User talk:Kanashimi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Kanashimi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 11:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

BAGBot: Your bot request Cewbot[edit]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 17:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]


WP:RFBOT[edit]

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — xaosflux Talk 15:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Degradation via Cewbot[edit]

In this edit by Cewbot:

It seems to me that Cewbot changed an ugly but functional link to an ugly and useless one, four times. Do I misunderstand?

None of this is mentioned or even suggested in the edit summary. (The edit summary appears to be an honest description of what else Cewbot did at the same time, and that seems to have been constructive -- although I haven't investigated fully.)

(If this message of mine makes no sense, perhaps Cewbot has done to it what I've described it doing to the article Gianni Berengo Gardin. Please look through the edit history and read my message as I created it.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hoary: You are right. It seems was a wrong conversion made by the bot. I am trying to fix the problem now. Thank you for the reporting. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, かなしみ様. Within the next few minutes, I'll undo this part of Cewbot's work on Gianni Berengo Gardin (while of course gratefully preserving its improvements). -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will run again after I fix the problem. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own Gianni Berengo Gardin, of course -- but anyway, as far as I'm concerned you're welcome to use it as a testing page. Just be sure to clear up any mess that Cewbot makes there! By contrast Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography has a yuuuge number of these Illm templates, and I think it would be a good idea not to unleash Cewbot on it until you're absolutely, positively, definitively (etc) sure that this won't result in a cock-up. -- Hoary (talk) 08:47, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, Cewbot has already been there. And harmlessly, too. Indeed, beneficially. ¶ I was surprised to learn of the existence of Illm; I'm not sure that I've encountered its use by anyone other than myself. -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I am sorry I can't reproduce the result. (Please see Special:Diff/730639818.) I guess it is because the data in wikidata changed. However, I will still see to it. If you find any error made by it, please let me know soon. Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that on occasion I've found Wikidata pages that turned out to have no link to any existing page on the subject. But I'm also pretty sure that I checked that at least one link was provided. Indeed, more often than not I reached the Wikidata page via the Italian Wikipedia page. ¶ However, it's conceivable that I made a mistake with the target WD page. If Cewbot encounters {{Illm|WD=Q9525507|XYZXYZXYZ}} (with a non-existent WD target), what does it do? I hope that it doesn't convert this to {{Illm|XYZXYZXYZ|XYZXYZXYZ}}: this is (I think) worse than plain [[XYZXYZXYZ]]. (Best would be something like {{Illm|WD=Q9525507|XYZXYZXYZ}}{{Dead link|date=July 2016}}<!-- Cewbot found that WD=Q9525507 does not exist --> -- Hoary (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should not change any thing in those cases. When I try the cases -- Special:Permalink/730661297, indeed the bot do nothing this time. So I still can not sure what happened in Gianni Berengo Gardin bibliography. Anyway, I will still look at it. Thank you for your attention. --Kanashimi (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strange indeed! Unfortunately I'm too busy/lazy/stupid to do any WP programming myself, but is there some way for you to look for {{Illm|X|X}} (where X is any string) within any page Cewbot has worked on? -- Hoary (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: I have tried some cases, and get a report. Please tell me if you have any suggests. --Kanashimi (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot logged out[edit]

Hello Kanashimi, it appears that User:Cewbot has logged out for this week's run (see Special:Contributions/10.68.17.205). Please fix this, as automated edits should always come from a logged-in bot account. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and sorry for making this mistake. --Kanashimi (talk) 00:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image bot[edit]

Hey is there any chance we can run that image bot to illustrate those lists of prehistoric life in the near future? Abyssal (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Technical Barnstar
Thank you so much for using your bot to illustrate my lists of prehistoric life by US state! Abyssal (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you run your image bot?[edit]

Hey Kanashimi, could you run your image bot for the following commented-out list of articles? Abyssal (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed List
Doing... --Kanashimi (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Abyssal: Y Done --Kanashimi (talk) 14:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Abyssal (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Module:Property[edit]

Module:Property, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Module:Property and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Module:Property during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. {{repeat|p|3}}ery (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Kanashimi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Kanashimi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you're invited to an RfC discussion on the Bruno Bettelheim article[edit]

As a past contributor, you're invited to a Request for Comment (RfC) discussion on the article's lead sentence. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bruno_Bettelheim#rfc_7DDF8CC

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot's count is inaccurate on a page[edit]

Happy New Year! Thank you so much for running Cewbot and counting the articles on the Vital articles project. I noticed, however, that Cewbot counted 101 instead of 100 on that page: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2. --Spaced about (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spaced about: Thanks for your attention. It is because the link in the revision parts, and I modified it. --Kanashimi (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! --Spaced about (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VA Levels[edit]

The bot just added a bunch of "(Level 2)" to the VA2 page, which isn't necessary and makes it harder to identify the level 1 articles. Could that be fixed? Sdkb (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree; it is unnecessary. J947 (c), at 00:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb and J947: Fixed Of course. I am trying to make a summary table, but I do not know what is the best form. May you create a example merge "Of the ... articles" in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 and the table in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5? Thank you --Kanashimi (talk) 01:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

I'm not all that familiar with Cewbot, but is it supposed to be editing the sandbox? I hope I'm not intruding, it's just that those edits look kind of strange. Cheers --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 00:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puzzledvegetable: Sorry to be a bother. It is from this disscussion. I will add some notification. Please tell me if you have good idea about it. --Kanashimi (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Cewbot edits[edit]

Hi. I just want to tell you that between 08:25-08:34, 26 February 2020, the Cewbot added a bunch of a GA and FA icons next to links that already had them on the vital article lists. I was able to get rid of all of them except for the level three list. Just thought this was something you need to know. --72.208.178.248 (talk) 09:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am fixing the code now. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2001: A Space Odyssey[edit]

Hi, same anonymous user from before. Does the Cewbot have 2001: A Space Odyssey listed as 2001:A Space Odyssey? Because it deleted the space I added. --72.208.178.248 (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thank you for reporting. --Kanashimi (talk) 12:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another Cewbot mistake[edit]

So apparently Cewbot thinks that there are fifty people listed in the voice actors section. --72.208.178.248 (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thank you. If the page is listed, it will be more easily to debug. --Kanashimi (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ondo State[edit]

Hi, it's me again. Apparently, the talk page for the Ondo State redirects to Talk:Ondo (state). 72.208.178.248 (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@72.208.178.248: I think, for this case, we should move Talk:Ondo (state) to Talk:Ondo State. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I was thinking too. Also, the talk page for Island groups of the Philippines redirects to Talk:Divisions of the Philippines.--72.208.178.248 (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way I can move a page without having to log in? --72.208.178.248 (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think we need to login to do this operation. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --72.208.178.248 (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is it possible for Cewbot to upgrade the classifications? I'm noticing a lot of good and featured articles that have an additional rating because no one bothered to edit the viral article template on the talk page. --72.208.178.248 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is ongoing now: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Cewbot 3 --Kanashimi (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was getting really tired of having to edit the classifications myself. --72.208.178.248 (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unrelated, what exactly is the problem with the James K. Polk article? Its situation on the Wikipedia:Database reports/Vital articles update report is completely different from everything else. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article is also listed in Wikipedia:Former featured articles. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? Well, I just fixed it. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good people to approach for simple wikidata bot requests?[edit]

Hi Kanashimi. Do you know anyone who might be good to approach to help out with a relatively simple bot request:

I pinged the main project chat page a while back but got no bites. Any ideas appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: Hi. It seems there was not enough discussions for the task. Perhaps it would be better if there are more participants? --Kanashimi (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot - no quorum notices on AfD[edit]

Hi, I have noticed the bot adding no quorum notices to the bottom of AfDs, generally speaking should this only be added after the discussion has been relisted at least once? Case in question here. Thanks. (edit conflict) Nightfury 10:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightfury:Thanks for reporting. This task is a bot request. I think it is better discussing there. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightfury:And I will using 7+1 days to be sure there is full 7 days. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot – Removals and re-adds at VA[edit]

I've been noticing that Cewbot has had a pattern of removing and then re-adding all the parentheticals about above levels at the VA lists. Is there any way this could be fixed to reduce the revision history/watchlist clutter? Sdkb (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am testing that time. It should be improved then. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

disambiguation pages as vital articles[edit]

The bot seems to have identified a disambiguation page, Ziaur Rahman (disambiguation) as a vital article. This can't be right. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is because Talk:Ziaur Rahman redirecting to Talk:Ziaur Rahman (disambiguation). I will try to fix this kind of situation. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 12:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Vital article and subpage=Sports[edit]

Hello. Just wondering if there was a way cewbot could add the field |subpage=sports to the Vital article templates on the talk pages of the articles listed at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation. pbp 16:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that since I can not get the topic parameter from page title, So I have a suggest in Template talk:Vital article. Please join the discussion. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addition of the link parameter does not properly categorize topics. I'm not anywhere near a coding expert, but I think the solution lies in what is linked to from various VA5 pages. Or I could be completely wrong, who knows. 19:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit that makes no sense[edit]

This edit is wrong. This should have been the edit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that since I can not get the topic parameter from page title, So I have a suggest in Template talk:Vital article. Please join the discussion. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot adding Template:Vital article to Portal talk:[edit]

Should Cewbot be adding {{Vital article}} to Portal talk:Java etc. or is this template just for article talk pages? Certes (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was coming here to ask the same about this edit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reporting. I am trying to fix this error... --Kanashimi (talk) 21:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: The error is caused by Wikipedia:Vital articles/Vital portals level 4/Geography. Sorry, I fix the code but find I can not delete the "portal talk:" pages. Is there a way to help me delete the pages? Thank you --Kanashimi (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them can be deleted per CSD G8 as talk pages of a deleted page. The vital portals themselves were destroyed last year. Certes (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you But the amount is huge. I think I may do it myself to lessen the burden... --Kanashimi (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot blocked[edit]

I've blocked Cewbot.

  1. Task 3 ({{vital article}} updates) is not functioning correctly.
    • A mass of talk pages (mostly for portals) were created (now deleted) for nonexistent pages.
    • Redirects are not articles, so they should not get {{vital article}}.
    • When an article is not listed {{vital article}} should be removed, not just blanking the |level=.
    • The bot is indecisive, e.g. Talk:Northeast Region, Singapore.
  2. It made edits to process a CfD outcome without approval.

— JJMC89 (T·C) 23:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Thanks for your concern. This week I am testing the bot and therefore made some errors. (You may check the commits.) All errors in code are fixed, e.g., A mass of talk pages (mostly for portals) were created (now deleted) for nonexistent pages., Redirects are not articles, so they should not get {{vital article}}. and The bot is indecisive, e.g. Talk:Northeast Region, Singapore.. The |level= is also fixed. The error mentioned above is fixed and will not appears again. But I can not delete the "Portal talk:" pages. For the "Portal talk:" edits, I think it is better delete the pages directly. I can do it myself with permissions or list up pages also. Add a CSD G8 notice for each page is not a good idea. Do you have any suggestions? --Kanashimi (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the specific commits that fixed these issues or the places in the current code that checks/handles these cases. I already deleted the portal talk pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: Thank you for solving "Portal talk:" error.
Thanks for that. I've unblocked the bot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Kanashimi (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: For the CfD part, this is a manual supervision edit, to prove if replace module on GitHub works. I will requests for approval if I need the bot to process a CfD operation. By the way, I am interested in helping Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy. May you give me some suggestions? Thank you --Kanashimi (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do testing on a test wiki or the Beta Cluster. There are existing bots that handle CfD outcomes as directed at WP:CFD/W. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for suggestions. I have do some CfD tasks in jawiki (please refer to ja:Wikipedia:Bot作業依頼 and ja:User:cewbot/log/20190913). And I wonder that may I request for approving a CfD task, or this kind of RfA is not necessary? --Kanashimi (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You need approval to process CfD outcomes. A non-admin cannot complete all of the requests and you would have to keep your bot operating the same as the others, so I don't recommend it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you --Kanashimi (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JJMC89: Sorry, it seems the pinging failed. Please give some comments, thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous creations again[edit]

  • Talk:Diatonic function (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Music theory (37 articles))
  • Talk:Ney Rosauro (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Percussionists (3 articles))
  • Talk:Vaniity (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Adult (25/25 articles))
  • Talk:Gray hair (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: General (55 articles))
  • Talk:Coat of arms of the United States (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: National coat of arms (192 articles))
  • Talk:Coat of arms of Hong Kong (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: National coat of arms (192 articles))
  • Talk:Print media (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: %7b%7banchor%7cGeneral%7d%7d Mass Media (40 articles))
  • Talk:Bicycle path (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Road transport (91 articles))
  • Talk:New London Bridge (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Bridges (50 articles))
  • Talk:Plaster of Paris (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Building materials (26 articles))
  • Talk:Gypsum plaster (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Building materials (26 articles))
  • Talk:Geoenvironmental engineering (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Disciplines (52 articles))
  • Talk:Medical biotechnology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Stem cell biotechnology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Food and beverage biotechnology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Insect biotechnology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Animal biotechnology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Enzyme technology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Bioprocess technology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Immunotechnology (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Biotechnology (66 articles))
  • Talk:Son-in-law (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: %7b%7banchor%7cFamily-in-law%7d%7d Family-in-law (4 articles))
  • Talk:Daughter-in-law (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: %7b%7banchor%7cFamily-in-law%7d%7d Family-in-law (4 articles))
  • Talk:Great-grandparent (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: %7b%7banchor%7cThird-degree relatives%7d%7d Third-degree relatives (3 articles))
  • Talk:Rasūl (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Beliefs (14 articles))
  • Talk:Holmsland Dunes (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Deserts and dunes (29/30 articles))
  • Talk:Frauenmauer-Langstein cave system (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Caves (32/30 articles))
  • Talk:Pico de Itabirito (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: South America (14 articles)_3)
  • Talk:Zardalou (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Asia (39 articles))
  • Talk:Tinajani Canyon (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: South America (14 articles)_2)
  • Talk:Matmata Hills (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Africa (32 articles))
  • Talk:Giessbach Falls (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Waterfalls (26/30 articles))
  • Talk:Barranco de Mascún (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Europe (39 articles))
  • Talk:Lake Vaihiria (Maintain {{Vital article}}: The article is listed in the level 5 page: Oceania (6 articles))

All of the above were erroneously created after I unblocked the bot. Please fix it or I will need to block it again. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Fixed Thank you for reporting. I have prevent creating talk page. These pages will be listed in the report. --Kanashimi (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot vital article errors[edit]

The bot has made many edits such as this[5] which use a lower-class "ga" or "fa".

That placed the page in three non-existent categories, e.g. in Category:All Wikipedia Ga-Class vital articles which should be Category:All Wikipedia GA-Class vital articles.

Please fix the bot, and fix its errors. They are listed at Special:WantedCategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for reporting. --Kanashimi (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small Cewbot vital article errors[edit]

The bot is tagging old level-4 vital articles (listed on this page) as current level-4 vital articles. Can this be fixed? Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 02:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 05:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vital error[edit]

[6]

The James Webb is not a Vital-4 article. It's a vital-5, and was correctly tagged as such. I don't know who approved your bot, but there's a severe lack of testing here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I try to fix the fault mentioned above, #Small Cewbot vital article errors, and it caused additional errors. I have stop the bot and ignore the "/Removed" pages. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: I have fix the code and try to fix the bad edits. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those recent edits should be reverted too. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I added this a few seconds after you said you'd fix things, so ignore that last message. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fast reporting. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:29, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Andrei Chikatilo[edit]

Cewbot appears to be making inappropriate edits. At Talk:Andrei Chikatilo is made this edit.[7] Bots often screw up. Toddy1 (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the section Murder, serial killing, mass murder (53/53 articles) does not formatted properly. The exception will be handled properly. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FGAN and GA[edit]

Is it possible to make the bot stop adding the former good article nominee symbol to articles that are also currently good articles? I tried removing the FGAN symbols from articles that are currently also Good Articles, but the bot puts them back. see edit Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will fix ttomorrow. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. One more question. Could you also have it remove the FGAN symbol from articles that are also DGA. It just seems redundant to show the FGAN symbol for delisted good articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot vital article errors[edit]

Hey there. I noticed at Category:All Wikipedia level-3 vital articles that there are some geography portals that have been tagged as Level 3 vital articles by the bot on March 25. I started going through and removing the incorrect tags from the portal talk pages but figured that I should check with you first to make sure that the bot isn't going to just re-add them after I remove them. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rreagan007: May you do some edits so I can test if the bot will re-add it? Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I've already removed about 30 of the tags. You can see which ones I already removed here: Special:Contributions/Rreagan007 Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It seems OK today. I will check tomorrow. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rreagan007: It seems no problems. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot 5 approved[edit]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 5 has been approved. Happy editing! --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "Multiple issues" for underlinked orphan[edit]

Hello. Is this edit as intended? The article has an orphan template, but perhaps that doesn't count. Certes (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. {{Orphan}} goes invisible a few weeks later, so I think it is more clearly for only one template with {{orphan}}. Of cause, this can be discussed. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. That sounds like a reasonable behaviour. Certes (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cewbot edit[edit]

FYI, Cewbot made this edit which is a bit broken due to incorrect syntax already being in the article. IDK if you can prevent this kind of thing, but just in case. -- Pingumeister(talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The parser treats the {{multiple issues| as unfunctional wikitext. The parser do the same thing as mediawiki's parser. So it is a little complex... --Kanashimi (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please don't vandalize — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.24.51.44 (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the parser do the same thing as mediawiki's parser. So the parser itself is not doing things wrong. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot not working on WP:Vital articles[edit]

When the page Elizabeth I was moved, on this page: Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People, the bot failed to add the level 3 in parentheses after the article. Can you please try to fix that for me please? Interstellarity (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French railway stations[edit]

Hi Kanashimi - I don't know if User:Anthony Appleyard has got back to you with the details for this. The articles to be renamed are those shown at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=Captain+scarlet&namespace=0&tagfilter=&start=2020-05-30&end=2020-05-30&limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions between 10:34 and 10:53 (plus the corresponding Talk pages, of course). They all need to revert to the name they had before the move. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for sorting this out. Colonies Chris (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's my honor --Kanashimi (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another template for the bot[edit]

{{copypaste}} shouldn't be lumped in with the {{multiple issues}}. Primefac (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed: User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration --Kanashimi (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with bot edit[edit]

Hi there! Could you please review this bot edit? Although there are two maintenance templates in {{multiple issues}}, your bot removed {{multiple issues}} with an edit summary "Remove {{Multiple issues}} for only 1 maintenance template(s)". Could you please fix the bot? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. {{Orphan}} goes invisible a few weeks later, so I think it is more clearly for only one template with {{orphan}}. Of cause, this can be discussed. You can also add the template to maintenance template list. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Orphan#Visibility explains "The template message is visible on all pages where the date parameter is set to either the current month or the previous month (currently June 2020 or May 2020). It is also visible on all pages where it is used inside the {{multiple issues}} template." Therefore, I added Orphan to the maintenance template list. Thanks! (I'm not watching this page – please use {{ping|GoingBatty}} on reply) GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Request Banner handling[edit]

Reference: this edit

Hi. Currently, the bot is adding merge requests into multiple issue templates. This should probably not happen, as the two areas are totally unrelated and require differing processes to resolve. The visibility of the shorter-lived Merge Request Banner needs to be maintained separately to garner the necessary profile to draw people into the discussion. Can this be fixed? Let me know, and thanks for your work. Regards, GenQuest "Talk to Me" 20:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. I have remove the merge templates from User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration. --Kanashimi (talk) 20:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and changes. Appreciated. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VA template[edit]

Just want to tell you, the VA template the Cewbot is inserting in the talk pages does not show the topic. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 04:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting. I have try some improvements on Template talk:Vital article. But it was not accepted. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shafiʽi[edit]

Just want to warn you, you might want to look at the latest edits by Cewbot. On the level 5, People: Religious figures page, it thought that Al-Shafi'i was no longer a Level 4 article. It did the same thing with Prithviraj Chauhan a few days ago as well. Saturdayopen (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. The edit of Al-Shafi'i is because it was moved. If no revert made, the bot will add it later, as Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan shown. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot A-class[edit]

I don't think Cewbot should be rating articles as A-class[8]. A-class, where it exists, is the result of a Wikiproject review process. When removing GAs, it should default to B class, which seems the usual practice for manual downgrades. Best, CMD (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will change the default behavior of bot. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot wrongly tagging as "class=Dab"[edit]

Hi Kanashimi

Bot error: [9] My fix: [10]

Please can you tell the bot to use "class=diambig"?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total articles[edit]

Quick question: how often does the Cewbot update the total article count on a page? Saturdayopen (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the task of vital articles? It should be once a day. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You know how each topic has “Total Articles: [# of articles on this topic]/[# of articles this topic should have]” in big letters? I’m not sure the Cewbot is updating that. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot will automatically update the summary table if there are summary table marks. Please refer to Wikipedia:Vital articles for the example of summary table. --Kanashimi (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So the reason why I was asking if the Cewbot was updating the total article count within the page is because I was adding articles on the People: Politicians and leaders pages under the assumption that there were still thirty-eight people that still needed to be added. Had the total article count had been updated, I would have known that there were already 2,408 people. Saturdayopen (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Saturdayopen: I am sorry that the bot will only update counter with the pattern "(000 articles)" in section title. If there is a summary table, it will be updated too. The bot will not update {{huge}}. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot and soft deletions?[edit]

Why is Cewbot making edits like this one? There's nothing in WP:NPASR which says a previous PROD is disqualifying. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, on the other side of the table, edit like this are just noise. I suggest both of the classes of edits be disabled. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the first one, it seems still no mark of keep|delete|merge|redirect before the bot edit the page.
For the second one, base on the discussion, @Czar: As a courtesy/aid for the closer, if would be really helpful for a bot to inform of the article's PROD eligibility, I think it is the case. Maybe you can give more description and tell us why it is needless. Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kanashimi, I disagree with the conclusion that a previous PROD makes this ineligible to be closed as soft delete. That's my basic objection, and everything else flows from there. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per the guideline (bold is my added emphasis/underline is in the original):

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD and follow the instructions listed at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Procedure for administrators. Generally, this will result in soft deletion (see below), but administrators should evaluate the nominating statement as they would a PROD rationale.
— Wikipedia:Deletion process#No quorum

Which makes sense because if treated like an expired PROD, its closing procedure says repeat nominations are ineligible. czar 06:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, Ah, I was previously unaware of that clause. Thanks. I withdraw my objection. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an approved bot task for this? ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 04:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, the task was approved. I have add some information in User:Cewbot/log/20200206/configuration. --Kanashimi (talk) 04:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Task 1 Convert interlanguage link templates with local article to wikilinks[edit]

This is highly problematic. If an article is created, but later deleted (perhaps a person article that's deemed not notable enough), the ill link is lost and we have a red link instead.

Since the ill template automatically converts itself into a blue link when there is a page, and an "ill link" when there isn't, can I ask you why ill links were considered so problematic they needed to be cleaned out this way? What's wrong with having an ill link that looks and behaves just like a blue link?

