TemplateSubster: Template:RFPP has too many transclusions - FixedEdit

 * 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 100 transclusions unless they are listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. Please either edit the template to remove it from Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, manually subst the existing transclusions, or add it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force to let me know it is OK to subst them. When you have fixed this issue, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. I will repost the notice if the page is still broken or is re-broken. Thanks! AnomieBOT 17:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm only seeing 66 transclusions. Am I missing something? Primefac (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@Primefac: I can only guess. Maybe someone keeps transcluding the template onto a page that's transcluded onto a bunch of other pages (and then it's getting removed)? Looking at the bot's logs, I see this has been happening intermittently for a while, but the recurring complaint was suppressed until youPppery renamed #TemplateSubster: Template:RFPP has too many transclusions - Fixed above in Special:Diff/1044292137.
It might help if someone would go through and manually subst the template on all the pages that are protected. 49 of the 63 transclusions I see currently are in that situation. Cutting down that number will make it less likely for random actions to push it over the 100. Or else there's always User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. Anomie 03:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
It was actually me that marked the section as fixed, presumably because I saw that the template had <100 transclusions at that time. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Oops! Too many "P" names I guess. 😀 But anyway, that's why the new bot complaint only showed up now even though the 100 transclusions thing was hit (with varying numbers, many around 170 bug a few just over 100 or in between) 29 other times since August.
  • 2021-08-02 06:10:54, 169 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-03 00:21:17, 122 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-13 21:38:33, 161 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-15 00:41:58, 103 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-17 15:48:50, 170 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-18 19:01:55, 167 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-24 10:19:32, 166 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-26 14:45:55, 171 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-27 23:07:33, 155 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-29 23:32:18, 109 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-31 11:16:04, 172 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-08-31 14:24:26, 168 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-01 22:51:12, 103 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-02 02:58:32, 161 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-02 17:39:24, 176 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-03 21:58:04, 129 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-04 02:08:24, 174 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-05 16:45:47, 159 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-06 03:17:54, 169 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-06 23:12:24, 174 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-08 14:08:38, 166 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-08 23:37:39, 164 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-10 03:15:15, 155 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-10 04:18:26, 174 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-11 08:28:03, 126 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-11 19:58:04, 170 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-13 14:12:32, 156 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-14 10:04:05, 139 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-15 20:25:23, 171 transclusions claimed
  • 2021-09-16 17:15:49, 160 transclusions claimed
Anomie 11:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I guess I'll go through manually and see about substing the old transclusions; no point in having 3/4 of our "bucket" full of things that can't be dealt with by the bot anyway. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, got this down to 13 "official" transclusions (i.e. things that actually show up on the list), primarily the template itself and the related WP-space pages. If I had to guess, the over-100 spikes the bot encounters are from the hundred or so people who transclude WP:RFPP onto their userpages (so when a report is closed it's automatically being "transcluded" on 114 extra pages). Might be worth ignoring usage of this template in the User: space? Primefac (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The bot code is too generic to be able to ignore transclusions in a particular namespace, it would have to ignore every template's transclusions in that namespace. Better to just use the force page if this is going to continue happening. Anomie 11:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. If it pops up again I'll add it to the force list. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Tagger requestEdit

Hi, I'm requesting the use of WikiProject Tagger for WikiProject Radio Stations and the Television stations task force. (See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Radio Stations#Project tagging (two support !votes over 2 weeks) and the discussion without any comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Television stations task force#Project tagging).

This is a one-time run to ensure that WPRS and TVS has all the pages in their scope. I expect most of the first two to be tagged, but this will help find anything that slipped through the cracks. The third category (television channel) is likely to result in a lot of pages being added to TVS because a lot of these were considered out of scope in the past. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 21:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

