Would you mind updating this to change the "browser" bar added to use appropriate HTML rather than the table? I think you could just do it by transcluding {{left}} and {{right}}, but if you don't want to use templates, you can steal the implementation from there. Izno (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has there been discussion about this proposal at WT:TFD? With the specific change requested? Anomie 12:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking under the auspices of WP:ACCESS. Tables should not be used for presentation. Izno (talk) 02:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I'm asking for people at WT:TFD to do the redesign of the pages for that process, rather than one random bot op. Anomie 12:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Er, what? I'm not asking as a random bot op (are you trying to say that you're the random bot op?), I'm asking as one of the admins who regularly participates and closes at WP:TFD. I was requesting a same form-fit-function replacement, just not using a table.
Or are you just unsure what that replacement looks like in HTML? I can sketch it out if you prefer.
I'm mostly just confused by your response as the guideline of interest is clear (WP:ACCESS) and a change to support that guideline doesn't need its own separate consensus. It's a clear and obvious improvement to boot. Izno (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I'm referring to myself as a random bot op. Why are you so opposed to just starting a discussion about this at WT:TFD? Probably you'll get mostly WP:SILENCE with one or two "sure, good idea" replies, but then if someone complains later I can point them to the discussion there. Anomie 12:47, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Mostly that seems like unnecessary hassle for the exact same end as you think will occur, especially now that you've pulled the rationale out of me and this could be the discussion pointed to instead. :) But I will go invite users from there to here, so as not to repeat myself. Izno (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Izno: I've just updated the bot to use something equivalent to {{subst:TfD log day}} to fetch the header. You should now be able to edit that as you'd like. Anomie 14:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Seems that this task hasn't run since the start of March - the main BRFA page since end of Feb and the BAG status page for about 5 days now. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like some Toolforge issues took out a few tasks with DB errors on the 6th. Restarted. Anomie 12:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent, thanks. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dubious tagEdit

AnomieBOT left a "dubious" tag on Pope County Militia War concerning officials "took measures intended to influence the Arkansas governor to declare martial law in the county." I've changed that to "attempted to get the Arkansas governor to declare martial law in the county several times."

That officials did that is well documented in the text and references. I've also discussed that on Talk:Pope County Militia War and have removed the "dubious" tag. Caronde (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caronde, not that it matters much, but the tag was added here by a different editor, all the bot did was add a date. You might want to go talk to FloridaArmy if you have issues with their tag. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. It makes sense that a bot would NOT make such a subjective change (I think). I don't think it matters. I've made repairs, issues are fixed. Caronde (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is AnomieBOT chartered to collapse vertical formatting?Edit

In this edit , the bot appears to have made a change to cite web, which doesn't appear on the subst list; unless I've missed something, all it did was collapse the (perfectly acceptable) vertical formatting that was in place. Was that an intended effect? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bot substed {{site web}} (note spelling), which redirects to {{cite web.}} (note period), which is flagged for bot substitution. Anomie 23:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! Completely missed that. It turns out there was an odd apparent vandalism edit that changed "cite" to "site" a few minutes before the bot edit.
(It'd still be nice if the bot didn't take out vertical formatting, but I assume that's an artifact of the subst-ing process.) Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 06:05, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would happen if you manually did the substing too. AnomieBOT doesn't do anything special there. Anomie 12:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I suspected -- thanks again. NapoliRoma (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Substitution of pin templatesEdit

There appears to be a problem with this, I just reverted one at WT:Verifiability, and having checked three at random none are {{pin}} templates they are all failed {{ping}} templates. Apparently this is a common misspelling. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 22:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my below post. I was going to make this after I saw you revert that edit. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks I did not know about the RFD, I'd suggest these need to be mass reverted. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested transmissions °co-ords° 23:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ignore pinEdit

