Wikipedia talk:Dead-end pages/Archive 3

message: Hi all, I'm taking a long wiki-break and I've requested my bot to be de-flagged which means it won't be clearing the link lists anymore. If anyone else has any programming experience, I've posted the source of my bot at User:Jayden54/WPDead Source.js. Ask on Bot Requests for someone else to run the bot. I'm sorry for the hassle. Jayden54 18:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for all your help — and enjoy your wiki-break! Askari Mark (Talk) 22:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer running my bot 

message: I really think the new layout looks far classier than the old one. And smaller pages are a Good Thing.
But does anyone know why I'm not seeing per-section [edit] tags any more? --Alvestrand 18:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're there on some sections and not on others. If I click the A-C section, they are there. (And, so are all the sections for A-K). If I click on the G-K tab, they are not there, and only the letters G-K show up. (Well, G-J, since K is done). Not having the section edit tags is a major pain... --Kathy A. 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found it (I think) - the  template has a __NOEDITSECTION__ in it. Not sure how to fix it - putting __EDITSECTION__ below it didn't help, at least. --Alvestrand 21:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a fix, involving some template-munging and using TabsTopWithEdit instead of plain TabsTop. --Alvestrand 21:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think A-C is goofed up. Salad Days 00:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to fix it. Check if I goofed. I also linked the talk pages of all the subpages here. Will the next upload be in the new format? --Alvestrand 11:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: AWB just provides the letter headings; it still has to be broken apart by hand. It shouldn't be difficult to split it up this way instead. Salad Days 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New layout looks nice, but eats my section edit tags 

message: This page was getting a bit long, so I put all the old (pre-April) stuff in /Archive 2. --Alvestrand 11:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old stuff archived 

message: * Support 1-4 (while having misgivings, it's better to WP:BB and learn from experience). --Alvestrand 07:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: Thanks for voting! Matt - TheFearow 01:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Code is almost complete, and bot has been approved for trial on WP:RBA. Matt - TheFearow 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RBA 

message: I have created a new version of this listing based upon the directions given upon it. I have posted it to User:Also%2C_octopuses/Userboxes/Sandbox. If you would choose to include it in your efforts, I would be most happy. Thank you. Also, octopuses 05:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wondering if anyone has a reason for Also, octopuses not to post the updated list? Or is everyone else taking the summer off? --Kathy A. 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm here, and I wouldn't mind - "my" T section is almost empty. --Alvestrand 20:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: DeadBot completed its first trial run on G-K, see  for the diff. If there are any comments from anyone here, see my RBA. Matt - TheFearow 22:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of adding just the  tag, you might want to add . That will save SmackBot from having to follow behind and add the date info. Same for other tags that might take a date.--Kathy A. 16:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll implement that on the next update. Matt - TheFearow 04:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nit: please use  - I believe the non-date form also works for wikify, but people are trying to be consistent using the date form, I believe. --Alvestrand 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I copy/pasted from the tag AWB places, so I assumed that was the most current method.--Kathy A. 21:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Seems to be a bug here - it removed all the manually-inserted comments from P-T. --Alvestrand 09:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:DeadBot|DeadBot]] 

message: ::1) Some web sites periodically do maintenance to their site, e.g. close on Saturday to Sunday/everyday 3am-6am/2 weeks for big maintenance(some may be so unlucky hacked or forget to pay internet fees and take 1-2 month to recover.) They may be 'temporary' dead. Should we save them and take a 2th/3rd test in different days before delete them?
::2) There is a "www.archive.org" backup some webpages some time b4, should we replace the dead link with links to backups in this site?(This site also have several mirrors, some pages are found in some mirrors but not other mirrors. But it may not be good all links change to this site, that would make too high traffic to the site as the site have already many volume of backups.
::3) Some links have mirrors, or copies in other sites, and as may have caches in Google, MSN, Yahoo...etc, can we see them and use keyword "selected short word phrases in the search engine cache" to search alternative links to replace the dead links?
Some dead links may be good links and should not delete simply. But when more and more links one day there may be too much links in a page.Gaia2767spm 17:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're looking for another wikiproject - this one is about pages that have no outgoing links, not about external links that can't be looked up... --Alvestrand 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some ideas 