AnomieBOT IIIEdit

Hello, Anomie,

I have a question about AnomieBOT III. It is usually pretty predictable with its broken redirect reports, it's issued every 6 hours and 2 or 3 minutes. But then, like now, it issues a report after 5 hours. Or it'll be consistent for days at every 6 hours and then it'll update after just 3 hours. Not really a problem, it just makes me curious about the variation in posting a report. I'm very ignorant about how bots work but does it have to do with general traffic on the servers/system? I just don't expect to be surprised by bot behavior. Thanks for any illumination you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 00:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The BrokenRedirectDeleter task runs when the bot starts, then normally runs every 6 hours after it finished the last run. Unlike some of the bot's other tasks, it doesn't try to maintain that "6 hours since the last run" across restarts, it just runs again whenever the bot is restarted even if that's only minutes since the previous run. So most likely when you see it run at 3 or 5 hours, either I restarted it (probably because I updated the code of one of the bot's tasks) or it had crashed (usually due to a memory leak) and the cron job restarted it.
Yesterday, for example, I restarted the bot twice in pretty quick succession, first to update the BAGBot task and then to update the AltLinkTemplateSubster task. That resulted in BrokenRedirectDeleter running at about 5 hours and then again 5 minutes later. Anomie 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Just circling back to read your very thorough answer after another change-up in the timing of the Broken Redirect report. I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me in simple language I can understand. Many thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sonic the HedgehogEdit

Hey AnomieBOT, I just wanted to let you that your recent edit on the Sonic the Hedgehog (character) article, you accidentally added the same source in there twice by mistake. Because the source is already listed in there in the infobox. 73.61.19.114 (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It didn't, actually. The previous edit turned an unnamed ref (<ref>...</ref>) into a closed ref (<ref name="MercuryNews" />) followed by the usual {{cite web}}. Since the closed ref was trying to pull information from a reference that doesn't exist, the bot "rescued" content from a previous iteration of the page. It's a GIGO situation, and while I think the code could be tweaked to see if a closed ref is immediately followed by a {{cite x}} template, I don't know if it's enough of an issue to merit that type of change. Primefac (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Use Tanzanian EnglishEdit

Hello AnomieBot,

After closing this CFD discussion as delete, the discussed category should no longer be recreated every month. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

AnomieBOT looks at Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month and Category:Wikipedia categories sorted by month to find which categories need dated subcategories. Since the former parent category no longer exists to be in either of those categories, AnomieBOT won't create dated subcategories anymore. Anomie 12:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Bot broke needs update tags?Edit

I use the "update after" (needs update) tag and the bot filled in the date by writing "2021|11|13". This broke the tag, causing it to vanish?

The edit in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israel&type=revision&diff=1055020625&oldid=1055018736

Not sure what's going on. I've not see dates entered like that before, but using date= doesn't display the date in the alt text (but also does not break the tag).Kylesenior (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You are using {{update after}} when you intend {{update inline}}. Only use {{update after}} when you actually want the tag to be hidden until after a specific date. Anomie 13:05, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Please re-establishEdit

Please re-establish the deleted redirections to Bundeswehr Medical Academy, namely Institut für Pharmakologie und Toxikologie der Bundeswehr, Institut für Radiobiologie der Bundeswehr, Institut für Mikrobiologie der Bundeswehr--SanAkBwPresse (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Assuming you get unblocked, you are welcome to recreate them. Primefac (talk) 09:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility requestEdit

Hi Anomie! Thank you for your amazing work on these bots. I'm hoping you could help me with a request to improve the Accessibility of Wikipedia. This bot appears to maintain the tables associated with Template:Edit fully-protected/color legend and Category:Wikipedia requested edits among others, via the table in User:AnomieBOT/PERTable. I'm not technically savvy enough to be fully confident that any change I could make would correctly accomplish my goal, so I'm asking if you could help me with this. My concern is that the Green and Yellow colors used in the table have an extremely low contrast ratio with respect to each other. Per the contrast checker app, those ratios are 1:1 (the worst possible category). That makes it extremely difficult for individuals with Anomalous trichromacy or Dichromacy, such as myself, to tell these colors apart. People with these conditions make up approximately 9% of males. They need to rely on the contrast between different colors to be able to reliably differentiate them. To help improve accessibility, could you please change either (preferably) the green or the yellow in your bot's tables to a darker shade? I was planning to change green to #01cc19 before I realized that I was not well-equipped to make the change myself. That will create a contrast ratio of 2:1 between the two respective colors while maintaining AAA accessibility standards for the foreground and background of each table cell. Other options are good as long as they also maintain similar ratios. Please ping me back if there's anything I can do to help or further explain. Thank you! AlexEng(TALK) 11:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@AlexEng: On the other hand, the color serves only to reiterate the data in the "protection level" column, it is not used to convey information that is not available in some other way. And despite the accessibility checker you linked I find the black on your green much less readable than black on the existing green. OTOH, now that we have TemplateStyles, maybe I'll look into just switching it to that so people can just substitute their own colors. Anomie 14:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
True, the color reiterates the data in the column. The point of the color is lost for those who can't differentiate, though. A lighter shade of green would work, as long as it meets a similar 2:1 contrast with respect to the yellow. I'm not familiar with TemplateStyles, but if that's a viable solution, it would be great. AlexEng(TALK) 20:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
@AlexEng: Ok, I've made the switch to TemplateStyles. You can seek consensus among users of the tables to change the colors in Template:Edit fully-protected/color legend/styles.css if you want, and/or you can copy the rules from there into your common.css and edit them for yourself. Anomie 00:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