Can AnomieBOT ignore all instances of {{pin}} prior to today until the cleanup is finished (Unless it already is)? Prior to today it was a redirect to {{ping}} but after an RFD outcome it now redirects to {{pin section}} which should be substed. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 22:57, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would have been better to not do the redirect change until after you finish the cleanup. For the moment I've removed the |auto=yes= from Template:Pin section/doc. Anomie 23:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, but they redirected it prior to the cleanup so not much we can really do. Thanks. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 23:41, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anomie 23:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went ahead and went through the list after all. Anomie 00:00, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For those coming "cold" to this, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 6#Template:Pin was closed as retarget, and then actioned in the wrong order. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manual trigger?Edit

Is there a way to trigger this bot manually? Often after a big edit I'd love to ask it to rescue references ... Bon courage (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, there isn't. The bot will likely get to the article on its own before too long. Anomie 11:35, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CfD header has changedEdit

Can you please tell your bot not to do this? Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why is User:ProveIt creating the pages months in advance instead of letting the bot do it, and where is the canonical source for the header? Anomie 13:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found a possible answer to the second question, apparently a few years back someone created Template:CFD log day and similar templates. Anomie 13:23, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Updated the bot to make use of that template. Still wondering why ProveIt is doing semi-automated botting here though. Anomie 13:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably because they've been doing it since before AnomieBOT clerked at CfD. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Near as I can tell, I started making CfD pages around February 2008... if your bot will do it, let me know and I'll stop - Prove It (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AnomieBOT will create the day's page at about 23:00 UTC the night before. It has been able to do so since late 2016, although it seems you (and others?) have never forgotten long enough for it to have a chance to do so. Anomie 11:31, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would prefer to do them further in advance, just in case... Anyway, we've now come to the last of my premade pages, we will find out this evening if it builds the page for May 8th or not. -- Prove It (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It did. Anomie 00:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrongly deleted a redirectEdit

From Winton F.C. (Glasgow) to Apsley F.C. (Scotland).In Vitrio (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @In Vitrio: The article Apsley F.C. (Scotland) was created at 12:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC). It did not exist when the redir was deleted at 11:38. The bot was acting correctly. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beaufort RiverEdit

This edit makes no sense to me at all, so I've reverted it. Could someone investigate please, just in case there's something that can be adjusted to prevent it happening again. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An IP vandalized, changing a template on the page to one that is marked to be bot-substituted. About 16 minutes later AnomieBOT came along and did so. Reverting the bot's edit and the IP's vandalism was the correct thing to do. Anomie 02:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That much I deduced already. What I didn't understand was why the bot put a user template onto an article page. But now I see: the original {{Use Australian English}} is an article template but {{Use English}} (redirects to {{Uw-notenglishtalk}}) is a user template. I had just incorrectly assumed that Use English was also article-space. (Now that I think about it, Use English makes no sense in articles - all articles here are in English; the point of Use Xxxx English is to define the variant.) Mitch Ames (talk) 02:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remove "If you own the global account, please ensure you have included a confirmation link. "Edit

This seems to be a vestige of pre-SUL finalization and serves no purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anomie: Did you miss this comment? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pppery: I do seem to have missed this comment. But now that I look into it, is there any discussion by people who actually process usurpation requests that the sentence is no longer needed? I'm not very familiar with these processes, and it does not seem you've been active in them either. Anomie 11:24, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On user page :Nichole OuelletteEdit

allo on my user page did you deleted this picture Iris versicolor.jpg for a purpose or it is an accident Nichole Ouellette (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Nichole Ouellette: The AnomieBOT software did not remove the picture. It was removed by your earlier edit, Special:Diff/1150875630. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GAR pageEdit

@Anomie:, would it be possible for you to reorder the User:AnomieBOT/C/Wikipedia good article reassessment page so that the oldest reassessments are located at the bottom, rather than the top? Thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Configuration for that task is on-wiki at User:AnomieBOT/CategoryLister/Categories. You may want to be sure that other people who use it (e.g. those with {{WikiProjectGATasks}} on their user pages) want this change, though, as they may like having the older articles first. Anomie 12:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Consensus has been gained from the GAR coords at WT:GAR. Also, I don't believe I can edit that configuration page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Je veux que vous m'aidiez à ajouter la catégorie

Pouvez-vous changer des choses sur la page ? Darifi11 (talk) 21:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AnomieBOT is a bot. It only does what it is programmed to, it cannot do generic edits. Anomie 11:36, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Lubbock, Texas - FixedEdit

