Difference between revisions of "User talk:JesseWBot"
From Geohashing
imported>DrCanadianNinja (→Inactive graticules) |
imported>DrCanadianNinja m (→Inactive graticules) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
:::I can certainly work on implementing a check against the relevant ''Meetup in XXX YYY'' categories, and do a 2nd pass. I hope that if folks notice a graticule they are active in got mistakenly marked as inactive, they simply change it back. There's nothing magic or authoritative about the bot doing it. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 00:01, 24 May 2012 (EDT) | :::I can certainly work on implementing a check against the relevant ''Meetup in XXX YYY'' categories, and do a 2nd pass. I hope that if folks notice a graticule they are active in got mistakenly marked as inactive, they simply change it back. There's nothing magic or authoritative about the bot doing it. [[User:JesseW|JesseW]] 00:01, 24 May 2012 (EDT) | ||
::::That would be better. I'm just too lazy to always change the graticule page and add a recent expedition.--[[User:Reinhard|Reinhard]] 03:08, 24 May 2012 (EDT) | ::::That would be better. I'm just too lazy to always change the graticule page and add a recent expedition.--[[User:Reinhard|Reinhard]] 03:08, 24 May 2012 (EDT) | ||
| − | ::::I do the same thing, so seconded. A good example is the [[Daytona_Beach,_Florida|Daytona Beach graticule]], with three expeditions since April, but I never think to edit the page itself, so it shows up as inactive. | + | ::::I do the same thing, so seconded. A good example is the [[Daytona_Beach,_Florida|Daytona Beach graticule]], with three expeditions since April, but I never think to edit the page itself, so it shows up as inactive. -- [[User:DrCanadianNinja|DrCanadianNinja]] 20:33, 24 May 2012 (EDT) |
Revision as of 00:33, 25 May 2012
Templateize Meetup in XXX YYY categories
I'd like to run this bot (using a slightly modified copy of the pywikipedia framework) to change the 672 Category:Meetup in XXX YYY categories that currently are just links to their parent category to use the Template:Meetup by location, which adds a link back to the graticule, and could do more later if someone wants to. Thoughts, support, objections? JesseW 01:45, 17 May 2012 (EDT)
- And, hearing no objections for a week, I'm going to start doing it now. JesseW 23:34, 21 May 2012 (EDT)
Inactive graticules
I believe 2012-05-21 50 -119 has the correct categories and such, but the bot still changed 50,-119 to inactive today. --Juventas 22:16, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
- The bot just showed me edits to the actual graticule page, not the existence of recent expeditions, so since 2012-05-21 50 -119 wasn't listed there, I mistakenly marked the graticule as inactive. I've fixed it now, thanks for alerting me! JesseW 22:29, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
- I think you'll find a lot of graticules are active even if the page for them is not. Perhaps this batch of changes should be reevaluated? --Juventas 23:49, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
- I can certainly work on implementing a check against the relevant Meetup in XXX YYY categories, and do a 2nd pass. I hope that if folks notice a graticule they are active in got mistakenly marked as inactive, they simply change it back. There's nothing magic or authoritative about the bot doing it. JesseW 00:01, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
- That would be better. I'm just too lazy to always change the graticule page and add a recent expedition.--Reinhard 03:08, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
- I do the same thing, so seconded. A good example is the Daytona Beach graticule, with three expeditions since April, but I never think to edit the page itself, so it shows up as inactive. -- DrCanadianNinja 20:33, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
- I can certainly work on implementing a check against the relevant Meetup in XXX YYY categories, and do a 2nd pass. I hope that if folks notice a graticule they are active in got mistakenly marked as inactive, they simply change it back. There's nothing magic or authoritative about the bot doing it. JesseW 00:01, 24 May 2012 (EDT)
- I think you'll find a lot of graticules are active even if the page for them is not. Perhaps this batch of changes should be reevaluated? --Juventas 23:49, 23 May 2012 (EDT)
