French
DeutschDiscussion utilisateur:Avicennasis — Wikipédia
Bot status[modifier le code]
Hello. You can now request bot status at Wikipédia:Bots/Statut. Cdly, -- Quentinv57 ✍ 10 juillet 2011 à 19:48 (CEST)
Commonscat[modifier le code]
Hi. What's the point with adding "Commonscat" to dozen of categories, as you just did, when everything is now centralized on Wikidata ? — Rhadamante 19 août 2015 à 07:10 (CEST)
- Well, 1, it gives a nice visual representation of the commons link, whereas the link in the sidebar can be easily overlooked by some, 2, not all categories have a wikidata link, and 3 (probably the biggest one) I didn't realize that the commonscat template had been depreciated on FrWp. With that said, If you feel this isn't as helpful as I think (thought) it was, I'll happily go back and remove them, if you deem necessary. -Avicennasis (SWMT) 19 août 2015 à 08:21 (CEST)
- For 1) I guess it's a personal opinion, and personally, I find the box quite ugly. As long as we didn't have any alternative to put links to other projects (outside of the other Wikipedias), it was a necessary evil, but since we have activated (on fr:, at least) the option of putting the other projects in the sidebar, close to the interwikis, I don't see the point of keeping these things. Especially when they can interfere with other stuff (we have quite often - if not always - portals templates for instance on fr: on the category pages, sometimes also a "main article" template too), and it can be a real mess. That said, again, it's a matter of opinion.
- 2) if some categories don't have wikidata, it would be rather a better idea to create the corresponding item on Wikidata... Actually, that's what I do from time to time : check that the Commons category is properly linked to the wikidata item (and eventually create the item if it doesn't exist) and remove the commonscat template on fr: when I'm sure everything is fine. This can be rather fruitful, sometimes you can find old interwikis links to remove, or a really big mess, that has been there for years...
- 3) Let's say, "it's complicated" (as often on fr:). It has been depreciated for articles, to replace it by another ugly box (modèle:autres projets), at the same time as we were enabling the "other project" box in the sidebar. But it was decided to keep the commonscat template for categories, since it was used in all other wp, and for the sake of the bots working on the commons/wp interlinks. But since nobody uses bots to do that anymore... Let's say nobody has really thought about what to do, now we have Wikidata. Or nobody want to talk about it, since everything related to Wd is a bit "touchy" these days...
- Long story short my point was "there is plenty of stuff to do, especially on WD regarding the interporject links, and it seems quite a lose of time to use old ugly and quite useless template as commonscat". — Rhadamante 29 août 2015 à 03:40 (CEST)
- Fair points, all. I've reverted my additions, and, where needed, added the commons category to wikidata instead.
- I don't know about any current bots running on FrWp that add commonscat - though User:AvicBot does this on EnWp. It's simple enough to add an exception into the bot code to not run on FrWp, in case there are any left still doing this. There are roughly 83,163 transclusions still for commonscat - though assuming most are a positive match, it should be easy to add to wikidata instead and remove the template afterward. -Avicennasis (SWMT) 29 août 2015 à 07:43 (CEST)
- When I say "nobody uses bots to do that anymore", I'm not 100% positive, but I'm almost sure that there are no more bots running (or significantly less than by the past) on both wp and commons to make links. That's the beauty of WD : all the mess go there, and we don't have to have bots running everywhere to add and propagate a new link everywhere when created (quite the same business it was to get rid of interwikis). I don't really know about the situation on en:, but that's what it looks like on fr:... Or just no one really cares, and/or just enjoy the fact that somebody else is doing the job somewhere else...
- Regarding the 83K transclusions, I will let a message to the new wikiproject wikidata we opened few days ago. With luck, we will decide to do it after few weeks of "discussion". Or we'll just end up in a new bureaucratic nigthmare :) — Rhadamante 29 août 2015 à 08:44 (CEST)
Trösterin Musik (Musique, consolatrice), WAB 88.[modifier le code]
C'est la redirection "Trösterin Musik (Musique, consolatrice), WAB 88." qui doit être supprimée, pas "Trösterin Musik, WAB 88", sinon d'autres liens entre les pages ne fonctionnent plus. Amicalement, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (Pour m'écrire) Courriel 22 mars 2017 à 14:22 (CET)
Technoocritique[modifier le code]
Hello, the word Technoocritique doesn't exist in French ! Could you change it in Technocritique ? Thank you for your help ! --Sidonie61 (discuter) 2 novembre 2017 à 13:51 (CET)
Modification problématique[modifier le code]
Bonjour, puis-je connaître les raisons de ceci. Faute de réponse dans les 48 heures, je demande la suspension du bot. Cordialement, --Lynx (discuter) 4 décembre 2019 à 09:27 (CET)
- That edit was because another user redirected the page briefly, which is what confused the bot. -Avicennasis (SWMT) 9 décembre 2019 à 02:50 (CET)
L'admissibilité de l'article sur « Monument de la Jonction » est débattue[modifier le code]
Bonjour Avicennasis,
L’article « Monument de la Jonction » fait l'objet d'un débat d'admissibilité (cf. Wikipédia:Débat d'admissibilité). Il débouchera sur la conservation, la suppression ou la fusion de l'article. Après avoir pris connaissance des critères généraux d’admissibilité des articles et des critères spécifiques, vous pourrez donner votre avis sur la page de discussion Discussion:Monument de la Jonction/Admissibilité.
Le meilleur moyen d’obtenir un consensus pour la conservation de l’article est de fournir des sources secondaires fiables et indépendantes. Si vous ne pouvez trouver de telles sources, c’est que l’article n’est probablement pas admissible. N’oubliez pas que les principes fondateurs de Wikipédia ne garantissent aucun droit à avoir un article sur Wikipédia.