Wikipedia talk:reFill

Active discussions
  (Redirected from User talk:Zhaofeng Li/reFill)


At this edit, ReFill 2 created two broken cs1|2 templates from urls. In both cases, ReFill 2 failed to create |archive-date= when the snapshot date is clearly available in the urls. In both cases, ReFill 2 created |deadurl=y. That parameter was deprecated 3 September 2019 and has not been supported since 11 January 2020. More than a year later, this bug still has not been fixed.

ReFill 2 also created these parameter values:

|first=Deutsche – not an author's name (see Deutsche Welle)
|last=Welle ( – not an author's name
|title=Kosovo MPs elect lawyer Vjosa Osmani as president | DW | 04.04.2021 – title is "Kosovo MPs elect lawyer Vjosa Osmani as president"; the rest is not

These failures are likely because ReFill 2 relies on citoid which relies on the website that it scrapes so I can't lay this crap at ReFill 2's feet. But, this kind of crap, which I have fixed much much more often than I should, can be laid at the feet of the editors who use this tool. Please, editors, it is not a race. You are responsible for every edit that ReFill 2 suggests so you must take the time to inspect every citation that this tool creates. Do not make work for other editors to clean up. Both of the citations noted above bleed red error messages. When you see that, do something about it or abandon the edit.

Trappist the monk (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: thanks for reporting these issues here. ReFill has been unsupported for the last two years, so maintenance that should have taken place, like removing deprecated parameters, has not. In the last week I have stepped in, though I am looking for others to help. It will take me a while to get familiar with the code before I start to make changes. In the meantime, I have added a section to the project page explaining to users that they are responsible for their use of the tool and will have to manually fix some citations that it generates. I have used the examples that you have helpfully given above. The problem with the author name containing junk, or the title containing things that we don't want in the title of the citation are things that I don't envisage being fixed, however, as it will be difficult to code something to strip them out. That is, unless you are willing to provide a reliable regex? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I know that you have stepped in and that is a good thing. I agree, there is nothing that can be done with sources that provide corrupt metadata on their web pages (there are a handful of Indian newspapers that are notorious abusers – troll through Category:CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list for examples of that).
My complaint for ReFill is |deadurl=y because it hasn't been supported for more than a year and the failure to create |archive-date= when filling a cs1|2 template from an archive snapshot url that has the snapshot timestamp. For the |deadurl=y problem, the correct parameter (if a parameter is needed at all) is |url-status=dead. The simple fix is to omit that parameter entirely because cs1|2 templates presume that |url= is dead when |archive-url= is present and has an assigned value. |url-status= is only needed when the source at |url= is known to be live (and so known to support the content of the article) so that |title= links to the live url.
|archive-date= is required so if this tool is creating a |archive-url= parameter it must also create a |archive-date= parameter. There are valid archive urls that do not have timestamps so when a timestamp is not available, probably best to abandon the edit.
Thanks for taking on this task; you will, no doubt, make my life easier. If you have questions about how cs1|2 works, give me a shout.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
My thanks as well Curb Safe Charmer. Keeping the tool running and improving it is a huge and important task. If I can do anything to help I will be happy to do so. I am not as well versed in things as Trappist but I have been working with it for over four years so that experience may be of some help. There are two things that Wikipedia:Reflinks could do that you might adapt to refill (if possible). One is detecting dead links and adding that tag to the bare urls. The other is formatting PDF's. While reflinks couldn't get 100% of either of these it did get enough to be a big help. Now I know these come way way down the list of what you are dealing with so I just mention them for future reference. Thanks again a best wishes in your task of working on this tool. MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring optionsEdit

The tool now appears to be ignoring the option to add |access-date= when expanding the bare urls. Keith D (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The "o" option in the left toolbar now does the same as "reFill 2 New" option, the "o" option should bring up the options page to allow you to set the options before you run the tool. Keith D (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Enhancement requestEdit

