User talk:RoBoT

The UESPWiki – Your source for The Elder Scrolls since 1995
Jump to: navigation, search
Invalid and arbitrary
Warnings

Talk to me[edit]

If you have any questions about RoBoT or its operation, please ask them here. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 20:37, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Unsigned Template[edit]

Before I leave for a while, I wanted to leave a mention here about the discussion Rpeh and I had in IRC... It was in reference to having a bot do Unsigned templates when an editor makes a comment on a talk page and doesn't leave a signature. It would allow easier archiving, and allow for a "flow" of discussion. Some thoughts I had:

  • This should probably also be enacted for "talk" pages that aren't in a "talk" namespace, such as Administrator Noticeboard, Community Portal, etc.
  • I was also wondering if it could do something like add the unsigned template along with a note saying, "unsigned template added by [Bot's name] on [date].

Just wanted to get it onto the wiki so some discussion could start. I'll follow up whenever I get back. --GuildKnightTalk2me 23:32, 25 January 2008 (EST)

I believe there's already a bot that does this on Wikipedia - I'll try to find out more. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 05:23, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Found it: Sinebot --GuildKnightTalk2me 18:21, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Test[edit]

Testing the auto-off feature.

Testing again.

Morrowind Links[edit]

I just checked on the results of the Morrowind Links and I noticed there are still a lot of pages linking directly to Morrowind:Artifacts. Looking at RoBoT's contributions, there are some links which have already been changed, but why aren't the rest? Are there any problems with the remaining ones? Has it not finished yet? --DrPhoton 08:29, 4 February 2008 (EST)

If you look at the log file I posted, it'll tell you why any link didn't get converted. For most of the Artifacts ones it's because "link page is not a redirect". In other words, if RoBoT tried to convert [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Azura's Star|Azura's Star]] it was expecting to find [[Morrowind:Azura's Star]] as a redirect page but it found a full article (it did this check because of one of the concerns Nephele raised on NepheleBot's page). If those links need expanding too I can remove that check and run it on just the artifacts page. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 09:01, 4 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, those links should be converted too. Can you run that task please ;) --DrPhoton 03:41, 5 February 2008 (EST)
Done! There are still a few that need correcting - I'll work my way through those now. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 06:57, 5 February 2008 (EST)

These are the last few pointing to Morrowind:Artifacts that I can't resolve:

  • Processing page - Morrowind:Staff of Magnus
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Staff of Magnus|Staff of Magnus]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Staff of Magnus|Staff of Magnus]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Staff of Magnus|Staff of Magnus]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Staff of Magnus|Staff of Magnus]] - link expanded to point to itself
  • Processing page - Morrowind:Warlock's Ring
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Warlock's Ring|Warlock's Ring]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Warlock's Ring|Warlock's Ring]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Warlock's Ring|Warlock's Ring]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Warlock's Ring|Warlock's Ring]] - link expanded to point to itself
  • Processing page - Morrowind:Auriel's Bow
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Auriel's Bow|Auriel's Bow]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Auriel's Bow|Auriel's Bow]] - link expanded to point to itself
  • Processing page - Morrowind:Ring of Equity
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Ring of Equity|Ring of Equity]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Ring of Equity|Ring of Equity]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Ring of Equity|Ring of Equity]] - link expanded to point to itself
  • Processing page - Morrowind:Amulet of Unity
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Amulet of Unity|Amulet of Unity]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Amulet of Unity|Amulet of Unity]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Amulet of Unity|Amulet of Unity]] - link expanded to point to itself
  • Processing page - Morrowind:Lord's Mail
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Lords_Mail|Lord's Mail]] - link page does not exist
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Lords_Mail|Lord's Mail]] - link page does not exist
  • Processing page - Morrowind:Widowmaker
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Widowmaker|Widowmaker]] - link expanded to point to itself
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Widowmaker|Widowmaker]] - link expanded to point to itself
  • Processing page - Morrowind:Magas Volar
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Daedric Sanctuary Amulet|Daedric Sanctuary Amulet]] - link page does not exist
    Skipped [[Morrowind:Artifacts#Daedric Sanctuary Amulet|Daedric Sanctuary Amulet]] - link page does not exist

