User talk:Sunrise

Please feel free to contact me here (or ping me) at any time. In fact, it's often the best way to get my attention; due to my time constraints, I try to minimize the size of my watchlist and clean it out semi-regularly. For the same reason, I may also edit without checking my watchlist, defer my responses on talk pages, silently leave a discussion, etc.

You can leave a new message by using the "New Section" button in the top right of the page. Please remember to sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~).

I keep a large offline database of sources and quotes for articles I work on, far more than any one person could use, so you're welcome to ask me about them if we’re working in the same topic areas. I may also have already added pre-formatted citations on-wiki, e.g. here, although these may not be fully updated.

Wikiphilosophy

BRD: edit freely, and don’t take reverts personally. AAGF: the more you truly understand WP:AGF, the less often you should feel a desire to cite it. CONCEDE: your time and energy is limited; if it is not spent most productively on the current discussion, then live and let live. NORUSH: if you're right, consensus will eventually get there; if you're wrong, consensus shouldn't get there. PRINCIPLE: follow the spirit of the rules, even if you dislike the outcome, so that others will do the same for you.

“ Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The primary job of Wikipedians is to write it. Everything else is secondary. ” — Observations on Wikipedia Behavior, #12

Missing refs to be filled by bot

Re this edit summary. You'll be pleased to know that I (not a bot), have just found the last one. Sorry it took me five years. DuncanHill (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I remember this - I see that when I went back to fill in the missing refs, I didn't bring over the targets of the short citations as well. Thanks for cleaning up after my mistake. :-)

At the time, I was under the impression that when copying between articles, if there were named references that weren't defined in the copied content, then you could leave them undefined as long as you linked the original article in the edit summary. I thought that a bot would later come by and check the linked article to fill in the missing ref. As you can see, it didn't happen and I ended up doing it manually. Would you happen to know anything about this? I never saw it happen afterwards, so I don't know where I got the idea from. Maybe I'm just a hallucinating AI language model... Sunrise (talk) 14:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I think there is a ref that can sometimes rescue refs from an article's own history, and I do recall seeing one years ago that came up with suggestions for references from other articles where the refnames matched, but I can't put my hand on an example of either at the moment. DuncanHill (talk) 17:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

I've found User:AnomieBOT which can rescue refs from old revisions of an article. You might have seen that in action. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

That could be it. I also see "Copy content for orphaned named refs from linked articles" in the list of tasks. Searching the bot's talk page archives gives this discussion which mentions getting a link from an edit summary. However, the BRFA mentioned in that discussion only seems to refer to all pages wikilinked from the current page and all pages that wikilink to the current page. I've posted at the bot's talk page to request clarification. Sunrise (talk) 01:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)