Here is an enhancement request for the tool. If the <ref></ref> tags contain a capital letter the tool currently ignores the reference. Suggest that as a precursor to processing the tool starts by de-capping the tags and outputs the de-capped tags when it has done its processing. This should allow the tool to convert more bare URLs at the first usage. Keith D (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have had a look and possibly by modifying refill/backend/refill/transforms/ to lowercase tag.tag on line 15 will do this. Keith D (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this Keith D. Though the use of capital R's doesn't happen very often it is a total pain to fix them when it does. Do you think adding a note to the instruction guidelines for references would help? MarnetteD|Talk 01:07, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
It may do. I was hoping that a fix to the code could do it in a single pass by picking up the reference regardless of the tag. Keith D (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha Keith D. If you are successful than a note may not be needed. Now if we could just get editors to not put a period at the end of the url things would be peachy keen - almost :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

accessdate enhancement suggestionEdit

Would it be a lot of trouble to add today's date as the accessdate in the cite created for successfully processed bare urls? Alaney2k (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I should add, in the format 'accessdate=YYYY-MM-DD' is fine. For example accessdate=2021-06-01. Of course if it could detect date settings for the article, and use that date format, that would be even better. Alaney2k (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I would oppose any automated assertion of |access-date= because this tool is so often used to cleanup after editors who only provide a url as a reference. The purpose of |access-date= is to identify a point in time when the source linked from |url= supports the text in an article. If I am not mistaken, this tool is not sufficiently sophisticated to confirm (without human intervention) that sources support our articles. That there is something other than a 404 page at the url does not confirm that a source supports our article.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I think that you might be being hasty in judgment. Are we not already trusting the tool anyway to generate a |title= and |website=? In other words, are we not already trusting this tool? How would adding today's date make this situation worse? To be honest, I don't have any bad cases to judge from. Possibly you have run into those. If it generated a bad title, (e.g from a 404 redirected page) then the situation would be the same. It would need human intervention. I am not sure what happens in that case or what we should mark up, but it seems to me that having the |access-date= available is better than not. Alaney2k (talk) 22:11, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Not being hasty. The tool scrapes the target web page for |title=, |website=, |date=, etc. It does not have the ability to determine that some fact used to support a statement on an article page was (AGF) present on the web page on the date that the url was added to the article is still present on the web page. Web pages are ephemeral. As such, the date that a web page was known to support an article text is important so that an appropriate archive snapshot can be located if (when) the web page goes 404. Dropping today's date into |access-date= gives the false impression that today, for sure, that web page supports our article text without actually confirming that the support still exists. Just slapping today's date into |access-date= has no more value than randomly picking any post 2001-01-15 date and using that.
I have complained before about this tool, mostly about editors who use it, because of all of the many, many thousands of cs1|2 templates that I have repaired, a goodly number have been the result of editors failing to check that each and every newly created cs1|2 template has been correctly written – I tend to fix only those cs1|2 templates that are currently showing error messages so, no doubt, there are many templates created by this tool that aren't correct. Citoid is getting better but every cs1|2 template created by this tool must be checked for proper parameter data and, if you want to include |access-date=, you as the tool operator, must confirm that the cited source still supports the article.
Trappist the monk (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, thanks for sharing your insight! Alaney2k (talk) 04:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

ReFill2 errorsEdit

I used ReFill2 on the Manas Kongpan article, but the edit appears to have included several errors which required fixing manually (Special:Diff/1027015472). I'm not sure if I did something wrong, or if this is a problem with the tool.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gronk Oz: The problem is the data that ReFill gets from the web page, I was thinking of looking at trying to fix some of the common errors it produces. We need to get the existing code updates deployed to fix the |deadurl= problem first. The new maintainer has not yet found time to work out how to do a deployment. Keith D (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Keith D: thanks.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Another enhancement requestEdit

