User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 11

Merging Suggestion of RBI Zone with Reserve Bank of India (RBI) main article dated 31 October 2018

There seems no requirement of merging it with Reserve Bank of India so I am removing the tag for now. Please suggest any edit if required. Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit to my previous comment: Your idea for merging seems to be correct. Am gonna merge it. Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk)

What does AnomieBOT have to do with this? {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Any why were they talking to themselves about it here? Anomie⚔ 02:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBot suggested the idea for merging, first I thought it should be not done but I agree now with you that's what I meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manupriy Ahluwalia (talk • contribs) 05:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT didn't, the tag was added by Capankajsmilyo in Special:Diff/866584649. AnomieBOT merely added the current date to the tag. Anomie⚔ 12:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Bot may need checking - malforming unsigned templates

Hello, see attached diff, It looks like the bot does not know who created the post - is this a bug, or normal (which I dont think it is???)? Thanks Nightfury 09:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

GIGO. The user who added {{unsigned}} didn't supply any parameters, as you can see in Special:Permalink/886280458. The TemplateSubster task doesn't know about or try to fix such things. Anomie⚔ 12:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'll inform the user that inputted it they need to add more to the unsigned tag to get it to work. Thanks Nightfury 12:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

TFDClerk:some questions

@Anomie: What is is unreadable in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Old unclosed discussions? How can we resolve it? Hhkohh (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It means the bot didn't find any {{tfd links}} templates in the nomination, so it can't check whether the discussion is bot-closable or not. I'll clarify that message.

Also it should honor sections that a human has already closed, like Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 February 27#Unused Chart subtemplates. I'll fix that too. Anomie⚔ 15:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Template substitution

Hi, when substituting templates as in this edit you also need to translate the month names in the date fields in to English. Keith D (talk) 22:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Keith D: This is a problem with the coding of the template, not the bot. Pinging Wikid77, the creator of the template. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Pppery, Wikid77 is banned, so is not going to be able to help. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

GoingBatty has a bot task that can fix dates in citation templates. It might be able to follow up. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Keith D, Pppery, and Jonesey95:  Done! GoingBatty (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure

Why has the bot stopped processing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure?

Last edit 00:04, 5 March 2019‎[1].

(Please ping me in any reply). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: (talk page stalker) because of the next edit - look at the source for the page - @Pppery has replaced it with a module --DannyS712 (talk) 07:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks, DannyS712. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:04, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, See #TfDClerk is too exclusion-compliant and WT:CFD. So bot now only update one page now Hhkohh (talk) 07:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, the module will automatically summarize from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions Hhkohh (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, @Hhkohh. I see now what the module is doing. Looks good. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Show by date

Template:Show by date has been nominated for merging with Template:Display. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

old AfD multi

Sorry, I've never seen {{old AfD multi}} before so I'm unsure how to respond, or even if I'm supposed to respond. AnomieBOT added the template to Talk:M. Courtney Watson when the old AfD was about the same person, but her notability is now established. (Per WP:POLITICIAN, state legislators are presumed notable.) -- Pemilligan (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: The template exists to note that the page was nominated for deletion previously, which that one was. If the subject of the article wasn't notable then and is now, then you're good. Anomie⚔ 20:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A small reminder

I would like to remind you that my bot request, stated in the page Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Adithyakbot has not been considered within the last one month.Adithyak1997 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Adithyak1997: AnomieBOT doesn't actually review bot requests for approval, just comments on them when there is an issue. As for the delay, its because you didn't transclude the BRFA properly - I'll do that for you in a second. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

DRV stalled

Could somebody take a look at WP:DRV. The closed discussions are not getting archived. Some are 10 days old. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In what way is it not working as intended? Discussions within the last 14 days are listed as "recent" if not empty, and that's what I see there. Anomie⚔ 21:56, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Normally, discussions migrate out of Recent discussions into Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive. That's not happening. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, wait, you're saying they're supposed to sit in Recent for a full 14 days? I thought it was faster, but maybe I'm just mis-remembering things. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Today's discussion always goes in "Active". Any in the past 7 days that aren't empty also go there. Any non-empty discussions between 7 and 14 days old go in "Recent", as do any older days that still have unclosed discussions. Anomie⚔ 02:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

BAG Status question

Hi. In the bot's edits to WP:BAG/Status, what is the usage of |class="MostRecentIsBAG" - is there a user script that relies on this? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

It was requested in User talk:AnomieBOT/Archive 2#Wikipedia:BAG/Status. Anomie⚔ 18:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Anomie: I figured out why it was requested - see User:Josh Parris/common.css. I copied that CSS, and it works great, but I was wondering if you could separately add |class="MostRecentIsOp" when the most recent editor of the BRFA is the operator, so I know whether I should check it for any threads to reply to or not. Would this be doable? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Anomie⚔ 12:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Anomie: Thank you so much --DannyS712 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Anomie: I think there was a bug in Special:Diff/l890644267 --DannyS712 (talk) 16:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Minor edits, like Special:Diff/prev/890643476, aren't counted for the highlighting. That's intended to allow BAGgers to make a minor edit to a BRFA without it being misleadingly counted in the "Last BAG editor" column; I'll have to think what makes most sense in this situation. Anomie⚔ 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anomie: Sorry, the link was Special:Diff/890644267. Thanks for figuring out the cause - maybe set it so that if its MostRecentIsOp, and the op edits again with a minor edit, leave the class as Op? (Same could apply to most-recent is bag, but that is a different question). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT not working

@Anomie: There are a number of tasks that AnomieBOT has stopped processing. Toolforge reports a status of "job missing" for:

• TagDater
• CategoryLister
• NobotsHallOfShame
• PERTableUpdater
• SourceUploader
• TaskRedirectChecker
• WatchlistUpdater

Just wanted to let you know in case you weren't aware. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

What is the point?

This bot caused me to lose half an hour of work because of an edit conflict.
What is the point of fixing/adding that totally useless "date" parameter in the {{cn}} template? Could you please just stop doing that?
Or could you at least avoid editing any article that has been edited in the last 24 hours, to reduce the risk of edit conflicts?
Thanks, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi: (talk page stalker) the date is used so that Category:Articles with unsourced statements can be sorted by month, like most other backlog categories. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: And ... what is that good for?
How many "habitual" editors does Wikipedia have, and how many of them are looking at that list? (350,000 articles in backlog, growing 5000-10000 per month; each with one or more {{cn}} tags...)
What could such editors do about it? Why should a {{cn}} that was pasted into some article in 2007 deserve more or less attention than one posted in 2019?
Realistically, a {{cn}} tag will be replaced by a source ref only if some editor who has interest in that article feels bothered enough by that tag to fix it. So the best thing one can do to attack that backlog (which obviously will only keep growing, no matter what) is to attract more editors; and the best way to achieve that is to make articles easier to edit --- for example, by getting rid of all templates, like {{cite}} and {{sfrac}}, that affect only the looks of the article (often for the worse).
Grump. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

If you really want to change the longstanding consensus that maintenance tags should be dated, you'd have to take it to WP:VPR or the like. Same for if you want to propose getting rid of all templates. <sarcasm>Good luck with that.</sarcasm> Anomie⚔ 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

I rather doubt you actually lost any work. More likely you just had a situation where you were asked to merge your edit with the bot's, although since it was a bot you could probably have gotten away with just overwriting the bot's edit entirely and letting the bot redo it if it still applied. If whichever editor you were using really did lose your edit entirely, you should file a bug in the appropriate place. If you're routinely making series of edits and wish to try to avoid other editors (including AnomieBOT's tag dating) causing conflicts, you might try using {{In use}}. Anomie⚔ 03:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, I did a mistake -- saved my text elsewhere, closed the tab to look at the history to see what was the conflict and how to try again. Then I found that I had saved the wrong text. But still, apart from my mistake, the edit conflict was a totally unjustified disturbance. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to believe whatever you want, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable. Continuing to assert that belief here, though, is not likely to accomplish anything useful. More useful would be using {{in use}} if your editing pattern is prone to conflicts. Anomie⚔ 11:27, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Bot restoring malware-infected URL's

Heads up - the bot is restoring references that I removed due to the domain being hijacked / attempting to spread malware. See: [2] [3]. SQL^{Query me!} 02:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Stop leaving orphaned references and it won't do that. Anomie⚔ 02:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

orphaned refs

Thanks! --Saippuakauppias ⇄ 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, too. ◄ Sebastian 21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Garcinia indica

In rescuing an orphaned ref with this edit, an IUCN reference for a macaque was added! (The species is a fruit tree). I've updated the reference. Thanks Declangi (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the fix-up

I spent a few hours, gave up, and returned to find my citation fixed. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

...And your bot fixed a missing sig by a new editor. Thank you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope this didn't mess-up the bot. Sorry. -- 09:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC) It worked, again. Thank you. I guess this is routine for you. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Error in CFD clerk

Just noticed this now, but in [4] the bot didn't remove the ==== NEW NOMINATIONS ==== at the top --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/895863033 removed the <!-- Please add the newest nominations below this line -->. The bot is normally ok at dealing with edits that screw up the header on the current day and on old days, but this particular screw-up occurred during the current→old transition with the result that the bot didn't find the heading+comment it was looking to remove and also didn't detect it as a screw-up because the header wasn't supposed to have that heading+comment anymore (it implicitly considered the heading as part of the page content instead). Anomie⚔ 21:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Anomie: ahh, thanks for the explanation --DannyS712 (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Satisfya song

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfya_Song help this page Pariwarking (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Baby, I'm in Love article.