CapnZapp (talk) 11:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reduces template overhead, makes it easier to read the prose when editing, and in general would be considered "cleanup". Primefac (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC) (please ping on reply)[reply]
The task will convert articles existing more than one week. For the articles created and deleted within one week, the links will not be converted. If you think we should preserve the foreign labels, perhaps the labels in wikidata is a better choice. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Cewbot's work is helpful for the reasons outlined by Primefac. CapnZapp: Can you point to an example of the situation you describe? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Michael Bednarek: On Kristin Scott Thomas' page, Alexandra-Therese Keining is mentioned - I added the link using {{ill}} to create a red link and a link to her article on Swedish Wikipedia, then someone created the page, the bot removed the ill, and now Keining's article is tagged for notability. But let's not discuss individual examples. Let us instead discuss whether we should have a bot fix something that should not be considered a problem. Regards, CapnZapp (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CapnZapp: Would having the bot replace the inter-language link with [[en-wiki link]]<!-- Was: "wikicode that was replaced", date and time, link to bot task approval --> instead of just [[en-wiki link]] be helpful? It would at least give editors something to "revert to" if the en-wiki link turned red. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Better than nothing. Is the question "why have the bot do it at all?" closed? CapnZapp (talk) 20:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:Consensus can change so can the consensus regarding a bot's task. So, while the original discussion of "why" closed when the bot's task was approved, there is always a way to re-open it. I don't know of any specific process to revisit an already-approved bot, but if there isn't, I would start by looking at the reasons it was requested in the first place. If those reasons no longer hold true, raise the issue in the "best" forum. Depending on who requested that bot, the "best" forum might be the relevant WikiProject, the bot owner's talk page, or even one of the village pumps. I haven't dug into this bot-task's history enough to know what the "best" forum is for this particular task. It might be right here, in this thread, on this talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any specific process... see WP:BOTAPPEAL, which leads to WP:BOTN. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed change: Have the bot add the recently-enabled |display=force to {{Interlanguage link}} if the English page exists. You eliminate the expensive parser function call, you don't have the "what happens if the en-wiki article disappears" problem. At least the bot is exclusion-compliant. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are pages with many interlanguage links where |display=force or similar is already in use, such as List of villages in Rivne Oblast. Editors of such pages may not know how to exempt the bot from that page. If the bot is run against such a page, it should put a note on the talk page saying what it did and how to add an exemption. Disclaimer: I didn't check the code or the bot's edit history, so I don't know if this talk-page messaging is happening already or not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 14:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to put my BAG hat on and echo Michael above - is there a demonstrated issue or concern (other than the hypothetical "but what ifs") being posted that would impact the running of the bot? Primefac (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Nothing that would warrant interrupting the approved weekly schedule. I think if anything does crop up in the short term, the affected pages can be added to the exclusion list. That said, I would strongly recommend opening a discussion about how to handle cases where the recently-added |display= parameter is set, since the bot's current actions effectively roll back the will of the editor who added it if there is an en-wiki page if it was added editorially, rather than as a work-around to the expensive parser function problem as it was in List of villages in Rivne Oblast. Right now, this may be hypothetical, I don't know of any cases where |display= is used editorially, but it's new and probably not widely known by users of this template so this could change at any time. No hurry. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:47, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot seems very desirable to me. I have seen at least two articles with hundreds of {{ill}} that created too many expensive function calls. For example, see the monster edit mentioned here where I did what I think this bot is doing. Apart from errors or making pages slower to edit, weird syntax like {{ill}} is distracting for editors. There would need to be an extremely good reason to pad out wikitext with lengthy comments. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that argument is not relevant to the issue at hand. The bot is converting ill links to regular links, that can become red, that can be removed. This loses the connection to the other Wiki. If the bot can be instructed to use this |display=force parameter instead of getting rid of the {{ill}} templates entirely, this would solve everybody's concerns, it seems. CapnZapp (talk) 08:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned a few times above, if the botop does not find it necessary to update their task to appease your concerns, you can raise the issue at BOTN and get further input from the BAG. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Primefac If you by putting a hat on mean to say "I would like to ignore your concerns" then say so with no hat metaphors, please. CapnZapp (talk) 08:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this is an idiomatic thing, but "with my BAG hat on" means I'm commenting from a BAG perspective, i.e. "is this an actual issue that BAG needs to look into". If I were ignoring your concerns, I would say "your concerns are silly" or something to that effect. Please stop assuming that every time I say something I'm attaching some double-meaning or hidden attack at you. Primefac (talk) 13:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 6 approved[edit]

Cewbot 6 has been approved! Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 6 and let me know if you have any questions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 08:36, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have clarified the approval, restricting it to the article space. This can be changed with further discussion and an amendment. Apologies for the confusion. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fix broken anchors is a really cool function. Thanks for making this, and for working out the bugs. Happy New Year! Levivich harass/hound 07:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot editing others' talk page comments[edit]

Should Cewbot be making edits like this one, which change other editors' talk page comments? It doesn't seem to be justified by anything in WP:TPO, except maybe, tenuously, through the "etc" in point 16. As that guideline says, "a broken post is preferable to one with altered meaning"; this edit alters the meaning of a post that wasn't even "broken" in the first place. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. In this case, I think a accessible link may be better, and the bot added the corresponding information. However, it is easy not to make edits on all talk pages. If you have good reasons not to do so, I will change the codes quickly. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reasons are specified above – it's contrary to WP:TPO. Given the below comment on essentially the same issue, as well as ProcrastinatingReader's comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 6, I think this function should be limited to the article namespace (though there's probably no harm in the draft namespace being included too). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:44, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, issues like this are why I felt this should not be operated in talk spaces. Limiting to articlespace is best imo. Perhaps allowing usage in other mainspaces like the Wikipedia namespace would be okay too (eg if policy page links go out of date) but since things like WP:ANI are in the main space and not in Wikipedia talk I think there's too many holes in that idea as well. So perhaps just best to keep it to mainspace for the time being. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That having been said, I'm not sure how overly broad of an issue this is. I mean, it is fixing changed anchors, improving the context of archives for people browsing them later so they can reach discussions and follow them better. So it's overall a net plus. I think it merits some discussion on the pros & cons, but perhaps shouldn't be operated in these namespaces in the meantime. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a BAG comment, the close itself states that this bot is only approved for the Article space for this task. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: the close was updated after I wrote that ;p (Special:Diff/988503456) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. Might be worth a certain someone to better update their clarification then! Primefac (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taking my BAG hat off (i.e. commenting on the edit type itself) I would say that fixing a link to a now-broken broken anchor would be a borderline acceptable change of a talk page edit - if someone is looking on a page for a section/anchor and it's simply not there, it makes it rather difficult to understand the argument (I know, I had this problem earlier this week when a link to a discussion pointed literally nowhere, either on the page or the archives). I'd rather have a link fixed (even if it is technically IAR) than it be broken. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader and Primefac: I cerainly don't disagree that there are some positives, but not that it's a net plus in all cases. In the case I linked to above, the editors's statement that they saw a particular image at Donald Trump#George Floyd protests is rendered simply incorrect insofar as they didn't see the image at Donald Trump#Lafayette Square protester removal and photo op, as the page now says. This isn't disastrous, but it's not hard to imagine other contexts where it might cause greater confusion – particularly cases where section titles are mentioned rather than used. What about, for example, a discussion about a section title that results in a title being changed? Editor 1 might argue that the section Foo#Bar should be changed to Foo#Bars; in the event that their proposed change was made would the bot change "The section called Foo#Bar should be called Foo#Bars" to "The section called Foo#Bars should be called Foo#Bars"? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and a fairly valid reason for not having it approved for non-article uses. Basically, it would be a CONTEXTBOT issue, since there are cases where it would be helpful and cases where it wouldn't. Primefac (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate there's no need to limit to just the mainspace: all content-related namespaces can be supported: mainspace, drafts, categories, portals, books and templates. As for template space, fixing links in navboxes and sidebars would be useful, but you would want to exclude DYK nomination discussions (which are annoyingly hosted in template space rather than project space). – SD0001 (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot editing closed Afd discussions[edit]

Hi Kanashimi. I'm wondering if it's a good idea for Cewbot to edit closed Afd discussions, as it did here. There is a notice at the top of the page saying "The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it." Thoughts? DH85868993 (talk) 12:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I've put this as a subsection of the section above, because it's the same issue. Primefac (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it only modify main space[edit]

Thank you for every one giving good ideas above. I change the codes so the task should only modify main space now. I think, maybe we can rule out some prefixes and let the bot modify remaining pages? For example, !/\/(Sandbox|沙盒|Archives?|存檔|存档)( ?\d+)?$/.test(page_data.title) and !/^(Wikipedia:(Articles for deletion|Articles for creation|Database reports))\//.test(page_data.title) in the code? --Kanashimi (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is now erroneously changing links and anchors[edit]

I noticed this last night with a couple of articles linking to List of Boy Meets World characters, where an editor changed a few section headings in that article ([11]), only for those to be reverted later ([12]). The bot went on to change section links in William Daniels ([13][14]) and List of Girl Meets World characters ([15][16][17]) to what that editor had changed them to. All those changes led to broken links.

I also viewed some of the more recent changes the bot has made, to articles about numbers, and it seems to be doing the same thing ... changing section links to other articles and causing them to be broken. If anyone else has been watching this bot's recent edits and seeing further problems, please report them here. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had to take a closer look at those numbers articles I mentioned. A lot of them are correct, but I did find one that led to a broken link ([18]). As I mentioned at the head of my comment, this was a case of an editor changing a section heading ([19]) and then being reverted later ([20]). MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reporting. I find this kind of vandalism almost made by IP users. The bot is ignoring the edits made by IP users now. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot 6[edit]

Hey. I took a skim over recent bot edits. Most look good, but two questions/points:

  1. Special:Diff/988520258 + Special:Diff/988520774 -- I think this was caused by the vandalism in Special:Diff/988518255, although it was reverted within a minute. Still, the bot changed the anchor at 18:01 (when it was already reverted)? Seems like quite a few times when the bot changes an anchor, then changes it back within an hour or so. Maybe worth adding a delay for this case?
  2. Can the bot handle outdated section links which use {{Section link}} rather than the wikilink syntax?

Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now the delay set to 2 minutes. As you see, it is very easy to change to another interval within about 20 days. For reading {{Section link}}, I need more time to write this function... --Kanashimi (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bot should read {{Section link}} now. --Kanashimi (talk) 01:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Gati[edit]

Cyclone Gati Formed Upload File ??? Dam222 🌋 (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete reccomendations[edit]

Hey, I've noticed that Cewbot is recommending AfDs for soft deletion even in instances with bolded keep votes (such as here) as well as discussion without bolded votes but where there are comments clearly opposing deletion (such as here). You've got a very useful bot here, but I think it would be a good idea to look into this. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:02, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reporting. For the first case, it is because the vote using <li> arounds it. May be I can detect these cases in the future, but there are also risks of misjudgment. For the second case, the bot do not have the ability to read comments, so it uses "Seems" instead of assert statement. --Kanashimi (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Perhaps you could program it to search for terms like “seems notable” or “many sources.” Granted, I know nothing about coding so this may not be feasible. Anyways, great bot and I hope my comments have been of use. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Thank you for your important! --Kanashimi (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A problem for Chinese Wikipedia template[edit]

Hello. I'm worried about those templates for Chinese Wikipedia. I guess it is suppose to be Chinese version of "Template:Infobox musical artist" (singer, musician, etc.; without "management/agent" parameter), as for "Template:藝人" must redirect to "Template:Infobox person". Can you reach its consensus first in zh:Template talk:藝人? 115.164.93.220 (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The word "藝人" includes musical artists and actors, so it is not so easy to just redirects Template:藝人 to Template:Infobox musical artist or Template:Infobox person. --Kanashimi (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with bot[edit]

When vital articles are removed, the bolded text remains. For example, Russian Empire. Can you please fix that? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Interstellarity: Hi. May you give a sample edit so I can know how to modify? Thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This edit removed Russian Empire while this edit got rid of the level 3, but did not remove the bold. Interstellarity (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: The bot basically do not change the style of items. It seems there is special meaning of bold. Do you know any documents mention this? --Kanashimi (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Vital_articles. This explains that on that page, the Level 1 articles is in bold italics and Level 2 articles are bold. On Level 4, all higher level articles are in bold. Interstellarity (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: Thank you. I will check the code of bot. --Kanashimi (talk) 13:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It says that Russian Empire is a level 3 vital article. See here. Can you fix it? Interstellarity (talk) 22:18, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am testing now... --Kanashimi (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should fixed. --Kanashimi (talk) 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Interstellarity (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles[edit]

Hi, Kanashimi. The way the bot is adding vital article templates on talk pages (sample [21]) has had me busy for weeks trying to tame the clutter it is creating. If you look at Talk:Chagas disease, you will see it uses the WikiProject banner shell (as do tens to hundreds of thousands of talk pages). Could you coerce the bot into adding the Vital article template to the bottom of the banner shell, like this? That would involve looking for {{WikiProjectBannerShell and its shortcut, {{WPBS . Much appreciated, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble bot made. I will check the code and try to solve this problem. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, and thanks for your contributions ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should fixed. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you get the bot to use the "topic" or "subtopic" parameters instead of the "link" parameter? Using the "link" parameter places an inordinate amount of articles into Category:Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in an unknown topic pbp 17:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that the only way bot using the "topic" or "subtopic" parameters is to maintain a list by hand. In my opinion, using link will more precise and less change of {{Vital article}}. There is a related discussion in Template talk:Vital article#Allow `link` parameter. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, just no... Using the "link" parameter instead of the "topic" or "subtopic" parameter breaks categories and leads to articles being categorized in unknown topics when the topics are clearly known. As such, I've voted in opposition to use of the "link" parameter by bots in the discussion you speak of. pbp 04:57, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, your bot has also been "deleting" the topic and subtopic parameters to add the link parameter; it's gotta stop doing that. pbp 05:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am testing codes this two days, otherwise it should only remove {{Vital article}} for those articles that are not vital articles anymore, as the bot did before. --Kanashimi (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see Cewbot is still not placing vital articles inside the banner as we discussed above. As an example, could you look at the clutter created at Talk:Transit of Venus by this edit? There is a {{WikiProjectBannerShell| On that page, and the vital article template should go inside it. As I mentioned above, I am having to spend considerable time cleaning up these talk pages. You mnetioned above that this had been fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not fixed. I modify the codes and it will be tested next several days. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot 12 December 2020

I reverted your bot's action on my talk page.

Your bot's mistakes:

  1. The hatnotes explicitly state both the original locations, and their respective archives. There is no need to "correct" the original location, since it's there deliberately. (Funny that it should only pick on ONE of these only, though – but thankful for small mercies).
  2. There are several more false "corrections". All of these change correct links to link instead to headers on my "Index" subpage, but this subpage is not an archive, but merely, as its name indicates, an index to sections on both my talk page, and on its archives.

The easiest way to stop your bot doing this is probably to get it to skip "pinned" sections.

Regards,

--NSH001 (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is interesting to find these cases. I think using {{bots}} is a more general solution, as you have already added. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the use of {{bots}} should be thought of as a last resort only. Treating the "Index" file as if it were an archive file is a bug that needs to be fixed. Your bot should also skip pinned threads, since "pinned", by definition, means there is no archive – so your bot is likely to go wrong on these sections. Hope this helps. --NSH001 (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you means User talk:NSH001/Index? Yes, I should not overwrite existed present section titles. I have fix the issue. Thank you for the comments! --Kanashimi (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot nonsense edits

What are edits such as this on Talk:China all about? Le Deluge (talk) 20:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Le Deluge: Sorry for this. I am tracking how to fix this mistake. By the way, it seems China is not listed in Category:Good articles? --Kanashimi (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It got delisted a few weeks ago, see Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/China/1. Maybe we should revert to a revision from April 2006 and put the Big Star™ back on it (Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/People's Republic of China). *just kidding* davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 23:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many maintenance templates update?

I really appreciate Cewbot's updates to Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages contains too many maintenance templates. There have been updates every 7 days like clockwork, however I noticed there wasn't an update this past week... ~EdGl talk 22:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing FA without evidence of delisting

Please explain this edit, in which Cewbot removed the FA listing from Binary search algorithm (as far as I can see from the talk, no delisting has occurred) and instead gave it the obsolete A-class rating (a level that has not been used for mathematics articles for years and should not be assigned without following the proper process for projects that actually use it, if there are any such projects). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That edit does not "remove the FA listing"; only removing the featured template from the actual article, or removing the article from WP:FA would have that effect. I imagine this is part of Cewbot trying to fix another issue. (I do see the bot's edit summary, though, which seems to indicate some misunderstanding.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am trying to fix the trouble listed above. The bad edit should be fixed at last. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I suspected this may have been related to what I inquired about above. But more importantly, you still have many errors to roll back ... for example, this is also wrong. Daylight savings time is at FAR, but as of today, is still an FA. When articles are defeatured, FACBot automatically removes the FA from all WikiProject listings. Hawkeye7 can confirm if FACbot also strips it from the Vital article template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is another one that is wrong; could you please undo all of these recent edits, as there are probably more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cewbot should never need to remove an FA listing; Hawkeye7 does that with FACbot. (Sample here.) Then, there is no Class until a WikiProject re-assesses the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have now reverted all of them. Cewbot should never be assessing (WikiProjects do that), and it should certainly not be assessing A-class, as MILHIST is one of the few WikiProjects that has an A-class assessment process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for fixing the bad edits. However, there are classified categories for vital articles: Category:Wikipedia vital articles by class, so I think it is better not to remove the class directly as here shown. There is a related topic: #Cewbot A-class --Kanashimi (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Class until/unless a WikiProject assigns one. We can't use GA without a new WP:GAN. We can't use A-class without a WikiProject A-class review. We can't assume B-class, because most (or many) defeatured articles aren't. The Vital articles project will have to decide what they want to assign to defeatured FAs. My best guess would be C-class. But FACbot has no choice but to strip the assessment, but the default needs to be assigned by the Vital articles process. It cannot be GA, or A, and I don't suggest B either.
By the way, all WikiProjects have unassessed articles, so there's no reason that Vital articles cannot as well, until another WikiProject re-evaluates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think this is an issue to be discussed, or we will get a classified article becoming unclassified... --Kanashimi (talk) 04:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to withdraw my earlier advice about B-class in respect to Sandy's greater experience in the topic. Plenty of unclassified articles out there, perhaps it may prompt someone to take a closer look at an article. CMD (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has been discussed many times at FAC, FAR and other places over the years. We really have no choice, since every de-featured article is different, although most are C-class. This has been a perennial discussion, and is a pretty well settled matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. I understand now. I will modify the codes of bot. --Kanashimi (talk) 05:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 08:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot not merging duplicate issues

Someone inadvertently made several duplicates of article content, including an "unreferenced" issue template. Cewbot put all of the unreferenced templates inside a "multiple issues" template instead of conflating them. ~EdGl talk 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When there are multiple maintenance templates in single article, the templates usually has different date. So I prefer merge them instead of select one of them. And for the case of Jim Sivell (vandalism), we may get alarm in Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages contains too many maintenance templates. If we join into one template, we will lost the alarm. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot anchor fixing error

Hi Kanashimi! I came across this edit, which is definitely not desired behavior. Would you mind checking it out to see what went wrong? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting this. It is indeed a mistake. I have fixed the error later (see #Cewbot 12 December 2020), so it should not appear again. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More cewbot errors

A dab page is a vital article? [22] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) It does seem to be listed in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists. Are dab pages meant to be listed in vital articles? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should distinguish which one to select... Giles Cooper (playwright)? --Kanashimi (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who is we? Someone at vital articles needs to go back in the page history to figure out which one it was. For bot purposes, the code might check that it is not tagging a dab page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will skip DAB. --Kanashimi (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the wisest choice for Cewbot; it is up to the Vital articles people to sort their messes, not the bot :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Should have been fixed. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bot, anchors

Hi, just saw some of cewbot's edits on Datsun Sports. While the outdated pipelink was indeed fixed, it would be more useful if your bot could use the anchors in the article to which the broken pipelink was pointing. Just a thought, no clue how this would be made to work. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. While the anchors changed, it is hard to detect if we also need to modify the display text, it is a context-sensitive problem. I am afraid that the bot can not do this, sorry. --Kanashimi (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade to template Interlanguage link

Please note the following change to {{ill}}: in addition to the standard name of parameter |vertical-align=, you many now use one of the shorter aliases |valign= or |v= if you wish. This is a backwards-compatible change, and no change to cewbot is required. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notice. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch for permitted circular redirects embedded in an ill

Hi, I just reverted this edit by Cewbot at Clandestine press of the French Resistance to restore an {{ill}} link to a French article ({{ill|Arc (newspaper)|fr|Arc (journal)|lt=Arc|v=sup}}), and I wanted to explain why, and suggest a change to the way Cewbot handles this case.

I imagine that Cewbot replaced the {{ill}} with the bracketed link ([[Arc (newspaper)]] ⟶ Arc (newspaper)) because it is a blue link. thinking the {{ill}} is not needed anymore, because we have an article now on en-wiki. That is usually the case, but not always. When an {{ill}} contains a blue link on en-wiki that satisfies these conditions, then it should not be replaced:

  • the link is a redirect
  • the redirect target links back to the same article
  • the redirect itself is marked {{R with possibilities}}

These are the conditions for a permitted circular link. Under these conditions, the bot should not replace the {{ill}} with a wikilink, because it leaves the reader with nowhere to find more information (the whole purpose of a link), since the link only comes back to the article again; whereas with the {{ill}}, the reader can go to the article on a foreign wikipedia for more information.