Hello, with the mass addition of {{Bare URL inline}} templates inside the <ref></ref> tag may be it is a good idea to ignore this when scanning the for bare links to convert rather than ignoring the reference all together. You could remove the tags first before running the tool, but if the tool cannot fix all of the references, you then have to go back and return the tags. Keith D (talk) 12:03, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It is better to just replace them with the {{linkrot}} (or one of its variations) at the top of the article. The reasons for the inline tags use were strictly cosmetic and, as you point out, have created unnecessary extra work. They also do not allow access to refill the way the regular template does. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 12:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion about bulk application of the {{Bare URL inline}} tag is tangential to ReFill.
Since these are being added by a human operator rather than a bot, I assume there was a consensus somewhere for their mass addition of tags to around 20 pages per minute? Is this what they call a WP:MEATBOT in action? They are very disruptive indeed and not useful to either readers or editors alike. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 16:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
AFAIK there was no consensus. I noticed the additions beginning in May and requested that the pace be slowed so that those of us who work on formatting bare urls could fix them in a timely fashion. I was told no and that, in fact, I preferred things to go unfixed - see this thread. The result is that there is now one more set of tags (joining "unsourced", "notability" "lead too short" among many others} that may not be acted on for months or years (if ever) being placed on the 'pedia's articles. MarnetteD|Talk 17:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: The whole point of tagging a problem is to identify it so that it can be fixed whenever an editor has the will to do so.
Cleanup tags assist that identification in several ways, including: a) by providing a visual indication on the article; by triggering an entry on watchlists when the tag is added; c) by creating categories of articles with he problem which can be browsed; d) by allowing the use of tools such as Petscan to scan categories for articles needing cleanup.
Your own post here makes it very clear that you would indeed prefer problems to go unfixed. Your comment here is now one more set of tags [snip] that may not be acted on for months or years (if ever) being placed on the 'pedia's articles makes it crystal clear that you prefer the problems to be unidentified and unfixed, instead of being identified so that editors can find and fix them.
I was not aware of any Wikipedia discussion which reached a consensus not to tag problems because they made an article look ugly, nor any consensus that cleanup categories should be kept small so that MarnetteD can have the satisfaction of apparently clearing the backlog (I say "apparently", because MarnetteD's preferred approach of not tagging the articles doesn't lead to the backlog being cleared; it just means that the backlog is not recorded). I asked MarnetteD to identify any discussion where these notions had been agreed, and no such discussion was identified.
So the whole "don't tag bare links" thing is a head-in-sand approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I think someone with 2 million edits probably already knows that making thousands more without consensus isn't what we do here. It's not about making anything ugly, it's about managing a situation which clearly needs community input before loads of AWB edits. Tragic. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Actually, Marnette's objection is to having articles tagged but not fixed
The community's established way of helping editors to identify problems is to tag them. Heck, AWB's WP:GENFIXES even has several built-in tagging functions.
The only credible reason for objections to the tagging is that editors who use a tool to do cleanup encounter a severe bug in the tool. But pending a fix to the tool, there are other ways of filling bare URLs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)