I didn't understand why you put in the talk page of the Baby, I'm in Love that it was deleted in 2012. I know it was, but that means that we have to vote again to keep the page? The article was deleted before because it doesn't have sources, now it has, and reliable sources actually.--88marcus (talk) 12:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

All it means is that an article at that title was previously deleted. If it was deleted for no sources and now it has sources, you're probably good. Anomie⚔ 20:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.--88marcus (talk) 00:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

ITNTagger

Similar to OnThisDayTagger, can a ITNTagger also be made, check bolded links and tag, seems doable? --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Seems doable. Is there a consensus discussion I could point to establishing that people want a bot for this? And details as to exactly where the bot should look? Anomie⚔ 21:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Currently on it. And the bot should look at {{ITN}} for new additions every hour or so. --qedk (t 桜 c) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Why change date from "date=December 2009" to "date=May 2019"

I wonder why did your bot do this[5]. Only change is: "date=December 2009" changed to "date=May 2019". Christian75 (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Christian75, your link combines two edits. This was the bot's actual edit, which fixed the broken date in the template by replacing it with a known good date. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ups, Sorry for wasting your time. I think I have done it before, but at least seen other people doing it. It should be more clear in the top imho. But my mistake... Christian75 (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBot question and CSD G6s

Hello, Anomie,

I have a question that has, frankly, driven me crazy. And it is when I look at the Categories list for Candidates for speedy deletion (which appear in a number of places including Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and CSD category pages), and the number of pages listed doesn't always match the number of pages that the categories contain. I used to think that the category pages were not updating so I'd hit Purge and it didn't make any difference. For example, the counter for Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion is now listed at 14 but there are only 2 pages listed when you check that category.

Today, I was looking at Category:Manually maintained portal pages from March 2019 which was marked as CSD G6 but was not listed in any deletion category. But according the page, it was in the--AHA!--the Hidden categories of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion.

Could CSD G6 categories (and other things like unneeded CSD G8 talk pages) be not marked by hidden categories? Then they are easier to see for deletion. I don't know how this is remedied, as the clean up categories are marked by a {{Monthly clean-up category}} but perhaps the template could be changed. No one but editors see these dated categories any way so I'm not sure why the categories are hidden as if readers would wander into this area. And I guess this could explain the other numerical discrepancies where admins see that there are more pages in the CSD categories but don't know how to get to them or what pages they are. Thank you.

And there are other, out-dated maintenance categories that the bot ignores like Category:Deprecated templates from April 2019 which should have been CSD G6 but was not tagged. It would be great if AnomieBot tagged all outdated categories for uncontroversial deletion. I can produce a semi-complete list for you if you'd like. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that certain categories are hidden categories has nothing to do with the counts being inaccurate. Unfortunately as more caching and background updating of things are added to improve frontend performance, that also seems to lead to more issues with cache invalidation and delayed or missed updates.

As for Category:Deprecated templates from April 2019, according to Template talk:Monthly clean-up category/core#Edit request it's intentional that empty monthly categories for the previous month aren't automatically CSDed. The automatic CSD logic for that April category would have activated in June. Anomie⚔ 03:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

CSB link

A while back, I asked about adding {{csb link}} to the list of college sports links that are processed and you rightly pointed out that it wouldn't see much use at that point. Now, softball has more season pages (See Category:Excessive uses of csb link for current places it can help, and note many have already been fixed manually) and more are added each season, so it would be helpful to have it run as well. Would you add it to the list? Billcasey905 (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done Anomie⚔ 21:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Skirrid Inn

Why did your bot edit my stay at Skirrid inn Rcase666 (talk) 14:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The bot did no such thing; a human removed your unsourced WP:COI edits. See the article's history page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Nintendo Switch game list ref name

I would like to let you know why I deleted this reference tag, because there isn't any other reference tag with that name, or there is not a reference with other Japanese games that are listed under one tag. Now if there were multiple games that were announced with that game included, then we would include a reference tag just with a different name. I would just like you to know of this situation in the future. Zacharyalejandro (talk) 00:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Zacharyalejandro, first off, this is a bot page, so it cannot respond. Second off, clearly the reference was being used in more than one place, since the bot rescued the reference name from the previous revision. If one reference can be used in multiple places, it should be. Primefac (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Meerut district - Fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Meerut district, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about census2011.co.in. 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:

• Meerut district revision 899690640:
  • Rescued "cen11a" from rev 899680452
    Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
  • Rescued "cen11c" from rev 899680452
    Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
  • Rescued "c11" from rev 899680452
    Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)
  • Rescued "cen11b" from rev 899680452
    Removed in revision 899680831 by Sitush (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */ also not reliable, and we do not use the provisional official figures" (removed 1373/25564 bytes, 5%)

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⚡ 22:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

• Checked. It was a test of the recent blacklisting, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

  Sitush, so is this issue resolved, and can we add "- Fixed" to the header so the bot knows it's good to go? Primefac (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to do whatever is necessary here. The issue is resolved at the article. I've never seen a message like this one before, although I am aware of the bot doing its stuff. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Oddity with Gloria Pasqua-Casny

The article Gloria Pasqua-Casny has a notability tag that still hasn't been dated for almost 4 months. Four months already, and the bot still hasn't dated that tag yet! The bot should try to also date maintenance tags that haven't been dated for a while. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The bot skips articles where the latest edit is tagged "possible libel or vandalism". In this case it would probably be simplest to just date it yourself, although any other edit (that doesn't result in the same situation) should allow the bot to handle it. Anomie⚔ 03:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Marina Kuwar

The "NewArticleAFDTagger" created a talk page for a currently deleted page (i.e. page moved into draftspace without a redirect) at Talk:Marina Kuwar. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I have marked it for deletion, as it is dependent on a deleted page. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, the bot shouldn't have done that. Apparently I forgot to check that the page wasn't deleted again before the bot saw the creation.  Done Anomie⚔ 11:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Shonen

Dude stop bringing back that stupid link made by Deb Aoki! It’s not a credible source anymore. Plus Deb Aoki hasn’t been correct in a while now. LMFAO SG1994! (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@SG1994!: The user you are trying to mention is a robot and not a human. Please do not write your messages in a tone intended for a human.

The bot was not readding a removed reference; rather, this was part of its OrphanReferenceFixer task, which repairs broken references. Your edit here removed the contents for the reference name "about.com"; however, that reference was still being used elsewhere in the article. You can see this in the first entry of the References section of the article, where a cite error message is being displayed because the contents of the named reference no longer exist (see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text). The bot was simply readding the named reference in order to fix the error. It does not do this based on prejudice or because it is biased towards you and your edit; it was simply fixing a technical issue on the page.

Looking at your edits in the page history, you should consider starting a discussion on the talk page of the article in order to obtain a consensus rather than edit warring. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:BAB-A has too many transclusions

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. Possibly added by User:Fredddie at 2019-06-16T13:18:24Z. 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⚡ 13:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:BAB-B has too many transclusions

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. Possibly added by User:Fredddie at 2019-06-17T01:47:41Z. 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⚡ 02:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ~ Maintenance tags ~

Thanks Bot, for waiting until after I took of the {GOCEinuse} tag on Dana White before doing your maintenance ~ Mitchellhobbs (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

False positives for AnomieBOT III

There are a few false positives that keep appearing on the user space broken redirects list that are not broken. They are:

• User:Meisam.fa
• User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki which links to another wiki
• User:JackLantern
• User:Mvvnlightbabe

These are all actual redirects and it would be nice if they were kept off the broken redirect list. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Those are broken, for at least some definition of "broken", as illustrated by the fact that clicking those links takes you to the redirect page instead of the nominal target.

• User:Meisam.fa, User:JackLantern, and User:Mvvnlightbabe each redirect to a target page that doesn't exist. The GlobalUserPage extension apparently doesn't make it "exist" enough for the redirect to function.
• User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki, as you note, is an attempt at a cross-wiki redirect. Cross-wiki redirects don't work. In non-userspace the bot would convert it to use {{soft redirect}}.

HTH. Anomie⚔ 12:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure that I follow. User:Meisam.fa redirects to User:Meisam, User:JackLantern and User:Mvvnlightbabe both redirect to User:Mvvnlightbae. None of those target pages were deleted which is usually the problem with broken redirects. The redirects on the original pages seem to be formed properly (#REDIRECT [[Target page]]). I understand about the cross-wiki redirect and why the bot might not register that as valid.