I'm not a bot programmer, but I know that the first two conditions can easily be tested for. The third one is possible, but I'm not sure how easy it is. If it's difficult, I think it would be sufficient to just test for the first two conditions (redirect which comes back to the same article) and in that case, do not change the {{ill}} to a wikilink. If this isn't clear or you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the two reverts at Clandestine press of the French Resistance. Rather than chase the bot around, it's easier to just slam the door shut with {{bots|deny=Cewbot}} which should stop it (just at that one article). I've now added that, so you don't have to play whack-a-mole anymore. (I've rarely used that feature, so let's hope it works.) Once the bot is fixed, feel free to remove that line, or just ping me here, and I will. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to bother you. I am still trying to modify the code, please wait a moment... --Kanashimi (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no bother, and no hurry, either. Get out and smell the roses! Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so far, hasn't reverted again since your fix. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with task "Normalise template multiple-issues"

Please see the following edit to Cobra Gold: (diff). There were two maintenance templates in the multiple-issues template, but the bot removed the multiple-issues template, claiming only one was inside it. Can you look into this? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 10:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have added {{Promotional tone}} to the configuration. So it should not happen again. --Kanashimi (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be better to use the relevant cleanup template categories so that any new ones that are properly categorised are automatically recognised by the bot? DesertPipeline (talk) 11:22, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds a good idea, thank you :) But the templates in the configuration is verified, and I can not promise all templates in the Category:Cleanup templates and its subcategories are all qualified. For example, we can not push {{By how much}} or some section templates inside {{multiple issues}}. --Kanashimi (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have "maintenance template list to be excluded" on the configuration page; perhaps you could manually exclude templates that shouldn't go in the multiple issues template? I think this would probably be better than manually approving new ones, since non-removal of a multiple issues template where it shouldn't exist is probably not as bad as removal of one where it should exist. However, I do recognise that this is probably rare in the first place as not many new maintenance templates get added. DesertPipeline (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The list in the configuration is valified before the task started. The other side, I checked yesterday, there are 700 or 800 maintenance templates in Category:Cleanup templates and its subcategories. It is a bit difficult to check one by one. And this program is now running on two or three wikis, it is not easy to do the same job on all wikis... --Kanashimi (talk) 22:45, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikitext parser

Hi Kanashimi, i often do semi-automated edits on Commons and other Wikis via the Webinterface of Mediawiki where i manipulate the Wikitext using my personal Commons.js. Till now I am doing this on string-level with seach-and-repalce which is cumbersome and error prone. I was always looking for an approach that allows to do that things with a wikiparser so that i could say for example: parser.getTemplate("Artwork").addParameter("wikidata", "Q27964733"). Since nobody could give me a hint yet i googled and found your two projects wikiapi resp. CeJS. Now my question is, do you know if this code can somehow be used in Webinterface of Mediawiki as part of the users Commons.js? Maybe you already did that? Any advise is appreciated. Thank you in advance, --Arnd (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are welcome. Surely you can use the library in Webinterface of Mediawiki as part of the users Commons.js. Try this:
if (!window.CeL) {
	window.CeL = { initializer: function() { CeL.run('application.net.wiki', CeL_initialization); } };
	mw.loader.load('https://kanasimi.github.io/CeJS/ce.js');
}
function CeL_initialization() {
	const parsed = CeL.wiki.parser('{{tl|t}}');
	parsed.each('template', function(token) { console.log(token.name); });

	const wiki = CeL.wiki.mw_web_session;
	// wiki.page('Wikipedia:Sandbox').edit(function(page_data) { return CeL.wiki.content_of(page_data) + '\ntest'; });
}

Also refer to the wikitext parser examples--Kanashimi (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I added the code you provided here. However, the result this console log JavaScript parse error (scripts need to be valid ECMAScript 5): Parse error: Unexpected token; token : expected in file 'User:Aschroet/common.js' on line 14. Can you help me out with it or even better, do you have an example where your script is successfully integrated in a common.js? Thank you in advance, --Arnd (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it seems the JavaScript parser of MediaWiki loader can not read ECMAScript 2016 syntax. I modify the sample and it works now. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:06, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to work better now, thanks. Do you havein your code a simple example which is performing what i mentioned parser.getTemplate("Artwork").addParameter("wikidata", "Q27964733") and than write it back to wikitext? I only found that i need to iterate through the tempaltes manually. And how then writing back to Wikitext works? --Arnd (talk) 12:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try this:
const wiki = CeL.wiki.mw_web_session;

wiki
.page(mw.config.get('wgPageName'))

.edit(function(page_data) {
	/** {Array} parsed page content */
	const parsed = CeL.wiki.parser(page_data).parse();
    
	parsed.each('Template:Artwork', function(token) {
		token.push('wikidata=Q27964733');
	});
    
	return parsed.toString();
}, {
	summary: 'test edit'
})

.run(function() {
	location.reload();
});

--Kanashimi (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kanashimi, it works now as expected. Great. But can you explain me one thing. Why does my browsers does not complain about the violation of the the same origin policy because your script is not hosted on wikimedia site? --Arnd (talk) 06:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

github.io set header: access-control-allow-origin: * for .js, so we can load the script. --Kanashimi (talk) 07:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to add a summary in commons:User:Aschroet/common.js. Please refer to the codes above. --Kanashimi (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the normalise multiple issues task again

Hi,

The bot removed the multiple issues template again in an instance where it should be there: diff. Please can you take a look at it?

While I'm sure this doesn't happen too often, I do have to wonder – how many instances of the multiple issues template are there where only one template is inside of it? I feel like even if that were to happen, someone would probably notice it and sort it out manually after a while anyway. I hope this doesn't sound rude or anything, but do you think the task is necessary? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. I think we should use {{More citations needed}} instead of {{More citations needed section}} in front of article. And for your concern, the lower bound is configured in User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration, you may change template_count_to_be_split to 0, and the bot will no longer remove {{multiple issue}}. Otherwise every time the bot seem a {{multiple issue}} with too less templates inside it, the bot will remove the {{multiple issue}}. You may also change template_count_to_be_reported if you want a different lower bound to report. --Kanashimi (talk) 07:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, you're right. Sorry, my mistake; I didn't notice that the template had "section" in it. Also, do you mean that I can just configure the bot myself to disable this? I'd rather let you decide whether or not to do that. It's your bot, after all. DesertPipeline (talk) 08:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you may change the configuration yourself. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot including Selfref in multiple issues

Hey, I've noticed that your bot as been wrapping {{Selfref}} in {{multiple issues}} templates. Could you please disable this? {{Selfref}} is not an issue template. {{Self reference cleanup}} is probably the template you mean (these templates were recently renamed). Elli (talk | contribs) 04:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting the mistake. I have just fix the error (User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration). --Kanashimi (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Elli (talk | contribs) 06:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand by language templates in {{Multiple issues}}

Hi, similar issue to the post before this, albeit maybe a little less clear-cut – in my opinion, {{Expand Dutch}} and the other templates in Category:Expand by language Wikipedia templates wouldn't normally be categorized as issues templates and don't really belong in {{Multiple issues}}. A recent example of the bot including them would be Everhardt I count of Limburg Hohenlimburg; if you look closely, you'll notice that even the formatting of the text doesn't match that of the other messages wrapped there. To me, keeping them separate seems like the better solution. AngryHarpy‍talk 08:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I don't have any prejudices about this. The templates of Expand languages are listed in the User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration, you may edit the page anytime. Since the bot running for a period of time and no other editors tell me the problem, I think it a good idea to discuss more widely before changing the configuration. --Kanashimi (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just had a look at Template:Multiple issues#Usage, where it is stated that templates wrapped therein should be article maintenance templates listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Cleanup. This index doesn't include the Expand language templates, so I'd be inclined to remove them from the list, pending your endorsement. Cheers! AngryHarpy‍talk 09:14, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you can change this page as you want. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this after Special:Diff/1014285739. There has got to be a reason why {{Multiple issues}} recognises the expansion template and formats it like any other template, right? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the Expand language templates are removed from the configuration, it treat these templates as non-maintenance templates. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I got that, but what about my main point? {{Multiple issues}} formats the expansion template like any other maintenance template, so why is it a problem to group it? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of cause it is not a technical problem. It is a consensus problem. As mentioned above, I don't have any prejudices about this. Maybe you and User talk:AngryHarpy can have a more in-depth discussion? --Kanashimi (talk) 21:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is better discussed at template talk:Multiple issues. The bot should follow the generally accepted template usage, not the other way around. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surely :) --Kanashimi (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a discussion at Template talk:Multiple issues#Expand by language templates. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will follow the consensus. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot is blanking pages

Something went wrong when the bot tried to perform this task. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this. I think it is because the code modified recently. I am trying to fix this... --Kanashimi (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed --Kanashimi (talk) 00:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot delisting two GAs from Vital

These two three articles are currently GAs but Cewbot keeps delisting the class from {{WikiProject Vital Articles}}: Aikido, Neanderthal, Windows 10. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting. It seems fixed now. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is not working properly

Hi. About this - diff. Can you fix it? The bot is not using Template:Vital article properly. The bot is using parameters that are not supported by the template. The bot should use parameters "topic" and "subpage" (if needed) in order for an article to be categorized correctly. Look at this category - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:All_Wikipedia_vital_articles_in_an_unknown_topic. It is because of the bot.--Renat 08:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for the report. The are some related discussions on Template talk:Vital article#Allow `link` parameter. Kanashimi (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen it. What's the outcome? I see no result. So the bot is malfunctioning and it can't be fixed?--Renat 08:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry that the bot can not parse the template. Even I write a hard code in the source, any change of the template will NOT reflect the change. Since the request is denied, what I can do is to preserve as many informations as I can do in the template instance. That is, what you see now. Kanashimi (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bot don't need to parse the template. It needs to extract a topic name and a subpage name from a link. If the bot knows the link it can extract the names from it. The link is always formatted like that: "Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Topic name/Subpage name". So instead of "link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Topic name/Subpage name|anchor=bla-bla" make it to use "topic=Topic name|subpage=Subpage name".--Renat 09:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may read the source of Template:Vital article, there are too many exceptions. For example, "/Everyday life/Sports, games and recreation" may point to one of the topics: Sports|Games|Entertainment|Recreation, it is hard to decide it. Kanashimi (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter in this case. Because Sports, Games, Entertainment - they all go to Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/Everyday_life/Sports,_games_and_recreation. The article still will be categorised properly.--Renat 09:27, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the bot, it will generate as "topic=Everyday life|subpage=Sports, games and recreation". Obviously, it is a bad idea. Kanashimi (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Yes, it will require some changes in the template itself, because it's not working right now, but still it will be better.--Renat 10:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we modify the template and so we can easily determine the topic and subpage via the page title, I will let the bot follow "topic=Topic name|subpage=Subpage name". Kanashimi (talk) 12:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Thai name sort task

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Category sorting for Thai names. Certes (talk) 09:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this edit where the bot removed a category. Not sure what could have caused this? --Paul_012 (talk) 08:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, I am checking for this. I should fix the error later. Kanashimi (talk) 08:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at today's edit to the same page (Special:Diff/1026370887), the bot still seems to be missing the addition of the DEFAULTSORT line. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is this edit correct? I don't know the requirements but it looks odd to sort a Western name under P rather than S. Certes (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am not familiar with this... Please ask Paul_012 --Kanashimi (talk) 08:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Certes, it's correct according to the bot task and the relevant guideline, which is to sort all entries in Thai-people categories by given name (see Thai names under WP:NAMESORT). In this case, though, the person isn't Thai, so I've changed the categorisation. (PS Kanashimi, the ping didn't work. Apparently pings won't trigger if text in existing paragraphs is changed.) --Paul_012 (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking. If categories which dominantly contain Thai names should be entirely sorted the Thai way then the task has been specified correctly. Certes (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Came in here to say that the bot is sorting non-Thai names within Thai categories (such as Soony Saad). Wouldn't it make more sense for the bot to directly edit the DEFAULTSORT exclusively for Thai people, rather than sorting within specific categories? Nehme1499 23:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012 Kanashimi (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nehme1499, a summary of the bot task is outlined at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people#Bot for Thai name category sorting. The 2018 discussion which lead to the current guidance for Thai-name categories in WP:NAMESORT is at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive 10#Thai names, mostly under the subsection Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive 10#Moving forward. Your suggestion was one of the options considered then, but the consensus from that discussion was to favour consistency within categories. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul 012: Got it, thanks. Nehme1499 12:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porism cannot possibly be a "vital article"

This bot twice marked the article porism as "vital", but that is insane; there is not a snowball's chance in hell that, out of 20K articles in mathematics, that porism could be, should be or would be "vital" in any way, shape or form. Where is the master list being kept? Who maintains the master list? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss about this on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5 Kanashimi (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken anchor error

The template is picking up on links to subsections with anchors and ruining the formatting (example). When I revert it, it just un-reverts it a few minutes later. This didn't happen until a few days ago from what I can tell. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 09:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I find the problem is caused by the tag </span id>... Kanashimi (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Why did CewBot mark an AFD as "the result was keep", along with some other incomprehensible date stamps? Not helpful in the least.--- Possibly (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK I am seeing the intention was to provide helpful information (a similar AfD), but the formatting is so bad that it looks more like a keep !vote. It's not helpful, have you considered refining the way it works? --- Possibly (talk) 00:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a sample so that it will be clear and ideal enough, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hi. I have given you the link above. It is fairly incomprehensible, and looks more like a keep vote than information given by a bot. I don't understand "Please give a sample"... What is it that you would like me to do, rewrite your bot's message so that it is clearer?--- Possibly (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think we may improve the message and let it more clear. By the way, the messages now is from the original design. Kanashimi (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know anything about bots. I just know that the message is formatted in a mildly disruptive way. I'll ask at the bot noticeboard for someone to fix the Engish. Thanks. --- Possibly (talk) 06:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Kanashimi (talk) 06:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Here is the post.--- Possibly (talk) 07:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noticeboard notice

Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Cewbot_message, regarding a discussion related to your bot. — xaosflux Talk 08:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic

Hi. Please make your bot to clean out this category - Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic. Thank you in advance. --Renat 15:51, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reporting. As the previous discussion shown, the bot can not read {{Vital article}}, and even we hard-coding the corresponding categories, the bot will failed once the {{Vital article}} or vital article pages adjusted. From the current conditions, we should manually adjust these categories. Kanashimi (talk) 23:12, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already manually adjusted more than 1500 articles, but there are more than 7000 left. Can you write some kind of script to speed up the process? --Renat 23:37, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should should create a mechanism to combine categories with pages, so the bot can read and know what category/topic the article is. Can you maintain the table User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration#Topics? I will write codes and try to use the configuration. Kanashimi (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need #main-level-section for level 5 vital articles? I understand we need it for higher levels, but why level 5? I mean both a journalist and a writer will be on the same page. Both subpage=Writers and subpage=Journalists redirect there -Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/People/Writers and journalists. --Renat 14:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They will produce different parameters, and will affect the displayed message. Kanashimi (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the displayed message will be different, but does it matter? The main goal here is to categorise it properly and we do not have separate categories for writers and journalists. --Renat 15:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, we can build a basic structure first. I am writing the codes now... Kanashimi (talk) 22:34, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to miss notes added to listed articles that indicate that article is a different level

I reverted the bot edit that changed the vital article level on Talk:Lenin from level 4 to level 3.

The listing for Lenin on the level 4 vital article listing has a note 'level 3'. A similar note appears next to the listing for other prominent pre-World War II political leaders—Stalin, for example. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 09:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I trying to assign the topic and subpage parameters, but there are mistake in the code. I will fix the error later. Kanashimi (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the very quick reply. It is unfortunate that computers insist on executing the code we write, not the code we intended to write B^( At least we no longer need to keypunch cards and wait for a day or two to check the corrections. Thank you for your work to keep Wikipedia operating. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 09:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reporting. For Talk:Vladimir Lenin, I think the edit is acceptable. However there are still other talk pages needed to be fixed. Kanashimi (talk) 09:41, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot keeps editing

Hi!

Can I stop this bot from editing something? In the List of Catholic saints article, it keeps removing the link for Amadio degli Amidei to its Italian entry, but the English has no entry for that person but only a group entry, so I think attaching the Italian link is still useful. --Mar vin kaiser (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed Amadio degli Amidei. Kanashimi (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot malfunction

Oops, Cewbot seems to be malfunctioning, adding "(Level 3)" to the Level 2 list. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am fixing this... Kanashimi (talk) 22:36, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be  Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vital people Level 4

Could you run your bot on level 4 to bold italic the level 1 and 2 people and bold the people on level 3? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Link: Wikipedia:Vital people/Level/4. Interstellarity (talk) 14:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I finished Level 5. Can you run your bot there as well? Link: Wikipedia:Vital people/Level/5. Interstellarity (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bot should run on all subpages of Wikipedia:Vital people. And you may discuss on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 9. Kanashimi (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bot blocked

I blocked the bot, I am not familiar with the details of the talk, but it was removing valid templates (see this one as an example; I checked that the article is on the list following the link provided by the template).--Ymblanter (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the result of reformatting and splitting of the Vital Articles lists into Vital People, most recently attempted by User:Interstellarity, while the bot configuration page hasn't been updated—is he bot still dependent on the page? I've left a notice on his talk page. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter Thank you for report this. I try to debug the error, but the bot cannot edit. Could you unblock the bot so I can debug the codes? I will report the result. Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please also revert the incorrect removals. I've done one, which is where I found this talk page (and thanks for the creation of bots, they work very well when they work very well). Appreciated. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I am debugging... Please wait for some time... Kanashimi (talk) 11:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi: I have restored the biographies to the level 3, 4 and 5 vital article pages, undoing the recent split. Hopefully your bot will now do the right things with those, although it does seem to have labelled the level 3 entries as level 4 for some reason. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru@Ymblanter@Randy Kryn I am reverting recent edits now. Kanashimi (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru@Randy Kryn@Ymblanter As Paul 012 say, the accident seems caused by the edit of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/*/People/*, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Writers_and_journalists&action=history . Seems not malfunctions of bot... Kanashimi (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that if I go to this version (the one which the bot removed the template from, saying Bregovic is not in the list) and follow the link to Level 5 articles, Bregovic is on the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is reverted now. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Vital_articles/Level/5/People/Artists,_musicians,_and_composers&action=history Kanashimi (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter and Randy Kryn: as far as I can tell, the bot is now slowly working its way through all the articles it removed notices from earlier, and reinstating them. Kanashimi will correct me if I'm wrong, but I assume it hasn't got as far as Bregovic yet, and will get to that and all the others in due course. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am fine with that, my point was that the notice was clearly removed in error, and something needs to be done to continue the task.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The creation and operation of bots has always been way over my head or pay grade (finding a quarter at a conference once). I have nothing but admiration and wonder at those who make them and then let them loose to keep Wikipedia running on a smooth track. Thanks again Kanashimi. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru@Ymblanter@Randy Kryn Sorry for this accident. I re-execute the program and it seems no problem now. The accident is resolved. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

For whatever reason, the Cewbot thinks that Barack Obama is not a featured article. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 18:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems  Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot edit error with redirects

I believe this edit is in error. Let me know if that is not the case. -Eóin (talk) 23:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting the bug. Yes, it is not a good edit. The bot will select the most similar anchor as target. Since "Counties in the United States" is not in the current revision, so the bot select "Congress of the United States" and not "Counties", for the former is similar to "Counties in the United States" than the latter. This kind of false positive appears occasionally. I will try to improve accuracy. Kanashimi (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the bad edits on Political divisions of the United States#Counties in the United States. Kanashimi (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles

Hi. How is the code for Category:All Wikipedia vital articles in an unknown topic? --Renat 20:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They will gradually be corrected. But there seems still some topics not defined, e.g., Talk:Gregory of Tours, these will not be fixed. You may refine this list to let the robot know how to classify. Kanashimi (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Lee Whorf

You know the thing I was talking about with Barack Obama? The bot is doing the same thing with Benjamin Lee Whorf. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this. The bot just meet a vandalism at this edit, so the bot so not know it is still a GA. Thank you for fixing this. Kanashimi (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with automatically merged tags

Hi,

I'm not quite sure where to bring this up, but I'm having problems when Cewbot merges {{context|details=}} into {{multiple issues}}. The problem is that the details aren't displayed in the merged version. I've had to take the {{context}} tag back outside a couple of times, and have also left a message on the talk page for that tag. I've temporarily used {{bots}} to protect the tag for now. Musiconeologist (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. It seems happened in Fluctuation spectrum. I think this is a bug when using |details= in {{multiple issues}}. Maybe we can improve this template? Kanashimi (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the article. From some discussion on the talk page for {{multiple issues}} it looks as though it's a matter of making a small change to {{context}}. It's not exactly a bug—|details= is currently used in the section of text which {{multiple issues}} discards rather than the part that it keeps: {{Ambox}}'s |fix= rather than |issue=. So I think I now know what change to suggest. Musiconeologist (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we can talk about this in Template talk:Context#"Details" doesn't display when used with Multiple Issues tag or Template talk:Multiple issues. Kanashimi (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous Cewbot edit

Hi Kanashimi. FYI, this edit by Cewbot was erroneous. Those links weren't broken - they link to rows in the "Complete Formula One results" table. Many other Formula One driver articles have similar links. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 01:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for report. Should be  Fixed now. Kanashimi (talk) 08:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fix broken anchor: 2015-11-30 #Studio album→Album#Solo album is incorrect

This edit is incorrect; "Album#Studio album" should be changed to "Album#Studio", not "Album#Solo album". —hulmem (talk) 05:37, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you... This problem is a bit complicated... Kanashimi (talk) 06:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, I will revert them. Kanashimi (talk) 06:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Total articles

Hi. Is it possible to make Cewbot update the total number of articles? Like that - diff. Renat 20:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may add a summary table like Wikipedia:Vital articles, this will be more detailed. Kanashimi (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot fix broken anchor task

Hi. I just noticed this edit where the bot updated a redirect link anchor following vandalism to the target section headers. Shouldn't the bot have changed it back when the vandalism was reverted? --Paul_012 (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, may you give a example so I can improve the codes to fix the mistake? Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 08:06, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Sorry, copied the wrong ID. It's Special:Diff/989470782. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the bot should revert the edit after the vandalism being fixed, and it usually do so. Since this is too old and I have not log, I can only guess, maybe I was maintaining the code that time. Kanashimi (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot odd edit

Hi, just spotted this edit which seems rather odd. I dont understand why this alias was added. Could you check that, please? SirkoSCH (talk) 09:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting. This error is caused by an wrong link on zh:堀田真由 and the error will not happen again. Kanashimi (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Vital article template

The bot has removed the template for Sleep in animals after the article was moved. See [23]. However, the article seems to be in the list ([24]). Is that edit an error? Vpab15 (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems when the bot updating the list, it is not in the list. In this kind of page moving, the template will add in the next run. Kanashimi (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of the Bible

Regarding edit 1046648501

Was attempting to remove Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors. Mechachleopteryx (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want discussing this issue in Talk:Historicity of the Bible? Kanashimi (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for porting bot to kswiki

Hey, Hope you're doing well, I really appreciate your work to this wiki. I was wondering if hou can run Cew bot (task 5) on Ks.Wiki. It would be really helpful there. Kindly let me know if you are interested. Thankyou. signed, Iflaq (talk) 16:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iflaq Hi. It seems an interesting challenge. However, I cannot speak Kashmiri language at all, so I need translator(s) and co-debugger(s) to help me porting programs to kswiki. Please let me know if there are volunteer(s) helping me to do this. Kanashimi (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi happy to here from you. I can help you in translations, but I am not pro at coding. I will contact other users and see if they can help. Thankyou, See you soon. signed, Iflaq (talk) 03:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just need one tell me what is going wrong, so it should be OK. But I may need help to apply a bot flag. What operations do you need to port to kswiki? You may refer to User:Cewbot#Cewbot task list, simple:User:Cewbot#Cewbot task list and commons:User:Cewbot#Cewbot task list. I can also cleanup sandboxs. Kanashimi (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi Kindly port enwiki task 5 Normalizing Multiple issues as it is really needed. On Ks wiki you can apply for approval at Request for bot approval. We may need more tasks in future. Kindly make a request for bot approval and you will have to make 10 edits to get approved. Let me know if you need any help and thankyou for your efforts. signed, Iflaq (talk) 04:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I add a RfA in ks:وِکیٖپیٖڈیا:Requests for permissions/Bots/cewbot. Sorry that I change the section title to a complete one. --Kanashimi (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi don't worry. I have added a comment there. signed, Iflaq (talk) 06:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has been approved for trail run. Once the trail is completed a bot flag would be granted after checking the contributions. signed, Iflaq (talk) 08:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iflaq Hi, may you help to check ks:رُکُن:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration? Thank you. I am not sure if the list is completed... :( Kanashimi (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have mentioned more templates that we have, however i am going to import all mentioned in the configuration page. I will let you know when i am finished. signed, Iflaq (talk) 09:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have imported more templates that will be used and skipped templates that may have less use on ks. If they will be needed in future we can import them. Is it ready to run now. signed, Iflaq (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Cewbot

