User talk:AnomieBOT

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

AnomieBOT problem[edit]

1) The BOT edited a page (William Pitt (1803 ship)) while I was still working on it. 2) It tried to remove references from templates. I overrode the BOT.Acad Ronin (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you. FemtoTaz (talk) 02:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Replace the Portal:Current events transclusion with links in ITNCArchiver[edit]

On certain browsers such as Firefox, having 8 collapsible boxes makes jumping to sections unreliable. The browser scrolls down to the section before the boxes are collapsed and ends up being in the wrong location once the page has finished changing.

It has been proposed to replace the collapsed transclusions by simple links. I've done a few tests, which seems to fix the issue. Although not many users participated to the discussion, I'm assuming that it's because most of them don't care. I also don't think the P:CE sections are relevant to ITN/C.

Therefore, I'm proposing a change to, where body on line 113 changes from:

"{{cot|[[Portal:Current events/$dt]]}}\n{|{{Portal:Current events/$dt}}\n{{cob}}\n----\n<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->\n"


"{{right|''[[Portal:Current events/$dt|Current events]], [[Deaths_in_$y#$d|Recent deaths]]''}}\n<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->\n\n"

In case I made a mistake while checking the variables:

  • $dt should be today's date as "Y B d", appropriate for P:CE's subpages ("2015 September 1");
  • $y should be the current year with 4 digits (2015); and
  • $d should be the current day of the month without leading zeros.

This would give the following markup:

{{right|''[[Portal:Current events/2015 September 1|Current events]], [[Deaths_in_2015#1|Recent deaths]]''}}\n<!-- Insert new nominations below this line -->\n\n

and would look like this:

Current events, Recent deaths

I've removed the unnecessary horizontal rule and added a second newline at the end. This is because when the section is empty, the floating links will clip the horizontal rule below the previous day's header.

I've floated it to the right because 1) I don't think it's relevant to ITN/C, so it doesn't need to be prominent; and 2) I'm trying to cut down on vertical space because the page is long enough as it is. I've also added a link to the recent deaths page, because why not. It also makes it a bit clearer that these are links instead of just seeing a weird "Current events" on the right side.

I've linked to this discussion from the ITN/C talk page. Isa (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like keeping any of the collapsed sections is going to give issues on Firefox. Personally, when I encounter this issue I just Ctrl+L then hit Enter to get the browser to re-jump to the anchor. Anomie 23:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Since this doesn't seem to actually be fixing anything, I'm withdrawing the proposal. Isa (talk) 22:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome template and article space[edit]

The bot messed up see this diff. An inexperienced editor, using a source called "The Most Strange Discoverie of the Three Witches of Warboys " by Anon (1593), made a number of edits to Henry Williams (alias Cromwell) which were not formatted correctly. Instead of using <ref>{{harvnb|Anon|1593}}</ref> the editor used <ref>{{Anon|1593}}</ref>. You need to alter your bot so that it does not add the {{Welcome}} template to anything outside the [[user talk:]] namespace so this type of error can not happen again. -- PBS (talk) 06:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT never adds {{Welcome}}. As you noted, it was an inexperienced editor who did that. Anomie 11:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Bot not consistently removing flag icons[edit]

Hi Anomie,

Re. this edit, your bot removed the flag for India, which used the {{flag}} template, but left the one for Pakistan, which uses the {{PAK}} template. Is it too much to ask that the bot handle all flag icons equally? (I mean that as an honest question, though reading it back I can see it might sound snarky.) — kwami (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like User:SiBr4 recently moved a lot of templates like that from Category:Flag templates to Category:Flag template shorthands, so the bot didn't know they existed anymore. I've updated the bot to look in the new category so it will now find them again. (Yeah, that did sound snarky. I forgive you.) Anomie 11:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I meant, is it too much bother to add the coding for all those templates. They're the reason I don't just use AWB to do this. — kwami (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Archiving at WP:DSI[edit]

Hi, AnomieBOT seems to be missing a couple of closed AfDs quite regularly at WP:DSI, not sure why (I checked to see if this was closed properly and can't find anything wrong there), could you check please? —SpacemanSpiff 04:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It was looking for transclusions of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foo", not realizing that "WP:Articles for deletion/Foo" was the same thing. Fixed. Anomie 17:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, the page spans fewer mouse scrolls now! —SpacemanSpiff 19:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed[edit]

Hi I recently requested for citation for Rabindranath Tagore & Bengalis. You edited both- thank you. Few hours ago though an editor dismissed our idea of requesting for citation.