But, you know, I don't need to know exactly why the bot has identified these as broken redirects, I'll just to continue to ignore them when I see them on the broken redirect user pages list. They also appear on the Special:BrokenRedirects (except for User:Thryduulf/R to other wiki for some reason). I just thought there might be some quick solution. Thank you for your response. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Meisam and User:Mvvnlightbae don't exist here on the English Wikipedia. The content you see on those pages is taken from meta:User:Meisam and meta:User:Mvvnlightbae, courtesy of Extension:GlobalUserPage (see also WP:Global user page). That extension also makes the links blue, but doesn't manage to make the pages "exist" for redirects to be considered not broken. Anomie⚔ 21:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

D-400

Hi, Anomiebot is busy in fixing the road codes. Thanks.However with D.400 something goes wrong (as seen here). Can you please check it ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I guess by "fixing road codes" you're referring to substing of {{TUR-D}}? What is wrong there, that wasn't wrong with the original {{TUR-D}}? Anomie⚔ 12:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nedim Ardoğa: substituting {{TUR-D}} unified a couple of styles that were in use. D-100 and , which are common on articles that have been imported from other-language projects have been replaced with D.100.{{Jct}} simply displays the image graphic and plain text and is used on thousands of articles. –Fredddie™ 21:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by AnomieBOT

AnomieBot made these edits to the Comparison of instant messaging clients article. I can't quite figure out what it was trying to do, but the result was creating about eight duplicate reference definitions for the notes in that table. I've rolled back the edit. If we can understand what it was trying to do, maybe we can find a fix that isn't so disruptive. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Reflist wrapper templates confused the bot, fixed now. I'd appreciate it if you avoid hyperbole like "disruptive". Anomie⚔ 17:15, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix! The edits have no visible effect on the article, other than to add errors and obscure previously working references. After my reversion, by the way, the bot left an explanation of its actions on my talk page which appears to be incorrect. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Uhoh! Looks like the bot just re-did the erroneous edit, and the errors it created in the notes section of the article have reappeared. Why does the bot repeatedly make the same mistake, and how can it be stopped? -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

You should check your timing. The "re-did" happened at 16:34 UTC, while the fix was at 17:15 and your comment here was at 17:36. Anomie⚔ 13:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

9ff

Dear user @Anomie:, Thanks for your bot, it is really helpful! However, I have to tell you about it's edits on the 9ff article, an article I have just expanded. About the tags it placed: 1)( [self-published source?]) : I agree this is the former website of the company archived, but I used it just as information, the content on the article is modified by me When other sources were avelaible, I used them also, they were also claming the same things. 2) ([dubious – discuss]) : To the specific facts that these two were the fastest cars of their time there is no doubt: It is not comfirmed only by the company's former website (if it was only by this it would be bias), but from major automotive websites all around the world (not only these I have cited.) Please leave me a message with guidance what to do. Best regards, Enivak (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Enivak: The bot did not add these tags; it only added "July 2019" to them all. If you check the article history, you'll see that the tags were placed by Dennis Bratland (talk · contribs). I suggest you discuss them at Talk:9ff. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

If it is like this, sorry then. Enivak (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:9ff#Self-serving and extraordinary claims citing company website. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:12, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I found an error and stupidly reverted without reading your message :(

In my defence I'm new and have a HUGE cold... Anyway, linky here, hopefully it won't re-revert, but if it does I'll come back.

Or I'll be sat in a corner hallucinating off cold meds, one or the other...

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marasmus&type=revision&diff=904803057&oldid=904676246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue-Sonnet (talk • contribs) 17:17, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

You reverted both the vandalism and the bot's subsequent edit that was triggered by the vandalism, which is exactly what you should have done. Your edit summary incorrectly blamed the bot instead of the vandal, but that's not a big deal. Anomie⚔ 20:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Hello @Anomie:, please check the references added on the Bangladesh article by Tubslubeamorepersempre in this edit. He added a number of references with names but didn't specify the content of the reference properly. Please fix it, thank you. -- Gridlust (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are you asking me to do it, and why on my bot's talk page? Anomie⚔ 01:22, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I am sorry i was asking the bot to do it because it usually rescues orphaned references. -- Gridlust (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The bot doesn't need to be asked, it just does it. In the case of Bangladesh, there's a lot for the bot to go through and it has to start over each time someone edits the page, so it might take some time. At a human glance, it looks like much of the content added there was taken from Bengal, so if you don't want to wait for the bot you could just manually copy the references over (checking if any of them are already being used under a different name or are used unnamed). Anomie⚔ 13:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for linking me to Bengal, i have copied the references from there and pasted it to Bangladesh. -- Gridlust (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

TfDClerk prematurely removed a discussion from the TfD backlog list

See this edit: WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9 § Link language wrappers was removed, but it should have stayed there because it hasn't been closed yet. I've re-added it to the backlog to see what the bot will do (I assume the bot will remove it again). Retro (talk | contribs) 16:20, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yep, as I suspected. I suppose I could now go look at the source code, but I have some other stuff I currently want to do. Retro (talk | contribs) 17:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the bot is forgetting to keep the day open if the only unclosed discussions are non-bottable. Unfortuately someone went and relisted that one so I can't use it for testing now. Hopefully the fix I wrote for it works right. Anomie⚔ 01:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm unsure if that fixed the problem. I added some entries to the July June 9 page, but the bot didn't list them as old unclosed discussions. What is surprising to me is that it didn't even list the discussion for Template:Example that included {{tfd links}}. Does the bot has some kind of internal database it uses for tracking unclosed discussions, or is there something else I'm missing? Retro (talk | contribs) 21:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Retro: Each time the bot runs, it saves the date of the earliest page it checked that seems like it will need checking again the next time it runs. "Seems like it will need checking again" includes having open sections, having broken sections, or having been edited in the past 24 hours. By the time you started experimenting with Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 9 (note it was June you were using, not July as you stated above), the bot had already stopped re-checking it and earlier pages (probably since July 1, 24 hours after the last edit to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 7). Anomie⚔ 00:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops, good catch on the June/July typo.

I assume the saved date you refer to is $startdate. Can you manually store an earlier date through manually assigning $api->store->{'startdate'} to a correctly-formatted 2019-06-09 date so the fix can be tested? Retro (talk | contribs) 01:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that. Anomie⚔ 11:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Looks like the code works, but it wound up counting the lead section when producing the edit summary so every day checked was listed there. Fixed that. Anomie⚔ 13:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Alright, since it seems it tested well, I've removed the test discussions. The bot appears to have handled it correctly. Retro (talk | contribs) 16:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kasane Airport

The article Kasane Airport contains a "reference" to g__gl_ m_ps which I find incorrect - I understand there is a consencus locations are sufficiently given in the infobox and should not be repeated. Still when I removed it, this bot put it back, which leaves me confused and frustrated. Please help! Jan olieslagers (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jan olieslagers: I don't think this bot is responsible for the problem since the bot hasn't edited the page for a while, and not since you edited it. It looks like you may have eventually been able to resolve it, though. Retro (talk | contribs) 20:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

To me, it rather looks like I gallantly muddled things up, confusing a couple of nouns proper and all that. None better to cause frustration than one's stupid self! Back to good order now, though, I think. Thanks for follow-up, and excuse me for needless alert. Jan olieslagers (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Sajjad Gharibi, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

On a more serious note, how would the bot detect I was trying to adhere to WP:BLP by removing tabloid journalism citing questionable personal information? And how could it determine that restoring the citation to The Sun is definitely not what I would have wanted? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

All the bot "knows" is that you didn't fully remove all reference to that source and that your partial removal left the article in a broken state. Divining intentions and desires is far beyond it. The most that I can think of that it could possibly do would be to detect a link to WP:BLP (directly or via one of its 120 redirects) in the edit summary and leave the article in its broken state, possibly with a post on the talk page of the article pinging the person who did the removal. Anomie⚔ 12:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the only realistic option would be to set up corpuses of data where orphaned references were fixed, split into correct and incorrect, and use a Bayesian filter to determine future cases. But that sounds like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer; this is the only instance I can think of where I have disagreed with the bot rescuing orphaned refs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

POTDPageDeleter

Can I ask why your bot is deleting old protected POTD templates? In some cases this is killing off attribution history, where an admin has altered the page while it was transcluded and then someone else has copied the edit to the unprotected version. And it's not like it saves any space on the servers, because deleted pages are still retained. I don't really see a valid reason for doing this, and I think the pages should be restored. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 07:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Because there was a request and consensus to do so. See Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day/Archive 7#Unused Templates, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 5, and Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Old Template:POTD protected/YYYY-MM-DD templates. Chances are admins doing the copying should go the other way, FYI. Anomie⚔ 11:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, in most cases maybe they do. But not always. We've discussed the possibility of changing the system to avoid the need for double templates, which would be great, but it's not like the legacy protected ones were doing any harm and we've been doing it that way for more than ten years. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Old Template:POTD protected templates are unused templates that have no possibility of being used and should be deleted per WP:TFD#REASONS point 2. The fact that unused templates with no possibility of use were kept for ten years does not mean that unused templates with no possibility of use should be kept now. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:User PiMem has too many transclusions - Fixed

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. Possibly added by User:Andrybak at 2019-07-14T12:30:22Z. 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⚡ 13:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done: Special:Diff/906219843 —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

...because titles with en-dashes are hard to type (and resolving the double redirect ...