message: Hey everyone, could I get your opinion on the following changes?
* Bot updates comments to use a standard format (The format # ArticleName - Comment) as part of the process
* Bot adds comments to articles that have certain tags (such as AFD, Merge, SPEEDY, Uncat, Notability, Cleanup, and Advert)
Thanks! Matt - TheFearow 09:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll run this through anyway - it's non-controvertial and doesn't cause it to make more edits than usual. Matt - TheFearow 09:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggestions: 1) don't add/change comments if comments are present unless it's clearly one added by the bot itself; 2) for dated tags like "notability", pull out the "date=" value into the comment. Would increase the value to me, at least. --Alvestrand 05:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It already wont add any comments if they already exist, and it would be much harder NOT to change them to a dash ( - ) style. Also, the date value should be easy enough, I'll work on that next. :) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Proposals 

message: What do you guys think of this? If you have any suggestions please comment on it's discussion page, not here. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: It seems that articles that only consist of a  or  tag also need to be omitted from the listing. They're redirects to Wiktionary for articles that used to be just a word definition. --Alvestrand 19:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are omitted from the listing if they don't contain the wiki tag at the time of the database dump. Also, octopuses 23:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shall I have my bot remove pages consisting of only those templates? (Which is what I assume you meant) Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 00:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Implemented now. This will work on next run (sometime in next half hour). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 04:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More tags to not list 

message: The bot added dead-end template to Cohomological dimension. Is this a bot error? How many more links does one need? Arcfrk 04:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bot error? 

message: I have archived all the posts to Archive 3, as this page was getting long. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived 

message: I am moving DeadBot to a dedicated server, and with it, I am adding a new method of control to it. This will allow anyone to get the bot to do various tasks, including the DEP list tasks. It is based on an IRC bot. Anyone interested should read User:DeadBot/irc. Ask me on that pages talk page, with your irc nick (you must be registered), and I will add you to the Approved group so you can run the dep part of the bot. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeadBot Control 

message: I noticed many pages are still on the dead-end pages, only now they're marked as something like "unreferenced", or whatever else is still wrong with it. Are these remaining issues not the object of another project? The main page mentions to "Please remove from the list any pages which are no longer dead-end." Wikipedia:Dead-end_pages, but if this many people aren't, I'm thinking maybe there's a good reason for it -- so I won't remove anything else from the list unless I'm certain it's still the right thing to do. Spazure 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A cleanup template on a page doesn't really count as a link... Also, octopuses 05:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't think it did. I'm talking about stuff that has had wikilinks added into the text, but still needs to cite some sources, add a photo, or perhaps other wikification. See Andy_Lee_%28footballer/_manager%29 for an example. Spazure 07:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Feel free to remove, as long as it is tagged with the appropriate cleanup tags. This is the project exclusively for dead end pages. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pages Still On List 

message: I've cleared out most of Whitejay's holdovers. If anyone wants to take a stab at what's left, I'd appreciate the help. --Fabrictramp 18:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holdovers 

message: I have changed the complicated header code on each page to a template:

It is located at Wikipedia:Dead-end pages/Header.
I created a template so merging/splitting pages (the L-O and P-T are huge) in the future should be easy. Any comments/etc are welcome. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Header template 

message: DeadBot is running on a temporary host, and will run every 12 hours. It will run at 6 AM and 6 PM NZST (GMT+12). Is this fine, or does anyone have any complaints/concerns/suggestions. Thanks! Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it therefore still necessary to remove items manually from the list?DGG (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not redlinks, redirects, or pages moved to wiktionary. Anything else is still necessary. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 10:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After getting edit conflicts with deadbot twice in a day, I wonder if once a day is enough... --Alvestrand 20:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, i'll change it over tonight and see what happens. It shouldnt make much of a difference. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schedule 

