Revision as of 15:37, 10 December 2008

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AutoWikiBrowser page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34Auto-archiving period: 7 days

• v
• t
• e

• Home
  Introduction and rules
• User manual
  How to use AWB
• Discussion
  Discuss AWB, report errors, and request features
• User tasks
  Request or help with AWB-able tasks
• Technical
  Technical documentation

• Changelog
• Developer discussion
• Modules
• Regular expression
• Sandbox
• Template redirects
• Typos
• Usage stats
• Userbox

Archives

January → February 2006 February 2006 February → April 2006 April 2006 April → May 2006 June 2006 June → July 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 October → November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March → May 2007 June → November 2007 December 2007 → June 2008 July 2008 → Index

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Before you post

Frequently asked questions

• When I start it up I get one of the following errors:
  • "The application failed to initialize properly (0xc0000135). Click on OK to terminate the application.", or
  • "To run this application, you must first install one of the following versions of the .NET Framework..."

  This error means your computer does not have the .NET framework version 2 installed properly. You can choose from various versions for download here, or you can run Microsoft Update and select version 2 of the .Net framework from the "Optional Updates" section, if you want the choice made for you.

• When I try to update to the new version 4.0, the updater freezes halfway through.

  There is a bug in the version 3.9 updater. If you encounter this problem, uninstall AWB, and then re-install the latest version from Sourceforge.

• Does AWB run on Linux or Mac?

  Not yet.

  • A Wine bug on AWB has been filed
  • AWB does not yet start in Wine with Mono 1.9 or native Microsoft .NET 2.0. (Wine 0.9.59, AWB 4.3.1.0.)

  See here for a status report of AWB vs Mono v2

  • Please note that problems with AWB on Wine/Mono or Wine/.NET are not reportable AWB bugs.

  A native version, PyAutoWikiBrowser (screenshots here), based on Python, is being developed for Unix-like systems.

• Does AWB work on other projects/languages?

  Many WikiMedia projects and languages are supported, see the "User and project preferences" option in the general menu. Other languages will be added on request, though at the moment the interface is always in English. You are also able to use AWB with third-party wikis, if you go to the General menu and select "User and project preferences", you can change the wiki there. The wiki must support the Bot API required by AWB. This means that it should have latest HEAD version of MediaWiki or something close to that.

• What interwiki link order does AWB use?

  The software reads the interwiki sort order from Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/IW, which is generally mirrored to reflect the order at m:Interwiki sorting order.

• AWB puts stubs after categories, though categories are always rendered the last by MediaWiki?

  According to WP:STUB#Categorizing stubs, By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last. If your wiki uses other order, please let us know here.

• I don't like or use Internet Explorer; please use Firefox instead.

  AWB does not use Internet Explorer per se. It does, however, use the same web browser control (MSHTML) as Internet Explorer; the equivalent Firefox component does not provide the needed functionality.

• How do I open the page in another browser if I can't use the one in AWB?

  Right click on the edit box in the bottom right side of your screen. Select "Open page in browser"

• How do I edit a page that doesn't exist?

  Uncheck "Ignore non existing pages" in the "Skip articles" box.

• How do I skip certain articles?

  Use the "Skip if contains" and "Skip if doesn't contain" in the "(2) Set options" tab

• Can't you leave up a "stable" version, so I don't have to download new versions?

  It is important to keep people up to date with the latest versions, because their use of the software doesn't just affect them, but the whole of Misplaced Pages. As any bugs that remain will be trivial, hopefully releases won't be too frequent.

• How can I stop AWB clicking when it changes pages?

  This is a Windows sound theme setting. This page explains how to turn off the clicking sound.

  Alternatively, delete the following key from the Windows registry:

  HKEY_CURRENT_USER\AppEvents\Schemes\Apps\Explorer\Navigating\.Current

• AWB randomly crashes upon page load on my system, and I always use a browser other than Internet Explorer when using Misplaced Pages.'

  You may have installed custom scripts incompatible with IE. Wrap the contents of your monobook.js into conditional:

               //Detect IE5.5+
               if (navigator.appVersion.indexOf("MSIE")==-1)
               {
                   // Previous contents go here
                   ....
               }

• I get Just In Time Debugger Messages when loading AWB/loading pages

  In Internet Explorer, go to Tools --> Options --> Advanced. Make sure 'Disable Script Debugging (Internet Explorer)' and 'Disable Script Debugging (Other)' Are both checked. Press apply and close.

Problems with other software

• Modified versions of monobook.js (e.g. to utilise popups, godmode-light etc.): AWB works, but page loading can be slow. Workaround is to disable Active Scripting in Internet Explorer - see AWB Tips and tricks for more information and workaround.
  • Bugs in monobook.js can cause AWB to crash or be unable to load pages. Use the same workaround, or refer to the answer in the FAQ above. If you've updated monobook.js and are experiencing problems, please verify the bug still occurs with a blank monobook.js before reporting it as an AWB bug.
• Misplaced Pages Skins other than monobook: AWB might not work with other skins due to the skins having bugs.
  • Known problem in Cologne Blue skin: see Bug 9806 and AWB bug report.
• NoScript (Firefox extension) or other XSS-related extensions: some features such as "Open text in browser" may not work correctly. Workaround for NoScript: Disable the "Sanitize cross-site suspicious requests" option.