Let's take a page like 2019 Australian Open - Wheelchair Quad Singles. The redirect target is 2019 Australian Open, but should now be with en dash 2019 Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles. The bot adds {{User:AnomieBOT/Auto-G8|target=2019 Australian Open – Wheelchair Quad Singles}} which includes the correct target. I know at that time it's probably a good move, but when the page is actually created, it does not look good. Is it possible for (some) bot to actually check if the correct page is created and then redirect to that? I fixed bunch of those on tennis grand slam pages, but I'm sure there's lot more. Another option is not to create a page with hyphen at all, when the en dash version is just a redirect. Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Older example is 2016 Wimbledon Championships - Wheelchair Men's Doubles. Pelmeen10 (talk) 21:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

What exactly are you complianing about here? The fact that someone needs to update redirects when splitting an article out of another article? It's not just the en-dash redirects that need that treatment. Anomie⚔ 22:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Sort tweaks for Wikipedia:BAG/Status

If you do [6], the BAG column sorts better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

subst=subst

Hi, why is this done? Also this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Redrose64, I think I am responsible for that one. I added the Globalize subpages to the auto substitution list since the subpage are being merged with the main template per this TfD. The AnomieBOT II came around and unsubstified them while AnomieBOT was substituting them resulting in what you saw. I've now added nobots to the templates so it should hopefully not happen again. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

So it seems like the bot stores a list of all templates it has tried substituting but failed and doesn't try again. So I think I need some Anomie assistance, sorry... --Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Those substitutions didn't actually fail, they just didn't succeed in the manner you expected thanks to the unsubstification (which, in turn, was due to those templates being listed at WP:AWB/DT). The bot does remember the revision ID of successful substitutions so it doesn't keep trying over and over. I've deleted the records of substitutions of templates beginning with "Template:Globalize/", so it should retry those substitutions soonish. Anomie⚔ 18:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette

There was a cite error in the article. The bot was unable to fix it. It added unnecessary quotation marks to a few citations. I think it would be too complicated for the bot to do this. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Compatible license

See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this.

See this edit. I would like the bot to automatedly do this.

This is not a bot bug. Is it possible to program the bot to automatedly restore the required proper attribution in accordance with WP:MEDCOPY? If this bot can't be programmed to do this then which bot on Wikipedia can be programmed to do this? The link to the entire paper and full attribution is required for each license in accordance with Template:CC-notice. QuackGuru (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

That looks like a situation I'd rather not get involved with. I can imagine people questioning why the articles aren't following the advice to "write in your own words whenever possible", questioning why the direct quotes (if necessary at all) aren't being formatted as such, and debating whether a single sentence qualifies as the same sort of fair use that a direct quote of a single sentence from a non-free source qualifies as. Anomie⚔ 21:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Leh district

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Leh district, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about census2011.co.in. 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:

• Leh district revision 909416702:
  • Rescued "districtcensus" from rev 909416450
    Removed in revision 909416602 by Rslogo (talk • contribs • logs) with no comment (removed 210/8120 bytes, 3%)

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⚡ 12:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

problematic bot edits in Kielce#Transport, Żółtki-Kolonia

There is a problem in the article Kielce. Since the bot substituted a template there back in June already, it looks like this with many direct uses of the Template:Subst only which doesn't belong in any article. Before the bot edit, it looked fine without those wrong templates in the text. If the bot edit will be reverted, if that still is possible, will the bot again add those wrong templates there? How can this problem be fixed? Readers might wonder very much about this. Now I see that Żółtki-Kolonia has the same problem after the bot edit there, also in June. I'll try to revert that now, because there have not been other edits afterwards. Let's see what will happen then. Greetings --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 00:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I also partly reverted this edit snd that edit. There always is Template:AS-droga making problems with the Subst only template. In Żółtki-Kolonia, the bot is substituting the edit correctly now. Thus, there remains the problem with Kielce#Transport which can't be just reverted anymore and has most of the subst only templates. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT just follows instructions. You need to ask Fredddie (talk · contribs) why they made the template subst-only. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I was able to revert without issue. As for the rest, Redrose64 is correct: someone marked the template as auto-subst before checking that it actually worked correctly when substed. Unfortunately it's not possible for the bot to know that the substing was broken. Anomie⚔ 11:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for fixing the problem article anyway. I think the template works correctly now and the errors are fixed. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 12:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that was me. I was trying to unify the dozens of road marker templates that have been copied over from other language Wikipedias into one template here that follows our policies and practices. And in having it auto-subst, template maintenance is reduced to one location's data module. Anyway, in June I thought I had gone back and fixed all the issues I created, but as it turns out I missed a few. Thanks for getting the ones I missed. –Fredddie™ 13:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, it is all fixed now. I have found all four of them in the link list (transclusion list for the article namespace) of Template:Subst only. Now it's empty, so everything in article namespace is fixed. This template should be used/transcluded only in templates, thus in template, project and user namespace. There are now a few uses left on talk pages.

And in project namespace I've found another subst template producing such code by substituting it. If anyone of you has an idea for that, please post it there. I have found no other substitution template like this long one in the project namespace list, this one is special. Hopefully, there are no other substitution templates like this in the template namespace. --2A02:908:D83:E460:216:CBFF:FEAD:FF9 (talk) 14:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Tag communists and communist organizations with Wikiproject Socialism

I would like to tag articles about communists and communist organizations with {{WikiProject Socialism}}. Whenever they do not contain the banner already, they should start with importance=low. I created a list of categories whose articles would be safe to tag: Wikipedia:WikiProject Socialism/Categories. The categories themselves should be tagged too. Some categories are not linked (and not recursed into) because they may lead to unrelated articles. Would that be possible with AnomieBOT? I was directed here from BOTREQ. Thank you! --MarioGom (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@MarioGom: Please have a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism where (other) members of that project check and approve your category list. In particular they should carefully verify that articles in all categories are appropriate for the project. Anomie⚔ 11:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

ANGRY!!!!

Your edit of my SANDBOX cost me 3 hours worth of translating the page of the demonstrations in Hong Kong into Dutch!

GRRRRRRR

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit and added a nobots tag so it shouldn't happen again. The reason for this feature is that these templates shouldn't be used in articles, but may interfere when working on translations. --Trialpears (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It might serve you better to do the translation in your sandbox on the Dutch Wikipedia instead. Non-English-named templates like {{Citeer web}} are not intended to be used here, they only exist to help with people importing articles. Anomie⚔ 23:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I got it finished right before bedtime, so there is a good ending.

I might take your advice about the dutch sandbox, but there, the bots pick up on English templates...

It is a hard life for translators. :)

Anyway, this bot will not be able to return; one bot at a time it will get easier.

--2019OutlaweD (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Dianetics

I am curious as to why you reverted my edit listing Korzybski's theory of the psychological effects of language which was eerily similar the engramic commands taught in Dianetics. The presently listed 'theory of identity' of Korzybski doesn't seem to resemble Hubbards teaching at all. CWatchman (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

CWatchman AnomieBOT has never reverted any edit, but you may be refering to @JzG: reverting back to a version by AnomieBOT with the edit summary "Non-RS". --Trialpears (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I was backing out some refspam. CWatchman, if that edit is still relevant after the rollback please feel free to reinstate it. Guy (Help!) 09:04, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Manually invoke orphaned ref rescue

Suffering from periodic non-patience (that's impatience taken to its extreme) is there way to manually invoke the orphan ref rescue feature of this awesome bot? Sometimes I delete the citation for a named ref and it might take a long time (hours) before the bot rescues them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

No, there isn't. Anomie⚔ 11:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Bridge Loan

Hi Anomiebot. I thought my edit had not been added and when ahead to re add but then realised that you had reverted it back to a previous state. I feel that the section added was valid as it mentioned that it required an update and the information added is very relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pknight85 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not revert your edit. Take a closer look at the history of whatever article you're talking about. Anomie⚔ 23:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Fort Bragg High School

Hi @Anomie:,

AnomieBOT just undid an intentional edit I made at Fort Bragg High School and per your guidance at the top of this page I'm providing the link to the diff in question and an explanation of the circumstances in the event you want to attempt to code in a function to algorithmically recognize such occasions in the future. The situation was brought about by a switch from using manual citations for datums in the article's infobox to a named citation provided automatically by use of the NCES School ID and NCES District ID templates. So while the bot did correctly identify that I had deleted a named citation which used the Cite web template and replaced it with a named citation that wasn't explicitly set in the article's wikitext, it failed to recognize that upon transclusion of the two templates mentioned above that the new citation name was, in fact, valid and in accordance with best practices as defined by WikiProject Schools. I hope this provides the information you like to receive in circumstances such as these. Best wishes, — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar  ₨Talk🗩 ⚟  ^My recent
_mischief  15:05, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@RogueScholar: (talk page stalker) Following your revert, the current version of the article displays an error message down in the references "8 ^ a b Cite error: The named reference NCES was invoked but never defined". Perhaps your switch to the {{NCES School ID}} and {{NCES District ID}} templates isn't yet complete? -- John of Reading (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@John of Reading: Indeed it wasn't, thank you for catching my oversight! After seeing your note I was perplexed as to how they could've escaped my use of the Find and Replace function in the source editor, at least until I opened it back up and saw the Case-sensitive button all lit up in blue, no doubt exactly as it had been during my prior edit without my noticing it. I do believe I have everything copacetic once again, but if you happen to pass by the page once more and see anything else I missed or could bring about more elegantly, please don't hesitate to let me know. I'm a big fan of being allowed to correct my own mistakes to help cement better habits vs. finding them fixed by others later in the revision history. I'm in your debt, kind sir. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar  ₨Talk🗩 ⚟  ^My recent
_mischief  15:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

