Do not post messages or requests for me here - I do not regularly check this page. If MelonBot is malfunctioning, editing this page will stop the bot until I have resolved the problem. So only post error messages here. All other discussion should be directed to my talk page.
Hi, check the edit history for above -- the bot changed "WPBiography" to "WikiProjectBannersiography", and also inserted the DiscWorld template into the middle of an existing template.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(On behalf of the Opera Project) sorry about this problem. Some non-opera cats (e.g American baritones) have been accessed and all the articles in them have been bannered. Is there an admin who can switch off the bot? --Kleinzach14:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stopped, no need to panic (yet, I'm not sure how many badly-tagged pages there are :S). And there was me on the verge of congratulating WP:OPERA for not having any random subcats in their parent category. It seems that Category:Singers by range is a subcategory of Category:Opera, and within subcategories of that are a large number of artists who would not be described as opera singers. I missed it on my pre-run check through the subcategory list (here, if anyone's interested) because the subcats themsevles look like they would be of interest; it's just the contents that aren't. The usual problem with banner tagging from categories, it seems. I will compile a more selective list of subcategories later today and restart the bot on those. Thanks for flagging up these mistakes, everyone. Happy‑melon14:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as though there are quite a lot of them. Is it possible to run the bot in reverse (so to speak)? All singer cats that are not specifically marked opera/operatic should be excluded. Thanks. --Kleinzach 15:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. GT and I also need to check any other cats before the next run. --Kleinzach15:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is not including squad numbers, I vital part of the infobox. Don't know where to post this but could you please remedy this please. Many thanks.Londo0622:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was reached with consensus, that there would not be a deidcated parameter for this. That we may add it later if we could figure out a good formatting. Even for SL players.
Sorry Happy-melon, this may have upsetted the bot (judging by the start up message). And also Londo, ask on the WP:RL page and/or Happy-melons talk page, from now. The Windlertalk11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came here as requested on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MelonBot 10. There is one major issue with the infobox as I just discovered. Current players do not have a dash between the years of their current club as they did on the old infobox (see Amos Roberts, for example). It now appears that that they only played one season at their club (the only year listed is in fact the year they began their spell at the club). No big deal about trying to fix up the infoboxes that have already been transferred unless that's easy to do, but if you can, see if there's a fix for that problem. Thanks. MDM (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't think that's possible. The string in the parameter is 'split' around the dash, if one is present, which removes it irreperably from the string: 'foo–bar' is converted to 'foo','bar' with no way to tell what separator was in between. There's no way for the code to tell which is the last set of years to split, the difference between an incomplete dateset (ie end-year just not specified) and one where the player is still playing, or even what to do to make the dash appear. Probably what you'll need to do is go round adding |year#end=present wherever the player is still playing. Sorry about that. Happy‑melon09:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bot run is now complete. Unless there are any major issues, I think we're done... cheques payable to "Melon Bulk Editing Ltd"... :DHappy‑melon13:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:C-Class Marillion-related articles, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing Multi-listen with listen
These templates are not at all comparable: the default for multi-listen is left align, with full-width captions that can span the page. The default for listen is right align with limited-width and put in a box. The replacement has played merry havoc with all articles that had a media section, which will probably take months to fix. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An example may help: Here is how the Media section in Jules Massenet should look:
And the bot seems still/again to be getting things wrong: looking at |this diff the bot is trying to impose the "mdy" format, an American habit I believe, on an article on a British topic where "dmy" would be more commonly used. It seems to be failing to do even that as (as far as I can see) the date format only works if the accessdate is provided in ISO format, and although the bot conflates the "accessmonthday" and "accessyear" into "accessdate", it doesn't convert to ISO format. PamD (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see now that the bot has made an improvement, in that the month and day didn't appear at all before the bot took action. But I'm still worried that it seems to be trying to impose mdy, although all visible dates in this article (death date in lead, access dates of some refs) are in dmy. PamD (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't help that there's a low-level edit war over at {{cite web}} and {{citation/core}} over how exactly to handle date formatting. But again, while I agree that the result is not correct, that does not mean it is the bot's fault. How in heaven is the bot supposed to 'know' that dmy would be more appropriate on the article? All it sees is that the citation currently uses |accessmonthday=, which in the old days was specifically intended to force display in mdy format. From that it concludes that the format should be mdy; similarly for when it sees the |accessdaymonth= parameter, which used to force display in dmy. Although the result is wrong, it is because the original citation was also wrong. Garbage in, garbage out. I'm certainly not trying to impose mdy on anyone: I'm a Brit too, it seems just as ridiculous to me as to most other people that we have this dichotomy in the first place. But it's certainly not appropriate to be using automated tools to convert from one format to the other. Happy‑melon22:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hiccup
Noticed that the bot missed a case. See Yucca gloriosa. The name of the template is something like cite web. I don't have any idea how many cases there are like this. I guess the bot has to eat the extra spaces some how. Maybe cite [ ]+web. Thanks for all the great work. No replay necessary. --DRoll (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the template is supposed to still have the TfD tag on it, because the latest TfD (11 January 2009) was closed as "delete" without the template being deleted (its instances still need to be converted to {{Infobox Settlement}}). In general we leave the TfD notice on the template in such cases so they are not forgotten. Happy‑melon08:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Taskforce Jupiter needs a bot to update relevant assessment categories with the relevant template addition {{WikiProject Solar System }}. If its okay, please have the bot do this for all the articles in the following categories:
Category:Jupiter
And please only these subcategories of Category Jupiter:
