User talk:Topbanana

Comments on existing reports

Your page listing possible comma faults has several HTML coding problems that are causing most of the page to diplay improperly; most of the links directly to the editing pages aren't working. (The error messages mostly indicate bad HTML syntax.)

You're right. As the report was faiurly out of date I've regenerated it form a more recent database dump, hopefully without the problems this time. - TB 12:10, 2004 Dec 13 (UTC)

I saw you were requesting a wikipedia server / SQL access to the pedia. I can provide a machine with good connectivity and a local install of the current revisions for you to run your scripts on if this would be helpful. I could provide you with SQL access remotely, but it would probably be easier for you to just run them on my machine. If this is interesting to you please reply on my talk page. Thanks for your reports, I think they're doing a great service for the project. --Milyle 10:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Separate out the scripts

If it isn't a hassle, could you create page with the scripts separated out? Then I could snag your scripts and run on my local Wikipedia. EmRick 16:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Many of the reports (those not dealing with guessing the targets for red links or interwikidness) now have details on how to generate them yourself. For the main script, see User:Topbanana/Reports/Scripts/Create Link Analysis Database. - TB 14:47, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

External links

Hi! I'm actually working off a report I generated myself from a cur dump (select cur_title from cur where cur_namespace=0 and binary cur_text regexp '===? ?External Links? ?===?';)—I haven't uploaded that one yet (it's 1.6MB) but I also generated User:Lady_Lysine_Ikinsile/This page contains an External links section with the wrong indent level. I hope I'm not duplicating any of your lists with these; dysprosia requested them on IRC and I thought I may as well fix some while I had up-to-date lists :-) —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 16:28, 2004 Jul 6 (UTC)

Double database entries

Hello, I have recently created my own list of double entries, and started discussions about them at wikitech-l and wikipedia-l, see my list and the mail at wikipedia-l (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2004-August/016566.html). You wrote "This isn't a report as such as there's nothing a regular Wikipedian can do to fix the problem." on your list. It is right, that normal wikipedians can do nothing about that. But sysops can, and I'd like to see some sysop work on the list. --SirJective 17:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello again! The german databas got a scheme change that now prevents duplication (a new unique index). Do you know if that happened with the english DB as well? If this index was added here too, this report will return no more duplicates. --SirJective 15:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

/Reports/This article contains a repeated word

I just quickly went through the remaining 'a a' articles (and removed the list) - out of what was there, I only needed to make two changes, both of them changing an 'a' to an 'an'. Most of the hits were two words, one ending in an 'a' and the next one starting with an 'a', or things like mathematical formulae. Prehaps any future check should be for ' a a ' (with the spaces)? T.P.K. 09:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at that list - the "a a" section was (IMHO) always going to be a bit suspect; I included it there to see if it would be worth keeping in a regularly generated copy of that report. The next version should autamtically exclude instances of "a a" that are obviously not in a textual section of an article and might prove a bit better. - TB 21:58, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

/Reports/This is a broken redirect page

This lookup doesn't handle the non-broken redirects that try to link to sections, e.g. Euro1080. They may be broken semantically, but syntactically they work and should be either excluded or subcategorized in the list. --Joy [shallot] 22:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikiquote suggestions

Well, I've finished up User:Topbanana/Reports/A wikiquote article exists on this topic. Could you regenerate the list with updated data? – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 19:43, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Great news and excellent work. If I didn't already know you to be a top janitor I'd award you a medal. The currently available database download (http://download.wikipedia.org) is over 24 days old; as soon as a newer version becomes available I'll start generating an updated copy of the report. If time permits, can you update the suggested improvements section of the report with a better definition of what 'proper' wikiquote links might look like? Ta muchly. - TB 09:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Requests for new reports

Bad HTML entity finding report

Would you mind writing a report that picks up &[A-Za-z][^;]*$ or similar? I'll have a look at [1] (http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/sgml/entities.html) for the precise definition if you like. Mr. Jones 16:44, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Howdy. I've rediscovered your request while tidying up my user talk page. Am I right in thinking you're interested in a list of articles containing HTML references that are not all numeric and not on the list of 252 HTML4 entities listed on http://www.w3.org/TR/html40/sgml/entities.html ? - TB 11:40, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

More simple writing errors

I think the double words test was a success, so I thought of another simple writing mistake test. Unmatched "-s. There will undoubtedly be many articles where an odd number of " is quite purposeful (example: mathematics), so I'm not sure how useful it will be...I suppose the matching can be done on the paragraph level. David Remahl 20:35, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion for a report

Hi - I don't know if you're thinking of creating any more reports, but if you are, one for disambiguations could prove very useful. A report which showed pages X (Y) or X, Y which are not linked to from X nor from X (disambiguation). For instance, many places in the US have articles on (for example) XTown, Alaska which are not linked to from XTown - exactly where many users will look for them. Warofdreams 13:50, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Interesting idea - I'll look into this in the next few days and let you know what I come up with. - TB 16:05, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, the second idea above has been implemented as User:Topbanana/Reports/A disambiguation link is suggested. All feedback welcome.

Empty Categories

A report winkling out such abominations as Category:1908 Summer Olympics? --Tagishsimon

I've not examined the database behind categories yet, but really will have to sooner or later. Am I right in thinking you're interested in a report showing categories with few or no members ? - TB 10:48, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Duplicate interlang links

Some articles may contain a duplicate interlang link, potentially making it appear twice in the "other languages" box. Could you create a report that finds pages with more than one interlang link to the same language? — David Remahl 16:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing - I'll put it on my todo list. - TB 08:00, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wow, that one proved to be a bit of a challenge. Results at User:Topbanana/Reports/This article links more than once to another wikipedia. - TB 11:25, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Untagged GFDL images

Hi! Thanks for setting up the multiple interlang links report, very helpful! I'm going to use it as a basis for discussion on meta: too.

Now I've got a new idea. What about a report that finds Image: pages that do not have the {{GFDL}} template (or are otherwise members of Category:GFDL images), but either link to GNU Free Documentation License (or something that redirects there) and/or contain the phrase "GFDL", "GNU FDL" or something to that effect? It would be tremendously useful to hunt down and tag images uploaded before the tagging system was put to use. — David Remahl 00:33, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing. Have a look at User:Topbanana/Reports/This image may be GFDL but not properly marked as such and let me know if it meets your needs. I can list the 14472 images in category 5 (see the report for details) but would need to spread them over several pages to avouid breaking Wikimedia. - TB 10:26, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Broken links - plurals

Great work on these reports! How about a report finding red links ending in "s", where an article or redirect exists for the singular? User:Daniel_Quinlan/redirects does this, but it is woefully out-of-date and doesn't appear to have the code he used. Warofdreams 10:23, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sure thing - I've placed a first stab at such a report in User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains a red link that may be due to a plural discrepancy. A check for simple plurals only (the addition or removal of a single 's' at the end of an article title or link) yielded almost 7000 suggested corrections so I didn't attempt anything fancier. Kindly annotate it with suggested improvements and/or split it up into more workable sections as you see fit. - TB 11:06, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

- Fantastic speed! Warofdreams 18:01, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just for fun

What are the 'most watched' pages?
What are the 'most edited' (controversial?) pages?

Sridev 00:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi there Sridev. Thanks for the suggestions; peoples watchlists are somewhat personal and therefore not available in the database downloads (http://download.wikipedia.org/) I work from. As for the most edited articles I'd love to produce such a report but have a problem - I do not have enough disk-space to load a copy of the 'hist' table needed to produce this. If anyone has mysql and ~120GB of free space, the SQL query required would be:

select old_title, count(*)
from old
where old_namespace = 0
group by old_title
order by 2 desc
limit 100;

-TB 11:18, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Broken Wikiquote links

Wikiquote was left with a number of broken links to Wikipedia when the format for interwiki links changed. Links of the form [[en: need to be found and replaced. Could you generate a report listing these? I know the database is much smaller than WIkipedia and I think you have worked with it before? Rmhermen 23:13, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard station articles

I would like a list of articles containing station in their title but not railway. I am working through UK railway stations - A through - Z converting, for example, Uckfield (unlinked) into [[Uckfield railway station|Uckfield]] . I would like to be able to catch any articles with titles in a slightly different format, eg. Lime Street Station. -- RHaworth 13:40, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

All other comments

Wikiquote box

For the work you did on implementing the Wikiquote box, I'd like you and User:Eloquence to share this barnstar. Filiocht 10:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why thank you. I'll have it Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and User:Eloquence can have it Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. We'll take alternate Sundays and sort out special arrangements for holidays and such ourselves. - TB 11:42, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I've noticed your lists have made a good impact in improving common problems in Wikipedia. I wondered if you would mind if I added my list of featured articles with references problems as a see also to User:Topbanana/Reports. The more notice we get for that, the quicker we can fix the problem. Keep up the good work and let me know. Thanks - Taxman 20:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome to add your report. Several others have already added thier reports to User:Topbanana/Reports, it has the makings of at least the start of a central list of autmatically-generated-lists-of-problems-or-easy-improvements-sort-of-thing. - TB 12:23, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page

Hey TB, I just wanted to thank you for reverting some vandalism on my user page. I haven't been on WP for a while on account of I'm busy and WP has been ultraslow. So that vandalism could have been there for quite a while. Thanks! --Death phoenix 23:00, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page contains a link that might be mis-punctuated

It would be great if you could regenerate the list, as that would increase the proportion of items listed which are genuine problems. Quite a high number of items not crossed off the present list have already been fixed or the problem otherwise resolved just in the normal course of article improvements of Wikipedia.

A couple of minor problems with the list at present:

There are a few links listed where the link starts with a lower case letter, but is otherwise identical to the article title linked to. This is not a problem, as the first letter is case insensitive. I'm not sure why your list has these, as I don't think it has them consistently.
If there are two or more articles which a link might resolve to, the list at present shows them as [[first,second]], but it would be more useful to show them as [[first]], [[second]].

I understand that this is generated by an SQL query, and it may not be possible to resolve these problems.

I get a broadband connection (and wireless network) installed at home tomorrow, so my time on Wikipedia might increase. The dial-up connection does get a little frustrating at times. You may have noticed a slow-down in my processing of list items over the last couple of months; this is not because I'm no longer keen, but because I try to categorise and occasionally otherwise improve articles as I work on them, and often I get sidetracked into populating a new category or other janitorial work.

Anyway, thanks for the reports, they've given me a "home project" on Wikipedia.-gadfium 21:03, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The page of "L"s, the one where all the LISTS raise their ugly heads, is really long. Is it possible to split the lists of lists into smaller sections to make them more manageable? This is probably some trivial something that I just don't know how to do yet. Joyous 02:13, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, I tackled many of the "L"s a few months ago, in the previous version of this report, and I can sympathise with you. Ever since then, I've been breaking up each letter I tackle into subsections (bite sized chunks). This also reduces the problem of edit conflicts. For the Lists, just insert "====List of A====", "====List of B====" etc into the list, and save it. I doubt that anyone would object if you just break it into lots of 25 lines (or whatever you find convenient) with sections of "====Part 1====", "====Part 2====" etc. Don't include the quote marks. -gadfium 05:48, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Goodness yes, it's possible - be bold, alter this and any other reports you find to suit your needs. The worst I'm likely to do is merge them back into one big list the next time I generate the report, and that's onyl because I haven't worked out a nice way of automatically chopping reports into sections of 10-30 entries each. - TB 09:08, 2004 Oct 20 (UTC)

Top Banana

Is your name a refernce to the fantastic game Top Banana? Mark Richards 17:56, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Sadly I never experienced the wonders of the game you mention (I was an - gasp! - Atari ST user). I started using the name on a TiVo discussion forum, that being the phrase that came to mind when I finally grokked what they do. - TB 07:46, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Shame. The game was amazing in its bizarity. I am somewhat shy of admitting that I run an Acorn emulator on my x86 mainly for the purpose of playing this! Ah the golden age of gaming! Mark Richards 15:56, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow!

I love browsing through your reports. Thanks for generating them, even though working on them causes me to spend even more time here when I should be grading papers or cooking dinner or cleaning house. Joyous 01:32, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

You're very welcome - I'm just glad to be contributing in some small way to improving the overall quality of the wikipedia, evne if it is at second-hand. Please do let me know if there are any specific grammar mistakes that really annoy you and I'll produce a report listing the articles containing them for you. - TB 07:48, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Multiple Redirects. Thanks! Gangleri 01:30, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)
Please see also Wikipedia:Multiple Redirects#Multiple Redirects across projects and Wikipedia:Bot requests#Multiple redirects across projects. Thanks! Gangleri | Th (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=User_talk:Gangleri&action=history) | T 16:58, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Howdy. Having spent almost a year working out tools to generate lists of "things needing fixed", I've come to the conclusion that simply detectable problems (spelling errors, grammatical errors, unnecessarily red links, broken redirects) are being generated more quickly than thay can be fixed. Fun though it would be to start looking for more subtle problems such as described above, I'll have to decline for now, sorry. - TB 09:52, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)

Redlink Marketing & Publicity

You might want to take a leaf out of the Please help out by clicking here to fix someone else's Wiki syntax project, which encourages its users to post that link in the comments field, thus exciting the interest of Recent Changes squatters - see their How does this work? point 4. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Plural discrepancy N-R

RE: User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains a red link that may be due to a plural discrepancy/N-R -- I found this page while doing a search for items I needed to change from "RL Burnside" to "R. L. Burnside." In the report, you mention a concern that the red link for "Deep Blues" should be changed to "Deep Blue." Not correct. Deep Blues is the name of a famous blues history book by Robert Palmer (author/producer); that is the work referred to there. There was also a documentary film based on the book. Burnside was discussed in the book. Hope this helps. Bebop 17:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Howdy Bebop, and thanks for following up on 'what links here' so diligently. The report you refer to contains a list of automatically generated suggestions for fixing red links. Like any automated system it's only so clever - the list contains a fair number of incorrent entries. A number of wikipedians are working through it by hand to pick out the useful corrections and implement them. Even where the suggestions aren't right - as in the case you mention - it may be appropriate to add disambiguation links to the articles in question (ie "This article is about the book Deep Blues by Robert Palmer. For the film see Deep Blues (film). For the similarly named chess-playing computer, see Deep Blue"). Or of course you could always edit the report to ad a comment about the suggestion and why it's not right. Again, thanks for following up. - TB 14:58, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Unification of the different Wiki fixup projects?

Greetings TB, Neilc, Sietse Snel, and Erik Zachte! I'm posing this message on each of your four talk pages, asking you if you're interested in unifying the different Wiki fixup projects (User:Topbanana/Reports + User:Neilc/External links + User:Sietse_Snel/Fix_common_mistakes + Wiki Syntax Project + Erik's list of HTML problems that he emailed me a subset of).

Currently, we all have different pages at different locations listing different types of problems. What I'm wondering is whether we and the Wikipedia would all be slightly better off if we had one location that contained all of the outstanding problems from all of these different projects. It would be the ultimate clearing-house for problem-finders like us to list problems, and for contributors to go find list of things that need fixing, and fix those problems.

Consider the benefits:

One page address for all problems is easier to remember, and we'd set up a super-short shortcut (e.g. "WP:WF") that was very easy to remember.
It's easier to avoid duplication by seeing what other people are already doing - for example, I've started searching for redirect problems, only to find the Topbanana was already doing something similar. I didn't mean to do this, but I simply didn't know it had already been done.
It evens out the workload - currently one person's problems all get finished, and another person somewhere else has a new batch that's suddenly done and ready for fixing - and it's hard for the contributors to know where to go to find outstanding problems.
If we have one page with everything on it, we could list it as a place for newbies to start out doing productive stuff when they're new to the Wikipedia - and by seeing and fixing the types of problems that came up, they'd be that much less likely to make those mistakes themselves.
There's a momentum that builds up from having a continuous supply of problems, rather than having a stop-start supply. If problems stop coming, contributors stop checking - they like to see new problems, and feel a part of community project that's getting somewhere and doing something useful.
With one central repository, if you go on holidays or disappear for a few weeks or contribute new problems very infrequently, it doesn't matter - someone else will still be doing something useful while you're off doing other stuff.
New developers could easily add problems they found to the page, and indeed would be actively encouraged to do so. Rather than a series of independent and competing efforts, it would be one combined effort, with people actively encouraged to expand the scope with new systematic searches for problems (such as Erik, who out-of-blue sent me a list of HTML problems a conversion script of his had found - this is the exactly the type of thing we need to actively encourage, because the whole Wikipedia is that much better off for it).
It would make it easy for the contributors to know what's out there - There may be other fixup projects already running that I don't know about, and it would be really good to include them - I haven't omitted anybody deliberately, so if there are omissions, it just proves my point that currently it's hard to know what's out there.
As the number of articles in the Wikipedia grows, the need for some systematic central repository of problems grows - and the pace of growth shows no signs at all of slowing.