Discussion

Help

• We need an "expert" list...
• I need to add three lines to an Infobox on every player that has that Infobox...? The Category contains people that may, or may not have the infobox. Suggestions?

-- Mjquin_id (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Import the category
2. Switch find/replace on and replace }} with lines you need to add}}
3. Check the "ignore if no replacement made" box
4. Stare blankly at a screen clicking the "save" box for as long as it takes.

I'd strongly advise making one change, then viewing the saved version in your browser (both in page view and in the edit window) to avoid any nasty surprises. – iridescent 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And if step 4 drives you nuts, read the AWB help pages on the list comparer. If there are just 1 or 2 infoboxes in question, you can compare the list of players to the list of pages that transclude the infobox, and take only the pages that are in both sets. HTH --Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(adding) When doing step 4, make sure it's only replacing the right }}! If there's an unsubsted template on the article (a stub template, for example), don't let it add the lines to that as well! – iridescent 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Special pipe trick

Is there a way to do a category pipe trick that will look for a page name of January 1 and make the pipe January 01? -- Mufka 17:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AWB and web standards

In this edit made with AWB, a ref was converted to be a named reference, in the form <ref name="Lent"/>. I thought per web standards the correct form was <ref name="Lent" />? Do I have this wrong? Hiding T 14:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

w00t, web standards don't know anything about that tag. MaxSem 14:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

AWB question

I am wanting to use AWB on another wikia, but for some reason I keep getting the error "There was a problem loading the page" and won't edit anything. 68.226.0.35 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

- Choose the link at the top, and use that version of awb —Reedy 00:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I just need my founder to realize how to give me 'bot' access. Do you know how to do that so I can tell him? 68.226.0.35 (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage format —Reedy 21:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have that page set up, but it still keeps saying User name is not enabled to use this. and redirects me to that page you listed. 68.226.0.35 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The founder needs to go to special:userrights on the wikia and check the box or whatnot that says "Make this user a bot". However, you should set up a second account to become the bot. --Izno (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Controversial edits by Lightmouse

One of the rules of use concerning AWB says, "Don't do anything controversial with it. If there is a chance that the edits you are considering might be controversial, consider soliciting comment at the village pump or appropriate Wikiproject before proceeding." Various discussions at various times have been held involving Lightmouse's use of AWB to make controversial edits, more specifically his use of the tool to delink dates and make other changes. He is now using AWB in full force to make these edits, often at the rate of more than one article per minute (for example, he edited 75 articles in 8 minutes using AWB on December 8, which is 9.375 articles per minute or one article every 6.4 seconds), which in itself appears to contravene the spirit if not the letter of the AWB rules. Also, concern has been expressed on Lightmouse's discussion page about his use of AWB to make the exact same edits in the exact same article numerous times, despite having full knowledge that these edits are erroneous. In my opinion, that constitutes "edit warring", although others disagree, in part based on an interpretation that the edit warring policies do not apply to "trivial" edits. All these issues need to be addressed in a comprehensive way, not only with Lightmouse but also so that other editors know the limits of AWB use, if any. Thank you. Tennis expert (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping. This has been discussed at length in multiple places, including at least 2 RfCs which have been announced via {{cent}} and show a strong consensus to allow this. Also, a discussion here which you participated in and a subsequent follow up at WP:AN allowed any user to help set articles in line with the MoS. I understand that you don't dislike Lightmouse's edits, but the proper place to bring up your views right now is on the RfCs. - NuclearWarfare _{My work} 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

You're saying that the rules of use concerning AWB were overruled sub silentio? In other words, it's now OK to make controversial edits with AWB regardless of the AWB rules of use and it's now OK to make several edits per minute using AWB regardless of the rules of use? And you're also saying that the ongoing RFCs support Lightmouse's actions even though the RFCs have not yet concluded? How odd that you would make these on-their-face dubious assertions, especially for someone who currently is a candidate for administrator. By the way, Date delinker, an alternate account of Ohconfucius (see his posts below), is making the same kinds of edits as Lightmouse using AWB. Tennis expert (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"...even though the RFCs have not yet concluded?" Yes, it's all over bar the shouting.