OTD template on Talk pages

In this edit, I fixed an edit by the bot. Can the bot to taught to place updates inside {{ArticleHistory}} using the parameters |otd10date=2019-08-09|otd10oldid=909950071? Was the error because it did not recognize the templace redirect? --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs: The bot doesn't know anything about {{ArticleHistory}} at this time. I'll have to look into it. Anomie⚔ 10:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Coffeeandcrumbs:  Done Anomie⚔ 00:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Can the bot also recognize {{Talk:Samragyee RL Shah/GA1}} transcluded on the page and place the OTD template above it. It currently places templates below GA reviews when there are no discussions on the talk page besides the GA review, a rare case. I used Talk:Samragyee RL Shah as an example because DYKUpdateBot seems to understand the issue judging by this edit. I am hoping also it would recognize {{Did you know nominations/[ARTICLE NAME]}} and go above that as well since the DYK nom templates are also sometimes transcluded on the talk page. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hi @Anomie:

In this category, Category:Recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award, someone used the following reference on many of the articles:

• <ref>https://www.scout.org/BronzeWolfAward/list complete list</ref>

and I'd lie to replace it with

• <ref name= "wolfie">{{Cite web|url=https://www.scout.org/BronzeWolfAward/List | title = List of recipients of the Bronze Wolf Award | publisher = WOSM | website=scout.org |access-date=2019-05-01}}</ref>

Is this something you can do? Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 15:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

In theory, yes. But you'd probably get it done faster by using (or asking someone who uses) AWB. Anomie⚔ 21:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I have little experience with AWB. Any help you can offer is appreciated. --evrik ^(talk) 20:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo:, thoughts? --evrik ^(talk) 03:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@GreenC: Could you help? --evrik ^(talk) 03:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@Evrik: - ok it wasn't too many. -- GreenC 16:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks for future reference for requests. -- GreenC 16:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --evrik ^(talk) 16:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Missing tasks?

Looks like there are quite a few tasks whose jobs are missing (based on the list). Primefac (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems to have been dealt with. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Change TfD headers to links

Could you change the TfD date headers from ===September 9=== to ===[[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 September 9|September 9]]===? The apperance on the page will be the exact same, but it will add a link to the subpage from the main TfD page and aid navigation. --Trialpears (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

You should get consensus on the TFD talk page. Anomie⚔ 21:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure thing! --Trialpears (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Given the WP:SILENCE at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Change TfD headers to links I think this can be done now. --Trialpears (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Anomie⚔ 01:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Why does AnomieBot edit war?

AnomieBot made this edit to Consideration (song). The edit caused two problems. The first was a new duplicate reference definition in the article for the reference named "ukr&b". The bot left a comment that the definition was being "rescued". There's no need -- the reference "ukr&b" is correctly defined and working in the article.

Worse yet, the reference that AnomieBot placed is almost completely irrelevant; it doesn't describe this song or this artist and links to the wrong chart date.

I reverted the edit. Instead of leaving its mistake alone, AnomieBot repeated its mistake by replacing precisely the same edit. Why does the bot start edit wars with human users? How do I convince it to do the right thing? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Mikeblas, seems to be two things happening here: AnomieBOT looked at the page since it has a separate citation error from the reference called BPI. The bot looked for the first instance a reference was used but not defined finding ukr&b due to it being unusually defined through a template and therefore "fixing" it instead of BPI. The general solution would be to add support for citation names defined through templates, but to fix in this particular case fixing the BPI error and reverting should be enough. --Trialpears (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT does handle refs defined through templates. The bug here is that the template is producing <ref name="ukr&amp;b"> (from expandtemplates) while the page has <ref name="ukr&b">, and AnomieBOT wasn't seeing those as being the same. Anomie⚔ 21:14, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

tagging for WikiProject Diptera

Hi, I'm helping out the newly-created WP:WikiProject Diptera, who wants to add their template to talk pages without having to do so manually (there are very many flies). Below is a mostly recursive list of categories within Category:Flies. I've scanned the categories and removed those related to fly-fishing, but it appears that most are related to taxonomic groupings of flies. The talk page template is here. As far as their explicit permission goes, I believe I have secured that here. They are all pretty new editors, though (students), so they don't quite know all the terminology of what they want, just that they want some of these gadgets to work. Let me know if I need to provide additional detail. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Please have members of the project review your list of categories and positively state that the list is good and doesn't contain categories with articles not within the scope of their project. Anomie⚔ 01:32, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

List of categories confirmed. Enwebb (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... Anomie⚔ 12:10, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

@Enwebb: It's done now. Anomie⚔ 21:36, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Anomie, many thanks! Enwebb (talk) 13:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT not creating TfD and FfD daily subpage

Today it seems like AnomieBOT missed creating the daily TfD and FfD subpage. This may be related to ProveIt creating the daily subpages for CfD. AnomieBOT also fixed the CfD header after the TfD and FfD subpages should have been created. --Trialpears (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there was some issue with Toolforge that made a lot of the bot's jobs enter an error state. I wound up killing and restarting them all. Anomie⚔ 11:29, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

POTDPageDeleter

Recent POTD templates are using spaces in the link to the protected page in "See also" (i.e. POTD protected instead of POTD_protected, for better / more accurate presentation). It seems that AnomieBOT III hasn't been configured to remove these. As a test, I tweaked the "See also" link at Template:POTD/2019-08-15, which was scheduled to be removed by the bot at midnight UTC; it didn't do so. @Anomie: could you kindly modify the POTDPageDeleter code slightly to ensure that both forms are recognised and removed? Thanks. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done Seems a mostly pointless change. You'll have to manually fix any pages like Template:POTD/2019-08-15 where the bot already deleted the corresponding protected page. Anomie⚔ 19:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Dodge grand Caravan

I think you have put the wrong results as the caravan is supposed to end in 2020. Victor Furr (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Não Faça Isso Comigo

Hi, I come because of this article. It has sources from Brazilian newspapers and magazines. There is a user who apparently does not enjoy the work and wants at all costs to eliminate. I'm new here, can you take a look? 179.158.184.206 (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Recreating deleted articles

The above section is the second time in the span of a week or so that I've run into AnomieBOT recreating a page deleted as the result of a deletion discussion. Is there a practical way to stop this? --BDD (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@BDD: If you're talking about AnomieBOT creating redirects with ASCII dash for titles that contain en-dashes, it has been decided that those redirects should exist as a navigational aid (74). The solution is to delete the title with en-dashes too, as you did here. But I see only the one example of that where you were the deleter in the past week or so.

AnomieBOT also regularly creates pages in a few other cases:

• Adding {{old AfD multi}} to talk pages of titles that were previously deleted at AFD. (62)
• Often, creating talk pages when moving {{Translated page}} from an article to the talk page where it belongs (31) or when leaving a talk page comment for some other task.
• Creating new pages for various XFD processes. (59, 66, 67)
• Creating new daily subpages of Template:POTD protected/. (77)
• Creating redirects for IMO numbers for WP:SHIPS. (73)
• Creating monthly subcategories for categories in Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month, for each new month and whenever such a subcategory is non-empty. (64)
• Redirecting talk pages for existing Template and Module /doc, /sandbox, /testcases, and /TemplateData subpages to the parent Template/Module's talk page to avoid decentralized discussion. (71)

I see you recently complained about the last at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Template talk:ChristianityWikiProject/sandbox. The solution there is to realize the redirect to the base talk page should exist, and that it wasn't a G4 because it had a different target and was created for a different purpose. HTH. Anomie⚔ 11:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Anomie. You're right that the WikiProject sandbox was the only one where I was the deleting admin. With Russian-Iranian military intervention in Syria, I ended up deleting the variants as well—per WP:NOTBURO, I think it's clear from that discussion that the delete consensus was around the substance of the words rather than the punctuation.

Perhaps the solution is for us human editors to just be more thorough. Still, if a human editor were doing this, I think they would be rightly admonished. If I could wave a magic wand, perhaps AnomieBOT could populate a new subpage if it would recreate a page that was deleted via XfD, since that would be a red flag that there were variants that needed attention. I'd happily watch such a page and follow up myself if it meant admins not working at cross purposes with the bot. --BDD (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Context matters. Each one of those numbers in my previous comment is at least one completely separate bit of code, each of which would have to be individually adjusted to somehow check for "deleted via XfD". Then, too, it would have to somehow be able to determine "deleted at XfD" without being able to understand English, and with all the different formats used for different XfD processes. And then none of that should have prevented your issue at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 29#Template talk:ChristianityWikiProject/sandbox. I'll give some consideration to possibilities, but you're not likely to get the generality you asked for. Anomie⚔ 11:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I realize there's potential for baby-and-bathwater problems here. I know the bot does good work. If you're able to tweak it along these lines, great. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Removed Comment

Removed "Adkinson may not be notable" from cleanup notice on Atoka, Tennessee. The correct spelling is Adkison. He was a Medal of Honor recipient from WWI. I left the "needs wikification" notice because I have not had a chance to check this. If you find that the article is suitably wikified, please remove notice. --SBohrman (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

AnomieBOT is a computer program that, among other things, adds |date= to maintenance templates added by human users. You seem to have been confused by such an addition and attributed to the bot what was done by a human in an earlier edit. Anomie⚔ 15:21, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Error edit