–Rpeh•T•C•E• 09:05, 5 February 2008 (EST)

This is because there are quest pages as well as artifact pages. The artifact pages are of the sort Morrowind: Lord's Mail (artifact). I've already started disambiguating these pages; you can give a hand if you'd like. As for the Daedric Sanctuary Amulet, at the moment is listed as Morrowind:Unique Clothing#Daedric Santuary Amulet, but I don't know if this is a CS misspelling or a typo when introducing the item in the wiki. Either way, there isn't a redirect yet for some reason. --DrPhoton 04:09, 6 February 2008 (EST)

I have new links and redirects for RoBoT to generate: Morrowind:Scrolls. Can this be done please? --DrPhoton 03:27, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Also Morrowind:Miscellaneous Items. --DrPhoton 04:04, 5 March 2008 (EST)

Not a problem. The code is already written and ready to go, but I just gave it a read-only run-through on those two and came up with a total of just 20 changes on 4 pages (mostly the Leveled list page). Most of the scrolls came up with "link page does not exist" errors. Is this something you're currently working on? –Rpeh•T•C•E• 04:49, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Well no, I'm not working on the redirects. I was hoping RoBoT can do that automatically, as there are quite a few scrolls and a lot of misc items. --DrPhoton 08:20, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Ah! Create the redirects AND change the links to them. Wow. It hasn't created a page yet but that shouldn't be a problem. I'll start putting the code together. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 08:24, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Or NepheleBot could do it, given that I've already got the code setup. But whatever. --NepheleTalk 12:44, 5 March 2008 (EST)
Feel free! I'll probably knock up the code anyway but it won't be for a while. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:52, 5 March 2008 (EST)
thank you both for your interest! Who's going to do it then? --DrPhoton 03:55, 6 March 2008 (EST)
Oops - sorry for the delay in replying. I'll do it. I'll try to write the code this evening which means I'll be able to run it tomorrow in the site's slow time. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:44, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

(outdent) Please delay the Misc Item redirects for a little while, as it has been suggested that this page be split into several ones. Once that is done, I'll let you know to continue. Sorry for the inconvenience. --DrPhoton 09:19, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah. Already done them. What about the scrolls one? That's about half done now. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 09:37, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Also, it seems like it would be preferable to use the same category names that have already been used for Oblivion instead of forcing readers to figure out a different set of category names for each namespace. --NepheleTalk 10:13, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I used what we already had for the Misc ones and used the same convention for scrolls. I'd agree it would be better to keep things similar but OTOH I didn't want to change what was already in place. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:28, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
You can go ahead with the Morrowind:Scrolls (they are not going to be split) and Morrowind:Keys if you want. As for the categories, you used Category:Morrowind-Miscellaneous-Dwemer Artifacts, but haven't used Category:Morrowind-Miscellaneous-Clutter or Category:Morrowind-Miscellaneous-Other.
In reply to Nephele's comment, I prefer the Morrowind categories, which differentiate between Thieves Tools and Clutter for example. --DrPhoton 12:41, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
Could we at least somehow add "Items" into the category names? To me, "miscellaneous" seems like it could be anything: miscellaneous quests, miscellaneous places, etc. There's nothing about the word Miscellaneous by itself that makes it clear that it's a category for items. --NepheleTalk 12:54, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I used Category:Morrowind-Miscellaneous-Dwemer Artifacts because I could tell what was supposed to go in it! I wasn't sure what the difference between "Clutter" and "Other" is though, so I stuck everything in the base category. I'll do the Scrolls and Keys tomorrow (the site is getting busy now). As far as the category names are concerned, I agree with Nephele that it would be preferable it "Items" were added but it might be easier to do the splits into the current categories then sort those out afterwards. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 13:01, 11 March 2008 (EDT)
I think very few things would be considered "Other". These would mostly be items which are noteworthy, but not related to quests. Examples would be the "Tribute" items, e.g. "Ashes of ____", "Head of Scourge", etc., as well as unusual-but-useless things like the "Extra Comfy Pillow", and anything else that is unique (or nearly-unique) but not listed on Quest Items. Everything else, dishes and bolts of cloth and crumpled paper and other non-remarkable items would fall under "Clutter". --TheRealLurlock Talk 15:39, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