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Lubbock, Texas, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about This probably means someone didn't properly clean up after themselves when blacklisting the link and removing existing uses, but a human needs to double-check it. The attempted changes were:

You might also use {{subst:User:Anomie/uw-orphans|1=rm diff|2=fix diff}} to let the remover know, if their edit summary indicates they were specifically removing the blacklisted ref. 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 08:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll just say that I think it's complete BS that is blacklisted. It is a commercial site, true, but is quite useful and reliable (except the forums), and harmless. Abductive (reasoning) 09:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AnomieBOT has nothing to do with that, the message here is because the blacklist blocks the link from being added. You'd want to raise your complaint at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, after reviewing MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2019#Advameg sites (,, etc.). Anomie 11:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tried. Abductive (reasoning) 16:02, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Running TagDater on non-article pagesEdit

I was unable to find a discussion of this anywhere, but it appears that TagDater is only being run on pages in the article namespace. Unfortunately, this leads to templates, categories, etc getting stuck undated (eg the root Category:Uncategorized pages category is almost all templates).

How hard would it be to get Anomie to run on pages in other namespaces (specifically I would be interested in seeing the uncategorized templates sorted)? Thanks, GiovanniSidwell (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main thing is that AnomieBOT's approval is for dating tags in articles (and templates transcluded in articles), not for pages in other namespaces. Additional approval would be needed, and I wonder whether there's really enough of a call for it. Looking at Category:Uncategorized pages specifically, the category and the relevant template both indicate that they're supposed to be put on articles, and I note that the random selection of templates I checked in the category were recently categorized as such by one editor, Jonesey95. Is this a problem for other categories? Has there been discussion about it anywhere? If it's just Category:Uncategorized pages, might it make sense to have the template only put articles in that category and put other-namespace pages into some other, undated category? Anomie 23:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am responsible for all, or almost all, of the templates in that category. A few other editors and I have been processing Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized templates slowly, reducing its total count from about 8,000 templates in January to just over 2,000 today. I add categories or otherwise get many pages off of the list without adding {{Uncategorized}}, but many I do not have the expertise to categorize, so rather than do it badly, I tag it for an expert to address. I have lost track of where the previous conversation happened, but in that previous conversation, I proposed that the {{Uncategorized}} template could be reprogrammed to sort tagged pages into categories by namespace. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have limited experience interacting with other maintenance categories, but it does seem like a problem that is kind of unique to uncategorized as most maintenance tasks don't generally apply to templates at all.
I agree it would make sense to split uncategorized based on namespace, but I think that even in that case it would be nice to have those sorted by date (for the same reasons it is nice to have the articles sorted by date). However, I can try to explore possibilities to set that up independently, I was just hoping it might've been a trivial improvement on your end. It seems to be more complicated than I anticipated.
Thank you for your reply, GiovanniSidwell (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your messageEdit

Is this page exist in french, I dont understand what your talking about Batiscan, Quebec so sorry merci Nichole Ouellette (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Nichole Ouellette: Presumably you refer to this edit. You used {{Lien web}}, which is valid at French Wikipedia; but this is the English Wikipedia, where that template is not implemented - you should be using {{Cite web}}. AnomieBOT merely corrected it as best as it could. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More specifically, {{Lien web}} is set up such that {{subst:Lien web}} (with its common parameters) will produce a valid invocation of {{Cite web}}. It is also flagged for AnomieBOT to substitute it if someone does not do so themself. Anomie 11:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

problematic edit summary by botEdit

Hi. I hope you are doing well. In this edit summary, there is a repetition of "Archiving closed XfDs and removing duplicate XfDs (errors?):" —usernamekiran (talk) 17:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, should be fixed now. Anomie 11:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 May 8#Out, damned hyphen and the PERTableUpdater task needs to be updated. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:44, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Whee, grammatical-prescriptivist catgory rename. Anomie 11:29, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for not saying "grammatically-prescriptivist". (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irko page alertEdit

  Moved to User talk:Vituzzu
 – * Pppery * it has begun... 16:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]