Hello, AnomieBOT, i'm Manchesterunited1234, and I have a problem : your last edit is an error and i revoked it, because, [[fr:Modèle:Lien]], remplaces the Wikidata item that you do, good contributions.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchesterunited1234 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved from user page Primefac (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Issue was with {{lien}} being subst in this edit. It looks like the subst logic might be a bit off, but I (or someone else) will have to investigate. Primefac (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem was this edit by Manchesterunited1234, which placed the inter-wiki link outside of the template's <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags. I fixed it, so the bot should not make this (GIGO) mistake edit anymore. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Saves me a lot of (pointless) debugging! Primefac (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

TagDater: [BRFA55] Possible broken wrapper template Template:Efn native lang - Fixed

The page Template:Efn native lang 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⚡ 22:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe that I have fixed this problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Question about Broken redirection

Hi,

I would like to ask you why the G8 problem happened on this page (dotCover). Additionally, is there a way to solve this issue now? JB2020M (talk) 17:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

In May 2016 it was a redirect to DotCover, and that target page was deleted. While DotCover was re-created a few months later, apparently no one thought to re-create a redirect from the lowercased title. There's nothing stopping you from requesting the re-creation of the redirect if you want. Anomie⚔ 21:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Possible error

Craze Productions is a redirect to Craze Digital, but the article hasn't been deleted yet. I probably shouldn't have created a redirect when I was thinking of nominating the main article for deletion, though. Clovermoss (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

List defined references

Hi, how do I get the bot to remove redundant references like in Timeline of American-led intervention in the Syrian Civil War? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not a task that AnomieBOT performs. Anomie⚔ 01:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Anomie. Which bot can I use to perform this task? Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Re-establishment of un-reliable sources

The re-establishment of un-reliable sources such as this one should not be happening; (re: imdb, genforum.com, Find-a-grave.com, and other forum sites). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You should correctly remove all uses of the reference instead of leaving orphans. The bot doesn't know anything about the reliability of any source, or really even that there's a "source" at all. It just finds the former wikitext and copies it to one of the orphans. Anomie⚔ 00:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Module talk sandboxes

Is there some reason why AnomieBOT doesn't create Module talk:XXX/sandbox as a redirect to Module talk:XXX? Those redirects seem like they would be just as useful as the corresponding redirect in template talk namespace, which AnomieBOT does create. (The same thing doesn't apply to /testcases, because Module talk:XXX/testcases is used to run the testcases, so can't be a redirect). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No, no particular reason. Anomie⚔ 14:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Added to the bot's list. Anomie⚔ 14:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Blocking this bot?

How do I stop this bot from editing my sandbox? It's getting to be rather annoying. WQUlrich (talk) 09:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Per the handling instructions, adding |nosubst= to the template call should do it. –xeno^talk 13:46, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Malformed ref names

I've ran across this bot claiming to fix reference errors, but it is not fixing them. When the bot tries to fix — Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name — all the bot does is remove the ref name, which still creates that same cite error, because it is still malformed or has a bad name. Examples - diff, diff, diff, diff. I found all these articles in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting, after the bot claimed to fix them, in all likelihood, they were in that category anyway because the refs had malformed names. I've fixed them, but I just wanted to let you know that his has been going on for a while, those diffs are the most recent "fixes", and the bot is not actually fixing anything. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

There are so many ways that people can screw things up.

• [7] omits the "=" and uses curly quotes. The bot handles those errors individually, but not the combination of two different errors. It sees it as an empty "name" parameter and then an unrecognized parameter, and removes the unrecognized parameter.
• [8] uses two single quotes in place of a double quote. The bot sees it as name= followed by an unrecognized parameter, and removes the unrecognized parameter.
• [9] has double double-quotes. Again, the bot sees it as name="" followed by an unrecognized parameter, and removes the unrecognized parameter.
• [10] goes a step further and has double double-quotes both before and after the parameter name, with the same result.

The question is which of these are common enough (and unambiguous enough) errors to be worth spending my time coding detection for. Anomie⚔ 23:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Soulmate (TV Series)

Please undo the delete of the article since it has this source to prove it.https://www.rappler.com/entertainment/news/241757-james-reid-nancy-momoland-abs-cbn-show — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.145.172.172 (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

AnomieBOT deleted that redirect because a human deleted its target Soulmate (TV series), as indicated in the deletion summary. If you would have looked there, you'd have found in that page's logs that it was moved to Draft:Soulmate (TV series) so it could be improved. If you have sources or other improvements, you should make them there. Anomie⚔ 16:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Chōdenji Machine Voltes V

Undo your revert in the Chōdenji Machine Voltes V article. The sources doesn't meet the neutrality point of view in wikipedia and is more of a shameless advertisement from the director.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 11:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

You should read the second paragraph of the message the bot posted to your talk page. If you want the reference gone, you need to completely remove it. Don't leave any stray <ref name="voltesvdocu" /> in the wikitext that result in the reference list containing a , as you did here. Anomie⚔ 12:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

month and day parameters upon substitution?

I found this diff to the Mastercard article from October 2018, where a template substitution of {{Internetquelle}} resulted in the (long deprecated) |month= and |day= parameters being inserted with the {{cite web}} template. I don't know how AnomieBOT works but it should not use these parameters anymore. Nor should it insert |year= if it also inserts |date=. Or use |language= if it is empty. Without knowing the technical aspects of AnomieBOT's implementation, does this still happen? How can it be fixed? Jason Quinn (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Jason Quinn, nothing wrong with AnomieBOT which just does what the template tells it to. Czar fixed the template in November so it shouldn't be an issue anymore. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 23:33, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

List of WWE 24/7 champions

Hi, the references for the ref link "official title history" need a fixing as it is showing; Cite warning: <ref> tag with name OfficialTitleHistory cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined in this article at all. L1amw90 (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

TagDater: [BRFA55] Possible broken wrapper template Template:2019 SI redefinition - Fixed

The page Template:2019 SI redefinition 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⚡ 12:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

TagDater: [BRFA55] Possible broken wrapper template Template:2019 SI redefinition - Fixed

The page Template:2019 SI redefinition 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⚡ 18:20, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@The Anome:. See section above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you just marked a previous section "fixed" a little too quickly, so that the bot didn't notice your edit to the template. Let's try it again. Anomie⚔ 10:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome template placed on article page

Hey!

I came across this edit earlier. You can see that the bot has placed a welcome template into an article page. Wouldn't the bot have realised that this is an article page and not a userpage?-- 5 albert square (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

This was GIGO, since a human editor added the Welcome template to the page. {{Welcome}} could be modified to display only in User Talk space. I'll post a note at the template's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Custom edit summary for User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force

I sometimes feel like a more descriptive edit summary would be good when using User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force could this be implemented? This is definitely low priority, but would be greatly appreciated. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trialpears: TemplateSubster doesn't need a custom edit summary, as it's intended for substing templates in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted. I am tempted to make a similar task that's specifically intended for handling TFDs instead. Anomie⚔ 02:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

That would be great! I'm currently seeking bot approval to substitute templates myself but having AnomieBOT do it would be optimal. There are many others working in the holding cell without bots and even for me I can't deal with bots from my chrome book from which I do most of my editing. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trialpears: What do you think of the work page I set up at User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster? Based on these test entries, the bot made this edit. Anomie⚔ 18:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Anomie, looks great! Thank you for doing this! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is this ready to use? Is it well tested and is it covered under the templatesubster BRFA? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll need to do a separate BRFA for it. Anomie⚔ 14:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

BRFA filed. Anomie⚔ 16:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Ashlee Nyathi

Article deleted without full info 197.221.254.0 (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

a special pattern for citations ending in "2"?

I noticed this edit by the bot, which was looking for a citation named "qpnt2" and added an inappropriate citation from another article.

In fact the citation was in the article already under the name "qpnt". Whether you like to regard it as a bug or a feature, these citations with "2" on the end are created by the Visual Editor when someone copies article content (usually from another article) and in the process introduced a citation name into the article which clashes with a citation name already in the article. The Visual Editor decides to rename the incoming citation name by putting a "2" on the end of it to avoid the clash. This makes sense most of the time, except when the previous citation was copied from the same source as the second one in which case it should be left as same citation name.

This is what happened in the article Herberton, Queensland where the intended reuse of citation qpnt became a reuse of the non-existent citation qpnt2.

So from an AnomieBOT perspective, that pattern (a missing citation with a name ending in "2" in the presence of a citation with the same name without the "2") is possibly one that should be resolved by simply renaming the citation to remove the trailing "2" in preference to pulling a similarly named citation from a related article. Kerry (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

TFDClerk: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 8 is broken - Fixed

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 8 contains the "is_closed" regex but not at the beginning of the section. Probably someone put the {{tfd top}} before a section header instead of after. Anyway, I can't do anything to that page until someone fixes it. 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⚡ 12:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

fixed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 12:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikiproject banners

Is the bot adding Wikiproject banners but leaving the Importance blank? example. Leaving blank fields is worse than doing nothing at all. Abductive (reasoning) 00:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

That is up to the person/group making the request. Some like it because it's easier to fill in after the fact. Anomie⚔ 12:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

5000+ times is not easier. Please ask people with such huge requests to consider defaulting to Low. Abductive (reasoning) 05:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

TemplateTalkRedirectCreator: TemplateStyles

I really appreciate this subtle but important task, and I'm wondering if it would be a good idea to include "/styles.css" to the list of suffixes the task should look out for in the Template/Module namespaces. Just a thought! Nardog (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems like a good idea. Of the 170 of these that currently exist (according to some DB queries on Toolforge), it looks like only 1 has real discussion on its talk and a few others have ignored single posts. Anomie⚔ 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Television

Please see this edit. When a {{WikiProject Television}} is already present, a second should not be added. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

The bot didn't add anything. It just substituted {{WikiProject Nickelodeon}} as it was instructed. Anomie⚔ 00:36, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Primefac: ↑ Anomie⚔ 00:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, this was my fault; I forgot to remove all double-transclusion instances in non-article-space cases. Won't happen again. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Tiger Mask II

A short description about this anime is reported in Tiger Mask. Can you create its own page? Thank you. --79.54.216.166 07:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.216.166 (talk)

Twelve Tribes Communities Maintenance Tag

Hi,

Recently you put a “maintenance tag” on something I wrote. In the introduction to the Twelve Tribes Communities, there’s a phrase saying that the group is also known as “the community,” “the yellow deli people,” and, as I added, many consider it a cult.