Please see Talk:Railway track. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For articles like this, will be fixed in next run. Kanashimi (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This happens some times when an article is moved. Could the steps that Cewbot does be changed so that this doesn't happen? Vpab15 (talk) 09:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have modify the bot code, but not sure if there are side effects. And there is no instance to test now, so the changing need to test in the future. However, when the bot updating the list, the moved page is not visible to the bot at this time. The bot marks the VA template should in Talk:Track (rail transport) instead of Talk:Railway track. If we also update the VA list page, the bot will not remove the template. Kanashimi (talk) 10:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking it so quickly. I will let you know if I find any issues in future moves of vital articles. Vpab15 (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 10:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot

Hello, Kanashimi,

I guess Cewbot is a bot of yours? I came across two talk pages tonight that Cewbot created where there were no accompanying articles, Talk:Academy of Russian Television and Talk:Очевидное — невероятное. I don't know why a bot would create talk pages without articles but they were deleted. It is a curiosity so I thought I'd inquire with you. We definitely do not need more orphaned talk pages so I hope it doesn't create more until these articles have been written. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 05:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am testing the bot code to fix a problem. The bad code is fixed now. Kanashimi (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bad bot edit on Island Line, Isle of Wight

Hi, Cewbot made an edit to Island Line, Isle of Wight, which broke two section links. This is probably because of the unusual style of the headings. Danski454 (talk) 19:00, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a special case. I have fix the bug. Thank you for reporting. Kanashimi (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot is not working

See diff. Renat 13:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Checking... Sorry, I need to do some production tests. Kanashimi (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Rocky Bleier

Robert “Rocky” Bleier was inducted into the U.S. Veterans Hall of Fame on October 30, 2021 70.142.219.23 (talk) 02:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian 10,000 Challenge

Is Cewbot just randomly tagging articles about Asian people with Template:WPASIA10k? Multiple articles I've created (e.g. Mehli Irani, Dilip Jajodia, Murder of Dora Bloch have just been tagged with this, template and I have no interest or affiliation with this contest. Where is the consensus on when to tag/not tag articles with templates like these? It seems wrong to tag article to a contest that they're unrelated to. And there's no approval for this bot task listed at User:Cewbot#Cewbot task list either, so I have no idea why the bot is making these changes, and if it's even approved to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The articles are listed in the subpages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, and there was a request, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 82#Bot for Challenges projects. If you are doubt on the necessity of the templates, maybe you can discuss about this in village pump. I am open to this and will follow the consensus. Kanashimi (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, apparently I did add all the articles I mentioned to Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge a while ago, so does make sense to add them. Apologies for my mistake. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind :) Kanashimi (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the bot's behavior, it created talk pages for several articles that had already been deleted several months ago. Most of the talk pages listed for November 13 at Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk pages were created by Cewbot. Perhaps a tweak is required to discourage the bot from creating talk pages of non-existent articles? ✗plicit 13:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I have fix the code. Sorry for this. Kanashimi (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot broken anchor task

I have noticed a couple of potential problems with this bot task:

  1. I saw that the bot made a a couple of edits similar to this and this. The anchors in this case do work (though I think they are hidden in the {{term}} coding). I had to undo this more than once, and am wondering if the bot needs a more detailed check for anchors / ids.
  2. The bot seems a bit quick off the mark, as due to one poorly formed edit to the same page there are now 20-30 bot edits to undo (e.g. this and this. Given the "VERY DIFFERENT" message in the edit summary, is there a way to hold off on these edits, as it is far quicker to fix the source page than clear up after the bot? There is less than 1/2 hour between the edit that broke the previous anchor and the bot edits. Spike 'em (talk) 10:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Though on point 2, I see that the bot has gone through and re-amended the ones I didn't do manually after fixing the page, so I guess you can ignore that one! Spike 'em (talk) 10:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reporting this error. It is because the bot cannot read {{term}}. I have added the code and it should be fixed now. Kanashimi (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot failures starting 2021-10-22

Some aspect of Cewbot seems to have stopped working on or after 2021-10-22. See User:Cewbot/log/20150916 and log entries starting at [[User:Cewbot/log/20150916/Archive_3#[2021-10-22_6:42:18_UTC+0]:_38//117038_pages_done]]. (also it is not a great idea to use brackets in section headings). – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I changed the format to log. I will check what is going wrong. Kanashimi (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot task 7 seems to have stopped functioning

Hi. Cewbot's Task 7 (Maintaining sort keys in Thai-people categories) seems to have stopped functioning, with the last good edits dating from 4 December.[25] Since 11 December,[26] the bot appears to only update the nonbiographical pages list, but hasn't edited any sort keys in the articles. Could you please check? (I noticed this from Category:Thai drink industry businesspeople, the articles under which haven't had the sort keys added yet.) --Paul_012 (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick! --Paul_012 (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename categories

Please see my proposal to speedily rename subcategories of Category:Enforced disappearances by country e.g. Category:Forced disappearances in Argentina to Category:Enforced disappearances in Argentina to align with the parent category per C2C. Hugo999 (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues bug?

Uniform Mechanical Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An oddity: the bot's edit summary at Special:Diff/1067008146 claims that the {{Multiple issues}} had only one maintenance template, but there are actually two. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks weird. I'll watch for a while. Kanashimi (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is still happening, by the way. For an example, see Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object. Woodroar (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possible bug?

Cewbot added template:uc to the multiple issues template, yet it is is not an issue template in itself. Is this intended behavior? [27] MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The {{Under construction}} is listed in User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration. You may move it to "#maintenance template list to be excluded" to avoid it treated as a maintenance template. Kanashimi (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing anchor that isn't broken

Hi, see this edit. The anchor is using a HTML entity, specifically &#39;, which works fine and doesn't actually need fixing. Legoktm (talk) 06:43, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have do a converting so the bot should not fix this kind of anchors now. Kanashimi (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar fix

Hey K, any way that Cewbot could move Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages contains too many maintenance templates to a title that is grammatically correct, say Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates? Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.  Fixed. Thank you for your help with the correction. Kanashimi (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages/English

Hi Kanashimi, I noticed that Cewbot created this page that seems to check enwiki FAs for if they have a dewiki page or not. Is this an error? I don't see why it is necessary to have this page on enwiki, and unlike most of the other FAOL subpages this was created by Cewbot very recently. It's also misleading because the info text for FAOL subpages says featured articles for a given "foreign-" (i.e., non-English-)language Wikipedia. Thanks! eviolite (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I add a option "local_to_general_language_code_page" so the page should not be created again. Kanashimi (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! eviolite (talk) 23:01, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, another thing: the language codes on the shortcut boxes on each of the pages are lowercase (so e.g. Wikipedia:Featured_articles_in_other_languages/German shows WP:FAOL/de as a shortcut), but it seems that the majority of existing shortcuts use uppercase language codes (so WP:FAOL/DE). Would it be possible to change those to uppercase the next time the bot runs? eviolite (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done + uppercased_shortcut Kanashimi (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot anchors

Hello, I noticed Cewbot tried to "fix broken anchors" in this edit, however the anchors were not broken in the first place. The links go to the anchors generated in the |id= parameter of {{Football box}}, is it possible to stop the bot from making such changes? Thanks, S.A. Julio (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I just  Fixed the error. Kanashimi (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

What was this edit supposed to be doing? Whatever it was, it just made a big mess. BilCat (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this. I have stop the bot and trying to find what is going wrong... Kanashimi (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BilCat (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden text

Separating the hidden comment from the template to which it referred in this edit was not a useful thing to do. SpinningSpark 18:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. It should have been repaired. Kanashimi (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits

Howdy. Cewbot went on a short crusade of incorrectly "fixing" section redirects from "Frontier#American frontier" to "Frontier#Australia" (example). I fixed the dozen or so articles that were impacted, but you may want to follow up with the bot's logic. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report. The editing of this case was a bit complicated, and many titles were changed. The "American frontier" was removed, and the closest title added was "Australia", so the robot chose "Australia". Since the robot has to deal with many situations, the algorithm used now is the less problematic one. Perhaps you can also provide your ideas, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My idea would be to sternly scold the robot and possibly take away deserts for a week. I scanned the output for the last week, focusing on the "very different" indicators in the summaries. It looks like it got it right every time except for this one, at least with a cursory check. I assume you scan the bot's output occasionally and would have corrected that if I had not? Kuru (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help in checking. At the beginning of writing this program, I checked hundreds of edits. Then I tried to improve the algorithm every time something went wrong, just like today. But this time the editing is more complicated, so I didn't find a better solution. Kanashimi (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot

Hi Kanashimi. Cewbot usually does great work, however it's performance was sub-optimal in this edit. You can see the correct links in my subsequent edit. Although I appreciate Cewbot identifying the broken links so that I could fix them. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I use edit distance to determine which web anchor is the closest. Unfortunately in this case, "Facelift" was the best answer. I will gather more information and see if there is a better way. Thanks for your feedback. Kanashimi (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot "Cewbot"

Hello, I noticed that you added your bot to Help:Archiving (plain and simple) & Help:Archiving a talk page. Has the bot passed a successful BRFA for this task? I can't seem to find one and since it is being advertised on such pages it would require one (From my understanding of the bot policy). Thanks, Terasail[✉️] 20:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to Template:Interlanguage link

Hi! I would like to inform you about a change I proposed at Template talk:Interlanguage link § Support lang tag which seems to have support: adding |lt-lang= and |lt-rtl= parameters, for proper {{lang}} support for the link's display text. Such a change could also affect Cewbot, as something like {{ill|Regierungsbezirk|de|lt-lang=de|italics=y}} would have to be converted to {{lang|de|[[Regierungsbezirk]]}}. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Kanashimi (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbug?

Any idea why this happened? Seems to be listed as GA on the talkpage. CMD (talk) 08:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, it seems that the GA list is not being obtained correctly on execution? I cannot reproduce the issue now. Kanashimi (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot deletes categories at Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates

In edit Special:Diff/1093561565, User:Cewbot has removed categorization from page Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates, which is probably not intentional. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pope John Paul II

On VA4, in the people section, the bot marked Pope John Paul II as a level 3 article. I manually removed it, but the bot reverted my edit. Can you fix this please? Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring bots

Hi! Please stop your bot edit warring over Budapest Metro. The {{Multiple issues}} template clearly contains more than one template. Thanks in advance, —Tacsipacsi (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a historical background to this issue. Please see User_talk:Kanashimi/Archive_1#Expand_by_language_templates_in_{{Multiple_issues}}. Kanashimi (talk) 09:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot downgrade bug is back

At Talk:Philippines. CMD (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now it looks like the error is no longer happening. I have added a measure so that in the future the same error should be aborted directly before editing, so that we can see if the problem was not getting the correct data. Kanashimi (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous removal of a multiple issues wrapper

In this edit, Cewbot (talk · contribs) removed a Template:Multiple issues wrapper that included {{original research}} and the less common, probably unrecognized {{no reliable sources}}. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is because {{No reliable sources}} is not listed in the configuration. If you think it should belong to maintenance templates, you can add it to the list any time. Kanashimi (talk) 00:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for Cewbot fixing a broken anchor at User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/German aluminium casting alloys made during WW2. Thank you for your helpful technical ability. MinorProphet (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot good article removal edge case

Hello friend. If you have a minute, you may want to have a look at this diff, where I think Cewbot incorrectly removed |class=GA from a vital article template. Perhaps because the article was just promoted to GA today and Legobot hasn't yet had time to place the good article template on the article page? However, the talk page is still in Category:Wikipedia good articles, so perhaps that category would be a good way to check. Hope that helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:00, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Maintain Vital article: The article is no more a GA. I'd suggest changing this edit summary from "no more" to "no longer". –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good now. The message has been corrected. Thank you for the advice. Kanashimi (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues template

AWB added multiple issues to National Museum Zaječar, and your bot removed it, apparently not considering {{expand language}} to be a maintenance template. Our tools need to agree! MB 00:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may refer to this discussion. Kanashimi (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot added another multiple issues template and left a maintenance template out of new one

Hey! In this edit your bot added another pointless multiple issues template and left a maintenance template out of the new one seemingly for no reason. Do you know why the bot did this? ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also I've fixed some grammar errors and confusing wording on your bot's userpage for you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 15:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It seems to be a bug. I will try to fix it. Kanashimi (talk) 20:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:23, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of India under the British Raj

Hi, Cewbot. I noticed you made an edit on the Economy of India under the British Raj article regarding the GOCE tag, and now it states you are copy editing the article. I had already tagged this article for the November copy editing drive. To avoid duplicative efforts, can you please confirm if I can revert your edit to the tag and continue with my copy editing efforts? Jadedhippo (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Kanashimi. I mistakenly referred to you as Cewbot. Jadedhippo (talk) 12:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that {{GOCEinuse}} is not treated as a maintenance template in User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration. So the bot made this edit. Kanashimi (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I will proceed with copy editing efforts on this article. Thanks! Jadedhippo (talk) 00:51, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can Cewbot update assessments on another page?

Hello Kanashimi. I'm really impressed at the work Cewbot does updating article assessments on the Vital Article lists. I'm creating a task force page to encourage people to improve articles related to non-Western traditions of art. Would it be possible to configure the bot to automatically update the article assessment icons on that page? Thanks in advance for any help, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This is a custom code for Vital Articles, so it can not be used for general purpose pages. In order to update the icons, we have to rewrite the code. Kanashimi (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demoting articles

What is going on with this edit to the Vital Article assessment of Capacitance? It has gone down from Level 4 to Level 5, yet it is still shown on the Level 4 page as of this version. It is also shown on the Level 5 page as of this version but with "Level 4" in brackets after it. In my opinion, it would be wrong to demote capacitance, it is a fundamental and important concept in electrical science. As an aside, I am also baffled why Ohm's law is indented under capacitance as if it were a sub-topic, which it is not.

I'm noting exactly the same issue (that is, recently demoted articles still showing on L4 page) on a large swathe of electrical science articles. I haven't been through them to assess whether they should have been demoted, but a quick look suggests a least some of them should not. SpinningSpark 14:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot has gone on an absolute rampage because the level 4 VA lists appear empty. See any, eg. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Geography, they show "0" articles. CMD (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay it's not all of them. Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People was spared? Going to raise this elsewhere. CMD (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a temporary block at AN/I in the meantime. CMD (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, i've blocked the account since it's clearly not just me finding this problematic. SpinningSpark 16:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good I"m not the only one who was confused by the bot changing every single article in my watchlist from level 4 to level 5. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See ANI thread for updates. All of the bot's erroneous edits (6,000 of them!) have been reverted. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for the distress. I have stopped the bot and am starting to investigate what happened. Kanashimi (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into the bot! Any idea why the divs in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People didn't confuse it? CMD (talk) 01:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is because there is a table in it, which affects the parsing. Kanashimi (talk) 04:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, not even one of the options I had guessed at. CMD (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot 11 approved

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 11. Thanks for operating it! Enterprisey (talk!) 03:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strange edit

Thanks for operating Cewbot, you have found many very good ill replacements that would have gone unnoticed for a long time. But the change [28] did not make any sense to me. Or rather 2 of the changes made perfect sense, but the 3rd I didn't understand. I have reverted it [29], but it looks like some sort of bug. BFG (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. I think this is because w:nn:Hjortetakk and Smultring share the same wikidata item d:Q2563305. Do you have any good ideas for this link? Kanashimi (talk) 09:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's some creative use of Wikidata items there, not really sure how to unentangle them, but basically. Hjortetakk⊂Smultring⊂Doughnut. Now translating English into Norwegian you would normally translate Doughnut into Smultring, which could also be described as a Norwegian Doughnut, but referring to the American Dougnut, you would describe it as Doughnut. Which makes this a mess of nearly but not exactly translating words. BFG (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I figured out a way to disentangle this mess. Not a bug in the bot, but a bug in how Wikidata was linked to articles, now w:nn:Hjortetakk is a completely separate item and w:nn:Smultring has been linked to Smultring. Yet another positive outcome of your bot. BFG (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing broken anchors

WP:BAM says Cewbot hasn't fixed broken anchors since 2 June 2022. Just a heads up that you might want to look at that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:41, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. I restarted the task. Kanashimi (talk) 09:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot Added Extra "Multiple issues" Template

Hello! I noticed that User:Cewbot has made a problematic edit in Bishōjo game. This page is already using {{Multiple issues}}, yet the bot added an additional one. Please look into this issue. Thanks! PetraMagna (talk) 08:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. I made some corrections and hopefully the problem has been resolved. Kanashimi (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured articles in other languages/Polish

Hello. Why there is no Basshunter article on the list? Eurohunter (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it is a good article, you can find it in Wikipedia: Good articles in other languages/Polish. Kanashimi (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong missing anchor

Cewbot put a missing anchor heading for List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters at Talk:2022_FIFA_World_Cup. RPI2026F1 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for reporting the problem. Kanashimi (talk) 08:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of missing anchors incorrect

I've deleted most of your list of missing anchors from the talk page of List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters because they were incorrect. The anchors have always properly worked despite being labeled as broken. Ergzay (talk) 22:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. There was a bug with the wiki syntax parser, and now it's fixed. If you still find any problems, please feel free to report them. Kanashimi (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the broken anchor message at Quakers

The informative message let me easily fix the problem. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kanashimi (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same for the alert at Talk:Shia LaBeouf (song): super-helpful! My new favorite bot! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is malfunctioning

The bot is incorrectly tagging pages with The following web anchors are no longer available. See for example Talk:Possibilities Patrol which targets Doom Patrol (TV series)#ep25 which clearly works. Please fix this or stop the bot as it's mass tagging correct pages. Gonnym (talk) 16:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. I have tried to fix the problem. Kanashimi (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi Special:Diff/1130760444 may need review. The link was partially encoded and still worked, but the bot flagged it. I corrected the link to unencoded as there was no reason for it to be that way, but technically the link/anchor was fine. -- ferret (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Thank you for this example. I fixed the wrong code. Kanashimi (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot error

I don't know what happened here, but it shouldn't happen again. Nardog (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. I fixed the code and now it seems to be working properly. Kanashimi (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still not working correctly. Talk:The Theater and Its Double (Euphoria) is tagged, but Euphoria (American TV series)#ep17 works. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a bug. I just fixed it. Thank you for reporting. Kanashimi (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot error

Hi! Your bot removed all the tags here for no good reason. Please check this. Kind regards, --TadejM my talk 22:07, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I will try to edit this article with the robot again... Kanashimi (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot reproduce this error on Wikipedia:Sandbox. Please allow me to try on the original page and I will restore the content when I finish testing. Kanashimi (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the trouble. It looks like the error has been fixed. Kanashimi (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wheezy anchor still working on CrunchBang Linux

Hi. On Talk:CrunchBang_Linux&oldid=1131587097 your bot says that [[List of Toy Story characters#Wheezy|Wheezy]] is no longer available. However, it still works. Is this a bug in your bot? Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 09:25, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems to be a robot error. I just checked and found that it is now normal. Thank you for the report. Kanashimi (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chewbot leaving in appropriate talkpage messages

I'm fairly certain this is an error and not intended? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

at Talk:E. Kidd Bogart as well. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm testing, just changed it back. Kanashimi (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of Vital article

Hi, re this edit, why is Cewbot putting {{Vital article}} inside the WikiProject banner shell? It's not a WikiProject banner, is not built around {{WPBannerMeta}}, and is not collapsible. The proper place is several positions earlier, per WP:TALKORDER.

In that tag, what are the |link=Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics and |anchor=Basics (23 articles) parameters for? Neither of them is recognised by the template; indeed, the page Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Physical sciences/Physics is automatically linked from the template by means of the |level=5, |topic=Science and |subpage=Physics parameters without needing any more. In the linked page, there is no anchor matching "Basics (23 articles)" - there are four subheadings beginning "Basics", but none of them show "23 articles". The article is presently under "Basics (29 articles)", and has been since this bot edit. Since the counts will change every time the page is rebuilt, these subheadings will also change, so they're a pretty poor kind of anchor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these suggestions. I put {{Vital article}} inside WikiProject banner from the discussion with user:SandyGeorgia on User_talk:Kanashimi/Archive_1#Vital_articles. Maybe we should discuss the consensus again? Regarding the link and anchor parameters, at first it was because the robot did not have a way to set the topic. Now there's a way. I will remove these two parameters in the near future. Kanashimi (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At TALKORDER, Vital article was moved out of the WikiProject banners to its present position as long ago as August 2014 (the relevant discussion is Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout/Archive 2#Changes), where it has remained ever since (apart from one bold edit six months ago and a certain amount of vandalism, both quickly reverted). The only subsequent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Talk page layout#Reducing arbitrariness where some people have assumed that {{Vital}} and {{Vital article}} are the same thing (they're not); this discussion hasn't gained any comments in eleven months. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There have been many other discussions, although I don't know where to find them now-- enough other discussions that I don't believe it can be stated that there is a consensus for against putting them inside the banner. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are requests and appeals by SandyGeorgia in the archives of this page, also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles/Archive 2#Templating talk pages, which has only two participants.
I checked Template talk:Vital article, which has no discussion on placement; and Template:Vital article/doc has no advice on placement either. Template:WikiProject banner shell/doc doesn't mention {{Vital article}} at all; its talk page does so in one thread from three months ago, and its archives only mention this banner in one thread (and then only in passing). Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Wikipedia:Talk page templates have no mention at all, and nor do their talk pages (and archives).
I can't think of anywhere else that discussion may have occurred, and Wikipedia:Talk page layout is the only general page that I know of that governs the lead section of a talk page, so really, that is the advice that should be followed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the behaviour of the robots. Kanashimi (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible change to Template:WikiProject banner shell

See Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)#Project-independent quality assessments. There is agreement here on proposing a change to {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Within the next few days I will launch this at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), and if that is approved will start testing the change to {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Basically, it would add a new parameter to the template, |class=, and if a value is supplied would add a line above the present text saying something like "This article has been rated C-class under the content assessment guidelines.