re-creation of a deleted pageEdit

The bot recreated a page that was intentionally deleted. (It was speedy deleted after the bot creatred it a first time).

See Template_talk:P-phrases/doc ([1])

Since the object page is a redirect by itself, there is no need for a talkpage. And it is cluttering up the pages list. So please delete it and prevent future re-creation. Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of such redirects is to avoid decentralised discussion. If a subpage exists, regardless of whether it's a redirect, then the talk page should also be a redirect to prevent people from attempting to discuss the redirect in the wrong page. I see zero reason why it should be permanently deleted. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:G8 is commonly used & recognised for deletion of such pages. Only if an editor explicitly opens a redirect page, they could end up on it s talkpage: i.e., they know what they are doing. Then again, no harm in starting that talkpage for whatever. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

TFD opening messageEdit

Heya, per this original discussion and this Twinkle patch, could you please adjust the bot's TFD daily message to indicate that new nominations should be added to the bottom of the page?

Add new listings at the topbottom of the list with the following formats for deletion and merging respectively

Thanks! Primefac (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  Done Anomie 01:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Primefac (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and mangaEdit

Why isn't the bot archiving Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga as it does the rest of the deletion sorting? Can it be added? Pikavoom (talk) 06:27, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@Pikavoom: It's not archiving it because the page is specifically opted out of the task, via {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT/DeletionSortingCleaner}}. AnomieBOT's deletion sorting archiving task replaced a similar task by User:The wubbot in 2010, and at that time that bot was excluded from the page so I added the opt out to maintain the exclusion. The exclusion of User:The wubbot goes back to 2007, where it was added by that bot's operator with the statement that the page had its own archiving system. This seems to still be the case; simply removing the opt out would cause AnomieBOT to start archiving to a different page in a different format. Anomie 13:47, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga#Auto-archiving, objections to removing opt out? to see if anyone has objections to removing the opt-out. Pikavoom (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Talkpage is redirect - bad link effect Edit

Template:Chembox entry (Template talk:Chembox entry#edittemplateprotected |request]])
But because target page (both talk & subject) is a redirect, leads to another (active) editrequest, at Redirect's target = Template talk:Chembox#edittemplateprotected.
IOW, the request at (no redirect) Template talk:Chembox entry cannot be reached. Can we change the TPERTable?
Anyway, the request to perform is at: (no redirect) Template talk:Chembox entry -DePiep (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
It's really kind of a GIGO, someone shouldn't be posting a request on a redirect in the first place. But done anyway. Anomie 23:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Thx. Yes sounds sound (but RfD guide really says "... [then] the RFD template can be put on the redirect's talk page"). DePiep (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
While the issue is solved, I've changed the sectiontitle to prevent negative visual associating. -DePiep (talk) 04:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with citationsEdit

Recently I've updated this page called Largest Land Animals and used citation links from the respective animal pages, but made a mess of it because in many of them I only put names. I'm not good at this. So will you be interested to help me out by fixing those citations/links? Thanks either way. Hope you didn't mind me leaving this in ur talk page. Here's link of that pages: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heaviest_land_mammals# Ishan87 (talk) 07:20, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Largest land mammals* sorry Ishan87 (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned refs issueEdit

