Last modified on 23 December 2013, at 11:38

User talk:MewBot/feedme

  • Discussion
Return to the user page of "MewBot/feedme".

Where is the kitty pic that was on here for like a day? Can I request for it to be placed back? :) JamesjiaoTC 05:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

But it was fugly! Don't you have a less flat-nosed species? :P —CodeCat 09:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hmm.. Will see if I can find a digital pic of my kitty. JamesjiaoTC 09:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
How about this one? JamesjiaoTC 09:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Haha, much better! :D —CodeCat 11:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

nl:w:Wikipedia:Humor_en_onzin#Commandocats, commandocat is ambushing a cheezburger. A brilliant article by the way, I love the Lade part.

Anyway, why is paranoïde removed from the mewbot list? 81.68.255.36 11:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it because I wasn't really sure what else to do with it. There was no declension template on the page, which means MewBot can't do anything. But I didn't really know the proper forms to put into the table either. Paranoïder? Paranoïdst? Paranoïedst? I thought it would be better to not add any table at all rather than one with rubbish in it. —CodeCat 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, strange. I thought it could handle the template I used. Anyway, meer paranoïde and meest paranoïde sound best to me. 81.68.255.36 21:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well if that's the case, why give it to MewBot at all? There aren't any entries to create. —CodeCat 08:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why? What's the problem? I thought the bot could recognize the "comparative" and "superlative" parts of the template and just create the entries. I do see the entries. 81.68.255.36 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

O never mind, I didn't know you handled adjectives that have such forms like this. 81.68.255.36 17:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

[Solid] Thread 2Edit

<< Undo revision 9268526 by AugPi (talk) - Not sure why these were removed, they haven't been done yet >>

Sorry about that: I should get back to feeding the MewBot soon, or eventually... —AugPi (t) 02:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes to {{nl-adj-form}}: I realized what you meant by (partially) broken code: I hadn't accounted for compounded use of parameters. The code works now for all combinations of parameters as I documented on the documentation page. The only problem is that you (or Jamesjiao, or someone else...) might find a sentence such as this one:

Partitive form of the comparative form of goed.

kind of awkward, so then I tried to revert to {{nl-adj-form}} as it was before my latest round of edits [to see how it worked], but when I tested it, I became puzzled because I am noticing anomalies that I had never noticed before I started my round of edits:

Comparative form form of Template:wlink.

Superlative form form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ form of Template:wlink.

Partitive form form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ comparative form form of Template:wlink.

Partitive form comparative form form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ superlative form form of Template:wlink.


...such as duplication of the "form" word. However, my guess is that the way you would want the template to work is more or less like this:


Comparative form of Template:wlink.

Superlative form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ form of Template:wlink.

Partitive form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ comparative form of Template:wlink.

Partitive comparative form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ superlative form of Template:wlink.


or perhaps more like this:


Comparative form of Template:wlink.

Superlative form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ form of Template:wlink.

Partitive form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ comparative form of Template:wlink.

Partitive comparative form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ superlative form of Template:wlink.


The last set is probably less "awkward" than sentences such as this:

Partitive form of the comparative form of goed.

However, my only objection is that is should be more like this:


Comparative form of Template:wlink.

Superlative form of Template:wlink.

Inflected formFAQ of Template:wlink.

Partitive form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ comparative form of Template:wlink.

Partitive comparative form of Template:wlink.

InflectedFAQ superlative form of Template:wlink.


i.e. for the third example just bring the "form" into the link, that is all. Just let me know what you think... —AugPi (t) 03:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, this whole business of modifying {{nl-adj-form}} was triggered by Mglovesfun putting that {{nl-adj-entry-infl}} up for deletion... and that business seems to be over now... except that Mglovesfun was probably right about one thing: that I shouldn't be using that template any more, because MewBot does it better... because the new idea is to centralize all the inflected forms of Adjectives: that is the point of the compounded forms of {{nl-adj-form}}... and {{nl-adj-entry-infl}} doesn't do that... so with this new "centralization," templates {{nl-adj-comp}} and {{nl-adj-sup}} would have to stop being used too, which probably means no WT:ACCEL creation of Dutch comparatives and superlatives [unless it gets fixed]... so Mglovesfun was right about a second thing: use MewBot more... [so even that "only objection" becomes somewhat pointless... or maybe not: je ne sais pas... any thoughts, anyone?] —AugPi (t) 03:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure what this is doing here, but allright. The idea is indeed to centralise the adjectives, because this reduces the redundancy/amount of declension tables we'd need (a comparative form has the same set of inflections as a regular adjective, after all). I think it would also be a good idea to leave all the adjective forms to MewBot. Not only is it faster, but I also generally run MewBot in forced mode, which means it adds its own entries to any existing entries. The only exception to this is when the entries it tries to add are already on that page verbatim (it looks only at the use of the nl-adj-form template, nothing else). So if you use slightly different parameters or a different ordering of the params, it doesn't spot this and so adds its own entry. This means I have to clean it up again afterwards. MewBot generally runs best and with the least problems if the entries it adds do not exist at all beforehand. So perhaps it would even be useful to remove any entries that do exist before MewBot runs (or I'll have to do it anyway), or fix up the entries so that they conform to MewBot's formatting standards (which allows it to detect that the information is there and skip it). —CodeCat 09:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Anagrams and {{l}}Edit

Could this bot change the links in Anagrams sections (which currently use [[word#Language|word]]) to use {{l}}? Is that within its purview? I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 09:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

If it could be provided with a list of them, yes. Right now it has no way to find them. —CodeCat 11:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I should think that the list would comprise every (or virtually every) entry that contains the string ===Anagrams===. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
But how would I find those? —CodeCat 00:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This list (barring the first two hits) should be pretty exhaustive. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the bot can directly use search results like that. Do you have something more practical, like a category? —CodeCat 17:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. I don't have the technical know-how automatically to generate a more bot-friendly list, unfortunately. I'm so meta even this acronym (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Feeding the botEdit

Feeding zonderling