I think it's a good thing that we seek for more citation not less to make our Wikipedia more reliable and scholarly.

What's your idea on this? If you think along the same line how can we explain other editors about the necessity of more citation?

I appreciate your cooperation. Thanks. Shoshanko (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is a computer program that, among other things, adds dates to various maintenance tags. As a computer program, it has no ideas. Anomie 12:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2,015[edit]

In these three edits:- [1] - [2] - [3] - when adding the date to a citation needed template AnomieBOT added Category:Articles with unsourced statements from July 2,015 to the articles as well.
This is a non-existant category - hence the redlink - and is not a standard category in the article's edit page, so cannot simply be deleted (I suspect it is a hidden category, but don't know how to find/delete those).
In all 3 cases this occurred after a previous CN tag date, leading to earlier bad categories, Category:Articles with unsourced statements from April 2,013 or Category:Articles with unsourced statements from August 2,014 had been deleted - twice deliberately, to try and overcome the problem, and once accidentally, as part of another edit.
I have just tried again at Chitral - in case this problem had been resolved - but along with dating the CN tag, AnomieBOT has added Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2,015 to the bottom of that page.
How can these "bad categories" be stopped from appearing in the three current articles? - and presumably several more dates in other, as yet unlocated, articles ? - Arjayay (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that these fields that format the numbers with commas may not contain maintenance templates. Editors should use the corresponding field that's intended for citations, such as |population_footnotes= and |area_footnote=. Note also that trying to code all these parameter correspondences into AnomieBOT would probably be a losing battle. Anomie 20:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I have no idea what you are trying to say. Editors are not adding these categories - the bot is, and they are not categories that appear in the edit page, so cannot be deleted. I repeat my question "How can these "bad categories" be stopped from appearing" ? - Arjayay (talk) 20:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Editors are putting the maintenance templates into infobox fields that do not support such templates. Put the maintenance templates in the correct infobox fields instead (the same fields that would be used for the references).
The bot isn't adding any categories either, it's just applying the required date parameter to the maintenance templates that human editors have added. Anomie 22:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect "speedy" tag[edit]

AnomieBOT incorrectly tagged National Postcard Week as having been speedied, while it was actually relisted twice and deleted due to poor content. --Slashme (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The closure at the top of the AfD you link says "The result was speedy delete", which is what AnomieBOT copies. Anomie 22:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Ref naming error[edit]

In this edit, AnomieBOT removed this (see near the bottom of the diff):

ref name=""rtbookreviews2006

It would be helpful to instead have it fix the typo by moving the ref name inside the quotes like this:

ref name="rtbookreviews2006"

This would be a nice fix if it could be implemented as I'm sure there are plenty of instances like this. Thanks for the hard work! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at Lac-Mégantic rail disaster[edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For keeping track of and rescuing refs as I split Lac-Mégantic rail disaster - Thank you! -- Badger151 (talk) 14:21, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

TagDater MIA?[edit]

I was lazy and didn't date a {{cn}}, but you weren't as quick as usual to tag it. So I checked and see the task is "job missing". Does your human need to intervene? Come to that, does anyone get an alert when that happens? David Brooks (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Restarted. No alert, but I check it at least every weekday morning. Anomie 01:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Minor Barnstar Hires.png The Minor barnstar
For always cleaning up after me when I nuke articles and make them better. Buffaboy talk 00:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect peacock tag?[edit]

I just visited the Freedom of religion article and noticed the 'Peacock term' tag on the word 'fundamental' in the sentence "The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion ... is also a fundamental part of religious freedom...". I think the tag was added by this bot. As I understand it, 'fundamental' is being used here in its literal sense, to describe an attribute of religious freedom which is required (i.e. if it's missing, then it's not religious freedom). As a general reader, I found the word helpful. In any case, I don't think it qualifies as a peacock term as described by the manual of style.