message: Please see:
Wikipedia:Requests for verification
A proposal designed as a process similar to  to delete articles without sources if no sources are provided in 30 days.
It reads:
This page has been listed in :Category:Requests for verification.It has been suggested that this article might not meet Wikipedia's core content policies Verifiability and/or No original research.  If references are not cited within a month, the disputed information will be removed.
If you can address this concern by sourcing please [ edit this page] and do so. You may remove this message if you reference the article. 
The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for 30 days.
If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, improve the article so that it is acceptable according to Verifiability and/or No original research.
Please help [ improve this article] by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!)
Some editors see this as necessary to improve Wikipedia as a whole  
and assert that this idea is supported by policy, and others see this as a negative thing for the project with the potential of loss of articles that could be easily sourced.
I would encourage your comments in that page's talk or Mailing list thread on this proposal  WikiEN-l: Proposed "prod" for articles with no sources
Signed Jeepday (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Jeepday's friendly opponent on this, I'd encourage discussion there too. No point in opening the debate at another place as well. DGG (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise this would affect a huge proportion of stubs? Many of them have no sources. Although I do believe this should be implemented, it should be made to only affect non-stubs. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for verification 

message: There's a new database dump out, from about a week ago. I've tried for a couple of days to extract it, but I just don't have the room on my computer. Anyone want to take a stab at regenerating the list?--Fabrictramp 21:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third day was the charm, apparently. I've got it extracted now, and will run AWB on it tonight. --Fabrictramp 16:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Or not. Multiple extraction efforts have given me a bad end of file each time -- AWB gives up and complains after 4 - 60 articles found.--Fabrictramp 18:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you using bzip2? Also, octopuses 03:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and it finished with an I/O error. Tried again in Safe Mode, just to make sure nothing running in the background was causing trouble, and I got the same error. Several other programs failed also. At this spot I'm chalking it up to running on a 5 year old machine that probably doesn't have enough oomph to get it done.--Fabrictramp 14:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Are there really nobody who has disk for a dump and AWB installed who can do this? I would, but I don't run IE on my fast systems... --Alvestrand 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't get the latest version of AWB to run.... it's too bad there's not an easier way to do this. Also, octopuses 12:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did (finally!) get the file extracted without errors on my Mac. (It decompresses to 11.6 Gb, if any one is interested.) Now I need to think of a way to transfer it to a PC at work, then cross my fingers and hope I have enough oomph for AWB to process it. If only I'd waited a couple of months for the Intel machines to come out before buying this Mac, and I could run AWB at home. sigh --Fabrictramp 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised to find that AWB actually ran on my Windows laptop. Am currently generating the list - so let's see where we end up in this turtle race :-) --Alvestrand 09:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uploaded (as one page, 6100+ entries) to User:Alvestrand/DEPdump. Some sorting weirdness - Aa sorted at the end of the alphabet.... now back to work; I'm happy if someone else does the copy/paste. --Alvestrand 10:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind - I did it. Now it's deadbot's turn. --Alvestrand 11:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New database dump available. 

message: Some may not be aware of this, but lists of names in various languages which also provide their meanings are eligible to be transwikied to Wiktionary. This should be accomplished before they are deleted from Wikipedia. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of personal names 

message: I've uploaded the pages with the July 17 database dump.
This means that we need to do a scan to remove all the pages that have been fixed between July 17 and now - sorry 'bout that, but it seems hard to avoid it.
It was GREAT to see all the pages so empty! --Alvestrand 11:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome! Thanks!! However, this brings up a question. The dump I downloaded yesterday was from August 5. Should I continue to work on getting that one processed? --Fabrictramp 14:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?! You mean we can't rest on our laurels ... for, say, oh, about a year? ;-) It does sure feel good to see the lists empty rather than growing steadily larger. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Laurels aren't too comfortable to sit on. The branches stick you in all the wrong places. ;-) --Fabrictramp 16:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Last I looked, the August 5 dump hadn't completed, which was why I went for the July 17 one. If you can get the August 5 dump processed - go for it! (BTW - this dump is considerably shorter than past dumps... we're making progress against the flood...) --Alvestrand 22:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The August 5 dump is still in progress, but the file we use is done and available. I'm making turtle-speed progress on it, but if any one wants to beat me in this race, feel free. :) --Fabrictramp 16:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Did you mean the comments on each line like "notability", etc? If so, give Deadbot a couple of days to add them back in. --Fabrictramp 16:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A further thought. The main goal (as I understand it) of this project is triage -- the comments just show what an article is already tagged with, not what it really needs. So the best way to see what needs to be done is to click on the article and take a look at it. After a dozen or so you'll get really fast at evaluation.--Fabrictramp 16:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Great. DeadBot is also back online, and should be operating fully now. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 06:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New database dump uploaded 