Possibly, depending on discussion, it will allow omission of the |1= parameter, giving something like:

Assuming it goes forward, how should the change be handled to minimize impact on Cewbot 3? Aymatth2 (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information. I have modified the code and it should work in the future. Kanashimi (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical cyclone anchors

What exactly does the Cewbot mean by inactive anchors and one no longer being available? All the ones I am looking at still work as they are supposed to. Some were deleted in cases of vandalism and other times the flagged revision didnt even have a changed anchor. NoahTalk 12:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah Thank you for your feedback. This is indeed a problem, can you give me a more specific some examples? It would be easier for me to check where the problem is. Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should I check and revert these notices if it is like this? NoahTalk 23:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Yeah I found this issue at Townsville, where the bot thinks Tropical cyclone scales#Australia is an inactive anchor despite me fixing it at the source. Graham87 01:51, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found that this is because there is a bug in the parser, I have corrected it now and it should be back to normal after the code is updated. Kanashimi (talk) 11:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Normalize Multiple issues

I think this will be incorrect in most instances. Certainly any template that has an inline version probably was meant to be the inline. I don't know if it would be better for Cewbot to add the inline in stead – and that will be complicated code if you do so – but that might be an improvement. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. It's really difficult to distinguish this type of maintenance template, because I've been in a similar situation before, but it should be placed at the beginning of the article. In any case, since it was difficult for the robot to tell if it should be placed at the beginning of the article, I have since placed them all at the start of the article. In this case, this kind of maintenance template in the middle of the article does not seem to be a good idea, perhaps it is a wrong use of the templates? I wonder how you think it? Kanashimi (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong use of templates. {{Disputed}} ⇨ {{Disputed inline}}, {{Unreliable sources}} ⇨ {{Unreliable source?}}. I think you will find that difficult.
However on a different subject this is perfect. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the misuse of these templates is actually a problem that editors should be aware of. Kanashimi (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot

Hello, I'd like to bring it to your attention that whatever Cewbot did in its edit to Cadence completely broke every file on the page. Seems crazy how this happened as it only changed 9 characters. Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:20, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you describe in more detail what is going wrong? In my view, Brandenburg Concertos#Concerto No. 3 in G major, BWV 1048 is an effective web anchor, but Brandenburg Concertos#No. 3 in G major, BWV 1048 is not. Kanashimi (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. When I viewed the page, none of the files were loading in the current revision but were in the previous versions, so I reverted it. Now looking at the page history, the files are fine on the bot's revision. Strange. Ironmatic1 (talk) 07:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, there is no problem now. Kanashimi (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category 20th/21st century Thai Women Scientists

Please can Kesara Margrét Anamthawat-Jónsson be added to these categories, along with Her Royal Highness Princess Chulabhorn? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesara_Margr%C3%A9t_Anamthawat-J%C3%B3nsson Pat Heslop-Harrison 12:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pathh (talk • contribs)

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean. Maybe you can add these categories yourself? --Kanashimi (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding vandalism

I have been checking vital article ratings, and have come across a number of situations like this one where Cewbot hides vandalism. This is suboptimal. Cewbot has been running long enough that vital articles are tagged, could it instead load issues into a page somewhere for editors to assess manually? CMD (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This requires a lot of changes ... Another way is to check the bot's daily edits, or I can only stop the bot from editing the talk page for now. Kanashimi (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the benefit ratio of stopping it from editing talk pages completely, given that would block other tasks. Is there a way to pull out a list of edits like the one mentioned, which have the bot adding a template? Perhaps by edit summary? Some modification of the database reports? Then they could be reviewed. CMD (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This requires a relatively large change, may have to wait until I have time ... Kanashimi (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue with Cewbot

Cewbot tagged Rise of the Villains (Gotham) here but the redirect is valid and works. Gonnym (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report. The code has been modified and will be updated tomorrow. Kanashimi (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wording of talk page notification about anchor deletions

I've seen this a few times, most recently at Talk:Isomorphism. The notification contains the line, "The anchor (#Relations over a set) has been deleted by other users before." To me, the phrasing "has been deleted by other users before" makes it sound like something was deleted multiple times or habitually in the past and has recently been deleted again, i.e. it has been deleted before and it's been deleted again now. It took me a while to figure out what was really going on. Probably the word "before" as well as "has been" where what threw me off. Could it be changed to something like, "The anchor (#Relations over as set) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user," with a link to the edit where the deletion occurred? Will Orrick (talk) 15:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I will update the code. Kanashimi (talk) 21:07, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Will Orrick (talk) 21:41, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect change to interlanguage link in José Luis Picardo

Hi. I have had to revert the second change your bot made to José Luis Picardo yesterday (15 April 2023) because its correction was wrong. It has changed an artist called Manuel Molezún to an athlete called Manuel Suárez. Shouldn't corrections be checked by a human being before going live? Regards Vortexionio (talk) Vortexionio (talk) 10:55, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is because es:Manuel Molezún is linked to Manuel Suárez (athlete) at d:Q12392831. Is there a mistake in this? Kanashimi (talk) 12:15, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anchor management

Someone deleted the leading "False" in the "claims of fraud" heading in the 2020 U.S. presidential election article. Your bot went wild re-anchoring various pages to the new heading. After I reverted the heading back to "False claims of fraud", I reverted the other pages, so I think your bot owes me a beer or a quart of oil or something. Cheers! BBQboffin (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Next time there is a similar situation, please let me know first, maybe I can squeeze the robot and let it work a little overtime. Kanashimi (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jacksonville-Baldwin_Rail_Trail

I updated the bad links to COJ. Mgrē@sŏn (Talk) 15:36, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid removal of multiple issues template

{{inline parenthetical referencing}} is a maintenance template yet cewbot keeps ignoring it and removing {{multiple issues}} at amitosis. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added this template to the settings page. Hope this will solve the problem. Kanashimi (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing database report

Hello. The last time Cewbot updated Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates was 19 May. The bot probably had problems on 26 May because of replication lag (滞后 might be the words, from this). I thought the report would run 2 June, but it didn't. Would you check on it? Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. I have re-run the program. Kanashimi (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
জি 103.133.201.167 (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot struggling with characters

You may be aware, but the " " characters in the section head seem to have created a problem for the bot here: [32] — HTGS (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HTGS It looks like Treaty of Waitangi#.22Principles of the Treaty.22 and Treaty of Waitangi#Principles of the Treaty don't exist. Can you describe in more detail how this should be corrected? Kanashimi (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot issues

So it looks like the Vital Article template that goes in the talk page has been redesigned. Unfortunately, it looks like it’s affecting the Cewbot ([33]). Now, it is being merged with the WikiProject banner shell template, so feel free if you just want to wait until they finished merging, but I still just want to give you a head up. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I can't see how the robot should be changed. This kind of sucks. Kanashimi (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that’s not good. Are you suggesting that we might have to manually check the status of these articles? Because that sounds like a headache. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the discussion, I had to be sure what the final wikitext would look like before I could move on to the next step. Kanashimi (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False positive at Talk:You'Re So Cool (Hans Zimmer song)

This notification is in error. The anchor has not been disturbed since its inception at the redirect's target. Paradoctor (talk) 11:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a thought: could it be that Cewbot didn't find the anchor because it is supplied by the {{tracklist}} template? Paradoctor (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor You are right. However, I don't see a description of anchor points in {{Track listing}}. I think a formal description would be better. Can you add a description in {{Track listing}} about how this template will add anchors? Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't write the module. That being said, I don't understand your request. Are you asking me to explain to you how the template constructs its output? Or do you only want to know what names the anchors get? The latter should be obvious: "track1", "track2", and so on. I will add a note to that effect to the documentation.
The way I understand it, neither information would be helpful to you. {{Track listing}} is not the only template whose output contains anchors. Different templates will have different ways of producing their output, and add differently named anchors. I could be wrong, but the only way for a bot to handle this is to analyze not the raw wikitext page source, but the wikitext after all templates have been expanded. Paradoctor (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since robots are not yet able to parse lua modules, the behaviour of templates and modules should be clearly marked in their documentation, as in {{Episode table}}. In this way, if another editor changes the behaviour of a template or module in the future, the affected robot will have to be taken into account and the robot operator will be notified. Kanashimi (talk) 22:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, there is a misunderstanding here. But, as I hinted at, I'm the wrong person to talk to anyway. As far as I am concerned, my work here is done. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Have fun editing! Kanashimi (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

54992750141.

Fotos e vídeos 2804:14C:CCA1:8B80:209D:CF42:5F1E:1B93 (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E 2804:14C:CCA1:8B80:209D:CF42:5F1E:1B93 (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Treatments_in_California_agriculture

This is a bit ridiculous.

Any way to combine these into a single edit in the future? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This requires a more significant structural change in the code, please wait until I have time to modify it. Fortunately, most pages rarely lack so many web anchors. Kanashimi (talk) 09:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a false positive

I did a quick check and didn't find the anchor reported by the bot. I have already removed the notice and leave the issue in question here for future review.

Thanks in advance, and have a nice day! Nishimoto, Gilberto Kiyoshi (talk) 12:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand how the bot reports. The anchor was in the article and I only checked the talk page. Sorry for the previous message. It's already fixed. Nishimoto, Gilberto Kiyoshi (talk) 14:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

Hi Kanashimi. I reverted this Cewbot edit because those anchors do in fact exist in the article, in the "Complete Formula One results" table. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 13:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. I have modified the program code. Kanashimi (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can this bot automatically remove all of its talk page messages, once the issue is fixed?

Please. Whizz40 (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which page are you referring to? Maybe I can ask the robot to do some cleaning. Kanashimi (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this broken link. Can we ask the robot to clean up the talk page messages: British academic networks The anchor (#History) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Whizz40 (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. It should be done. Kanashimi (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Whizz40 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles

Hi Kanashimi. Please could you update your bot so it looks at categories like Category:C-Class vital articles rather than Category:All Wikipedia C-Class vital articles? When we started using WPBannerMeta (which was needed to get the template to nest properly) the old naming scheme was not supported. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's also been another (possibly related?) issue regarding vital articles raised at Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Problems with vital article lists, which may be caused by recent banner shell changes. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same issue :) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:21, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry for the robot malfunction that resulted from renaming the categories. I have fixed the code and it should be updated by tomorrow or the day after. Please kindly remind me what the new name of the categories are if this occurs again in the future. Kanashimi (talk) 11:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sorry from me! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another change that you may or may not have noticed. The unassessed category is Category:Unassessed vital articles not Category:Unassessed-Class vital articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between Category:NA-Class vital articles and Category:Unassessed vital articles? Kanashimi (talk) 09:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The former is for non-articles like redirects, drafts, and disambiguation pages (I don't think any of these should really be "vital" articles, should they?) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:07, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) NA-class is something that doesn't require an assessment- most of the articles listed at Category:NA-Class vital articles are actually redirects (to other articles or sections of articles), which don't require an assessment. Whereas unassessed means they need an assessment, but it hasn't been done yet. FYI, other non-article things that might be NA-class would be categories or dab pages (though these aren't relevant for discussion of vital articles, as they aren't articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:08, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some of the summary tables did not use the correct format. If you find any, please help me fix them, like this edit. Kanashimi (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to add ths summary table to other pages, you can use the same format, and you don’t have to put anything inside. Kanashimi (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does your bot use categories like Category:All Wikipedia level-3 vital articles or would Category:Wikipedia level-3 vital articles be sufficient? Just trying to simplify the categorisation a bit— Preceding unsigned comment added by MSGJ (talk • contribs) 22:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m using `All Wikipedia level-${i} vital articles` for now. If you have any plans, please let me know the corresponding name after renaming, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll post on the project page and see if anyone has any opinions on this. Thanks! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know that there was no response so I've switched the template to use the categories without "All" in them. Hope this is okay with the bot. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:30, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Broken anchor bot run question

Hi, there. First, I just want to say thanks for the Cewbot functionality and task 6 on broken anchors. It's pretty useful! I happened to be going through Category:Pages with broken anchors, and starting from the beginning symbols, I came across a number of pages that had already been resolved, so I removed the talk page messages (see Special:Contributions/2pou for anything noted "already resolved"). Then it occurred to me that the bot might do this already. I see some edits removing the talk page messages (such as this edit), but it isn't clear to me how often this capability is exercised. Does it occur continuously like the broken anchor check on edits, or does the talk page cleanup have to be forced somehow? It seems that there are still some talk page messages to remove. For example:

  1. Talk:.46 rimfire was resolved here
  2. Talk:.H.E.C.T.O.R. was resolved here
  3. Talk:+2 (childbirth) was resolved here

There's a number that SWinxy performed on March 26, and I'm not sure if they have continued or not, but that link shows a number of additional examples. I thought maybe it might have to do with symbols in the article titles, but Talk:Blackface was fixed in Special:Diff/1146735987, and the Talk page note was there until I removed it just now. Anyway, just wanted to both let you know about this (in case there's anything to fix) and check if I should expect these templates to be rechecked regularly or not. (Might be a good addition to User:Cewbot#Fix broken anchor as well.) Thanks! -2pou (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had forgotten about this backlog category. I assumed that the bot would notice that I fixed things and remove the notice on the talk pages. I could continue again; 50k can be chipped down... eventually. Cewbot is amazing, ty. SWinxy (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. The robot monitors recent changes. However, many operations are time-consuming, and not every one of them can usually be responded to. What you have checked is probably what was missed. If you need to check a specific page, just let me know and I can take care of it. Kanashimi (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot

Hi, again. I’ve been noticing that whenever a Level-4 page gets moved, the Cewbot will change the Level 4 link. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is a bit much. Can you give an example? Kanashimi (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I’m might of just imagined it. My apologies. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind :) Kanashimi (talk) 22:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between broken anchor and inactive anchor

The bot as a bot should not mix up broken with inactive anchors. I would understand a broken anchor as one which is used and not available -- and an inactive anchor as one which is available, but not used. So happened in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fibonacci_sequence. --13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Nomen4Omen (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don’t quite understand what you mean. Could you describe how you want the robot to handle this unreachable anchor? Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Cewbot's edit summary ('Reminder of an inactive anchor') might have led Nomen4Omen to expect a notice about anchors in an article which are not linked to from anywhere else (no 'incoming links' to them), rather than the missing / broken anchors mentioned in the template. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a question of wording, perhaps someone can tell me what I should change? Kanashimi (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change the edit summary to 'Notice of broken or missing anchor'? It's unlikely that editors already know about the problem (because someone would have fixed it), so I'd call it a notice instead of a reminder. Changing 'inactive' to 'broken or missing' would prevent confusion between an unused anchor, with no incoming link(s), and one that had incoming link(s) until someone broke the anchor or removed it. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates

It looks like Cewbot's gone on holiday; the report on Pages containing too many maintenance templates hasn't been run since June 23. Could you send a postcard and ask Cewbot to run it? Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I called, and the robot yawned. Kanashimi (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sleeping on the job? Naughty bot. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

When removing {{ill}} from templates, make sure to check for and retain italic formatting (italic=y). Here's an example of an edit where the bot removed the formatting: diff=1172241915. -- 𠔻 (talk) 17:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Thank you for your reminder. I have modified the code. Kanashimi (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database reports/Pages containing too many maintenance templates

Hi! Sorry to bother you with this again, but it was really useful for those of us working with this report when it was updating every week. any chance we could get it ticking over again? Many thanks and best wishes! Jdcooper (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a little unstable lately. Kanashimi (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop showing the Former Featured Article Candidate icon in the vital article lists

Can you get the bot to stop putting the Former Featured Article Candidate icon first? It’s the only non-grade icon that does this. I got to be honest, I’m not even sure why we’re keeping track of articles that failed to be upgraded to a featured/good article. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 10:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the icons on the vital article lists? Kanashimi (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see how to do that. I've changed the message and title a bit to make the discussion clearer. --Kanashimi (talk) 01:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to reiterate that my main issue is that the Cewbot keeps putting the FFAC icon first before the actual grade of the article, when it doesn’t do that for the Former Featured Article icon. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the position of this icon. Kanashimi (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Didn’t mean to have a discussion with a different person on your talk page. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Icon C

I know you’ll still trying to get the Cewbot from putting the FFAC icon first, but we got another problem . The Cewbot is now adding additional C icons to the vital articles list. Now, I’m not sure how, but I think I know what’s causing it. Two days ago @MSGJ made an edit to the template:WP1.0. Now, this is a WikiProject template where you can’t just put a "B" after "class=" and be done with it. You have to add a checklist to the template that shows that you properly assessed the article, otherwise it would give it a C grade. Is there’s a way we can fix this (other than undoing MSGJ’s edit)? Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of my recent edits changed this behvaiour (although I am ready to be proved wrong). I think {{WP1.0}} always had this B-class checklist attached to it. It can of course be removed if it's not needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but the evidence suggests you’re last two edits is responsible for the issue we’re having right now. I know that we have had plenty of before (usually because the people who upgrades an article rating keep forgetting to update our WikiProject template), but this is first time I’ve seen a side-by-side. All the articles that have the unnecessary C icon have the WP1.0 template. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 10:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to the page you're looking at please? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5/Biological and health sciences/Plants. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I can explain what happened. In this edit I changed from using Category:C-Class Version 1.0 vital articles to Category:C-Class vital articles. The reason is that we have two different sets of categories for vital articles so it made sense to consolidate them. If there is B as well, then it's because there is also {{Vital article}} template somewhere else on the page. Ideally there would only be one template populating these categories, which I suggest should be {{Vital article}}. If you agree then we could stop {{WP1.0}} from populating the vital categories. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anything to stop this. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 20:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well let me ask a simple question: does every vital article have {{Vital article}} on the talk page? What role does {{WP1.0}} serve in tracking vital articles? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, every article listed in the vital article project has the Vital Article template. I have no idea what role the WP1.0 template serve in tracking vital articles. I do know that most of the level 5 articles don’t have that template. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 20:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'm going to stop that other template from tracking them then. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot, again

I am incredibly sorry for this, but the Cewbot is trying to demote a bunch of level 3 articles. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 20:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Could you describe it more clearly and give some examples? Kanashimi (talk) 23:49, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here: [34] [35]. Luckily, it appears to just be a few pages. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look... Kanashimi (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. It looks like it’s a one-off thing, because it didn’t try to do it again last night. Eyeluvbraixen (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot bug

Here the bot removed {{multiple issues}} on the basis of there only being one maintenance tag - but there are two. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same, if you find the need to add {{too many sections}}, you can modify the list of templates yourself, as long as there is consensus. Kanashimi (talk) 08:28, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot added broken anchor notification to wrong Talk page

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cewbot_is_malfunctioning regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Kirkgaard (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for fix_anchor script

Hi Kanashimi. I have made improvements to the wording of Template:Broken anchors. I also have the following suggestion for improving the wording from your fix_anchor script, which I inspected at https://github.com/kanasimi/wikibot/blob/master/routine/20201008.fix_anchor.js.

I suggest that you change from:
'The anchor (%2) is no longer available because it was [[Special:Diff/%1|deleted by a user]] before.'
to
'The anchor (%2) [[Special:Diff/%1|has been deleted]].'

The suggested wording is good, simple English and easy to understand. Thank you. Nurg (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll change the wording in the next version. Kanashimi (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

Hi, why was this edit made? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment

Please can you comment at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles § Inconsistencies? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I can build the json file using the robot. Kanashimi (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be very helpful. Would you comment at the link above because we need some extra details from you? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False positive when anchor is located in transcluded content

The bot reported the redirect Quod vide pointing List of Latin phrases (full)#quod vide as broken. That is not correct, the anchor is present at List of Latin phrases (Q)#quod vide, which is transcluded by the full list. The only way I see to fix this is to expand pages before searching for anchors. Paradoctor (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report. Yes, this could be a problem. But in this case, would it be better if we changed it to List of Latin phrases (Q)#quod vide? I think if I really try to start modifying robot codes, I'll go in this direction also. Kanashimi (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's a sensible workaround in this particular. That list should probably be switched from transclusion to linking, but that's not a fight I feel up to. Paradoctor (talk) 13:52, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've solved the problem, so I've deleted the template. Kanashimi (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've targeted the redirect back to the full list. Will let you know if should the bot complain again. Thanks for the swift work. Happy editing! Paradoctor (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robot errors

Why does Cewbot keep marking all articles as Level 3 in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1 and Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2? Kammerer55 (talk) 16:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This might be human error and not the bot's fault, but I figure you're best to tell which is the case: what's happening at Special:History/Talk:Carly Rae Jepsen? J947 † edits 00:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the trouble. In the past two days I have been testing the code, so there are two programs running, the new test environment and the old production environment. Also this article was deleted from the list yesterday, which also caused this problem. The problem should be over after this wave of testing. Kanashimi (talk) 00:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cool – no worries! J947 † edits 00:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VA5 closures

Can the bot help me with these closures?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Add Popeye: discussion closed (add 4-0) undo
Remove TurboGrafx-16: discussion closed (remove 4-0) undo
‎Remove Intellivision: discussion closed (remove 5-0) undo
Remove Wii U: discussion closed (removed 4-0) undo
‎Remove Game Gear: discussion closed (removed 4-0) undo
‎Add Rummikub: discussion closed (add 4-0) undo
‎Remove Ludus latrunculorum: discussion closed (5-0 add) undo
Add Social deduction game: discussion closed (7-0 add) undo
‎Add Live action role-playing game: discussion closed (6-0 add) undo
Add Tabletop role-playing game: discussion closed (7-0 add) undo
Add Cooperative board game: discussion closed (add 6-0) undo
Star Trek: The Next Generation: discussion closed (5-1 support add) undo
Remove Klavdiya Shulzhenko, Add Viktor Tsoi: discussion closed (unanimous for swap)

TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot

One of these edits diff introduced an (inconsequential) syntax-error: }} --> Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for the report. It looks like there was a mistake in the <!--(Summer,--> at [36]. Kanashimi (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic link?

I was going to undo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rayleigh%E2%80%93B%C3%A9nard_convection&diff=next&oldid=915932890 because I didn't understand it, and it seems to add nothing to the article, but then I thought I'd ask you about it first. What does it mean? David Spector (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the link Complex system#Systems is no longer working, and can't link to #Systems because it was deleted earlier. So the link should be modified. Kanashimi (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot populating category redirects

Cewbot is inadvertantly undoing attempts to fix some category redirects with edits like this. The articles are categorised under "Society" not "Society and social sciences" but Cewbot's edits seem to be forcing the latter into the template system and populating redirects like Category:C-Class vital articles in Society and social sciences. I have previously edited the Vital articles/data pages to fix the problem but Cewbot just undoes it automatically. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this discussion, I think we may end up changing all the categories from "Society" to "Society and social sciences" to match the section titles... Kanashimi (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with the new talkpage banners

Cewbot seems slightly confused by recent changes to banners that integrated vital articles and provided a single article quality rating. eg. The actions seem correct, but the edit summary is a bit amiss. CMD (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. I will change the edit summary. Kanashimi (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Toolforge Grid Engine is shutting down

I expect you've heard about this already, but Cewbot's on the list of affected tools / bots run in the last seven days. Here's the information page about it. Hope the change is fairly simple for you both. Good luck. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackcurrantTea Thank you for the notification. I am trying to transfer my jobs. However, I'm having some problems here and I haven't solved them yet. If you know who to ask, please let me know. Kanashimi (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that Phabricator ticket, it's lucky you started working on this a month ago. I don't know the right person, but someone at WP:Village pump (technical) will, or they'll know who to ask. Taavi-WMF posted there last week, and he'll get a ping from this if he has notifications turned on. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll see if I can get the proper help. Kanashimi (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jobs for Kanashimi

When you get a chance :)

  1. Remove numbers from headings in Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2, Wikipedia:Vital articles, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4, Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/5 and all subpages.
  2. (Optional) add the numbers to a line of text under each heading.
  3. Rename all the "General" headings to the form of <topic>: general or similar.
  4. Change all topic=Society to topic=Society and social sciences on subpages of Wikipedia:Vital articles/data. I will deal with renaming the categories.
  5. Start a WP:BRFA for the merging job. I can do this for you, if you wish?

Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on modifying the code to cover the conditions of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Qwerfjkl_(bot)_26. Kanashimi (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ For #4, I think I just need to remove all items in User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration#Topics. And there are still the same situations in the items that the topic different from its section name such as Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/Biology and health sciences. Kanashimi (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't understand this post. I also don't understand how the configuration files work. Can you see my post at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Topics and comment if that looks reasonable? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The {{VA}} would give links by referring to the topic. The {{WPBS}} now uses json data generated by the bot, which comes from the section titles of the list pages. Most of the talk pages of the articles are now using {{VA}}, and will not be standardized until after the bot has performed the merge. After the merge is done, the category name should be the same as the subpage/section title of the list page. Should rename the category name or the subpage/section title of the list page. Kanashimi (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress with items 1 and 3? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1, 2: I need a sentence that indicates the articles of paragraphs in the list pages.
  2. 3: For example, "History: general"?
Kanashimi (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2: Sorry, what does "articles of paragraphs" mean?
3: Yes, that works! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:54, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2: Maybe something like "There are 3 articles in this topic." would be fine? Kanashimi (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Okay yes. Do you include the quota as well, e.g. 3 articles out of 5? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After removing the numbers from the title it looks like I don't have anywhere to save the quota... Might have to think about it. Kanashimi (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe another .json file with all the sections and quotas. If each one had a unique ID we could cross-reference from the lists of articles. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This number must be recorded in the list of vital articles, because the robot gets its information from the list of vital articles. Kanashimi (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible in the future to move to a system where the list of vital articles is built from the json database? In the meantime, shall we write a template, e.g. {{vital article quota|3|5}} produces "This section contains 3 articles out of a quote of 5" or something like that? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:17, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a possible attempt. I've made a sample at Wikipedia:Vital articles#Level 3 vital articles (1,000 articles), please change it to a format that works well for you and I'll change the code. It is also OK to use {{vital article quota|3|5}}, just create it and fill the template first. Kanashimi (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If there are no other problems, shall I start changing the code? Kanashimi (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am ready to do this. Please see Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2. Kanashimi (talk) 03:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me, thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1,2: Done Kanashimi (talk) 10:18, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3,4,5.  Done Kanashimi (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot just removed all the topics from level 1-3 articles — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to fix this... Kanashimi (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a little change. Please see how it looks now. Kanashimi (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a couple of pages and it looks good! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 12

Hi, I just got asked about how this overlaps with Qwerfjkl (bot) 26.
What's the plan here? I thought you were just working on the vital article template merging, and I was handling PIQA? I know it's probably quite petty of me, but I'd rather continue working on PIQA.
Happy holidays! — Qwerfjkltalk 21:56, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing. I was only dealing with the merge of {{VA}}, but realized that I had to deal with other classes and the like at the same time, so I did the rest of what I needed to do as well. I realize that you've put a lot of effort into this mission as well. So I think I can use it as a backup for Qwerfjkl (bot) 26, we work together on these templates, what do you think? Kanashimi (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would be great if you are both involved. There are a lot of them to do, and you can support each other. I thought it was going to be difficult to find one bot operator to do this, but it's amazing to have two! To avoid conflicts, you might need to agree on who is doing which pages? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:45, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is logical that if one robot has processed a page, the other robot should not have to process it anymore. So it's not a question of who handles which pages. I will try to design it in this direction. Kanashimi (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate banners

Hi Kanashimi, would you be interested in helping to tackle Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates with your bot? It involves making edits like this, this or this. I thought I would ask you first, because you may be able to use some of the code you have already written — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a try. I'll merge the parameters of the templates. If the templates have conflicting parameter values, I'll leave it to manual processing. Kanashimi (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The codes are ready. [37] Kanashimi (talk) 03:49, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't expect you to add it to task 12. There is already enough going on in that task, and I don't want to hold it up any longer. How about opening a new BRFA for that one? By the way, you have added a duplicate parameter |Malawi-importance in that edit — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was added to that task because I only added something to the original code, so it would run along with task 12. The problem with repeating parameters has been fixed [38]. Kanashimi (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Entitled (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit)

Hey, your bot marked Talk:Entitled (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) as broken but it works. Gonnym (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this page has a special syntax. I'm trying to fix it. Kanashimi (talk) 12:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop cewbot!

The bot is making hundreds of bad edits. This is wrong! The article is FA class on MilHist, not A class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ I just read the discussion on Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#Issue with assessments not applying to WikiProject Lists template, and thought that the templates under Category: WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale would inherit the class of {{WikiProject_banner_shell}}, so I changed the code. It looks like I made a mistake, right? Or maybe {{WikiProject Military history}} should also inherit the class of {{WikiProject_banner_shell}}, it just hasn't been set up yet? Kanashimi (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at the code to see why it is not inheriting the FA-class. In the meantime it might be safer not to remove any Milhist ratings. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ I think this is something that can be solved by adjusting the Module:Banner shell code? Kanashimi (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we can change the code, but I would worry about unintended consequences. As the class can be set by a custom mask without the class parameter being used (which is what I neglected to consider earlier), inheriting the class may result in the class being changed incorrectly. So I think the current code is best. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way the code is currently written, if the article is unassessed by the project then it will get the class from WPBS and push that through the custom mask. In this case the article is not unassessed (as the |A-Class=pass is sufficient to give it A-class rating). So it seems that I what I wrote is incorrect. We could look at rewriting the code so that if class is empty it will always use the PIQA rating, but this might produce other unintended consequences. It might be safer not to touch any of the opt-out projects. Sorry for causing confusion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Military History is not an opt-out project. It should use the PIQA rating if |class= is empty. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MilHist has opted out of PIQA because it uses its own quality scale, including the B-class checklist. This was further clarified at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#Global assessments. However it will inherit the assessment in certain limited circumstances. Can I suggest you follow up here if you have any queries, and let Kanashimi continue with this important task without further changes to MilHist's assessments? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This is not acceptable. Military history articles are being stripped of their Featured Article rating. This was never agreed to. The changes must be reverted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we revert today's edits by the bot? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, revert. The longer this goes on, the bigger the clean-up later. — Maile (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay if Kanashimi does not get to this today, then I will fix them tomorrow — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave the exiting categories untouched for now. Also, since I can't tell which templates I've moved, I'll have to recover them all. I checked the editors and it seems that only a few of them are {{WikiProject Military history}} related, so it might be better to recover them manually. Since I just changed the code yesterday, the issue should only be with the 200 edits or so.... In the future I'll add changed templates to the edit summary, which will help to solve the problem with touching special templates. I apologize for the inconvenience. Kanashimi (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 I think I've rolled back this batch of edits. Please let me know if there are any problems. Kanashimi (talk) 09:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Looks better now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly tagged articles

Would it be possible to remove {{Vital article}} from pages in Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention? I believe they are all misplaced. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which template or module generates this category? Kanashimi (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Vital article}}. I have added some detection of whether it is actually a vital article or not — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then daily regular execution should eliminate these problems after formal deployment. Kanashimi (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WPBS conversion seems to be going well. Time to ramp-up deployment a bit? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll move on to the next phase of the test. Kanashimi (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are cewbot's whitespace-only edits really necessary?

Most bots leave human-preferred whitespace between template parameters alone. The edit special:diff/1193725654 seems entirely gratuitous. –jacobolus (t) 09:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'll have the robot avoid this type of blank-only editing. Kanashimi (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the whitespace edits, but I agree that whitespace-only is a no-no — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion bots should not ever be adjusting the whitespace in non-rendering ways. Whitespace should be left however the most recent human editor put it (or if it's egregiously messed up, get a human to fix it, using a semi-automated tool if they really need). –jacobolus (t) 08:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biography ratings

Hi, looking at e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AArsaces_I_of_Parthia&diff=1193677947&oldid=1038586692 - why did it leave the Biography project as a Stub? -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some similar issues in Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings (though I've already fixed a couple semi-manually). -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the report. This approach is actually in line with the design concept of the robot, as the robot cannot determine whether the conflicting quality ratings are appropriate or not. In addition, some of the parameters of WPBIO will be moved to WPBS, which is also the original design intention of the robot.
@MSGJ I think we need to write up descriptions for these categories, e.g. which module generates the categories and how they are resolved. Also we may need to write descriptions of this change in WPBS, so that when someone has a question about it, they know what's going on. Kanashimi (talk) 11:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kanashimi Understood. I'll just fix those cases manually as I come across them in that case. For GA and FA status specifically though, perhaps that should override any non-opt-out quality rating, if that's already in the banner shell? Also, should RATER be modified to stop adding listas and living parameters by default to WPBIO going forward? -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ratings that are the same as {{WPBS}} will be moved to {{WPBS}}. If it is not the same as {{WPBS}}, it will be kept. So for those different ratings, it needs to be manually checked for appropriateness, as you are doing.
As for the rater, it might need to change. I'll make a suggestion to User:Evad37. Kanashimi (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this was decided to be the best approach because a robot should not be overriding a human editor's decision, so these should really have human review — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot's edit summaries

Firstly, thank you for all the work you've done with Cewbot! Extremely minor question/nitpick: the edit summaries Cewbot leaves when maintaining {{WPBS}} currently include Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep only the dissimilar ones from [WikiProject X][a]. I was wondering if this should read ...and keep only the ones dissimilar from [WikiProject X] - the current wording first made me think that it was referring to WikiProject X having the dissimilar rating itself, rather than it being the other (non-mentioned) WikiProject templates that had the different ratings. I might be misunderstanding something here though, please let me know if so. Equally, let me know if I've explained anything poorly.

Notes

  1. ^ where WikiProject X is a WikiProject that has had its rating removed/that has the same rating as the one in {{WPBS}}

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten My English is not good, thanks for correcting it. What I want to say is that the robot will keep all the ratings that are different from {{WPBS}}. Would it be better if I change it to this? "Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep different ratings of [WikiProject X]" Kanashimi (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I think that would be better, yes - if I'm understanding correctly, if the robot keeps a rating in (for example) WikiProject Astronomy because it's different from the rating that's been moved to {{WPBS}}, the edit summary would say Remove the same ratings as {{WPBS}} and keep different ratings in[/of] {{WikiProject Astronomy}}.
If you don't mind, while I'm here, can I also check if the class=List parameter for {{WikiProject Lists}} should have been removed in Special:Diff/1193730164, given that it's the same as the rating that was merged into {{WPBS}}?
All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 12:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case it probably could be removed. But in general, we are not touching quality assessments of projects that have opted out of PIQA. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ: Thank you - the idea that WPLists may have opted out of PIQA didn't occur to me! It makes complete sense now why it wasn't merged. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll change the wording. Kanashimi (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I think Cewbot is currently stating the WikiProjects that have their ratings removed, rather than the one(s) that have a different rating kept. E.g. in this edit, the edit summary says it kept the different ratings in {{WikiProject Australia}} & {{WikiProject England}}, when those were the templates that didn’t have different ratings — the template with a different rating (that was kept) in that example was {{WikiProject Cricket}}. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 11:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
....having said that, though, I've also just come across this edit from later on, in which the edit summary is correct - {{WikiProject Belgium}} has a different rating that's kept, which the edit summary reflects. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 13:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not vital?

Why did the bot add |vital=yes - it doesn't seem to be a vital article? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking on this. The parameters should be eliminated after regular operation. Kanashimi (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ We have to have a way of tracking vital articles that have been de-listed. Can we do with Module:Banner shell? Kanashimi (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sure, I can do this. I can use Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ Would it be possible for us to change the name and not put it together, e.g. "Articles not listed in the vital article list"? Kanashimi (talk) 06:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was intending to put different issues under different sortkeys, e.g. "N" = Not listed. Descriptions at the top of Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention. Is that okay? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about making "Articles not listed in the vital article list" a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention? Kanashimi (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned earlier, I think we may end up having to write in each category the meaning of those categories and which template or module they are generated from. Kanashimi (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of number articles and a few others in the category. Is this fixed now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this bug is fixed. Kanashimi (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added template to the "normalise multiple issues" list

Hi! Just letting you know that I added a clean-up template - {{Cleanup red links}} - to User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration, since on this diff it removed {{multiple issues}} from the top of the article when both {{cleanup red links}} and {{more footnotes}} were in it. I'm not sure if I did it right since I don't know how the bot works, but hopefully I did it properly. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can keep watching to see if the robot works as you expect. Kanashimi (talk) 05:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move listas

In this edit Cewbot did not move the listas parameter to the banner shell — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not {{WPBIO}}. I can move all listas. Do I need to do that? Kanashimi (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes please — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll change the code. Kanashimi (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ Only listas, or including other parameters? Which ones? Kanashimi (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not a biography then none of the others (blp/living/blpo) will be there, so just listas I think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Kanashimi (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable piped text change

On Aggressive Inline (video game), the link Skateboard tricks#manual was used to bluelink "manuals". Cewbot changed the link, presumably correctly, to Skateboard tricks#Manuals. However, it also performed the exact same change on the piped text, taking it from "manuals" to "Manualss". See diff. While this is obviously a bug, is Cewbot even supposed to change the piped text at all? Regards, IceWelder [✉] 13:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report. I have modified the algorithm to avoid this problem in the future. Kanashimi (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Majority rating

RE [39], in my original request I suggested: If assessments of projects differ, then add the majority rating to the banner shell and leave any different assessments on those banners. These will be manually reviewed by human editors. Would this be possible? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. But then we might lose the rating of {{VA}}. Kanashimi (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep that one in, we can review it manually. But it is easier to change 1 rather than 10! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean what should I do with {{VA}}'s rating? Kanashimi (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it in the template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I eliminate {{VA}}, then there's no place to put this rating. Kanashimi (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. If it's just vital that is different then it should be safe to drop that rating — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we add the rating of {{VA}}, there will be two different items with the highest count, what should we do? Kanashimi (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean if two classes are equally used? I suggested: If assessments of projects differ, but there is no majority rating, then add banner shell with empty |class= parameter. These will be tracked and reviewed manually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:MSGJ: I've thought about it, and if that were the case I'd go with {{VA}}. I'll randomly choose one of these if there is no {{VA}}. The different ones will be kept. This way we can save a little bit of labor, and no information lose. --Kanashimi (talk) 06:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl For both of us to be able to produce the same result, there are some discussions on this page that you may want to know about. --Kanashimi (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always done this one (well, I don't worry about VA) and I re-implemented not removing the class from opted out WikiProjects, are there any other ones pertinent to me that I'm missing? — Qwerfjkltalk 22:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Qwerfjkl: If I remember correctly, I noticed an edit from Qwerfjkl (bot) earlier that didn't move listas= to the banner shell from a non-WPBIO template (either that, or it did move listas=, but didn't remove it from the wikiproject template - I can't remember which it was). Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 22:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A smart kitten, yes, there was a bug in my code that meant listas wasn't removed. I'm fairly sure I fixed all of the edits though. — Qwerfjkltalk 22:29, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe #Move listas? Kanashimi (talk) 22:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I sort of did that before, but I've got it working properly now (hopefully). — Qwerfjkltalk 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Not sure what caused it, but Cewbot left two banner shells on a page [40] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it. Kanashimi (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

blp=yes

In Special:Diff/1194492698, Cewbot merged living=yes into the banner shell, but left blp=yes as a banner shell parameter. As these two parameters are aliases of each other, blp=yes could have been removed when living=yes was merged in. This is just a 'nicer wikitext' issue, as I don't believe that having these two (essentially) duplicate parameters causes any problems (MSGJ, please tell me if I'm wrong here), but I thought I'd let you know in case you weren't aware. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. But we can always track and fix these later. I don't want to complicate Cewbot's code even more! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...good point! ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 15:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been completely ignoring this issue. :) Not sure what happens if one is yes and the other is no though, but I don't remember actually coming across that situation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked the code and if either of them are "yes" then it will display the BLP notice. I would like eventually to just use one of these parameters — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove one of them. So should we go with BLP? Right now, both will be retained. If there is a conflict between the two, which one should we keep? Kanashimi (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is more widely used? -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going from my gut feeing, I would (cautiously) say: remove blp, as |living= is what I would imagine editors will be used to working with in the {{WikiProject Biography}} template. If there’s a conflict between the two, I’d say keep them both - we can always (and maybe should) set up a tracking category for such conflicts to be resolved by humans. However, it should be stated that these are just my immediate, off-the-top-of-my-head reactions, so there may well be things I’m missing or haven’t considered. @MSGJ, what do you think? All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 21:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a member of WikiProject Biography for the last 4ish years, if only going to keep one, I'd personally say go with "living". Primarily given people are used to that, as it's what is more often used in documentation, e.g. Category:Biography articles without living parameter, Template:WikiProject Biography, it's used in WP:RATER, etc, etc. I'd be amazed if the blp parameter is used more than the living one, but I'd still be curious. I'd want to get wider consensus before even considering getting rid of it. I don't believe it's doing any harm by having done at the moment, but agree we could have a tracking category for conflicts, including if the shell parameter conflicts with the project parameter. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Living" made perfect sense on Template:WPBiography because we knew it was a biography already. It makes less sense on WPBS which is a general template for all articles. People might reasonable ask: a living what? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. Plus matches better with the blpo parameter. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People may also ask "A BLP what?" - First hit on Google https://www.google.com/search?q=blp says "BLP Beauty Official Website". It is Wikipedia jargon and stands for "Biographies of living persons " i.e. it is stil a abbr. of living people but hidden by som initialism. Christian75 (talk) 05:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought BLP was the most well known acronym on Wikipedia — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure BLP is very well known amongst Wikipedia editors, less so in the wider world. I can see the appeal of using "blp" in the banner shell, though feels a bit WP:AINTBROKE to me right now. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
For successfully completing the merge of {{VA}} into {{WPBS}} - nice work! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded! -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kanashimi (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot handling HTML comments strangely

In 2022, since 95-10 Initiative had been changed to a redirect, EnterpriseyBot edited Talk:95-10 Initiative to remove its class assessment, and left an HTML comment with the old assessment. Today, Cewbot added {{WikiProject banner shell}}, but simultaneously treated the HTML comment, verbatim, as an assessment class. In two additional edits, it moved the class into the WPBS and then removed both the parameter name class= and the HTML comment tags <!-- and -->, leaving the content of the HTML comment as an unnamed parameter. Since you used an explicit 1 name for the banner parameter, nothing visibly broke, but the page was placed in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for the report. Kanashimi (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very strange change to project banner

This change by Cewbot at Talk:Lagrangian mechanics relocated project banners down the page into a subsection of a discussion. StarryGrandma (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for the report. Kanashimi (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still occurring it seems, but for a slow trickle of pages. The only two (independent?) patterns I've spotted so far are they occur on pages where the first comment on a page has no section title, and/or it places the template change just before various templates such as {{Reflist-talk}}, {{-}}, {{tq}}, and probably some others. I can't say it's a "If {{Reflist-talk}} is on page, then place above {{Reflist-talk}}" rule, only that if it's placed wrong, it's typically found above such a template.
Of the 50 or so other pages I've looked through from bot's most recent contributions all appear to be correct as intended (at top of page with no tracked syntax errors), so seeming to be a low "fail" rate. All that have been placed incorrectly all appear (so far) to be triggering Multiline HTML table in list syntax errors, so those are findable and fixable, but I can't confirm this is always the case.
Most of my edits this evening have been correcting these if you wish to review for any additional patterns. So far this is a manageable flow rate, but I don't know what the fail percentage is, or the quantity of pages you are planning on doing, so I don't know if this is a reasonable "run the bot and manually address the small fail percentage" case or not. Sharing my findings so that it can either be addressed in the code, or if not, known, so that more eyes can correct them in case the rate were to pick up. Zinnober9 (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help. This is a problem that needs to be fixed. I will check again to see for what the problem is. Kanashimi (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a similar one from talk:square root of 2. –jacobolus (t) 06:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi I reverted your most recent change to talk:square root of 2. I already cleaned up the change where it put the banners far down the page. (I didn't notice it was you who made the edit after mine, so my edit summary is not really telling you anything new.) –jacobolus (t) 08:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jacobolus I will rollback some of the edits and will edit by bot again, so please excuse me if I have offended you, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't offend me. –jacobolus (t) 08:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this happen at Talk:Boric acid. DMacks (talk) 10:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an algorithmic error. I am trying to fix it. I may rollback some of the edits, so please excuse me if I have offended you, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken:) DMacks (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed it here too. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed it too, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buffer_solution&diff=prev&oldid=1194486016 -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Please just rollback the error and report the error here. I'll fix it later. Kanashimi (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the bot is known to make a pattern of errors (and is still making them), I recommend stopping the bot and fixing it rather than making more errors. Several well-meaning editors are trying to clean up the mess, and in some cases making it either worse or making it harder to unwind and redo correctly. I do not see urgency for this task, even though there is consensus to do it. Better to take a break and do it right. DMacks (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm fixing the problem right now, so I've stopped running it. I'll continue after I fix the problem. Kanashimi (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and this is why hammering watchlists and then telling people to hide the bot edits is a mistake. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein Can you accept the speed of yesterday and the day before? Kanashimi (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday and the day before were good. Today it is starting to ramp up again (I don't know whether you changed anything or whether it is because of what I watch), so less good but still bearable. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the report. I'll keep adjusting. Kanashimi (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you are continuing to adjust upward until people start screaming again, because today my watchlist is overloaded again. Is this the boiling frog principle of bot performance? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two days ago I finished {{VA}} in one go. This time, I moved on to a new phase yesterday and started running WP:PIQA. These are mainly the less watched pages. I hope this helps to reduce the burden on you. Kanashimi (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can the bot skip doing this unless some other change is also being made to a talk page? This does not seem like an urgent thing that needs to happen right away.
Folding 3+ wikiproject banners into a unified "banner shell" is a moderately helpful change because it reduces clutter. Sticking 1-2 banners into a shell and moving their assessments around is more or less a "cosmetic" change, not worth the hit on watchlists, and not remotely urgent to do to every talk page site-wide. See WP:COSMETICBOT.
An example I suggested elsewhere might be waiting until one of the archive bots archives some discussions from a talk page, and then get Cewbot to make its banner twiddling changes immediately afterward. Then those edits would be folded together on watchlists and wouldn't cause much extra clutter. But thinking about it, it would probably actually be fine to piggyback those bot changes immediately after any arbitrary user edit, e.g. starting a new talk discussion. –jacobolus (t) 23:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trigger timing of bot execution can be discussed and decided upon. However, I'm sorry that I can't monitor the operation of the archived robots, so the most I can do is to put the tasks into a crontab schedule. Kanashimi (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I tested the patterns of these articles above and have been able to place them in the right place. I will continue the work of the robot. If there are any problems, please feel free to report back, thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, do you plan to undo the mistakes please e.g. [41]? Tom B (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to roll back these previous errors. I'm sorry that I still missed some of them. If you find any of these types of problems, please help by rolling them back or fixing them, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would rerunning your bot on the pages work? For mine at least, it moves WikiProjects to the right position, wherever they are on the page. — Qwerfjkltalk 21:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's a good idea. However, my current design is to try not to touch the original one, so re-executing it will not fix it. Kanashimi (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bug report on cewbot