There are orphaned refs at Columbine High School massacre. At User:AnomieBOT/OrphanReferenceFixer log it says: Columbine High School massacre: Revision 1062130716 is transcluding something too b0rken to fix (Ref contains <ref>), skipping so it doesn't fix them, but I'm not sure what's wrong here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The bot doesn't know how to handle refs inside {{efn}}, mainly IIRC because the ExpandTemplates functionality produces broken wikitext when given that input. Maybe it's time I should try to teach it about {{efn}} and {{refn}}. Anomie 14:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Did that. Let me know if any errors show up. Anomie 21:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

efn changed to add undocumented parameterEdit

With this edit, AnomieBOT changed {{efn|When Tolhopff [...]}} to {{Efn|reference=When Tolhopff [...]}}.

template:Efn does not describe a |reference= option. The article (Prime meridian) has other uses of {{efn}} but it left those alone. What gives? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Noting the preceding section, it may be relevant to this report to note that the {{efn}}s in the article contain text that is supported [as it should be] with <ref> tags. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The bot fixed a big red reference error (see the version before the bot's edit). An unnamed parameter generally can't have an = character in it, so it converted the unnamed first parameter in that efn template to |reference=, which is an alias of |1=. The edit appears to have been valid. It didn't touch the other efn templates because they were working fine. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
As Jonesey95 already pointed out, the change fixed an error in that instance. Due to the = in a URL, MediaWiki thought the template was being passed a parameter ridiculously named When Tolhopff handed over his book, titled Stellarium (1480)[https://www.corvina.oszk.hu/kepnezegeto/index.php?corvina. In cases like that, the easiest fix is to make it an actual named parameter. I chose to have the bot use reference in that case since it seemed clearest; Template:Efn#Template data also documents 1, text, and content as aliases. Anomie 17:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. If you had chosen to use 1=, I might have looked for the cock-up before reporting another conspiracy.  As for the template data, I've been blissfully unaware until now what that section is about! It is not exactly self-explanatory.
However, I wouldn't have found the cockup. The only = signs I can see are embedded (a) in two {{convert}}s and (b) two {{cite}}s. I can't see anything unusual about these, I have used this construction many time without ever using 1= in this case [lots in other templates of course], so obviously I'm concerned lest I've been making work for others. Or have I missed something? This is full note as written:
  • {{efn| These figures use the ''legua náutica'' (nautical league) of four [[Roman mile]]s totalling {{convert|5.926|km|abbr=on}}, which was used by Spain during the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries for navigation.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Roland |last=Chardon |title=The linear league in North America |journal=Annals of the Association of American Geographers |volume=70 |issue=2 |year=1980 |pages=129–153 [pp. 142, 144, 151] |jstor=2562946 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-8306.1980.tb01304.x}}</ref> In 1897 Henry Harrise noted that Jaime Ferrer, the expert consulted by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, stated that a league was four miles of six [[Stadion (unit of length)|stades]] each.<ref>{{cite book |first=Henry |last=Harrisse |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7I4cAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA85 |title=The Diplomatic History of America: Its first chapter 1452—1493—1494 |location= London |publisher=Stevens |date=1897|pages=85–97, 176–190 |isbn=9780697000071 |oclc=1101220811}}</ref> Modern scholars agree that the geographic stade was the Roman or Italian stade, not any of several other Greek stades, supporting these figures.<ref>{{cite journal |first=Donald |last=Engels |title=The length of Eratosthenes' stade |journal=[[American Journal of Philology]] |volume=106 |issue=3 |year=1985 |pages=298–311 |jstor=295030 |doi=10.2307/295030}}</ref> Harrise is in the minority when he uses the stade of {{convert|192.27|m|abbr=on}} marked within the stadium at [[Olympia, Greece]], resulting in a league (32 stades) of {{convert|6.153|km|abbr=on}}, 3.8% larger.}}
(BTW, Jonesy, I can't see any big red reference error in the version just before the anomiebot change? Where are you seeing it? (which oldid?) I'm using the basic web interface, not VE or mobile. I cannot tell a lie, I've often seen a big red error when I've failed to use |1= when needed, so it not a general problem with my browser or settings. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The ref error is Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). right after Set in the royal castle (and observatory) of Buda (it appears in the body, not the references section). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
You're looking at the wrong {{efn}}. The problematic one was
{{efn|When Tolhopff handed over his book, titled Stellarium (1480)[https://www.corvina.oszk.hu/kepnezegeto/index.php?corvina=codguelf84_1aug2o&lang=hu&img=11#11] to King Matthias Corvinus, he emphasized that he had used the meridian of [[Buda]] for his calculations. The German physician, Johannes Müntz used it the same way in his 1495 calendar. However, in the second edition, he had already introduced the Vienna meridian. Zsoldos, Endre – Zsupán, Edina: Stellarium – egy csillagászati kódex Mátyás könyvtárában. Orpheus Noster V. évf. 2013/4. 62–85.[https://www.academia.edu/8257327]; Szathmáry, László: Az asztrológia, alkémia és misztika Mátyás király udvarában. In: Ponticulus Hungaricus, VI. évfolyam 5. szám · 2002.[http://members.iif.hu/visontay/ponticulus/rovatok/hidverok/matyas-01.html]}}
Anomie 18:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
"None so blind as those that will not see". Evidently I whizzed passed all the little maps without looking carefully as I would with normal body text. My apologies everyone for wasting your time. Falls on sword. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Spurious newline before autosubsted templateEdit