What do you think? Are you interested? I'm completely open to your suggestions - and to get us started, can I just throw some ideas out there:

It would be good to have a WikiProject location (and it does NOT have to be "Wiki Syntax" - it could be "The SuperList of things that need fixing", or "Wiki Fixup", or any other name you like).
All problem-finders would be listed in a special credits section (and for the record I'm more happy to be the last name on the list :-) ) - so that everyone still gets recognition and credit.
It would be good to have the current list of locations redirect to the new central location, wherever it is, so that any pre-existing links still work.
Some basic criteria for the scope of the new project would be good (something like: Covers the whole English Wikipedia; Has lists of problems; The list of problems should be generated by some type of automated process - e.g. software or database query - which ensures that it's systematic and repeatable; The problems listed should be simple to fix, so that the barrier to entry for contributors is low; And it would be good if when contributors fixed problems if we could ask them to put a link in their edit description that pointed back to the central location).

Maybe I'm crazy. Maybe it's a bad idea. I'd really like to think it could work. Maybe it's a good idea. You tell me.

P.s. To save lots of different messages on different pages, can we please have one location where everybody can speak their mind? How about Topbanana's talk page ?

All the best, -- Nickj 07:09, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Might I suggest, being the nosey sod that I am, the project talk page for maximal coverage? --Phil | Talk 09:31, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Howdy, NickJ. Your suggestion has merit; I agree that a list of 'places to go to find things needing fixed' is a useful thing to have. A few likely (partial) candidates exist already; Wikipedia:Community Portal, Category:Wikipedia maintenance and Template:Specialpageslist. Some people have added reports to Wikipedia:Offline reports and User:Topbanana/Reports

I would be careful of citing 'eliminating duplication' as a good reason to centralise ad-hoc reporting; a number of reports I've produced deliberately attempt to get the same results as a existing one to highlight deficiencies in the operation of both.

Perhaps the best approach would be to create a WikiProject (read WikiProject best practices carefully!) with the initial goal of:

- Creating an index of attempts to automatically highlight simply fixable problems in the en wikipedia.
- Advising the producers of such reports on how best to standardise, present and advertise such reports.
- Coordinating the discussion and development of new ideas for such reports

In the longer term this might develop into a 'home' for reports of sufficient maturity and usefulness.

-TB 10:11, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Good idea! I'm very interested in working together with fixing these errors. Nickj has already listed a few advantages of such a cooperation. I also think that it would be nice if we, possible error finders, could find some way to coordinate our efforts and cooperate in updating lists, if the people who started those lists think that is OK. We could also try to find solutions for common problems, like the false alarms that Erik Zachte mentioned on the WikiSyntax talkpage.

I like Topbanana's idea of putting this in a WikiProject. I also think it would be a good idea to have some shortcut to that project, like Nickj suggested: "WP:WF" or "Wikipedia:Fixup" or something.

Having some basic criteria sounds good to me, with some reservations. I hope that it will remain possible to work towards the same goal in slightly different ways. For example, Nick proposed that searches should be repeatable. That will not be completely true in practice if we use different tools for generating the same problem lists (e.g. I use grep, most others probably use MySQL; my reports only concern the article namespace, where other may check the wikipedia and template namespace too). I think there should be room for such differences between contributors. Sietse 14:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It would also be handy to have standard protocols for listing the false positives associated with certain reports, so the fixers do not repeatedly have to rediscover that they are FPs, and/or to avoid people fixing things that should not be fixed. Such protocols might include any or all of a) some sort of marker in the article page to state that this is an FP for certain reports b) exception lists of known FPs and c) SQL routines to make use of exception lists and/or markers. My half penn'th. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Well, I think there's two things that we still need to decide on, if we want to totally unify everything, but I suspect they're not going to be easy :-(