You ask who considers it a cult. Are you asking for references? They would be too numerous. Many news articles on the group refer to it as a cult. Also, the FBI, when the group was investigated said in its reports that it was investigating the cult. Ex-members day it’s a cult.

I suggest the need for references for something like this may be lower. For one, if every statement required a reference the page would be peppered with them. For two, the statement isn’t alleging that the group is a cult (that’s subject to a vague definition), but simply that many consider it one.

I also suggest that if we want references for this, that we also request references for the claim that it’s known as “the yellow deli people” or “the community.” Again however, this would lead to the article being g peppered with references. Giphwiki (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not add the tag; if you look carefully at Special:Diff/944660882 you'll see it only added a date. The tag was added by a human editor in an earlier edit. Anomie⚔ 15:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Problem in CfD list

This old discussion remains in the list of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Old_unclosed_discussions despite the fact that it has been relisted quite some time ago. Earlier today I tried to use an alternative version of the relisting syntax but this does not help either. Any idea what might be the problem? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

For CFDs, the bot looks for the output of {{subst:cfd relisted}}. It looks like something else was being done there. Anomie⚔ 12:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

3EA

Please see my comment at Talk:3EA. Maproom (talk) 19:37, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

TemplateSubster being used as a vector for vandalism

A few minutes ago, an LTA changed the content of Template:Registered topicon to be a redirect to {{checkuserblock-account}}, then added {{subst only|auto=yes}}, causing AnomieBOT to substitute all instances of the topicon with a CheckUser block message for all of the users who transcluded the template. It seems like this subst-only parameter is a particularly nasty vector for causing widespread vandalism in a very short time. I think it needs to be restricted in some way—perhaps we could create an edit filter to allow only autoconfirmed or otherwise privileged users to add the parameter. What do you think? Mz7 (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

There's already a safeguard that prevents the bot from substing templates with >100 transclusions unless they are listed on a template-editor-protected page, so any vandalism is limited to 100 bot edits per template substituted, which is hardly widespread.. If this is to be implemented, it would probably be better for the bot to check who added the category, rather than relying on an edit filter. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Wanted to point out that this vandal is hijacking userboxes as well, because AnomieBOT just did this to my user page. @Mz7: I would concur, but instead maybe suggest that, if a new template appears in the bot's queue, it checks the last editor of the template and waits for some period of time before substituting any transclusions if the template's last editor was not autoconfirmed. It seems like a fair compromise so that obvious vandalism can be caught and and reverted before the bot starts substituting these templates, while good edits by these users would eventually take effect. —{ CrypticCanadian } 03:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

That looks a good idea; I suggest also that the bot posts to this talk page at the start of the wait period so that some experienced editors take a look at the edit. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

malfunction

• this bot made an error here --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 17:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: The userbox template had been vandalised (diff). There's a related thread just above here at #TemplateSubster being used as a vector for vandalism -- John of Reading (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

ok --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:29, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

<syntaxhighlight> on User:AnomieBOT/SPERTable

Hi! Your bot seems to use <syntaxhighlight> on this page (and probably other edit request reports as well), with the now-deprecated enclose="none" attribute (last occurrence in an April 19 revision of the page). The non-deprecated solution is using the inline boolean attribute, but I don’t know why is <syntaxhighlight> needed in the first place. Why can’t you use the plain old <code>, with <nowiki> if needed? It looks better IMHO both in wikicode and in the final HTML. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, this is different...

I saw this and was surprised to see that I'd been CU-blocked. What happened here? Risker (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

See #malfunction and #TemplateSubster being used as a vector for vandalism above. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I've created an edit filter (#1052) which should put an end to this disruption. Hopefully. – bradv🍁 19:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/1052 won't pick up future instances similar to the Risker case, which was a template being maliciously altered to a redirect; redirs aren't placed in the categories of their targets. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a private filter, so I'm not going to exactly lay it out, but that's not what it's looking for. Primefac (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Since it seems some vandal is still being dumb, I'm going to lower the bot's limit before requiring User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force from 100 to 5. Anomie⚔ 01:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Anomie, I don't think this is necessary. The filter should work. It's been tested thoroughly on testwiki, and running it against the previous vandalism shows that they all would get caught now, with no false positives. – bradv🍁 02:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably better to have multiple ways to limit the disruption. Anomie⚔ 11:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

With reference to reply from new page reviewer Aqib Anjum

My article Saqib Iqbal Shami has been shifted to main space but it is seen that it has not yet got live on Google and other browser, I have talked with Aqib Anjum who had revieiwed this draft, he told me that now it is in the hand of bots,so you are kindly requested to look over this issue and humbly requesting you to make it live as early as possible thanks have a nice day Maizbhandariya (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Maizbhandariya, not sure where you were told that (I can't find the page or conversation) but it has nothing to do with the bots and everything to do with "being patrolled". See Wikipedia:New pages patrol for more information. Primefac (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Struck comment by sock of indef blocked user. Article in question speedied under G11 and G5. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 05:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"1931-32 Central European International Cupp" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1931-32 Central European International Cupp. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 10#1931-32 Central European International Cupp until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 01:24, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"1978-79 VCU Rams men's basketball teeam" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1978-79 VCU Rams men's basketball teeam. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 16#1978-79 VCU Rams men's basketball teeam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC678 22:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Undeletion request 2018 African Minifootball Cup

Hi, the article 2018 African Minifootball Cup was deleted because no more sources, hope to see the article, I will add more sources [11]. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Faycal.09: Deletion log shows the bot deleted a redirect to African Minifootball Cup that was broken. Add to that article first, then once you have enough, split the 2018 material into a separate article. Hope that helped, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 16:42, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352:, the article African Minifootball Cup was moved to a draft page, I sourced it and make a request. Then the article was restored. The 2018 African Minifootball Cup which is the first edition of this competition and wich is mentioned in the African Minifootball Cup article was deleted before, because no more sources. That's the reason why I make a request here and I'm ready to add sources as the exemple that I gave. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC).

@Faycal.09: based on the deletion log linked in my previous response, Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion would give you the faster response. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rotideypoc41352:, That's allright, I added a request in the Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion page, thank you. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 20:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

For being a good bot.

Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 04:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

errr

I removed your tag for compare the meerkat as it has a tiny problem I don’t think are any secondary sources if you know any Just tell me thanks 82.18.105.207 (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Toronto-gauge railways

User:AnomieBOT created the section Orphaned references in Toronto-gauge railways with a message about "50YPT" being an orphan referance, but I see no orphan references in Toronto-gauge railways. Is this a false-positive message? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The message was valid on May 15 when it was left on the talk page. Someone has since fixed it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Uw-spam3 has too many transclusions - Fixed

* Note that TFD substitutions should now be done via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster rather than by (ab)using TemplateSubster!

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 5 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⚡ 22:49, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Added to the force list. I note that none one the "this template has too many transclusions" complaints in the past few weeks were the result of vandalism. Anomie, would it make sense to revert the threshold for number of transclusions back to 100? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) No, it would not; it was reduced precisely because of vandalism: templates were being substed that shouldn't have been, in some cases to a completely unrelated target. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism by User: Chubbles on article Kelvin Taylor (actor)

The following user: Chubbles is altering content on a Wikipedia article in format and description that is unusual and I have warned them about Vandalism 3 times. BBoyNeptune06 (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@BBoyNeptune06: Any user with "BOT" at the end of their username is a computer program and not a human being. Read WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF. Both you and Chubbles are trying to improve the article as you best see fit but have reached a disagreement over how to do so -- neither of you is engaging in vandalism but you guys need to sort the issue out on the article's talk page before editing the page any further. I'm not immediately recalling any relevant policies (other than perhaps WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP requiring that there'd have to be some explicit identification from him as being African American), and only found this essay on the issues of discussing race and ethnicity in Wikipedia articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: Template:Notwiki has too many transclusions - Deleted

* Note that TFD substitutions should now be done via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster rather than by (ab)using TemplateSubster!

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 5 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⚡ 12:27, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait until TfD closes. Anarchyte (talk • work) 05:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	AnomieBOT thank you for your help. I'm new on wikipedia and it's so nice. PatKro31 (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

TemplateSubster: User:CrazyBoy826/sig has too many transclusions - Fixed

* Note that TFD substitutions should now be done via User:AnomieBOT/TFDTemplateSubster rather than by (ab)using TemplateSubster!