I recently set Template:Invisible bullet to auto-subst. {{subst:Invisible bullet}} looks like this:

* foo
{{subst:Invisible bullet|bar}}
  • foo
  • bar

However, when autosubsting the template, AnomieBot added a newline before it, like so:

  • foo
  • bar

The difference may not be obvious there, but you can see it in the HTML (two uls instead of one), and you can see it in action in this diff, where the ul reset causes the bullets to get all messed up.

Any idea what is causing this? I know wikimarkup starting with asterisks can lead to weird edge cases. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Looks like phab:T14974 strikes again. To avoid other issues, AnomieBOT's template substing doesn't just stick subst: in the wikitext and save; it takes the template invocation and passes it through the API to get the output wikitext and directly inserts that into the page instead. Unfortunately when it comes to templates affected by T14974 that causes it to pick up the added newline from that bug. Anomie 21:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Could you do something like (pseudocode):
if wikitext starts with "\n" and then any of ["*", "#", ":", ";", "{|"]:
    wikitext.removeprefix("\n")
Or are there templates where starting with a newline is the intended behavior? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 21:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There may be. Plus just removing the newline would break the output in other contexts, for example if someone did
* Some text.{{i*|More text}}
then the removal of the newline would break it. Anomie 21:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Well I guess the real issue isn't always allowing it, nor always preventing it, but rather always avoiding LISTGAPs. Could there be some sort of comment, like {{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>void|NO_BLANK_LINE}}, that would tell the bot to make sure there's no leading newline if it would mean a blank line occurs? Several ways that that could be implemented, but it's the first that comes to mind. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 22:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Tamzin: On the other hand, what I probably can do is look at whether the template being substed is located directly after a newline or not, and reproduce that environment when querying the API for the output wikitext... Anomie 22:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirectsEdit

Hello, Anomie,

There is this one little oddity I hope you have a solution for. Wikipedia:Example of a broken redirect is a page that contains a broken redirect to show, well, an example of a broken redirect. It usually appears at the top of the page of User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects but lately, it has been listed among the regular broken redirects. It makes me concerned that an editor or admin who doesn't regularly patrol this page will delete the broken redirect example.