Does anyone maintain this tool ie. fix bug reports? -- GreenC 17:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@GreenC: As there had been nobody with access to the source code or able to deploy changes for several years I stepped forward, not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome! Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Getting an answer to that one has been elusive GreenC. A couple years ago (around the time of the changeover from the original refill to refill2) I think Cyberpower678 was working on it - though I hasten to add that I could be wrong. Whoever it was was a very busy editor and put it on the back burner. Since then a couple threads at the VPT have mentioned that it is being maintained somewhere other than Wikipedia but I can't remember any of the details. Hope always springs eternal that new info may show up to answer your question. MarnetteD|Talk 17:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Ah my reply ec's with your Curb Safe Charmer. Thank you for taking on this massive task!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Great, Curb Safe Charmer! Hope you can tame it, this is favored tool but one with significant bugs and difficulties. I'd help but not my language. I think Cyberpower678 wanted too but other things took priority. -- GreenC 17:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
With the slew of tags being added (to around 20 articles per minute) we need to get reFill in a position where it can be deployed to fix these myriad tags with minimal effort. Prior to the tags addition, reFill seemed to cope okay, but it seems to struggle now these inline tags are there. Which is a shame for both editors and, more importantly, readers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
This discussion about bulk application of the {{Bare URL inline}} tag is tangential to ReFill.
The comment above repeats an error that i have seen several times in discussions today.
The tags are not the problem, and do not need to be "fixed". The tags are just markers of a common problem which until now has not been systematically marked.
There is no deadline. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, and the fact that a problem has been tagged does mean that a rapid fix is required (except in extreme cases such as BLP). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Stop mass-tagging. Where is there a consensus for you to meat-bot at 20 articles per minute? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Where is the consensus that bare urls should not be tagged? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
You know that mass tagging and meat-bot edits need a consensus. Tagging 20+ pages per minute is utterly inappropriate, as I alluded to when I suggested you should look into a bot for this when you falsely accused me of bad faith. It's fine, I am fully aware of the sorts of things you've been involved with in the past, but I'm please you've decided to stop flooding watchlists with edits that require consensus. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
TRM, you accused me of a "spree", repeatedly called me "mad", accused me of "racking up" edits, and called my tagging a "tirade".
So you were ABFing, and you have continued to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Your edits just today alone have racked up hundreds, if not thousands, of tags which is mad (I never said you were mad, so fix that now). I accept that "tirade" should have been "overwhelming torrent". I tend to assume that "tirade" means "endless stream of unhelpful comments" but I accept it's not universal, so let's replace that with "overwhelming torrent". The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There you go again. The tags didn't add themselves, and they are not sentient beings, so your attempt so disown the meaning is bogus.
Millions of Wikipedia articles have cleanup tags. If you think thousands of tags are mad, then most of Wikipedia is mad ... so why are you here?
As to tirade, the dictionary definition is clear. You chose to use that word just to ramp up the hostilty. Own your choice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
No I'm sorry I used tirade, I meant "torrent". If you can't accept that, then no problem, I know exactly who I'm dealing with. Thousands of tags per day is the issue. You know that. It's odd you think this is a good use of anyone's time. But hey, your mileage might vary. Sorry again for using the wrong word, it happens sometimes for me, but I don't expect any special treatment, but I do expect it to be acknowledged when I apologise. Perhaps you're just not into that kind of discussion though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
So, a very belated posto-facto switch to slightly softer form of perjorative terminology for just one of your hostile terms is your idea of an apology?
If you actually want to apologise, just retract the lot ... as I asked you to do at the outset.
You're right, i'm not into the kind of discussion where someone acts aggressively and insultingly for hours on end and then claims to be injured party because their very slight retraction wasn't greeted with a hug.
And you still have not identified how or why the volume of cleanup tags is a problem. That's the sort of thing we could have had an actual discussion about if you had chosen to try to engage with civility instead of repeatedly dialling up the hostile rhetoric. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Jesus. TLDR. I apologised for using the wrong word, nothing more. I have nothing to retract. You were the one literally giving out the improvement on your edit count because you didn't look to actually improve the articles you were tagging at a rate of 20 pages per minute. You have no consensus for this meatbot behaviour, as you know. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, it seems that you really do think its fine to post perjorative hyperbole.
As to improvement, I have been clear from the outset that the purpose of those edits was to mark the articles which need the fix, in order to allow more editors to do more fixes. Locating the problem is a necessary step on the path towards improvement, and tagging means that i am not working alone of a large set of articles.
Do you not comprehend that basic purpose of tagging? Or are you simply choosing to misrepresent me? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I think mass-tagging without consensus speaks for itself. Your attitude to being questioned about it speaks for itself. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
My positive attitude to being questioned about it is shown by the numerous civil discussions about this on my talk page.
What you have encountered is my attitude to being repeatedly antagonised by your hyperbolic insults. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There was nothing personal. This is it for me: you made thousands of edits which have to be undone and worked on without consensus in a single day. I consider that to be disruptive. You may not consider it the same way, but you are in the minority. Given your curious objection and "ban" on my comments on your talkpage, I also consider the matter to be of no interest to me any longer, I have far more pressing issues to deal with beyond fixing your urgent AWB-based mass edits which cropped up on my talkpage. I will be monitoring any further such behaviour. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
TRM, I did an even bigger tagging run at the end of May. There were extensive discussions on my talk, and it seemed that most people were happy. So no, I do not accept that I am in a minority.
Any cleanup tag should be removed when the problem is fixed, and this one is no exception. You have focused solely on an the consequences of the brokenness of reFill, and consistently ignored the desirability of identifying articles which are subject to linkrot.
Again, if you had chosen to ask civil questions rather than hurl insults, you could have learnt why I did the edits on a single day. The disruption consists solely of your repeated choice of provocation and confrontation rather than dialogue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I didn't "hurl insults". That's rather sad. Your bot-like edits are unwelcome. Your attitude to being questioned about the edits has been very unpleasant. I'm happy to leave you now to your mass edits and your general unwelcome disruption. As I noted, I failed to see a single editor in favour of your approach, but maybe consensus doesn't apply here. I'll unwatch all the articles you have just summarily tagged because I don't need this kind of stress. Good luck with making it to three million edits and all that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
My attitude to being questioned is shown by the numerous civil discussions i have had about this on my talk with editors who — unlike you — conduct themselves with some civility.
Your denialism adds some levity to the drama. I don't know whether you genuinely believe that describing another editor's work as "mad", "spree", "tirade", "smashing out" etc is not insulting. But either way, it's absurd.
And, of course, you continue to simply ignore the fact that these edits were clearly made to locate a problem. That sustained, widespread denialism is highly disruptive. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
"denialism"?! Really. You still have no consensus for your meatbot edits, which is adequately demonstrated by your acceptance to stop. You had to do that. It's not about discussions on your talk page now. It's wider than that. You've stopped, which is proper. Your edits were not helpful, as I pointed out right from the moment I saw them happening. I'm glad you've stopped, and I'm not alone. Thanks very much. Don't do it again. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: in what way is it struggling? I haven't seen a problem yet, probably because the articles I have ran refill over recently haven't had the tag. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at User talk:Trappist the monk. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Bare URL inline tagsEdit