See here. I think maybe infinity was at some point VA-level 5 and then was removed? Not sure. Anyway it's VA-level 3. (I know I shouldn't care, because I frankly don't see much point in VA; I think it's largely a place to argue about why what's important to me is more important than what's important to you. But still, I saw a bug and I'm reporting it.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the report. It looks like the bot needs to change the comment. Also I'm not sure why Infinity is listed Category:Articles not listed in the vital article list, since the article is listed in Wikipedia:Vital articles/data/I.json. @MSGJ Is the robot missing something? Kanashimi (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something weird is happening.
I don't have time to debug this right now, but will look tomorrow unless someone else finds the answer — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think it's good that everyone has their own field of focus. Because everyone's ability is limited, we can only focus on a certain part. So it's not a problem that some people think vital articles are important, but you don't think so. People who care about the vital articles will take care of the vital articles, just as you will take care of the articles you focus on. That's how society gets better. Kanashimi (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A different sort of bug report - was it intentional for the WIR template to be moved out of the banner shell in this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Florence_Price&diff=prev&oldid=1195389342 ? -Kj cheetham (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kj cheetham, technically speaking I would say yes - it is not a wikiproject template. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that - as a template based on Module:WikiProject banner - it should be in the shell. I may be misunderstanding though. All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 20:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not a WikiProject template? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MSGJ, what I meant was that this was a configuration issue, rather than a code issue. Cewbot was not configured to recognise the template as a wikiproject. — Qwerfjkltalk 19:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is also it should be in the shell, and is something I recently raised in terms of updating the documentation to clarify this at Template_talk:WIR#Banner_location_documentation. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration Kanashimi (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being part of an edit-a-thon should be among the wikiproject banners. I'd recommend folding this into {{article history}} instead. –jacobolus (t) 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's the project banner for Women in Red. Please see Template talk:WIR#Version which will accept multiple events for a new version we are working on — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to get the edit-a-thon part into {{article history}} and also leave {{WIR}} as part of the banner shell? –jacobolus (t) 23:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot

Hello, Kanashimi,

Cewbot keeps recreating Talk:Velocity: Design : Comfort, 3 times how in less than 24 hours and it just gets deleted as an orphaned talk page. I'm not sure why it keeps creating this page and I might have to fully protect it stop your bot. Liz Read! Talk! 21:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. It's a bug, it should have been Talk:Velocity : Design : Comfort, I'll see what I can do to fix it. Kanashimi (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed Kanashimi (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot adding banner shells where they shouldn't be

In Special:Diff/1196022207, Cewbot inserted an empty banner shell on a Good Article review subpage. It's also been adding them on talk page archives (e.g. Special:Diff/1196035480). (hat-tip LunaEatsTuna). Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 04:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, there are also other talk subpages (e.g. to-do pages, incl. Talk:Ealing/to do) that have had {{WPBS}} added erroneously. Best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 04:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the warning. I've changed the traversal method and it looks like I need to change the code as well. Kanashimi (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had a similar problem when coding my bot. I just check if the page title is a subpage and it doesn't have a corresponding main page (some talk subpages are valid, like Talk:1/10). — Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Fixed[42] Kanashimi (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what pages are you processing @Kanashimi? I don't want to reprocess pages your bot has run on, that will probably lead to a bunch of cosmetic edits because my bot is very agressive about whitespace. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to use your alphabetical order, starting with "e". You can refer to the robot's editing history. Kanashimi (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "aggressive about whitespace" mean? These bots should leave existing whitespace alone wherever possible. Whitespace changes by bots clobbering human-chosen whitespace is a huge pointless annoyance. –jacobolus (t) 04:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobolus, my bot changes whitespace because the alternative is to have inconsistent gaps and some visual breaks. By "changing whitespace", all I mean is that it makes sure there's a newline at the end of the section and that the WPBS is always right next to another template, without a paragraph break between. — Qwerfjkltalk 07:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, taking unnecessary blank lines out from between banners is not any problem. (These are very rare in my experience.)
The one I find annoying is when some bot makes non-rendering whitespace changes to content that they aren't otherwise modifying in any way, e.g. adds or removes spaces from around = signs or changes the spaces or line breaks between separate template parameters, adds or removes spaces around the == of every heading, or after every bullet in a bullet list, and then later some other bot comes and twiddles the spaces in the opposite way, none of them paying any attention to the preferences of the human editors on a page. Please don't write bots to do those kinds of changes if you can possibly help it. –jacobolus (t) 08:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jacobolus, my bot does also do this (i.e. it will remove 1=, not sure it does too much else of what you're describing), but it is a necessary result of using the python mwparserfromhell module. It does follow existing whitespace conventions as much as possible. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's only removing 1= from the specific banner template it's working on, that's no problem. –jacobolus (t) 08:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop flooding watchlists, please

Please slow it down. No hurry. EEng 12:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. You can check to see if there's anything we can do to improve. Kanashimi (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? What I'm saying is, do only a few of whatever it is you're doing each day. Don't do thousands at a time. EEng 13:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. When I first responded, I suspended operations. You can check to see if there are any improvements to be made. Kanashimi (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly strongly agree with User:EEng. Slow it down or shut it down. I am incapable of finding anything else in my watchlist because 90% of it is Cewbot edits (still true in the hours since your response above). I don't want to hide bot edits altogether because I have been tracking some recent problems with a different bot. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I paused the execution. The bot is running with minor editing and bot flags set, so there's probably no way to hide it any more. Perhaps you could suggest what speed would be appropriate? Or is there a deadline after which it can be run? Right now {{VA}} is 37K left, and the main {{WPBS}} is probably... more than 4M? Also there will be User:Qwerfjkl's bot working on this job as well as me, so I think we're all going to have this problem. Kanashimi (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The bot only works on the talk pages, perhaps you can filter it to remove the talk pages? Please report back if this works, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 05:43, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, you can hide a specific bot's edits by following the instructions at WP:HIDEBOT. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some scientists claim that hydro­gen, because it is so plen­ti­ful, is the basic building block of the uni­verse. I dispute that. I say there are more AWB edits tinkering with whitespace and categories and wiki­proj­ect import­ance ratings than hydro­gen, and that is the basic build­ing block of the uni­verse.
Or, instead of telling 10,000 other editors to do something, you can stop flooding watchlists. Now you've really pissed me off. What the fuck is the urgency of this fiddling with article assessments? You're interfering with editors who do useful work in order to regularize something absolutely nobody cares about. David, can you turn this thing off? EEng 15:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bot edits are hidden from the watchlist by default. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:20, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, and the people are complaining have deliberately overridden that setting. And then they complain about seeing bot edits?! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you failed to read the part of my comment where I pointed out that bot edits have been a problem? Letting bots do their bot thing unobserved has led to bot-created errors in articles that have persisted for years. The bot edits need to be watchlisted. Telling us to just stop watching what your bots are doing is not an acceptable solution. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read everything you wrote, but I just don't think your position is reasonable. If you elect to override a feature that prevents watchlist flooding by bots, then I'm sorry but you don't get to complain about watchlist flooding by bots. That would be like me watching ANI and then complaining about the number of ANI edits on my watchlist. Or a more accurate example: I have chosen to watch Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings and that really is flooding my watchlist. I can't see much else on there because of the activity in that category. But I obviously can't complain about that, because that was my choice and the solution is obvious. If it's too much for my watchlist then I can just choose to stop watching it.
In this particular case, you need to decide: do you want to see bot edits on your watchlist or not? It seems that you may want to see some but not all, but that is not easily definable request. May I suggest that you use a different mechanism to check the bot's actions, for example, occasionally monitoring Special:Contributions/Cewbot or whichever bot you are tracking. Or try the suggestion by Qwerfjkl to hide this specific bot. Or something else, I don't know. But don't try to insist that this bot slows down, because it is doing valuable work endorsed by the Wikipedia community and there is a readily available solution to prevent watchlist flooding.
Please be assured that I am several other editors are watching this bot quite carefully, and I have made several reports of sub-optimal actions on this talk page, all of which have been dealt with efficiently by Kanashimi. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People who care about the articles want to keep tabs on the wide variety of problematic edits by an unlimited collection of miscellaneous bots and bot-like human editors who regularly screw things up. Hiding all bot edits but then deliberately peeping at the behavior of one bot at a time doesn't at all satisfy this concern. –jacobolus (t) 08:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely your choice, but then you must accept the consequence! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to see bot edits then just turn off that setting in your preferences. That's what it's for after all. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, you two fucking geniuses, those of us who actually care about articles (i.e. not those who invest their time gnoming template whitespace) do want to see bot edits, because bot edits can and do often screw things up. That's why we turn off suppression of bot edits. That does not mean we should have our watchlists flooded by zillions of trivial edits all at once -- as {U|David Eppstein}} explained above: I don't want to hide bot edits altogether because I have been tracking some recent problems with a different bot. If you two did any actual article editing you'd know about subtleties like that.
The question again: why do are these edits so urgent that they need to be done all at once, instead over a few days or something? EEng 20:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe cool it with the personal attacks? you two fucking geniuses... If you two did any actual article editing you'd know about subtleties like that... gee. This was done per consensus as part of the process to roll out universal project-independent article assessments, which applies to every single talk page on this wiki. They are doing it over a few days: this is going to take a while. If it was done a few each day it would take something approaching decades. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm guilty as charged (hopefully on both accounts, but I fear just the latter). — Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, looking at Cewbot's contributions, it seems to do roughly ~12 per minute when the task is running. If it ran non-stop it would finish in around a day or two. To do it in three days it would make one edit every 9 seconds. Obviously it's not being run non-stop, precisely to catch the kind of bugs you're worried about.
(This is assuming 30,000 edits, a number I now realise I may have pulled from thin air.) — Qwerfjkltalk 21:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I think we're gonna be running this for a few months. So we're gonna have to come up with a better plan. WP:HIDEBOT sounds good. Kanashimi (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this was mentioned on ANI I've followed the link to dutifully pitch in my 2c of pointless driveby drivel (drivelby?). Why not just ignore the bot edits? EEng, I believe this may be what the zoomers call a "skill issue".
It's nobody's fault, specifically, that ALL WIKIPEDIA PAGES have ALL of their data, content, template invocations and metadata HARDCODED INTO PAGES. This is just a stupid and cursed way for a database to be set up -- it's not even really a database, it's just "several dozen million text files". But the people who find a way to make this system (or, as it were, awful non-system) work are geniuses, and their work is the only reason we don't still have..... well, go look at the source from a page from 2003 sometime, that's what it would look like today. I fact, look at the source of a page from 2001, you'd have us still using CamelCase LinkS because of watchlist spam. jp×g🗯️ 22:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the current rate is much more acceptable (maybe 17 edits on my watchlist in the last 24 hours, not enough to make it hard to track those edits or others). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I think I have to clarify one point. I had twice as many edits yesterday as I did the day before. I'm guessing that the reason your watchlist didn't get flooded is that I've been working on the {{VA}} merger first, and the earlier I work on it, means that it's the more important and the more people are watching these pages. That includes you, of course. Maybe you'll see less of this bot editing in the future as I work on less-monitored pages? Kanashimi (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Or maybe this issue would have been less likely to arise if you hadn't decided to do all the heavily-watched articles all at once. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dealt with VA first because it is more important to the community. As far as I'm concerned, since bot manipulation is a community consensus, and bots already follow the speed limit, it would be better to use something like WP:HIDEBOT to block their editing, rather than blaming bots for their manipulation. What do you think? Kanashimi (talk) 23:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying that. How many times do I have to keep replying that telling me to ignore what the bots are doing and pretend it's always ok is unacceptable? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if this kind of edit would work better if it did one subject area at a time, to get a particular topic all done within an hour or whatever, and then spaced out the edits about different subjects. Then it would hammer the watchlist of everyone interested in that particular topic all at once, but would be relatively easy to skim past and then not think about again after. Beyond "vital articles", I'd recommend trying to do edits on other talk pages immediately after an archive bot works on the page, piggybacking immediately after the archive bot. If nothing gets archived within a few months, it could start picking away at the long tail, but there's really no urgency about any of those talk pages. –jacobolus (t) 08:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an estimated amount of time for how much longer this will take? ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 11:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If things go well, the merge of {{VA}} is expected to take about a week. As for {{WPBS}}, it may take several months. However, as mentioned above, the {{WPBS}} part may not be as frequent, as most of it will be done on less popular pages. Kanashimi (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I tend to have those less popular pages on my watchlist from doing antivandalism work. But good to know. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 13:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may refer to WP:HIDEBOT. Kanashimi (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'm well aware of that. You've suggested it numerous times in this thread. I have a reason for not hiding bots in my watchlist and that is in the offchance a bot either messes up (such as ClueBot NG having a false positive, or someone accidentally screwing up the bot) or has gone rogue somehow (unlikely but you never know). ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 13:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein I noticed that the robot you are watching is mainly editing the main article space. We are editing the talk namespace. Could you try filtering out the talk namespace and see if that improves the situation? Please let me know the results of this measure, thank you. --Kanashimi (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are back to the "please don't pay any attention to the robot behind the curtain" thing, when what I really want to be able to do is spot-check the robots to make sure they are not misbehaving. Talk page misbehavior is still misbehavior. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

STOP FLOODING WATCHLISTS PLEASE. This is not an urgent task. If it takes you a year to do it, that's better than making watchlists unusable or forcing everyone to surrender to unwatched bot edits. This pattern of slowing down temporarily when asked, passively-aggressively asking for users to stop watching your edits instead of accepting a slowdown, and then ramping back up to the same flooding levels as soon as you think attention has lapsed is unacceptable. I'm about to cross-post to Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard because asking here has proven so ineffective. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. I think we need to have a wider discussion to decide how to deal with similar issues. Please leave a comment here, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the bot editing at 40 edits/minute well above the accepted 6 or 12 edits/minute? Galobtter (talk) 02:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to follow maxlag=5 when I ran one of my tasks, and I haven't gotten it back yet. I'm sorry I may have to wait until the end of work today to get it back. Kanashimi (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't see any way to shutoff the bot other than blocking, I've blocked the bot until you can fix that (I personally would recommend a editable shutoff page like e.g. AnomieBOT). Like I said in the other discussion, I think limit editing speed to 6 epm for vital portion of this task would be good. Galobtter (talk) 02:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Galobtter many many thanks. Doug Weller talk 08:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. My watchlist became a nightmare. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slow. It. Down.—S Marshall T/C 08:56, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've noticed that all the editors lately are people. I've switched to another section, please let me know if the problem persists. Kanashimi (talk) 09:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, thank you for that, but it's not the same as slowing your bot down.—S Marshall T/C 09:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I basically follow user:Qwerfjkl (bot)'s algorithm and its speed. You can participate in the discussion here. Kanashimi (talk) 10:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

trimmed_link[edit]

Now that we have the stable section titles, I don't think trimmed_link is being used anywhere. Should be safe to remove and that will make the jsons a bit smaller? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:46, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll delete it after you test it. Kanashimi (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it's not in use — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove it @ User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration @Kammerer55 Kanashimi (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vital articles which are redirects[edit]

What is supposed to happen with articles that are moved, e.g. Talk:Tanning (leather)? Is there any way to track these and automatically update the list?

What about articles which are converted into a redirect (e.g. after AfD discussion). Should they be automatically removed from the list, or does a human editor need to review and see if the target of the redirect should be added instead? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this kind of case where only the main article is moved, but the talk page is not moved, the robot will not notice the problem because there is no change in the categories. If we want the robot to handle this kind of case, we may have to check the redirection status of 50,000 articles every time we run it. Kanashimi (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think some cases will just have to stay in Category:Wikipedia vital articles needing attention for human review. I've cleared out Category:NA-Class vital articles for now — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mishandled edit[edit]

The bot didn't handle this case very well: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A3C_273&diff=1194335178&oldid=1139260512 Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. This is a problem that has occurred before, and I think I've corrected the code. Please let me know if the error persists, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 01:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest restricting your bot to the first section on a page, if possible. That might help with these errors. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I did fix it this way. Kanashimi (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding this edit[edit]

Could you explain how this edit is within the remit of the WPBS + Vital articles BFRA ? The bot is only supposed to edit the Talk: namespace, not other namespaces right ? Sohom (talk) 04:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page belongs to Category:WikiProject banners without banner shells, so it is currently within the robot's operating range. I understand that you have questions and your own considerations. Perhaps you could join the discussion here and let's figure out what is best to do. Kanashimi (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot - Talk pages of redirects[edit]

Hi Kanashimi! Re edits like this, my understanding is that {{tpr}}/{{talk page of redirect}} should go on top of the banner shell per WP:TALKORDER - as it seems similar in nature to {{talk header}}. (There was a similar discussion at User talk:Qwerfjkl § Qwerfjkl (bot) - Task 26.)

All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 01:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten I changed the code. We might have to change Wikipedia:Talk page layout#Lead (bannerspace)? Kanashimi (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanashimi: Thanks for the pointer :) I've just edited that section to add {{tpr}} above {{talk header}}, to match the template docs. (My assumption[/hope] is that the addition will be a relatively uncontroversial change, as (from my perspective) it's just updating WP:TALKORDER to reflect the existence of this template & how it's already used - hence the bold addition to the list.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 02:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice template[edit]

Hi there! For this edit, this edit, and this edit, could you please help me understand why your bot moved {{Notice}} below the WikiProjects? AWB general fixes moves {{Notice}} above the WikiProjects, which seems to conform with WP:Talk page layout. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting this problem. This is because I only follow the templates listed in WP:TALKLEAD for ordering. I just added {{Notice}} and changed the program code. user:Qwerfjkl, Maybe you're interested in this topic too. Kanashimi (talk) 22:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on a 2nd VA bot?[edit]

Hi Kanashimi, I just wanted to get your opinion on possibly setting up a 2nd bot for some new tasks at WP:VA. To start, it would just create a tabular report, probably monthly or quarterly, with some metrics for a large sample of pages.

I know Cewbot already does a lot and you could probably add a new task like that really quick. And while nobody "owns" articles or spaces on Wikipedia, if you really enjoy handling the automation for VA all yourself, I'd be fine just putting in a task request for Cewbot.

If you don't mind though, I'm interested in trying to create a bot as a personal project. I have a lot of programming and data-analysis experience, just never specifically for Wikipedia before. Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone else is willing to share the task. Are you planning to use my code, or write a new one? Kanashimi (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a new one, even though I know that's almost never the practical thing to do. Honestly, my main reason is that I'd like to try writing it in Lua, largely just to explore something different.
I know Lua doesn't have any of the bot frameworks that JS and Python do, but I figure if I keep it simple to start, it should be doable. And maybe if I wind up working on it a lot and spinning out a few good libraries, that could be the start of a bot framework.
If I get stumped though, there's a good chance I may come back to your code. BTW, I've checked your Github before and saw your wikiapi repo is BSD-3; do you have a specific license in mind for your wikibot code? Zar2gar1 (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You mean what do you need to use it for, so you need another license? Kanashimi (talk) 23:06, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, more for code reuse, though like I said, I'll probably be doing it from scratch. I just noticed your wikibot repo didn't have a license listed (like BSD, GPL, etc.)
I don't really worry about people reusing my public source code, but some people are very formal. Just thought I'd check what rules you have for reusing your wikibot code since it came up.
Otherwise though, wish me luck, and maybe down the road, we'll coordinate more tasks. Zar2gar1 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My code will probably be released as BSD-3. Yes, let's work together in the future. Kanashimi (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Database_reports/Pages_containing_too_many_maintenance_templates[edit]

Hello! Sorry to bother you when I can see you are busy! But when you get a chance could you reset the above report? It hasn't updated for a couple of months... Thanks!! Jdcooper (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's because the memory is not enough... Kanashimi (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nebojša Glogovac[edit]

Why was the Wikiproject Serbia removed from Nebojša Glogovac article ?