Is there a way to tag this page so that AnomieBOT III ignores that page or that it is perennially at the top of the page, separated out from the regular broken redirects? It's a small matter but this broken redirect example has existed since July 2020 without being deleted and it would be nice to keep it around longer. Thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 05:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

It was until recently listed in the "Skipped" section due to {{nobots}}. But it was recently edited, and the "redirect has more than 1 revision and was edited less than 4 days ago" check comes before the {{nobots}} check, so it reports that condition instead. Once the 4 days expire, it'll go back to Skipped. But I can go ahead and exclude it from the list entirely, as there's no point in listing it if it's supposed to never be fixed. I also went ahead and protected the page, as there seems no point in leaving it open to newbies fixing or vandalizing it. Anomie 13:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Maniac Magee (film) pageEdit

Hey, a few years ago I wrote out the summary of the movie here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniac_Magee_(film)#Plot and it was apparently too long that you put a notice there in November 2019. I finally got around to shortening the plot significantly and wanted you to come review it to see if it still needs improvement or if it's in the clear. My accomplishment was limiting word usage to describe certain things and taking out things that did not really need to be stated like what a character said ver batum. Have a look at that and get back to me as soon as you can about this. Thanks. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

AnomieBOT did not add the tag. The tag was added by Sro23 in Special:Diff/718880629. Anomie 14:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh shoot! I see Anomie updated it in November 2019 but didn't create it initially. Thanks for correcting me. Guess I'll be posting this on that person's page instead. - DevonteHuntley (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

TagDater does not handle Template:Expert neededEdit

User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/TagDater.pm does not automatically handle certain aliases of {{expert-subject}} (now {{expert needed}}). I believe I encountered this issue with the tag added this month at Dysgenics. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 05:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

For AnomieBOT's TagDater task to date tags, the article needs to be in a direct subcategory of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month or Category:Wikipedia categories sorted by month. {{expert needed}} does not put articles in any such category when undated, so AnomieBOT won't know to look at the articles.
Looks like back in 2011 I tried to make Category:Articles needing expert attention be dated like most other maintenance categories, but that was reverted. Then I tried making Template:Expert needed apply Category:Articles needing expert attention by month instead, which got removed in a sandbox update based on an outdated version of the template and I never noticed. Anomie 13:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

RequestEdit

I solved the problem the reviewer told me so please move Draft:Agnibaan from draft space to article space — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshdeep2021 (talkcontribs) 15:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You are talking to entirely the wrong person. Did you mean to ask Bonadea or Rusalkii? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Issue with the adjusting links to archived content taskEdit

With this edit the bot is linking to an archived section where the section (with the same name) is still on the talk page. Can the bot be fixed so that it doesn't try to fix links when a section with the same name already exists on the talk page (not archive pages). Thanks, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you ran into bad timing twice. The bot runs approximately hourly, checking for whether any of the ACN pages have been edited since it last checked.
I'll have to give some thought as to how something like this might be avoided. Anomie 00:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 21:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversionEdit

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you reverted my fix to Dauphin's Cavalry Regiment.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more <ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the <ref name="foo"/>, which results in a big red error in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the <ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaining instances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove all instances of the named reference so as to not leave any big red error.

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks! AnomieBOT 19:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add {{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

AnomieBOT seems to be in an edit war with itself because someone stuck {{Translated page}} inside a ref tag. TalkTemplateMover is moving that template to the talk page, resulting in an empty ref that becomes orphaned and gets re-added by OrphanReferenceFixer. I've fixed the problem with Special:diff/1065281937 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Rescuing the wrong census referenceEdit

The bot is insistent on rescuing a reference called <ref name="census2021"> from Czech Republic for use in the Vukovar article (see here), but Vukovar isn't in the Czech Republic, so it's the wrong reference. I presume that there will soon be a lot of references with that particular name across Wikipedia, but the sources will be different, so I don't know if something can be done to prevent this from happening. I've raised the missing reference with the editor who added the material, at User talk:DerTorx#References. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If there are more references with the generic name, that will actually help the problem as the bot will have more chances of finding multiple candidates. Unfortunately the bot can only guess that someone might have copied content from a related (i.e. linked) article. The best way to prevent it is to provide a correct reference in the article in question. Anomie 13:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
That's good to know. Unfortunately I don't have the reference details, but I've asked the editor who updated the population figures to add a reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

TFDClerk: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 14 is brokenEdit

Help! A section in Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 January 14 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 16:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Blacklisted orphaned reference in Demi Moore filmographyEdit

When trying to fix orphaned refs in Demi Moore filmography, MediaWiki's spam blacklist complained about filmreference.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:

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 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)