(another outdent) Okay well Misc Items and Scrolls are done. I've decided to skip Keys for the moment because there are a lot of duplicate names and I'm not sure how best to handle them: there are 9 simple keys for example and 11 small keys. The existing LE tags don't differentiate but this is something I could fix at the same time if we can agree on what to do. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:11, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

OK, I have now copied Soul Gems, Propylon Indices and Clutter to their respective pages. Their redirects can now be updated, and then we can delete them from Miscellaneous Items. Regarding the keys, we can e.g. name them like Shiny Key (miles), Shiny Key (miun_gei), etc. Just adding what comes after key_ in the ID, to the name in parenthesis. If needed, we can also have a page Shiny Key for disambiguation. --DrPhoton 09:43, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
I finally got impatient and done all Soul Gems, Propylon Indices and Clutter redirects. That leaves only Keys and Potions without redirects, all other item pages are done as far as I'm aware. Can you do those please? --DrPhoton 10:33, 28 March 2008 (EDT)
Sorry about that - this page had got off my watch list somehow. Okay, Potions and keys are done. I didn't create the redirects with compound names for duplicate keys, instead I'm going straight for disambiguation pages. See this, this and this for the ones I've done so far. The Addamasartus Slave Key also has two entries but since one can never be found and doesn't open anything, does it really need to be listed at all? Anyway. If that style is okay with you then here are the others with duplicates that will need disambig pages:
Plus, there's a clash with Morrowind:Shashev's Key, which has a quest page and so didn't get a redirect. At the moment, all the pages in that list will redirect to the first key with that name on MW:Keys. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 07:43, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Great job! Thanks! The disambig pages are fine, I'll get to work with them. There's no need to redirect to a key not found in-game, but it still should be listed in Morrowind:Keys for completeness. Shashev's Key redirect can be named Morrowind:Shashev's Key (key) (and we may want to disambig the quest too).
As for potions, the Restore Attribute and Fortify Attribute potions didn't get done. I guess because of their peculiar name/formating. Is it possible to have to bot do them, or do we have to do them by hand? Notice that we need redirects for all attributes, e.g. Cheap Restore Intelligence, Cheap Restore Agility, Cheap Restore Luck, etc. Also, I just looked at the pages linking to Morrowind:Potions and there are more than 250 pages. I was hoping to change the links to the new redirects, but given the number of pages, I'd have to ask you to have the bot do this please. --DrPhoton 08:59, 31 March 2008 (EDT)
Okay. Done the links. There were several pages that didn't have the right links in and were therefore skipped by RoBoT but I've taken care of those. Now there are just a few with links to the attribute potions: Morrowind:Alms from the Argonian Mission, Morrowind:Alms from the Skyrim Mission, Morrowind:Ashirbadon, Morrowind:Gathering Marshmerrow, Morrowind:Girith's Stolen Hides, Morrowind:Leveled Lists, Morrowind:Pilgrimage to Mount Kand, Morrowind:Pilgrimages of the Seven Graces, and Morrowind:Roland's Tear (quest). I'll get the bot to create the missing redirects (and yes, it didn't create them because of the odd names) and then do those links too. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 12:13, 31 March 2008 (EDT)

Bot request - Disp/Rep[edit]

Got a bot request for you - normally I ask NepheleBot, but this one seems more in line with the sort of thing that RoBoT's been doing. For Morrowind quests, I'd like a list of those which need the Disposition/Reputation parameters fixed. Problems with these include:

  • Disposition/Reputation being given in the "Reward" parameter instead of "Disp"
  • Disposition or Faction Rep. being listed with no specific numbers
  • Numbers given, but without + signs (you might even be able to fix those with the bot)
  • Faction Rep. unnecessarily listing the name of the faction, e.g. "Redoran Faction Reputation" on a Redoran quest page. These could all be automatically changed to just say "Faction Rep." if you're feeling ambitious.
  • Words like "Boost", "Increase", or "Bonus" being used unnecessarily.