message: I've regenerated the list from the most recent database dump, and I've got the preliminary list up at my sandbox. Any reason not to move it here? (I'm still removing redlinks manually, as deadbot is taking a wikibreak last I checked.) --Fabrictramp 16:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Update on the regen: I finished removing all the redlinks as of last night (more have popped up, but that's just less work for us, right?) This regen has 3687 pages after redlink removal -- about a thousand less than last time. Good work! Since deadbot is on wikibreak, if I move the regen here, we'll lose the comments deadbot put in. Is that enough of a problem to prevent the move? Thoughts? --Fabrictramp 15:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadbot's around - its edit summaries seem to say that it's not updating anything, though. Just upload the stuff! --Alvestrand 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do! --Fabrictramp 17:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like you're right, Deadbot is indeed on the job. Whew! --Fabrictramp 20:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Deadbot update: it looks like Deadbot isn't looking at P or later for some reason. That explains why I didn't think it was working -- it wasn't removing redlinks there. I left a note for TheFearow, but he's on wikibreak so I don't expect a change soon. We'll just have to remove redlinks manually from the last few letters for now. --Fabrictramp 22:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page regeneration 

message: Mind killing the June category? It has been cleared. July should be able to be killed soon. Thanks! Spryde 10:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has June been empty for four days yet? For some reason I had in my head we couldn't request a deletion until tomorrow, but I could be wrong. :) --Fabrictramp 14:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, didn't know about that policy. I am just going through the categories cleaning things up and as soon as it is clean, I ask for deletion. I am new to this particular project so I am not too sure of the rules. Spryde 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would assume we wouldn't roll back if we linked it in correctly to other articles. Spryde 14:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I just tagged June with a speedy tag, then I cleaned out the last entry in July and put a comment in to speedy it on 9/26 (yeah, that's more than 4 days, but I miscounted, and it's not a big enough deal to go back and change it.) --Fabrictramp 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category Killing 

message: What is the procedure for updating this page when a list page has been moved thus making the current list page simply a redirect page.
Example Medical universities in the former Soviet Union Dbiel (Talk) 04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: DeadBot will delete the redirects. If the new page still doesn't contain links, the next database dump will pick it up again. I'd say "don't worry about it" - there's plenty of other articles to work on, and it WILL come back if needed. --Alvestrand 05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply. Since I was the one that moved the page, I needed to clean up the double redirects (which I did) and was checking the other pages linking to it, which brought me here.  I will simply leave it to the Bot to remove the link to the new redirect page. Dbiel (Talk) 05:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating this page 

message: I've been working on the latest database dump to regenerate the pages, with only limited success. After multiple tries on multiple computers, I'm thinking there's a flaw in the dump. (Always stops at the same spot, and the first time the dump was posted it had a status of "failed".) However, I did get about 4000 articles on the list, despite the problems.
I've combined the new (partial) list with the current one so that we don't lose articles on the current list that really shouldn't drop off. The down side to combining is that the few that should drop off won't, but those are easy to deal with. I'll start posting the combined list in a few minutes. Enjoy!--Fabrictramp 14:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - well done! --Alvestrand 06:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome! Looks like Whitejay251 is on wikibreak, so I also took the liberty of putting up a holdover page here. Not as fancy as Whitejay251's, but very fast in AWB. :) --Fabrictramp 00:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2007 regeneration 

message: Alvestrand asked for details, so here they are. The update is generated from the January 3 2008 dump. Regexes used are exactly as described in the instructions, shouldn't be anything special we need to know (except that the regexes are no longer excluding articles tagged  or with wikify in an  tag.) Looks like DeadBot's been down for a couple of days, so we'll need to remove redlinks manually until it comes back up.--Fabrictramp (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  January 2008 update 

message: Deadbot's been down for three months now. I sent Matt an email over a month ago, with no reply, so I've made a bot request for a new version of deadbot. --Fabrictramp (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dycebot has done its first run as a replacement for Deadbot. I took a look at a random sampling, and everything looked great. Dycebot will run once a day, which should be plenty.--Fabrictramp (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadbot 