I was going to correct it myself on the page, but I'm not sure about the status of bot corrections - and whether bots simply reinstate their edits. In any case, if I'm right and the bot is being over-enthusiastic, then other pages may have been affected. Phil Smith (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the edit notice for this page, AnomieBOT does not add maintenance tags to articles. It only dates tags added by other editors. In this case the tag was added by Mr. Guye in this edit. Anomie 01:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification (and apologies for missing the edit notice). I'll go ahead and correct it. Phil Smith (talk) 08:21, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I was not sure how to date the tag.--Crouchbk (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
This bot is AMAZINGLY programmed! I just CANNOT believe that this is nearly flawless and has made many edits that no bot would do. I would, if I had bot rights, make a bot to regularly give an Original Barnstar to a random person once every 24 hours. OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Peace Barnstar Hires.png The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Thankyou for your edits in this article. International Editor Shah (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd bot-deletion[edit]

Anomie, please have a look at this why your bot deleted Wikipedia:RCAPS (which I restored). Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Because the wikitext was #REDIRECT[[#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Common outcomes#Capitalization differences]]. Anomie 00:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is hiding valid text with needed ref fix[edit]

Hello, this page [[Michael Laucke]] has a broken named ref (ref name=":13") but AnomieBOT is wrapping a new ref around some needed body text when it fixes the ref. Here is the diff. The ref is definitely broken, but the BOT is not fixing it properly. Just so you know. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:25, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The bot seems to be doing a decent job in that edit. Your "fix" a few edits earlier seems to have broken things. Anomie 00:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of upcoming merge of WP:FFD and WP:NFCR into a new forum called Wikipedia:Files for discussion[edit]

@Anomie: There has been consensus to move Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Part of this consensus includes merging the functionality of Wikipedia:Non-free content review into this page. Consensus for this change can be found here (on WP:VPPROP). (This notice has been placed here instead of making an immediate change; this change directly affects AnomieBOT since it maintains Wikipedia:Files for deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. I'll have to find time to look at exactly what needs changing. Anomie 22:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Anomie: I understand that reprogramming a bot's task takes time, but in the meantime, I was wondering if you may be able to answer this question so I can start doing some stuff behind the scenes without worry: If I were to rename Wikipedia:Files for deletion to Wikipedia:Files for discussion (the basepage, not discussing the daily subpages right now), will AnomieBOT place the daily entry transclusions on Wikipedia:Files for discussion or will it overwrite the leftover redirect at Wikipedia:Files for deletion? Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
At a glance, it looks like the bot will follow redirects if they exist. But it will still create the daily pages as subpages of Wikipedia:Files for deletion, even if that is a redirect. Anomie 22:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Anomie: I assumed the latter (subpages) would still be the case until the bot is updated (given that there is no way to redirect from redirects that do not exist); at the present time, that's okay. That change will be more necessary around the time that the name of the forum needs to be updated in Twinkle, and we're not there just yet. I'll try to keep you posted here with the status on that, but if I fail to do so, more information can be found in the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Discussion regarding updating FFD to accommodate the NFCR merge. Steel1943 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Anomie: Twinkle has now been updated per my previous comment; the "WP:NFCR merge to WP:FFD" process is now ready for AnomieBOT to start naming the daily subpages "Files for discussion" instead of "Files for deletion". (Also, pinging This, that and the other since the bot's update and Twinkle update for "Files for deletion" to be renamed "Files for discussion" will best have to happen around the same time to avoid Twinkle posting new requests on the wrong page.) Steel1943 (talk) 15:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
    • @Steel1943: Like AnomieBOT, Twinkle follows redirects in its FFD process, so there will be no problem if redirects from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/DATE to Wikipedia:Files for discussion/DATE are set up for a few days until Twinkle is updated. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @This, that and the other: I understand that fully, which is why I personally would rather AnomieBOT first be updated to make the subpages titled "Files for discussion" when created. If Twinkle gets updated before the bot, then a human editor will have to move every subpage that AnomieBOT creates before the day starts in UTC, which could be rather tedious. But, if someone is up for the task... Steel1943 (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Steel1943 and This, that and the other: AnomieBOT will start creating pages under "Files for discussion" starting with the page for November 4. Pages for November 3 and earlier should not be moved. AnomieBOT will also create redirects from the "Files for deletion" names to the new names for two weeks, with the last such redirect being for November 17. Sometime around November 11, someone should update the parser functions at WP:FFD#Recent nominations (and the bit above for "approaching conclusion") to point to the "discussion" name. Anomie 14:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

900 byte deletion[edit]

Just gotta love how you summarize a 900 byte deletion as "adding x". You are the best at what you do. Anarchangel (talk) 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Just gotta love how you complain about something but don't give a link to the diff you're complaining about. Anomie 13:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My revision has been removed by bot[edit]

There were some updates made on the page,_Bihar&diff=670576801&oldid=665744153 which were deleted by the bot a few days earlier.

