User talk:Anomie

This user's talk page has archives:

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Engvar template purge

Pursuant to your comments over at TfD, I think we should consider moving forward with mass-deletions/redirections. I was thinking of keeping {{Use American English}} and {{Use Canadian English}} separate and deleting/merging all others into {{Use British English}} or {{Use Commonwealth English}} (preferably the prior as its use is clearer). I'm not sure whether or not to keep {{Use Oxford spelling}} but it appears to serve the same use as {{Use Canadian English}}. Of course, this further extends to the talk-page templates {{British English}} et al. What do you think? IceWelder [✉] 11:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not likely to have time to help much, but I'd like to see it happen. Focus on determining which languages have an actual difference in spelling, lexicon, and/or grammar when written in an encyclopedic register. I think that will be key, if you don't keep it focused then people will probably get away with pointing out differences in spoken language and less formal registers, or just claiming that their national variant exists while ignoring the question of difference entirely. Try to get consensus that a requirement for a variant template is having documentation somewhere as to what exactly the difference is when written in an encyclopedic register. Anomie⚔ 13:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I will check that soon, thanks. I'm not exactly full of spare time right now either, so please ping me if I forget. IceWelder [✉] 16:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

AnomieBot closing peer reviews - request for update

Firstly, thank you :). I was recently notified AnomieBot is now closing reviews. I'm not sure if this has been happening all along but this function seems to be working only intermittently based on the backlogs I've been seeing. THANK YOU however for this supremely useful function, and the intent behind it, as it will editors a lot of time!!

Secondly, an update request. Could you please update the way AnomieBot closes reviews, or inactivate this function until the way it works is updated. I updated the way peer reviews were closed some time ago to fix a number of errors that were creeping in and AnomieBot is reintroducing the same errors again. The new instructions are VERY similar to the old instructions but the use of templates has changed and I request you have a look and inactivate AnomieBot's closing function until it's fixed so that the errors don't proliferate again.

Thirdly, an extra feature request. Peer reviews can now be listed as pre FA reviews and these often linger for quite some time. When you have time (not urgent) I was wondering if we could work out a way not to auto close those reviews. It MAY be as simple as just not closing any review listed in Template:FAC peer review sidebar although I honestly do not have any idea if that's hard or difficult to implement :P.

Many thanks, Tom (LT) (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has been closing peer reviews since 2017, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 76. You've not made it clear what exactly you changed, or whether there was consensus for this anywhere. Anomie⚔ 01:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Anomie. I wasn't aware of this bot having this function and I don't recall peer review being notified when it was created which explains my initial confusion and lack of keeping you in the loop. However I am super, super happy to see that there is a bot with this function as was on my to-do list to request a bot. My posts about these changes is within Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review/Archive 12. Regarding my changes, there is very rarely any comment at the talk page of PR which leaves me quite lonely sometimes so some changes have "no objections" and others have "consensus". I hope these are improving PR and you can see the rationale on those discussion pages. If you're interested, there are a number of reasons for the changes as I document there as well.

To summarise I would like to request three changes to your bot:

1. When closing a review, on the the peer review page,
   • the old instructions were: replace {{Peer review page|topic = X}} with {{subst:PR/archive}}
   • change to the new instructions, which are: replace {{Peer review page|topic = X}} with {{Closed peer review page}}. (this standardises the closure message and makes future changes to the message easier)
2. When closing a review, on the article's talk page,
   • the old instructions were: replace the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page with {{Old peer review|archive = N}}
   • change to the new instructions, which are: replace the {{Peer review}} tag on the article's talk page with {{subst:Close peer review|archive = N}}, (this includes other information at the time of PR closure)
3. Also, if possible, it would be appreciated if reviews listed on Template:FAC peer review sidebar were not automatically closed, because since this template was created that venue has been very active. If that's not possible it is not a big a deal as the other changes

Hope this helps, thanks for responding so promptly as I understand based on your talk page message you may have other off-wiki commitments --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the details.  Done FYI, I wound up just copying all parameters being passed to {{Peer review}} when changing it to {{subst:Close peer review}} instead of trying to specifically copy or add |archive=.

As for the notice or lack thereof, it looks like AnomieBOT replaced BU RoBOT in that task, as part of the conversation at Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_73#VeblenBot that had people involved in PR at the time participating. Anomie⚔ 14:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again, I am super grateful regarding this functionality as it is very useful to have a bot in the background helping out with this. It is one of those pleasant surprises that often emerge relating to peer review. Only last week I discovered Wikipedia:Nominations viewer. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Would it be difficult for you to add peer review to your feedback request service functionality? There would be 12 possible categories. 11 are based on categories 1 to 11 on WP:PR and then a 12th category called "All peer reviews". I will populate the FRS listing at WP:FRS based on the editors at WP:PRV who nominated to be autocontacted. This would usurp the functionality provided by the now inactive User:KadaneBot and also have the benefit I can use User:Yapperbot to keep the FRS list and volunteer lists up to date. The lists need to be kept separate as one is basically a plain text list intended for people to read and find volunteers, and the other FRS list is designed for a bot to use. If possible, I think this change will help with future maintenance burden by putting FRS-type listings all the same spot using the same tools and bots.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

AnomieBOT has nothing to do with WP:FRS. Anomie⚔ 23:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

And the actual operator of FRS has been inactive since August 2020, so will not be available to add this task. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

 Self-trout you both make excellent points. Thank you for your help so far. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned helper anomaly

Hi, not sure if I did something wrong in this one case, but I apparently assigned the wrong userid when using Unsignedhelper.js at Talk:Schutzstaffel in this edit (noticed by Diannaa and corrected in this edit; more info in this edit). I've used your script many times before with no problems, one time in which it searched >300 versions, and generated the right unsig comment. I really don't know what happened in this case. Many thanks for the script; it's great! (Adding Obenritter.) Mathglot (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. I'm not sure how that bit of the script ever worked; maybe something in how browsers handle unrecognized escapes changed in the past 9 years or so. Anomie⚔ 02:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries Mathglot, thanks for informing me accordingly. --Obenritter (talk) 10:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! Thanks, Anomie. Do I have to wipe my common.js, or purge it, or anything, or am I good to go? (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: You shouldn't have to do anything like that. At most, you might need to bypass your browser cache. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Bug in AnomieBOT code

Just a quick note to say that I think you have a bug in your Bot's code – it is ignoring the presence of the {{In use}} template and making changes. See the revision history for DR Class V 180 for details. Thanks and regards. – Iain Bell (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The TemplateSubster task does not try to honor {{in use}}. TagDater and OrphanReferenceFixer are the only AnomieBOT tasks that currently do so. Anomie⚔ 16:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for this. I did know it was a bot, but 1. wanted to keep the issue all together on one talk page, and 2. figured you had it on your watchlist (as well as it having an email so thought you'd get that notice as well). The wording (from the bot) was confusing to me, but after I posted I scrolled up and saw that "big red error" post you made to another user which helped me figure out what to do. TY for responding though. — Ched (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I just wanted to say thank you for working on the pending changes bot for TFA. I'm sure that there are probably other things you could be spending your precious time on, but I appreciate that you took the time to help here. Mz7 (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)