Those are the most common problems. I was fixing these problems at the same time as adding Quest Stages before, but Benould went ahead and finished that job without doing likewise, so now I don't know which ones still need it. --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:00, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I'll see what I can do. That's quite a tricky bunch. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 06:45, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
The quests need to be verified for Quick Walkthrough and section Headers anyways, I'll make it a task to do on the Re-design page.--Benould•T•C 09:51, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
Well there's a first stab here. I haven't checked the fourth of your criteria as a) it's trickier than I have time for right now and b) I'm not sure it's a good idea anyway. There may be more than one faction involved and being consistent so spelling it out is going to be required sometimes, and it's better to be consistent and always display it. The other four are checked though, although the checks aren't quite as polished as I'd like. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:18, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
There's only a handful of quests which alter your Faction Rep. with more than one faction or with a faction other than the one for whom the quest is being done. For those 3 or 4 exceptions, we can specify which factions explicitly, but in the vast majority of other cases, it should be implied that the Faction Rep. that's being adjusted is the same as the faction for whom the quest is being done. Likewise, the Disposition parameter shouldn't need to state whose Disposition is being boosted, as it's almost always the person who gave you the quest. In the few cases where more than one person's Disposition is adjusted, we can specify, but there are so few of those that it just seems wasteful and cumbersome to explicitly specify that information on every single page. --TheRealLurlock Talk 09:08, 5 April 2008 (EDT)
Well I still think it's a bad idea. It's not like we're charged rent for the words we use and we should make the wiki as easy to understand as possible. Those parameters have already been made cryptic enough through the abbreviations; I'd hate to see them made any worse. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 07:42, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
Basically, I'd like to whenever possible get the Disp/Rep information to all fit on one line, because I find it looks ugly and can be confusing and hard to read when these numbers are split onto the next line. Having the faction name listed tends to push this onto a second line, especially for quests which increase all three (disposition, faction rep., and reputation). As an alternative, we could consider putting Disposition and Reputation/Faction Rep. into two separate fields to avoid any such issues, but now you're talking about adding a whole other field to nearly every quest, which just makes the quest header one line bulkier. Plus, you don't have to be a genius to figure out that if you're doing a quest for the Fighters Guild, the faction whose reputation is going to increase is going to be the Fighters Guild. It's almost never another faction, and in the few cases where it is, we can spell it out, but it's such a rare occasion that it makes no sense to waste the space and make almost every single page take up two lines for the Disp/Rep field unnecessarily. --TheRealLurlock Talk 00:18, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

(outdent) I think a better idea would be to split the parameter into separate Disposition and Reputation parameters. Apart from anything else, if we decide to include disposition changes for the Oblivion quests I'd rather not have reputation on there. If it's split then we can use real words rather than abbreviations. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 03:40, 7 April 2008 (EDT)

Tamriel links[edit]

Unfortunately, RoBoT had a few problems dealing with links to Lore:Main Page, as evident from these cleanup edits [1], [2]. Also, my notes for link updates on the namespace project had always been somewhat rough... and it's clear that part about what to do with links to Tamriel:Tamriel was not as well thought out as it needed to be. Because a lot of Tamriel:Tamriel|Tamriel links shouldn't be Lore:Main_Page:Lore links.