The full review is available on the link,_Bihar&diff=670576801&oldid=665744153

Please review it again and make update as the given information by me was updated as per the date 2011 but the current information is outdated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anujsharma9196 (talkcontribs) 09:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Use Australian English from November 2015[edit]

This supposedly hidden category is appearing as a regular category on articles. See this diff. Thanks Kerry (talk) 07:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Category needed a null edit to pick up the "hidden" flag. Probably the same underlying cause as the various other data-isn't-updating issues that have been reported recently. Anomie 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References named "colon + number"[edit]

Hi! I noticed this edit where the orphan reference fixer found four references with the same name, ":0". If it had found only one, would it have copied the reference into the broken article? Thanks to the Visual Editor, so many articles have references named "colon + number" that I think they should be excluded from this part of the bot's logic. If article A is missing the reference ":0" and article B has a reference named ":0", it's not all that likely that article B's reference is good for article A. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:31, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Sigh. Thanks, VE, for using such uncreative reference names. Will update the bot momentarily. Anomie 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

LocalSaver does not meet general notability guideline.[edit]

LocalSaver has been tagged with general notability guideline issue by AnomieBOT. I am trying to understand the reason for the tagging so that I could help in improving this page.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Look again at the history of the article. AnomieBOT, a computer program, only added "date=November 2015" to the tag. The tag was placed by a human editor, User:Mean as custard, in the previous edit. To understand the tag I suggest you follow some of the blue-linked phrases that it displays. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

IFDCloser: Template:Ffd top is broken - Fixed[edit]

Help! The template {{ffd top}} contains unknown parameters. To avoid confusion, I'm not going to process any FFDs until it's fixed or I'm fixed. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 00:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

  • @Anomie: Nothing that I can think of at the moment. Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rename IFDCloser task to FFDCloser[edit]

The pages User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/ and User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/IFDCloser should be moved to User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/ and User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/FFDCloser respectively. Also, the edit summary for bot edits relating to Wikipedia:Files for discussion should have "FFDCloser" in the link rather than "IFDCloser". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It would also require changing the bot code. Probably not worth the trouble, IMO. Anomie 02:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AnomieBOT removed text[edit]

Please {{ping}} me with a reply. Why did AnomieBOT remove text in this diff? I understand the part about dating the maintenance tag. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 15:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Checkingfax: Your diff link spans three edits, two by an IP and then one by the bot. The bot's edit was just this. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Entries that are not removed[edit]

The present entry, Template:Userspace draft (request), was removed as a non-ER by John of Reading at 12:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC). The log presents as having been updated at 17:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC). And yet, the entry has not been removed. I'd like to understand why? Be prosperous! Paine  18:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

As of the 18:49, 15 November 2015 (UTC) update, the entry has been removed. Would still like to know why it took so long to remove it. Are there some entries that must be removed manually? If so, then why?  Paine  18:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: My guess would be delay in the category update. Anomie 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Interesting, Anomie⚔, I thought it was because the ER was not actually closed with a "yes". Does AnomieBOT check to see if an ER has just been erased as it was in this case?  Paine  02:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@Paine Ellsworth: AnomieBOT scans pages in the categories corresponding with various edit request types (e.g. Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests) for talk pages having edit requests, and checks for special urn links in those talk pages' external links to identify the page for which an edit is being requested. It doesn't actually look for the edit request template at all, to avoid having to mess with trying to detect whether a request-template is marked as "closed" or not. Anomie 16:23, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you very much!  Paine 

TagDater: [BRFA55] Possible broken wrapper template Template:Primary sources section - Fixed[edit]

The page Template:Primary sources section is transcluded in other pages and appears to consist of nothing but an invocation of a template that should be dated but isn't. Please fix it (most likely by adding |date={{{date|}}} to the dated template invocation), or fix me. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 00:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Smile has too many transclusions[edit]

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 100 transclusions unless they are listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. Please either edit the template to remove it from Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, manually subst the existing transclusions, or add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to let me know it is OK to subst them. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 00:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Dmy, mdy, and English variants[edit]

@Fram: The bot should be updated to account for your changes to the dmy, mdy, and English variants categories. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I dropped a note at User talk:Anomie a few days ago already. 08:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talkcontribs)