This article IS part of Wikipedia Serbia, please, revise the edition or allow edit

Боки ☎ ✎ 17:18, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Боки, WikiProject Serbia is still there. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:25, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Qwerfjkl For some reason it was not showing up for me on cell phone. My bad ! Боки ☎ ✎ 18:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another bot error[edit]

Hi there! In this edit, why did the bot remove 'Get Back sessions from a 2006 post? GoingBatty (talk) 13:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously a bug, probably because yesterday I changed the way of parsing bold and italicized text. I've stopped the bot until it's fixed. Kanashimi (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help in finding this error. I have fixed the program to avoid similar problems. Kanashimi (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've also rolled back other bad edits during this period, such as Talk:Dark Matter (film), Talk:Data degradation. Kanashimi (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Cewbot errors[edit]

Belmont Stakes[edit]

Check out this diff. It moved the banners into the middle of a lower discussion. I had to manually correct it. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 07:04, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. This is a problem that has occurred before, and I think I've corrected the code. Please let me know if the error persists, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing this quickly! I'll be on the lookout. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 08:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times[edit]

It says that Cewbot removed the multiple issues template from this article because Cewbot thinks that the very long template is the only maintenance template, the other being split, so does this mean that split isn't a maintenance template? It looks better with the multiple issues because both templates are different colors. Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy diff: Special:Diff/1199162323. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "issues" where only the things listed at WP:CLEANUPTAG, i.e. not requests for discussion links for moving/merging/splitting/deleting. So that diff looks fine to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 03:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The robot follows the list on the configuration page to determine if a template is a maintenance template. If you find the need to add or reduce maintenance templates, you can modify the list of templates below yourself, as long as there is consensus. Kanashimi (talk) 22:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to include those issue templates on the configuration page that are now included. Do you want me to add them to the list? Lo1vesedi2ting (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me as long as there's a consensus. You can see the previous editors' history, usually people change it with a good reason. Kanashimi (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ststema 2601:647:4D80:7B10:2027:D459:779C:45AE (talk) 01:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radu Buzescu[edit]

Thought it was only class. Fine then I guess. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4[edit]

[44] — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Although the source code has now been fixed, it looks like there were quite a few problems left over at the time. Kanashimi (talk) 09:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PIQA question[edit]

Hi there! In edits like this to WikiProjects for a redirect, should your bot also remove the |class=start parameters, instead of moving them into WPBS? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I'll plan to see how to handle this kind of pages. Kanashimi (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unified class not added[edit]

In this edit, your bot didn't add the class to the WPBS, despite it being the only class on the page. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting back. I'll fix the error. Kanashimi (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There may be more in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:19, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll try to work on this kind of article. Kanashimi (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page layout[edit]

Hi again! In Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Cosmetic edits, an editor posted a list of edits that Cewbot made, some of which were after your bot made the PIQA updates but didn't rearrange the banners per Wikipedia:Talk page layout. Here are those I looked at:

Could you please tweak your bot for these? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 02:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help in identifying the problem. I will check these errors page by page to see what the problem is. Kanashimi (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the bug in the program and it looks much better now. [45] [46] [47] Kanashimi (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another one: In this edit, your bot moved the WikiProjects above {{Old peer review}}. While not listed at WP:TPL, it seems {{Old peer review}} belongs above the WikiProjects with the "article history" banners. Could you please tweak your bot again? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But we need to prevent this from happening again. Could you include the template on WP:TPL so that future robots don't get it wrong? Thank you. Also @Qwerfjkl. Kanashimi (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've updated my code. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added {{Old peer review}} to WP:TPL, as you requested. However, there are 800+ talk message boxes (plus their redirects) that aren't listed there. The use of "such as" and "e.g." on WP:TPL indicate to me that there is not consensus to have that page be a comprehensive list of every template. GoingBatty (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing the AWB code for Talk Page Fixes and the User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects section "//Other talk page template redirect fixes; Cleanup redirects" could provide inspiration for coding the proper banner order in your bots. However, I'm sure both of these are incomplete. GoingBatty (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. I think I have to do better than AWB at least, I've added all the available templates from AWB. Maybe we need to create a list for robots on Wikipedia instead of writing it in the code? Kanashimi (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that this edit did not put {{Canadian English}} above the WikiProject banners as per WP:TALKORDER. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your report. I tried editing it with a bot, and now I can make a normal edit. (Although you recovered it before that. If you can, please let me test it with the robot first, so that we have more solid evidence, thank you.) Kanashimi (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I fixed it again manually, here. Flibirigit (talk) 00:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help in finding these errors. If you find any more, please don't fix them yet, just post them here and I'll try to get the bot to fix them. Kanashimi (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On a good progress note, this bot edit was correct! Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 01:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your report. I was wondering if maybe the code wasn't updated when the robot was restarted earlier? Now it looks like a newer code is being used. Kanashimi (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Talk:Timbits is another example. Kanashimi (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a slight expansion to the Broken anchors task[edit]

Hi! I was wondering if it would be possible for Cewbot to go through Category:Pages with broken anchors and remove the template if the anchors are no longer broken? Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robots don't do that now. It's an interesting proposal. Kanashimi (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edit questions[edit]

Nothing particularly important, but regarding Special:Diff/1205473781, is there any reason the bot didn't remove |class= from the wikiproject at the same time as everything else? Also, any idea why the bot made this whitespace change? Aidan9382 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Video games}} belongs to one of Category:WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale, so its rating will not be eliminated. Regarding the latter, the bot should have eliminated vital=yes, apparently something went wrong, I'll see what's going on. Kanashimi (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to draft[edit]

Today I reverted two of Cewbot's edits that converted {{ill}} templates into links to Draft:Tensori no Mikoto in the Template: and main namespace: [48] [49]. English Wikipedia tolerates links to draft: only in a few cases, like in {{merge}} templates; but never in article text, infoboxes, or navboxes (see MOS:DRAFTNOLINK). It is especially bad in this case because both Draft:Tensori no Mikoto here and ja:天曽利命 there were created by Immanuelle, who is indefinitely blocked here; and the main reason that user is blocked is because they were creating many bad drafts and moving them to mainspace.

The draft was not linked to the ja: version through Wikidata, but with manual ja: and en: interwiki links directly on the pages. I have removed the one from Draft:Tensori no Mikoto (diff). Is that enough to keep Cewbot from repeating these edits, or was it caused by ja:天曽利命's link to the English draft? I can function in Japanese, but not well enough to argue about English Wikipedia's guidelines and about how edits by a user in good standing there are causing a bot to make incorrect edits on behalf of a blocked editor here. —Cryptic 22:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the report. I've modified the program so that in the future the bot should only handle links to articles or templates. Kanashimi (talk) 23:11, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

As your bot has finished processing all the vital articles, perhaps the edit summary should be Maintain {{WPBS}} instead of Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles? Just a suggestion — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:12, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'll change the edit summary. Kanashimi (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future class[edit]

Hi, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A16_Avenue_North_station&diff=1204349255&oldid=1195706900 - is "Future" a valid class value for the banner shell? As Talk:16 Avenue North station doesn't show it. I thought the Future class was only limited to certain WikiProjects? -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because {{WikiProject Canada}} belongs to Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment and not to Category:WikiProject banners without quality assessment, the robot trusts its rating. Seems like there should be an extra check. Kanashimi (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a one-off error? As Template:WikiProject Canada and Category:Canada-related articles by quality don't seem to mention Future at all? Might be worth an extra check in any case though? -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the program so that the robot will choose the regular rating in the future. Kanashimi (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot error?[edit]

This doesn't look right. —Bruce1eetalk 22:42, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed an error. I changed the parser earlier, and although I fixed the error later, I forgot to update the code for the server-side robot. I've re-updated it, thanks for noticing the error. Kanashimi (talk) 23:43, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Appalachia importance parameter[edit]

Hello! I'm currently overhauling WP:APPA and I'm running into the issue that Cewbot regularly removes the importance parameter from the project's talk page banner. I'm not certain how to remove the project from this bot's edit list so I think I'll need some help. Dionysius Millertalk 02:54, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you changed the settings. I restarted the bot and it should now use the new settings. Kanashimi (talk) 03:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a bunch! Dionysius Millertalk 13:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WIR[edit]

Does your bot put project banners inside the banner shell? I think it does sometimes, but here it missed the WIR-172. Not a huge problem but I was wondering if there was a configuration for this — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration&diff=prev&oldid=1195442990 fixed it from 13 January. -Kj cheetham (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can see the `WikiProject_template_categories` in User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration. Kanashimi (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordination with Qwerjkfl bot[edit]

On Talk:List of DearS characters, Qwerfjkl (bot) did the job one day before Cewbot, so Cewbot made a cosmetic edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:54, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will see if I can avoid this type of editing. Kanashimi (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be something as simple as Cewbot A-M, Qwerjkfl bot N-Z. There are so many pages to do, it makes sense not to hit them twice! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, I'm running my bot on categories (randomly) now because there were complaints about watchlists. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No majority[edit]

In this edit, Cewbot chose Start-class. Was this an arbitrary decision? Qwerjkfl leaves it blank in these cases, for human review. (Also, Qwerfjkl (bot) had already processed this page.) — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there are multiple majority ratings, I will randomly select one of them. The different ones will be kept. This way we can save a little labor and not lose information. Kanashimi (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another bot issue about |living=yes and |blp=yes[edit]

Hi again! In this edit, the bot added |living=yes to WPBS, even though it already had |blp=yes. GoingBatty (talk) 13:58, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the way it works now, the bot will move all such attributes to {{WPBS}}. There was a discussion about which to keep, but there was no consensus. Kanashimi (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that it has both |living=yes and |blp=yes. — Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep just one. But it seems that last time there was no consensus on which one to keep? Kanashimi (talk) 23:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dromaeosaurus About Talk:Toma Enache, perhaps we should reopen the discussion to see which of these should be retained, or what would be better to do instead? The bot could keep one of them, but I'm not sure what the consensus is right now. Kanashimi (talk) 10:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other bot keeps |blp=yes [50] [51]. So let's keep it. Though the priority should be fixing this as soon as possible regardless of which one we keep. Super Ψ Dro 11:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I will fix the code to keep blp. Also @MSGJ, A smart kitten, Kj cheetham, Christian75, and PARAKANYAA: --Kanashimi (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done e.g., Talk:Wilson Jermaine Heredia, Talk:Gil Heredia Kanashimi (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've no issues with going with blp going forward. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are just aliases, so it doesn't particularly matter which one is kept. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Percy Creuzot (history)[edit]

I suppose situations like this are going to start happening more frequently. How do you think we should handle this? — Qwerfjkltalk 12:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can check to see if the wikitext before and after the change is only different by "1=", and skip if it is? Kanashimi (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:20, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've got this working, hoepfully there won't be any more cosmetic edits (the problem is not filtering out cosmetic edits, but more keeping the non-cosmetic edits). — Qwerfjkltalk 11:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another living issue[edit]

e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Franklin_W._Johnson&diff=prev&oldid=1207842197 - the living/blp parameter wasn't transfered to the banner shell because the original one had a comment, and no separation space. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this problem. When I changed the program yesterday to avoid introducing blp and living at the same time, I didn't handle this kind of values well. I fixed it now. Kanashimi (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed Special:Diff/1208030593 from earlier today which didn't transfer living either. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 16:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A smart kitten because the |blp= parameter was already there in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ted_Kotcheff&oldid=1208030593 - it's just at the bottom of that block rather than the usual top. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
trout Self-trout - thank you Kj cheetham (& apologies Kanashimi), I'm clearly not awake enough yet :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 16:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from this though, @Qwerfjkl: why did your bot remove the C class values in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATed_Kotcheff&diff=1208058530&oldid=1208030593 ? I thought conflicting rating were being left for human editors to deal with? (Though in practice Category:Articles with conflicting quality ratings is too big for that, I've not seen any consensus on what automation to do regarding it so far.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kj cheetham, this was due to a bug which I just fixed (see User talk:Qwerfjkl#Quick PIQA question). — Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, thank you for following it up! -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slow it down[edit]

For the love of God slow it down. I don't know what caused a sudden absolutely excessive surge of these bot edits. In the last 48 hours (as long ago as my watchlist goes) 30 articles that I follow have been edited by these bots. This is 10% of my whole watchlist. I thought something was being made to randomize the selection of articles that get edited. However I have spam both from random articles (Qwerfjkl (bot)) and from 12 articles starting with "Ar" (Cewbot). It is really discouraging that I keep having to check that articles that I wrote years ago to make sure nothing is being messed up. Makes me not want to keep bothering about maintaining my watchlisted articles. Having only one of the bots run down on an alphabetic list is as bad as the two doing so. Please randomize the selection and synchronise the bots, or just slow down the edits. Kanashimi, Qwerfjkl. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus, I run the bot randomly on articles, so if you're suddenly having a lot of them being edited by my bot, it's just chance. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Qwerfjkl, I have 18 articles edited by Qwerfjkl bot in the last 48 hours. Normally it's around, say, 5-8. Is this chance, is the rate of editing the same? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, if anything, the rate of editing is slower. — Qwerfjkltalk 16:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, apologies for bothering you once again. Kanashimi, are there any technical issues for Cewbot to run on a random selection like Qwerfjkl (bot) seemingly does? Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Super Dromaeosaurus: you might be interested in Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard#Would/Should it be possible to hide/show the edits of specific bots? and surrounding discussions for hiding these specific bots' edits.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the inconvenience. I think you can minimize the impact of robotic editing by using the options mentioned above. Kanashimi (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kanashimi please could you confirm the editing speed? In terms of edits-per-minute (epm), just looking at 13:41, 10 February 2024 as a example, it's clearly over well 50 epm. I thought that was much higher than originally agreed, or have I missed something? -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I restarted it. To see if that's better. Kanashimi (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
14:54, 10 February 2024 is still running at over 50 epm (I didn't check the precise rate). -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed the settings, so I'm guessing that maybe the servers are better able to handle bot requests in the last couple days? Kanashimi (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's obviously above 40 epm. It looks like the bot's operation largely ignores WP:BOTPERF, particularly The urgency of a task should always be considered; tasks that do not need to be completed quickly (for example, renaming categories) can and should be accomplished at a slower rate than those that do (for example, reverting vandalism). and bots doing non-urgent tasks may edit approximately once every ten seconds. Pinging the blocking admin, Galobtter. May you review this case? Super Ψ Dro 19:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked and found that cewbot is roughly the same speed as Qwerfjkl (bot), but that bot doesn't seem to be bothering you. So maybe speed is not your reason? I'm a bit curious if cewbot is the only bot that's bothering you more? What kind of problem is it, and maybe I can figure out how to fix it. Kanashimi (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Qwerfjkl (bot)'s contributions, indeed they seem to be at the same rate, strangely. Both also seem to be over 40 epm by the way. I am bothered by the whole process but came to accept it until I noticed a sudden uptick a few days before I complained by starting this section. Today I had some 14 pages edited by the two of which only 3 were by Qwerfjkl (bot). Yesterday it was 17 with Qwerfjkl (bot) only having done 3. I am not sure what causes this. I would say it's the alphabetic order Cewbot uses. To be fair since we're already at M with Cewbot we might as well keep the editing based on alphabetic order. It's just the speed that I find really intrusive. For over a week now I've had to check edits on 5% of my watchlist each day. It is exhausting because I open Wikipedia and check some 6 edits after starting the day, leave and come some hours later just to find some other 6 edits to check. Also I think comments from me and other edits both at your talk page and at Qwerfjkl's show some editors do not wish to just hide the bots' edits. This is particularly true for Cewbot in my case as I know its edits go beyond this merger thing. I hadn't seen Qwerfjkl (bot) a lot around before.
May I add though that Qwerfjkl has also gotten complaints [52], other editors might have the opposite situation as mine. I think it all comes down to speed. Really, this isn't that urgent. The speed had gotten bearable until over a week ago. Super Ψ Dro 23:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your detailed investigation. Sorry for the delay. So it looks like we need both cewbot, Qwerfjkl (bot) to slow down together? In your case, what fraction of the current speed would be better? Kanashimi (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've asked on the bot noticeboard for this bot to be blocked.—S Marshall T/C 20:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PIQA class replacement[edit]

Regarding [53], [54], [55], [56], [57] & [58] from earlier this month - how come Cewbot replaced the previous PIQA-rating (also made by Cewbot) in those edits? The edits were made seconds apart from each other, and in each case replaced the PIQA-rating with the one not from WikiProject Lists (which belongs to Category:WikiProjects using a non-standard quality scale), so I'm wondering if this was a weird one-off event. (Apologies if this relates to a something that's already been fixed and/or something else I've missed.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 17:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reporting. I'll check what happen. Kanashimi (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This bug is fixed, I changed the program in #Future class which caused this bug, and fixed it here. Kanashimi (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep majority rating "D"[edit]

Has this been fixed: [59] ? Christian75 (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report. This is an old problem and has been resolved. Kanashimi (talk) 01:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice BOT :)[edit]

Nice way to remove your a-nother b-ot i-ssue from the comments and resolving those in the back. 103.173.124.51 (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with talk page vandalism[edit]

Hello, I don't really know the best thing the bot could've done after this IP vandalism to Talk:The Three Musketeers, but its edit several hours later wasn't that helpful. Graham87 (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, garbage in, garbage out, and I'm afraid that this corruption will have to be fixed by hand, because after the vandalism, the wikitext of the WikiProject banner shell has been turned into plain text that doesn't function anymore. Kanashimi (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fuuuuuuckkkking hell, there goes my watchlist being flooded again. See here's the thing—I cannot simply ignore talk pages from my watchlist, because then I'll miss actual messages from those which may have occurred before this bot came around. Unless my watchlist filters can be tweaked so as to only show talk pages which have had more than one edit in the space of 24 hours. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be because I recently started cleaning up {{WikiProject Albums}}. I've slowed it down to see. Kanashimi (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken anchor edits[edit]

For User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration Cewbot seems to just put Template:Broken anchors on the talk page if it cannot fix the anchor link. Is there a specific reason it does it this way instead of just putting a template on the article itself?

It's hard to know where in article it links to since the link can be later removed or edited anyway. Plus, the anchor notification is kinda hard to read because it blends into the rest of regular templates at top of talk (like Wikiproject info).

Personally I'd just add a template to the main article page, like Template:citation needed shows up inline. That way it's immediately obvious to editors where the potential anchor is. I'd also change a talk page notif (if one is needed) to a simple section on the talk page. For example Talk:1st_Academy_Awards#External_links_modified by the Internet Archive Bot. Soni (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This mechanism was originally based on User:WildBot/m04. But your suggestion seems interesting. I'll look into it some time. Kanashimi (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I kind of want to fix some of these broken anchors but each of them take too much time. The bot does not know when the edits were removed, and so I have to manually open the page, the talk page and sometimes the page history to confirm where said anchor is/if it still exists. One of the cases I didn't even realise that the anchor notif was on a redirect page, so the case was already handled. Of the 4-5 edits I noticed, most of them were actually fixed or removed within a couple days of the edit.
It might be worthwhile to rerun the bot on all pages with Template:Broken anchors already on them, so the template can be removed from all pages where it no longer applies. Probably after any other edits to the overall maintainence logic. Soni (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a suggestion that has been made User_talk:Kanashimi/Archive_1#Request for a slight expansion to the Broken anchors task before. However, it would require writing new code, so I'll have to wait until I have time to work on it. Kanashimi (talk) 23:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. Though if you consider converting them to inline templates, you don't need to check for "If the page has broken anchors". You can just remove all Template:Broken anchors, and then re-run the script for all those articles, adding an inline template to the article itself if needed. You get the added benefit of never needing any maintenance, as long as the template exists on the article text itself, it most likely has not yet been fixed.
Assuming the code can work as described, it'll solve two problems at once, so you probably don't need to write separate code for both Soni (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds a good idea. Kanashimi (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly incorrect Cewbot broken anchor fix[edit]

Hi, I had to revert this fix as it seemed to actually break a reference. I'm not sure why Shinn should link to a Subin citation. After the revert, it links to the seemingly correct Shinn source in the Sources section. Stefen Towers among the rest! Gab • Gruntwerk 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Thanks for the report. Kanashimi (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating[edit]

Hi Kanashimi, would it be worth running your bot through Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell without a project-independent quality rating or do these need manual review? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The robot periodically traverses these pages, using the same mechanism as it did the first time it ran them. Right now the ones in this category appear to be the most recent pages, and will be cleaned up automatically as soon as I've adjusted the bot. Kanashimi (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MSGJ The rest seem to be mostly non-standard ratings. Kanashimi (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove peer review pencil[edit]

Sometime in the last year, Cewbot began adding peer review pencil icons on the Vital list pages. Is there a reason why it was added? I find that it adds clutter to the page when the status is meant to reflect its current status. (Similarly, I can see the case for showing delisted GAs and former FAs but shouldn't failed GANs also be removed as icons?) czar 13:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I filtered them in User:Cewbot/log/20200122/configuration. Kanashimi (talk) 22:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you get rid of the FFA, ITN and OTD icons as well? We really only need to keep track of an article current status. SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit the configuration file according to the pattern. Kanashimi (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"São João River (Verde River)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect São João River (Verde River) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3 § São João River (Verde River) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mequéns River (Guaporé River)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Mequéns River (Guaporé River) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3 § Mequéns River (Guaporé River) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mequéns River (São João River)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Mequéns River (São João River) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 3 § Mequéns River (São João River) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot urgent problem[edit]

The bot is removing the vital parameter from every single vital article talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Came here to bring this up too. What is going on? --Grnrchst (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whats going on? Sebbers10 Your bisexual friend! 15:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kanashimi, I've blocked the bot for the time being. As soon as you're back online and you've fixed the problem, I'll happily unblock it or you can ask any other admin to unblock it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summaries reference Category:Articles not listed in the vital article list, and that category currently has over 31,000 pages in it. So the problem may be with whatever populates that category. --RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issue likely lies with the database report generation. [60]. Huge edits on the vital articles json files. – robertsky (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I accidentally broke it when I messed with the configuration? SailorGardevoir (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't notice that the configuration was corrupted. I've restored the profile, please unblock the robot, thank you. Kanashimi (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I've unblocked it. No need to apologise, the bot is only as good as the data it's fed! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SailorGardevoir: It does seem you broke the closing part of the HTML comment, which commented most of the configuration page (one of the dashes in the closing line got changed to an em-dash)... how did that happen? Special:Diff/1216801929 – 2804:F14:80EC:AB01:D0C2:97E3:6645:A903 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I used the wrong hyphen? SailorGardevoir (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Progress report: I am re-running the robot to recover the error. Kanashimi (talk) 01:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Kanashimi (talk) 03:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors tried to use the User talk:Cewbot/Stop page yesterday but apparently it did not stop the bot. What went wrong? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The robot will stop when the current batch has been processed, which is usually two or three hundred pages. I think it's because the batch isn't done yet. Kanashimi (talk) 11:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was not going to work well. Is there any way for it to stop immediately? Otherwise the bot has to be blocked completely in the event of malfunction. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more feasible to check a specific page before each batch of edits than to check a specific page before each edit. Or can you suggest a better way to do it? Kanashimi (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If every edit is too often, maybe check every 10th edit?
// main loop {
    $i++;
    doOneRegularEdit();
    if ( $i % 10 === 0 ) {
        if ( needToStop() ) {
            break;
        }
    }
}
–Novem Linguae (talk) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable. But it will have to wait for me to write some additional code. Kanashimi (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also what exactly happened with the talk_page_limit_for_editing setting?
As I pointed out at VPT when it happened, <the report> said that The amount of talk pages to edit exceeds the value of talk_page_limit_for_editing on the configuration page. Do not edit the talk pages at all., but the bot edited 1870 talk pages[61] before it was blocked.
The limit is and was 500, but the documentation reads as if it shouldn't have edited any talk page at all?. – 2804:F1...53:DD84 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I excluded the PIQA operation. This issue has now been fixed and PIQA will now follow this restriction. Kanashimi (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cinnia[edit]

Can you tell us about st.cinnia's miracles? 103.179.197.170 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not familiar with this topic. Kanashimi (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kinnia[edit]

Can you tell us about st.kinnia's miracles? And where her church? Justin B Tomy (talk) 18:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not familiar with this topic. Kanashimi (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cewbot - Normalize multiple issue templates[edit]

Greetings, Today I'm seeing Cewbot removing "Issues" from articles with two maintenance templates. It should not be doing this. Examples: here and here. Because the Orphan tag "disappears" after two months, does this mean article needs 3 tags to keep Orphan tag visible? Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because {{Refimprove section}} isn't in User:Cewbot/log/20150916/configuration#Maintenance template list and right, template_count_to_be_merged=3. Kanashimi (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the answer. It was my error, I changed those two from "Refimprove section" to just "Refimprove" instead. Wondering why "Refimprove" is missing from the bot Maint. list? JoeNMLC (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broken anchor fixes[edit]

Hi Kanashimi! I noticed Special:Diff/1219970705, and I just wanted to check whether or not this task should be running in namespaces other than mainspace. All the best :) ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 07:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a brief look through Cewbot’s contribs, I’ve also noticed things like Special:Diff/1219980350, Special:Diff/1219981528 & Special:Diff/1219981912, which I’m not sure if Cewbot should be doing. All the best. ‍—‍a smart kitten[meow] 07:59, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is due to the editing that occurs when the robot processes the archive page. (See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 86#Fixing broken links to talk page discussions and `archive_template_list` @ User:Cewbot/log/20201008/configuration.) Perhaps we can review what the limitations are? Kanashimi (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kanashimi/Archive_1&oldid=1221414213"