message: Just a heads up: I'm on spring break at the moment and have no access to my desktop. I'd left it on, but some idiot school officials appear to have shut it off yesterday. Thus, DyceBot will not run until I'm back on campus on Sunday.--Dycedarg ж 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DyceBot temporary downtime 

message: I just finished regenerating the listing from the March 15 database dump, and I'll post the new list throughout the day today. Nothing unusual about this one: 2949 pages (including redlinks), of which 157 are holdovers from the previous list.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  March regeneration 

message: I haven't been able to reach the "can we link it" tool at http://can-we-link-it.nickj.org/ for 2 days. Is the site down? --Alvestrand (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't tried in the last couple of days, but it's been hit and miss for me for a while. I'll go a couple of days without being able to connect, then have no problems for a week, then I can't connect again.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can We Link This down? 

message: I've regenerated the pages based on the May 27 database dump. This time I did a second pass to get rid of more of the wiktionary redirects. There have been some changes to the AWB database scanner, and some pages in the DEP category seem to have been missed. I'm working through a list of pages with the  tag that should be added into this list, so the lists may get slightly larger over the next couple of weeks as I manually add those lines.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As it will take me a good while to work through all the entries that were left off, I've added them as a new section of User:Fabrictramp/DEP--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: After a good night's sleep, I figured out a more elegant (and faster) way to incorporate the extra pages. They're all in the main list now. I didn't preserve any Dycebot comments, because Dycebot will happily re-add them tonight, but I did preserve manual comments.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note: DyceBot did not edit properly last night because you added colons to the beginning of every article name. I changed the regex to ignore colons if they are there, so it will not be a problem in the future.--Dycedarg ж 21:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish AWB was consistent in the way it makes lists. (One module adds the colons, another doesn't). Thanks for figuring it out and making the change!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The list can only get regenerated when wikipedia does a database dump, which probably won't be for another six weeks or so. However, feel free to remove items from the current list which aren't dead end. Thanks for the help!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I've checked A-C and taken out all the linked articles from that page.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  June 1 regeneration 

message: I've downloaded the current data dump and have started running the list regen. Knock on wood, I think I've figured out a regex to eliminate all the silly soft redirects that have been clogging up the list.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2008 list regen 

message: I've recently started working on the deadend pages project and was wondering what to do with very short articles like this one. Should these be removed from the list after adding links or should i leave them on, considering that they might get expanded in the future and may end up on the list again. (If offcourse they don't get deleted for lack of content) Same question goes for the deadend tag on the article itself. Erebus Morgaine (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely remove them from the list once you've tagged and linked them. You've got a stub tag on it, so that will flag for people who like to work on expansion. And since you've linked it as much as possible, remove the deadend tag. Great work -- thanks for the help!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that's a clear answer, Thank you :) Happy to be of help here! Erebus Morgaine (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs and short articles 

message: Great job on plowing through the list, everyone!
The most recent dump is from July 27, just two weeks after the one that generated our current list. I'm currently running that dump through AWB to find things that are still deadends, but there aren't enough to make it worthwhile to regenerate off that one. Looks like we won't have a new one for a while, as the dump has been stuck on the same file for ages. :(
My thought is to regenerate the list off :Category:All dead-end pages. While it won't be as comprehensive as a list from the dump, it also won't include 2000 pages we've already take care of. Comments?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meta says dumps are currently halted pending some hardware issues. Since no one has expressed an opinion here, I'll start repopulating from the category and putting the holdovers at User:Fabrictramp/DEP.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List regen 

message: Regenerated the list off the October 11 dump. Nothing unusual that I can see; about 2800 entries (including redlinks) this go around. I'm running through the list tagging with  right now; when I finish that I'll use AWB to removed linked articles. Enjoy!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2008 list regen 

message: I've boldly set up the talk page here for auto archiving. Miszabot will archive automatically, keeping anything less than 90 days old and at least 5 section of talk. Any problems or concerns?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archives 