But now the problem is that looking at What links here for the main page is useless, given how incredibly long that list is, and given how many of the entries on that list are just coming from the trail. I think we're going to need a list of all the places where RoBoT changed a link to Tamriel:Tamriel so that we can go through and manually check all of them. Or else if RoBoT could fix all of the links and change them to links to Lore:Tamriel, then we could work through the What links here list for Lore:Tamriel and manually change each of those links to be links to the correct page. Also, continued link fixes might need to be put on hold until we've sorted out this issue. --NepheleTalk 11:08, 1 August 2008 (EDT)

Well I've fixed it now. The first problem was a dodgy regexp where I forgot to escape a "|" character and Murphy's Law meant that the pages I checked didn't have that problem. So sorry about that one. The second problem is really just that the old links were, to all intents and purposes, wrong, in that they linked to a contents page rather than an article on the continent. Anyway, I'm going to change the code to relink such pages to Lore:Tamriel instead. There is only one link to that page at the moment so it'll be much easier to go through afterwards and change them to wherever they need to go.
Another potential solution would be to simply change the trails to point at Lore:Tamriel (temporarily), and then see what's still pointing at Lore:Main Page - you'd be dealing with a much smaller What Links Here list, (You'd just ignore the ones labeled as Redirects in the list) so you could go through and fix those, then change the trails back when we're done. As far as the users are concerned, it'd make very little difference, as Lore:Tamriel is just a redirect to Lore:Main Page anyhow, so the trails would still function as designed. Might be a good way to get a list of links needing to be fixed if we're unable to generate one automatically. --TheRealLurlock Talk 08:24, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure what that would achieve... I've already corrected all the links from the first batch and changing all the trails is far more work than just changing one line of code. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 08:26, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Okay, I wasn't sure that you had such a list available, and that was one way to create one if not. Looks like you've got it sorted though. --TheRealLurlock Talk 09:54, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Well since I'd screwed it up I thought I ought to fix it. I basically went through the log that RoBoT generates and fixed as appropriate. It's now about 1/4 through the rest of the links so please only post on here if you want to stop it from now on. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 09:59, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Wolf Whistle?[edit]

Quoting the line "If I come across an edit made by NepheleBot I will make a wolf-whistle noise. This doesn't have any impact on the site but I just wanted to mention it. " what exactly does wolf whistle mean? --Volanaro T C E 04:45, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

It's just RoBoT flirting with NepheleBot. It doesn't have much experience with bots of the opposite gender. See this - especially the line "The term "wolf-whistle" developed around a slang use of the word "wolf" meaning a man who gives unwanted sexual attention to women." –Rpeh•T•C•E• 05:20, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Ah, ok, so its just a joke then? :) --Volanaro T • C • E 09:11, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

By the way, are you still going to be running RoBoT on the OMW? If so i have one or two things that perhaps it could do there. --Volanaro T • C • E 09:55, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

If there's something that needs doing on OMW, I'm still game. Ask me over there though, please. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 10:18, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Done, Its nothing fancy in fact it may seem almost pointlesss to some people just something to maybe think about when youve got nothing better to do. --Volanaro T • C • E 12:27, 19 August 2008 (EDT)
Ive left the reqests on RoBoT's talk page on the OMW --Volanaro T • C • E 01:25, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
I KNOW. Please do not use this site for OMW-specific requests or conversation. –Rpeh•T•C•E• 01:26, 20 August 2008 (EDT)
K, sorry i havent quite woken up yet --Volanaro T • C • E 01:27, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Tamold talk[edit]

Hey RoBot, how are all the diodes down your left side doing?

Do you think you can have your creator set you to the task of proposing all Tamold talk page redirects for deletion? I'm ofcourse referring to this list.

Thanks in advance, and tell your creator he shouldn't hide from IRC if it's just because Liverpool isn't doing so well. --Timenn-<talk> 13:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing that out - I had forgotten about the talk pages.
I'm not likely to be on IRC or on the wiki much at the moment, I'm afraid. And Liverpool will recover - the season is but young! –rpeh•T•C•E• 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I was making sure that wasn't the reason. ;)
Thanks for doing the prods. With all the deleting we are doing at the moment I was afraid we might run out of work. --Timenn-<talk> 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm....[edit]

Just saw a anon by the IP of 184.91.50.79 take a lot of stuff off. whats up with that? — Unsigned comment by 114.218.3.180 (talk) on 29 November 2010

Vandalism. We get it. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.uesp.net/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoBoT&oldid=621984"