From my small experiment here, ReFill doesn't like the first URL but is happy with the second. So it can cope with the {{Bare URL inline}} tag, at least sometimes. Could others add more examples to my test page, so I/we can get a clear picture of under what conditions it works, and when it doesn't? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the first one fails because the URL is dead and returns a 404 error. Keith D (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, and I think people's distaste for conflict aside, the mass meatbot edits adding literally thousands of these tags actually makes it even harder to fix the issue. Of course, somewhere there's a consensus for the meatbot edits being made at 20 pages/minute, right? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: In this thread I would like to leave the rights and wrongs of mass tagging to one side and concentrate on troubleshooting the tool.
@Keith D: If you take a look at my test page again I have deleted the bare URL inline tags from both of the refs that ReFill was failing on, and run it again. Both of these refs fail without the tag. This seems to indicate that the tag is not the problem - ReFill cannot extract the title etc from the ref irrespective of whether it has been tagged. It would be useful to identify whether there are any refs that ReFill can expand when there is no tag but adding the tag stops it doing so. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Curb Safe Charmer I am late to this. Until now my experience is that anything other than a bare url between the refs tag prevents any of the three tools from fixing the ref. That includes the bare url tag, clarification needed tag, extraneous info like a date, even something as simple as a period "." (which for some reason editors from India like to use) can stop the tools. I just ran refill on 1997–98 Sheffield United F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and it did format one ref with the inline tag. That is quite helpful and will save us time in hunting for them. I removed the tag on the other one and ran the page with reflinks. It marked the link as dead. The ability of reflinks to tag dead links is one of its biggest pluses over refill. Mind you it doesn't tag all dead links but it gets a fair number of them. I have no idea if that feature can be added to refill but it would enhance its usefulness. I also know that you are very busy learning and working on this tool so please don't worry about looking at that enhancement anytime in the near - or even distant - future. I will keep an eye out for any instances of refill being stopped by the inline tags use. Thanks again for all that you are doing here. MarnetteD|Talk 19:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Garbled URL / website value in outputEdit

Anyone got a clue what the tool was attempting to do here(imgur-hosted screenshot)? Just tried it again with a random athlete profile in my sandbox and it doesn't seem to be a fluke [1]. Certainly not ideal that this would happen with a currently extremely high-profile site like AngryHarpytalk 06:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

There's something odd about that database: using the Reftoolbar to fill in a ref from a url gives ".." as the website name. PamD 07:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Like this: <ref>{{cite web |title=Swimming MASO Alaa - Tokyo 2020 Olympics |url= |website=.. |access-date=30 July 2021 |language=en-us}}</ref>. PamD 07:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the page information it gives "../../../en/results/basketball/athlete-profile-n1322233-abalde-alberto.htm" which it looks like the tool is picking up. Keith D (talk) 11:20, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Broken imageEdit

I guess this is where I report this particular issue(?). At the bottom of the reFill page at Toolforge is a series of linked text. The farthest-right hypertext reads "Powered by Wikimedia Labs" and to the left of it (sharing the same hyperlink) is the image favicon.ico (, which should appear, but instead an error box is displayed. This is a low priority bug. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there is a problem on as things are just redirecting to Keith D (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Data incorrectly indentified as names on IndiaToday.inEdit

  • Task Name fixWikipage
  • Task ID 0ae01fce-e612-4ce9-8fc2-da5b2f73f939
  • Change ID 1
  • Old Text
  • New Text {{Cite web|url=|title=Bengali theatre actor loses his role in play after joining BJP|first1=Prema Rajaram New|last1=DelhiMarch 13|first2=2021UPDATED:|last2=March 13|first3=2021 08:18|last3=Ist|website=India Today|accessdate=12 September 2021}}

– Rummskartoffel 22:10, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

We need to work out a way of deploying fixes to this tool, as at the moment we have requests but have been unable to change the tool until existing fixes can be deployed. Keith D (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Return to the project page "ReFill".