Re: "I would be careful of citing 'eliminating duplication' as a good reason to centralise ad-hoc reporting; a number of reports I've produced deliberately attempt to get the same results as a existing one to highlight deficiencies in the operation of both." Understood. But the problem is that if we have lists, and want people to go through those lists and mark what's done, and there are two such overlapping lists, then that's going to frustrate people (because they'll be going to the same page, and finding that the listed problem has already been fixed). If these are two separate projects then there's what politicians would call plausible deniability ("How could I have know that X was also going to produce a report on Y?"). If it's all listed on one page though, then that's not going to be a good enough answer...
Re: "In the longer term this might develop into a 'home' for reports of sufficient maturity and usefulness." In my personal opinion, it would be good if this could become a home for all types of reports, even the new ones. Sure, new reports will be less mature and possibly less useful, but over time they will mature and (hopefully) evolve into being more useful. What's important is that contributors can distinguish the less useful and polished reports from the more polished and useful ones, whilst being inclusive enough that new problem finders will be able to join. Maybe each report could have stars next to it or something (few stars = very young, unproven, more stars = older, safer). Of course the question then becomes "who gives the stars?". Maybe the authors themselves? And if people think they've got it wrong? Well, that's when it gets tricky...

Even if we can't resolve these above things, it should possible to do the things listed by TB (co-operation but not unification) with only a few minor changes to how we currently do things. Re: "Creating an index of attempts to automatically highlight simply fixable problems in the en Wikipedia." I've created a simple template that lists these types of attempts, that are currently active (I think it's important to only list currently active things to get some of the benefits outlined previously), and I've added this to each of the pages that I'm aware of that fall into this category. This should save everyone needing "see also" sections, and instead we can have one template, where problem finders can add their projects (when they have new data), or remove/comment them out (when they're out of data). Does anyone want to kick off a WikiProject for the next item, "Advising the producers of such reports on how best to standardise, present and advertise such reports" ? (The talk page of such a project would probably just automatically become the next item, i.e. a focal point for "coordinating the discussion and development of new ideas for such reports".)

Re: "Nick proposed that searches should be repeatable. That will not be completely true in practice if we use different tools for generating the same problem lists." I've got no problem at all with that - what I meant more was that the lists should be generated in an automated manner (grep, or query, or script, are all great). I'm certainly not trying to impose any particular technology or programming language - that's for each problem finder to decide on for themselves. My concern is that there should be a systematic/automated way of generating these lists, and in particular that the lists should not be totally manually hand-generated by people. This act of generating the lists systematically allows the author to repeat and refine the search. Basically all the projects already fall into this category anyway, so it was more just me trying to describe the common defining criteria of these projects.

All the best, -- Nickj 04:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can't use our stuff and we can't use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. It's important to know, even if you choose to do anything so I don't keep asking. -- Ram-Man 16:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed something that I learned later was in one of your reports

User:Topbanana/Reports/This page contains a red link that may be due to a plural discrepancy/I-M (excluding list ofs) -- I found this listed in the What Links Here page when I did a disambiguation of Grifters and The Grifters. I believe I had just moved The Grifters to Grifters for the new disambiguation page (after first creating band page and moving a film page). I have not adjusted the "Grifters" entry like I did the others because yours is a report and not an accidental reference to the band. Hope this helps since you sometimes cross out items that have been corrected. There is no band called Grifter though. It's plural. Bebop 20:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Untagged image.

The image that you uploaded: Image:Dermatitis.jpg has no copyright tag. Could you add one. And what is the wikimagic for making a link to the image namespace without inlining the image? Zeimusu 00:41, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

I've added a tag, many thanks for your efforts in chasing untagged images up. The wikimagic for showing a link to an image (rather than the image itself) it to add a colon at the start of its name. So [[:Image:Dermatitis.jpg]] will appear as Image:Dermatitis.jpg rather than showing the image. - TB 14:03, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Unverified images

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:George_Ramsay_Cook.jpg

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 23:02, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Report request - Possible thumbnail images

I have a request for a new report. (I have no reason to believe that you take requests, but what the heck, it's worth a try.)