In an effort to prevent disruption, I refuse to subst templates that have over 5 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. Possibly added by User:CrazyBoy826 at 2020-06-03T23:48:03Z. 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⚡ 01:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CrazyBoy826: why are you substing this/why does User:CrazyBoy826/sig exist? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, policy is clear that templates shouldn't be used in signatures, so substing this would be a clear improvement. Mdaniels5757, is there some reason I shouldn't add this to the force list? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

No objection, just confused. :) --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: Could you add it to the force list temporarily? CrazyBoy826 02:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had dealt with this a few hours ago. No idea why the bot is still complaining. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pppery, it happened again. I've re-added it to the list, leave it there for a couple days -- I'm guessing the Job queue is backlogged. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Remote duplicates on deletion sorting

I've had to make this kind of edit removing a duplicate a couple times now. Since ABOT visits deletion sorting pages fairly regularly anyway, I'm wondering if it might be possible to take care of duplicates itself. (I don't know if that's a trivial change.) Anomie? --Izno (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Easy enough to code, but a BRFA is needed. Rules are rules. Anomie⚔ 19:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

BRFA passed, fwiw. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Bournillon cave

Hello I pointed out that this article is a translation of wikipédia.fr's article: {{Translated|fr|Grotte de Bournillon}}. Twice your bot deleted this message.Why?--Biboc (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Biboc: You refer, I presume, to this edit (and two more subsequent to that). The bot acted correctly, because the template is not for use in articles: per Template:Translated page#Usage, it goes on the talk page of an article, to which the bot duly moved it. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the |df= option to some tags

AnomieBOT can sometimes add a |df= param. But I've noticed that the editor subsequently flags that parameter as an "unknowm parameter", when the article is is edit mode. E.g., in this edit (diff), the tag {{update after}} is added to an article by an editor. AnomieBOT comes by and changes it to {{update after|2020|6|14|df=US}} (which you can see if you open this section of the Talk page in the wiki editor) It seems there is a bug, or an inconsistency between what AnomieBOT does and what the wikisyntax interpreter thinks is valid syntax. Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I scrolled through diffs back to 2014, and I don't see a |df= parameter. It looks like the bot should not add that parameter to {{update after}}. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You're right, it should only add |df= to {{as of}}, not to {{update after}}. Fixed the bot. Anomie⚔ 19:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Translate page

Hello, i am a new editor in wikipedia. I was created a article in Indonesian name Hendra Purnama, but i dont know how to translate it to Englis, Azeri and Dansk. Semuel Tahun (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In spite of this probably not being the place to ask such questions, there is already an article about the archer Hendra Purnama here. The very much stub Indonesian article id:Hendra_Purnama needs to be equated with it at Wikidata (and possibly have material translated from English to it). Dhtwiki (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the Wikidata entry equating the two pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Translate page

Hello, i am a new editor in wikipedia. I was created a article in Indonesian name Hendra Purnama, but i dont know how to translate it to Englis, Azeri and Dansk. Semuel Tahun (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

In spite of this probably not being the place to ask such questions, there is already an article about the archer Hendra Purnama here. The very much stub Indonesian article id:Hendra_Purnama needs to be equated with it at Wikidata (and possibly have material translated from English to it). Dhtwiki (talk) 12:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the Wikidata entry equating the two pages. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Roman Retzbach

Hallo AnomieBot, thanks for your great support! Cu, Yves 🙏😍 YvesMe (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Bot issue

Hello, it appears the EnDashRedirectCreator function of the bot has added the {{R avoided double redirect}} tag to many redirected templates, project pages and (mostly) talkpages. This tag is not to be used on pages in those namespaces, and so they are all winding up in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. Any way you could rollback these edits by the bot, and prevent similar ones form happening in the future? Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Why shouldn't that template be usable in other namespaces? Avoided double redirects don't only need to be fixed in mainspace. Anomie⚔ 11:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to fix the damn things? I don't!! Have the Foundation hire someone to support worthless avoided double redirects that infinitely double-redirect from one stupid disambiguation to another trying to find the non-existent mention of some trivial non-notable topic that can't be found anywhere in the 'pedia. There are too many "chiefs" around here making too much work for the slaves and the slaves are getting sick of it! wbm1058 (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

We don't have enough resources to manage that shit in mainspace much less talk. Ya gotta learn to set priorites. This is just distracting resources from fixing things that really are broken. wbm1058 (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Ranting at people and pretending that anyone is somehow forcing you to do anything here is not particularly constructive. Personally, I'd be happy to have AnomieBOT auto-update avoided double redirects tagged with {{R avoided double redirect|auto=yes}} or something, as it will already do now for any that it itself created for en-dashed titles. Anomie⚔ 14:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a question for the template's talk page, but until such time as discussion leads to a change in consensus, the template should not be used outside mainspace pages. Accordingly, please revert the bot's edits. Thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have not wanted to go do a bunch of partial reverts just to have to revert the reverts soon after. But it turns out that the discussion already resulted in a change in consensus, and was implemented an hour before your post that I'm replying to now. Anomie⚔ 11:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Talk:List of Billboard number-one singles of 1946 (Pre-Hot 100) is labeled for avoided double redirect but its corresponding article-in-waiting List of Billboard number-one singles of 1946 (Pre-Hot 100) is not! Why is that. You used "modification" but that says "Please note that there are many more specific templates."... hint, you should use "avoided double redirect" on that page. Why is it more important to tag a talk page for avoided double redirect than the corresponding article. If the talk page is kept synchonized with its article (i.e. one doesn't move without the other moving with it) then it should be sufficient to just tag the article because when the article is fixed to go to the correct target its talk page will be too. wbm1058 (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one singles of 1946 (Pre-Hot 100) was created before AnomieBOT was coded to add {{R avoided double redirect}} and has not needed its target updated yet; I didn't particularly want to try to get consensus for a task to have the bot edit 200000 redirects just to add {{R avoided double redirect}} when I was more concerned with the ones the bot had created that actually needed updating. Talk:List of Billboard number-one singles of 1946 (Pre-Hot 100), on the other hand, did need updating thanks to moves of and changes to Talk:List of Billboard number-one singles of 1946 (Pre–Hot 100), so {{R avoided double redirect}} was incidentally added at the same time the target was fixed. Anomie⚔ 14:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Template addition

My apologies about the template, which I believe was the result of an edit conflict. Huggle should know better! Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

False information

Please do not give wrong information on your user page seen HSaurab (talk • work) 09:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be lost. That page has nothing to do with this bot, other than having had {{click}} bot-substed prior to that template's deletion about six months ago. Anomie⚔ 13:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't the bot know when a template is used in the incorrect space?

The Bot saw this [12] addition of a welcome template to an article, and went ahead and added the boilerplate welcome to the article. Meters (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Genuinely curious, but how would it know? While I agree it's a problematic edit, there are subst-only templates in userspace and subst-only templates in article space, and I would think that the only way to determine that would be to have a gigantic list of which are which. Another option could be to use {{main talk other}} or similar to have it output nothing in mainspace, but again that would require going through a ton of templates in order to do that. I guess the real question is, how often does this sort of thing happen? If it's less than once per day, then I feel like it's more of a GIGO situation than anything. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

No biggie. I have never seen it before and I was just surprised. If there's no easy way to tell what space it's in then I fully understand the behaviour. Meters (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Reasons for this edit?

This edit appears to me to have no merit. Certainly the article could bear a lot of improvement, but the first-person pronoun is obviously being used as a figure of speech that is not meant literally. And where do you find any "how-to" component in the article that would justify such a tag? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

The bot uncontroversially added |date= parameters to templates that were added by another editor (TenPoundHammer). You should ask that editor about the tags, preferably on the article's talk page or on that editor's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

TFATitleSubpageCreator: Cannot find featured article in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2020

Help! I can't find the featured article link in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 17, 2020 in order to populate Template:TFA title/July 17, 2020. Please correct the link or create the template manually. 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 II⚡ 00:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Please will an admin create Template:TFA title/July 17, 2020 with content SMS Derfflinger - just that, no trailing newline. The page is cascade-protected. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@John of Reading:  Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Little Haiti - Fixed

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Little Haiti, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about city-data.com. 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:

• Little Haiti revision 968000522:
  • Rescued "LittleHaiti" from rev 967999804
    Removed in revision 968000522 by Tdk408 (talk • contribs • logs) with comment "/* Demographics */Given the other numbers, 1,983 residents makes no sense. This number appears nowhere in the footnoted document." (removed 224/17848 bytes, 1%)

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⚡ 18:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. I remover incorrect, logically impossible data. The data in the article is not in the article when I checked th footnote. Tdk408 (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I.meant to say the data does not appear in the linked web page in the foot note. Tdk408 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tdk408: Your edit removed the definition of the reference named "LittleHaiti", leaving behind a <ref name="LittleHaiti" /> that now has no definition. That causes the page to show as seen at Special:Permalink/968000522#cite_note-LittleHaiti-12. The bot tried to provide a definition, but was unable to because city-data.com has been blacklisted, so it complains here to ask a human to figure out how to fix it. Someone (maybe you!) might fix it by replacing the <ref name="LittleHaiti" /> with {{citation needed|date=July 2020}}, or by finding another source for the information and replacing the <ref name="LittleHaiti" /> with the new citation, or by replacing/removing the relevant content that was supposedly sourced to the blacklisted site if it too is in error. HTH! Anomie⚔ 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)