"...especially for someone who currently is a candidate for administrator" How is that supposed to be relevant to anything? Ohconfucius (talk) 05:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• O, IC! it means "I'm going to vote against you in your RFA". Ohconfucius (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

After looking at both RfCs, the debate in August, Featured Articles and Featured Lists (as well as the candidacy wikispaces ), Tony1's page of general consensus before the change to MOSNUM was made, and the relevant ANI thread posted on WT:MOSNUM, I would not say that Lightmouse's edits are "controversial". Dabomb87 (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I feel they're controversial, but if he's not doing it with AWB he'll simply carry on with his own script, so it's a losing battle as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunate, really, because it's the encyclopedia that suffers in the end. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• "I feel they're controversial... Unfortunate, really, because it's the encyclopedia that suffers in the end." You have a right to your opinion - the community at large disagrees overwhelmingly. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Care to point me to where they disagree? I see one RFC with questions asking which exact wording should be inserted (or not inserted) into WP:MOSNUM. I see another RFC asking if date linking purely to gain autoformatting should be "deprecated" (not removed immediately with bots/scripts/pitchforks). Anyone with even an inkling of understanding of the word "deprecation" knows that it means "stop using, but leave existing uses in place" or alternately "stop using, but remove existing uses in the course of normal editing". Or is there another RFC which establishes that date links should be "removed with any and all means necessary, including fire!"? —Locke Cole • t • c 05:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• < BIG YAWN > Ohconfucius (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• Right, as I suspected, you (and nobody else) have consensus for this kind of widespread change, you're just wishing upon a star. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• < ZZZZzzzz.... > Ohconfucius (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

See this post from Iridescent: "See where it says in large black letters Don't do anything controversial with it? Means what it says. If you're using AWB to make edits that there's a possibility of someone disagreeing with (aside from when you're indisputably in the right, such as correcting "jewelery" which always leads to 'but that's the correct spelling' protests from people who don't bother checking the dictionary), you don't seem to understand what it's for." Tennis expert (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today, Lightmouse edited 197 articles in 26 minutes (7.58 articles per minute or one article every 8 seconds). A proper use of AWB? I think not. Tennis expert (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse or the bot? Between 7-10 edits a minute is normal for bots, no matter what program they run on. Can we please keep the discussions in one place instead of constantly kicking the horse here? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Lightmouse. I haven't said anything about his bot. Tennis expert (talk) 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Just checking, I've seen some confuse the names. Either way, this isn't the appropriate ground for this discussion...yet. If the MoS goes back to say linking is fine and he continues to unlink, then it should be brought up here. There have been multiple discussions here and elsewhere and nowehere is there a solid argument for stopping his current action. Unless I missed something? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 21:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course his actions are controversial. "Controversial" does not necessarily mean "prohibited." See my quote of Iridescent, above. That's why we have not one, but two, currently pending RFCs about date linking. And aside from that, there is the serious issue about using AWB to edit at the rate of approximately one article every 8 seconds. This is exactly the right forum to be talking about this because the AWB rules of use are at issue here. Tennis expert (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything that says, don't edit reeeeeaaalllyyy fast? What we have is: Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute. Lightmouse has opened a bot account  DonePart1. If Lightmouse checked over, say, a CSV file and then just fed the edits through it shouldn't matter how fast someone edits. If the AWB rules of use are the issue, then don't throw off the discussion by complaining about a single user. Everyone's gone there rounds here and none of the Devs have expressed much interest in taking away userrights for Lightmouse as everything currently stands. But I think it would be much simpler to have this discussion once, in a central area, this place isn't visited by too many instead of all these different ones everywhichwhere.

Lightmouse and Date delinker (an alternate account of Ohconfucius) are the only editors that I know are violating the AWB rules of use concerning both controversial and too-speedy edits. But if you are aware of others, you are of course free to inform us about them here. Also, your argument that "others are violating the rules, so Lightmouse should be allowed to violate the rules, too" is illogical on its face. P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts. Tennis expert (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Using AWB, Lightmouse (himself, not his bot) has just succeeded in editing 1,777 articles in 114 minutes, which is 15.6 articles per minute or 1 article every 3.8 seconds. Ridiculous abuse of AWB, in my opinion. Tennis expert (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert, I am both surprised and disappointed that you are still complaining about this issue even though it was discussed at length a couple of weeks ago and the consensus was against you. The recent RFC debate over delinking of dates shows a consensus in favour of data delinking, even if the minor details have not yet been agreed. Therefore the edits of Lightmouse do not count as controversial. Secondly, regarding your complaints over the speed at which AWB is used, surely the faster a user can make improvements to Misplaced Pages, the better? None of the database administrators have ever complained that such use of AWB has caused any performance issue for other users. I think you have no genuine basis for complaint and are trying to quote the AWB rules of use to the letter to add strength to your weak argument. Rjwilmsi 08:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I am both surprised and disappointed that you would cite two ongoing RFCs, which are still almost two weeks away from closing, as evidence of consensus for anything. So, yes, Lightmouse's edits are controversial. And the AWB rules are the rules. If you don't like the rules, then advocate for their change. Until then, one of the rules deals with edit speed, which Lightmouse is flagrantly abusing. Tennis expert (talk) 15:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd how it's the speed of his edits, not their make-up, that are now of concern to you. The faster, the better, indeed. I'd support the removal of the rule in question if it came to that point. - Dudesleeper / Talk 15:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It is odd that people think a complaint will succeed without a quoted edit. Evidence please. If there is harm, let everybody see the harmed article. Lightmouse (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)