Thumbnail images (scaled-down duplicates of existing images) can be speedily deleted. It'd be nice to have a list of "Possible thumbnails". I was thinking something like this:

For all images that match the regular expression "^(.*)[0-9]+pix(.*)$", see if there exist any similar images that match "^\1[0-9]+pix\2$". If there are, list them all together.
- So "Image:fluff-200pix.jpg" and "Image:fluff-9pix.jpg" would match.
Similar things could be done for images with "large" and "small" in the names.
- E.g. "^(.*)large(.*)$" matching "^\1small\2$" or even just "^\1\2$".

Does this make sense? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:11, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Another SQL request

Should you feel so disposed, the files listed in Wikipedia:Untagged Images were generated in August 2004, and could do with updating. I guess the query would be looking for image records without {{ symbols, or without any of the list of tags found in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

Wikicite project page

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite To add a card catalog and citation features. Stirling Newberry 23:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to ask about the feasibility of doing a report that would find current "references" in wikipedia articles to make conversion to a wikicite database smoother, and a report that lists articles by number of citations and number of links to provide candidates for conversion. If you'd be willing to provide other help with the SQL that would be required for such a project it would be very much appreciated. Stirling Newberry 14:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Report request - no or few interwiki links

Hi TB! Thanks for all the nice work... I wanted to ask if you could redo the reports User:Topbanana/Reports/This_is_a_popular_page_with_few_interwiki_links and User:Topbanana/Reports/This is a popular page with no interwiki links, since they are form last June and very many of the interwiki links have been made in the meantime... So wading through them and find the neglected articles is not too efficient... Thanks -- Marcika 20:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I will do as soon as possible but have been trouble finding enough space to work with several wikipedia databases at once recently. - TB 22:56, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Reports - may I?

I would like to regenerate some of these old reports from the latest dump (2005-02-09); is it fine with you if I replace reports on your pages with new ones? r3m0t 16:25, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Goodness yes - you're very welcome indeed to do so. Any problems, please let me know. - TB 22:17, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Corrupt page

In User:Topbanana/Reports/A disambiguation link is suggested Sections S through Y have become duplicated. -- RHaworth 10:30, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Why so it has. I've fixed the page now. As always, you are encouraged to be bold and go right ahead and edit/fix things yourself. Ta for pointing the problem out. - TB 11:06, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)
- I would have done but:
  - being a pedant I would have had to check for differences between the two ocurrences
  - the page is enormous (can you split it?) and with Wiki or my machine (or both) being rather slow at the time

I just did not want to take the time. -- RHaworth 13:33, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Image:South Korean Antarctic Base on King George Island.jpg

Hi. You uploaded Image:South Korean Antarctic Base on King George Island.jpg but did not list any source and/or copyright information on the image description page. Please mark it either as GFDL or public domain. See Image copyright tags for more info. If the image was uploaded in error or cannot be licensed for use on Wikipedia, please add it to images for deletion. Please note that images without copyright information may be deleted in the future. Thanks. RedWolf 07:02, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also: Image:Zavodovski Island Map.png. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 22:51, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Moved reports link to active wiki fixup talk page

Hi TB, I've moved the link to your reports from the Template:Active Wiki Fixup Projects to the template's talk page, as the reports look out of date (I think). Of course if I'm wrong, please just readd the reports. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 01:13, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

issues about school articles

In November 2003, there was a VfD debate over Sunset High School (Portland). The debate was archived under Talk:Sunset High School (Portland). What to do with the article is still being contested and has been recently re-nominated for VfD at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sunset High School (Portland).

I am writing to you because you have participated in such debates before. There still does not exist a wikipedia policy (as far as i can tell) over what to do in regards to articles about specific U.S. public school. My hope is that a real consensus can come out of the debate, and a real policy can take shape. Take part if you are so willing. Kingturtle 02:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Redshirt"

Just a note, one of your user subpages contains a link to Redshirt which has been changed to a disambig page. The information you probably were intending to link to is now at Redshirt (science fiction). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 11:07, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Topbanana/Reports/This article may contain a badly formed ISBN reference

Could you re-run User:Topbanana/Reports/This article may contain a badly formed ISBN reference? All the listed problems seem to have been dealt with, and it's been more than six months since it ran. Josh Parris ✉ 01:20, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/User_talk:Topbanana"