message: There is a discussion here on the subject of merging two templates that have nearly identical goals but wildly varying levels of quality in their doc pages, their category assignments, etc. I believe the change to be a non-controversial one, but I'm not bringing in a  just yet/might as well give it a day and see if anyone sees a reason I haven't predicted to block a merge. Thanks! MrZaiustalk 02:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that the templates have been unified, some of the old :Category:Dead-end pages by month are populated with articles that had been tagged with . I'm going through and restoring the populated categories as I find them -- if any of you clear them out, feel free to add a speedy deletion template or drop me a line and I'll delete them again.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed unification of {{tl|deadend}} and {{tl|internal links}} 

message: I think the few pages that are left are all AfD or PRODs. The enwiki dump has started to chug along again, so I'm guessing we'll have a new list in a couple of weeks. In the meantime we can all just work off :Category:Dead-end pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't stand it... I've generated a new list from the category. :) This will get replaced with a more complete list once the dump is done.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:15, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  List cleared, new dump soon 

message: Yeah, new dump is done! I'm downloading, and should have a new listing up by the end of the weekend.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: New listing is up, total of 4094 articles before DyceBot takes out redirects tonight. Not sure why the big jump, except that it has been longer than usual since the last dump, and we've lost some of the more active DEPers.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New dump 

message: Is there anyway to sort these by WikiProject...if they have one attached? -- Mjquin_id (talk) 19:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're interested in one particular WikiProject, probably the thing to do would be to use AWB to find which pages have both the Wikiproject template on the talk page and are on this list -- would take under 5 mintues to generate if I knew which project. If you're looking for a listing by all WikiProjects, that would probably be best for a bot (but simple enough to do).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

text: No, they're all "fixed" by editors like you and me. The reference to bots above is that bots could easily make a complete list of what pages are in what project. They can't add links very well, because if "Birmingham" is mentioned in an article, the bot can't tell if it's the one in England, the one in Alabama, or some other Birmingham.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Woo hoo! Thanks for helping to improve the 'pedia!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProjects 

message: New dump just finished yesterday and I'll download it tonight. Should be able to process it tomorrow sometime, and post tomorrow or Sunday. This one will be a big list, because I'll add all the pages at Untagged Deadend Pages.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, just realized with Jason's tool, I didn't need to download the dump. List is regenerated, and will be posted in a few minutes. 6774 total including 1330 hold overs.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, the new criteria seem to catch pages that the old ones missed. Type 351 Radar is now included on the list, and it hasn't been significantly edited since 2006. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:43, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New dump 

message: Thanks to the people who made the massive push to clear out the cat, we have about half as many items on the new list as last time. Thanks, all!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of progress! 

message: 3394 pages, less than 400 hold overs. Yay! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another regen 

message: I'll be losing access to the computer where I run AWB soon, so I won't be able to do future regens of the list for the foreseeable future. Feel free to pick up the slack.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future regens 

message: Egad, not much activity on the talk page! AWB is back and should stay that way for a while. The database dumps are down, and all the listings here are linked, so I'm working on a regen from Jason's list.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 1271 pages this time, after eliminating pages with links and deleted pages. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, but where are they? --JaGatalk 20:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest regen 

message: The templates for dead-end and orphaned articles differ only in the order of words. Could the two be merged together as one so there is only one template and set of categories for articles with very few or no links from other articles? Hugahoody (talk) 17:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, the two cover opposite sides of the issue:  "orphan" means nothing links to this article; "dead end" means nothing links from this article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging 

message: I've looked at the talkpage, and by my reckoning, the only problem is turning the toolserver list into a load of tags. Sinces I have nothing else to do, tomorrow I'll start at the top of the list, and work my way down. One question though: should I leave out the stubs and the articles without enough stuff in them to be wikified? Jangofett287 (talk) 22:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of tags 

message: What is this? In puzzlement, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't get it! 

message: There isn't a long list. There's no list at all! Alphius 04:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The list was last updated in July 2010. I don't know how to regenerate the list and have never used AutoWikiBrowser.--Koppas (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long List 

message: There seems to be a discrepancy between the definition of a dead end article here versus the definition on the documentation for .  Input at Template talk:Dead end#Question about template wording would be appreciated.  Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 16:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about dead end template wording