run it.
Please explain any formatting requirements in full. Does it default to say "Keep" if we don't append "- no consensus"? Does it require spaces in the heading or the category names, or would it cope with underscores (e.g. if I paste from the URL, like [1])? – FayenaticLondon21:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Well it can have such a note, but the page is on my watchlist anyway. No default, if the result isn't appended, than I will check on the log page. Underscores are perfectly fine. ArmbrustThe Homunculus22:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm thinking of converting Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs into a landing page for the several groups of featured thumbs, possibly while displaying the current group of thumbs on the landing page. The reason for me thinking/wanting to do this is because the group pages are not subpages of the main page (which is currently a redirect.), so the "Group ##" pages would probably become subpages of the parent page as part of this. Any thoughts/suggestions on this? Steel1943 (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I looked it over a bit, and here's my thoughts: I think updating those scripts (even I could update them since I'm not an administrator) could be more trouble than it's worth. My thoughts are that to get around this, the parent page Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs could be the most recent "group ##" page, then get moved when the group is full. I'm also thinking of creating a page titled Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs/header (or something like that) where some of the text will appear on Wikipedia:Featured pictures thumbs but not the subpages, and where other text will appear on the subpages but not the parent page (similar to the text on all of the subpages right now.) ...And I'm letting you know this since you do most of the archiving and organization of the page, so I want to make sure I don't do anything that will either break anything or cause confusion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.
@Armbrust:, please may I ask you again to reconsider this?
I understand that you believe that these categories should be renamed from the YYYY–YY format to YYYY–YYYY. I disagree.
But please recall the sequence of events here. I nominated a few outliers for renaming to fit the existing convention; you opposed those, seeking a wider change to a new format.
However, in the meantime we have 167 sub-categories of Category:State legislators of Indian States by term. All but two of them use the YYYY–YY convention, but 11 more separate the years with a hyphen rather than an endash. That is 13 outliers out of 167, less than 8%.
All I want to do is to make the set consistent. However, you are blocking that. In three months, nobody else has posted to join you in opposition to consistency, but two other editors (Le Deluge & Hugo999) have posted to support making the existing set consistent, and/or to reject your preference for YYYY–YYYY.
Given the 3 opposes to your own change, it is clearly not going to happen without a full discussion, yet your reply to Fayenatic london shows no willingness to open one. Given the opposition at CFDS and the caveats in the RFC closure (e.g. when space is at a premium), a full discussion is clearly needed somewhere before any wholesle chnge
If you do decide to open one, it will in no way be prejudiced by 13 speedy renames to make the fewer outliers in the existing set conform with the existing convention both for the Indian MLA categs and all other parliamentarian-by-term categs.
So please, why not let the existing set be made consistent? I really cannot see what you hope to achieve by blocking consistency. It doesn't advance your goal, and it does inconvenience readers an editors trying to work with the existing inconsistencies. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Some common sense is called for here. Just because categories are not mentioned, it does not mean there is no exemption for them, it's pretty clear looking at the history that noone was really thinking about categories either way. But we have a consensus from eg the British MP categories that the category box at the end of articles is considered somewhere where "space is at a premium" and so short is good, particularly where one article may be in many similar categories (a long-serving MP might have >10 Parliamentary session categories, or even more in countries with unstable governments like Italy). It's clear that the RFC intended the exemption to apply anywhere where space was at a premium, even if the final guideline only explicitly mentioned infoboxes and tables - to suggest otherwise sounds like Wikilawyering. Le Deluge (talk) 13:04, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Looking at this again, I would encourage you to withdraw your opposition to BHG's speedy nominations (hyphen to dash). As for your own speedy nominations (2-digit years to 4), it appears to me that there is no consensus to proceed with those, so please would you withdraw them? – FayenaticLondon18:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Armbrust, not long ago an image I proposed for feature picture was promoted, but I still don't see a tag on the image itself saying that it is now considered a featured picture, nor did I get a notice on my talk page that the image passed muster. Am I missing something?? Please let me know. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
You are right, I don't know how I missed the notice on my talk page, thank you, but when I click on the image from the featured picture candidacy page (here) I end up at the Commons version of the image (here) which does not have the FP notice (though when I follow your link above, it seems to take me to a Wikipedia version of the image which DOES have the FP notice!). Any ideas on that?? KDS4444 (talk) 23:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Here is the 4th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.
21 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion).
WP:BOTISSUE has been updated to mention that BAG members can act as neutral mediators in bot-related disputes.
WP:INTERWIKIBOT has been updated to reflect the post-February 2013 practice of putting interwiki links on Wikidata, rather than on Wikipedia (see discussion).
Hello Armbrust! Is there a reason that you have stopped writing the featured content section of The Signpost. I maintain my stated principal of only editing FC when no one else steps up to do it. There are many other things I could be working on. If you don't mind, or want to write the featured content, please do. If you don't, do you have any suggestions for me/the next person who writes it, on how to do the featured content better? Thank you. Eddie891TalkWork16:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
FPC closing script
Hi, you recently reverted my edit at WP:GO because it caused a problem with one of your scripts.
Headings help visually impaired users understand the structure of a page and navigate around it. Bold pseudo-headings — MOS:PSEUDOHEAD — don't. For example, if visually impaired users want to know if there were any FP's promoted in Wikipedia:Goings-on/August 27, 2017, they have to listen to all the FA's and FL's before hearing an empty FP section. With headings, they can skip straight to the part they want to hear, and it's clearer that the "Topics" heading ends the FP section. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing your signature string, and thank you for pointing out the problem with mine, which was that in Preferences, I had a blank signature and accidentally checked "Treat the above as wiki markup." Fixed now! —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
