User talk:Mikeblas/Archives/2024/August
CS1 error on Bob Ferguson (politician)
[edit]
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Bob Ferguson (politician), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit summary
[edit]I did not delete a definition like you say I did here. I did remove a reference name that is used later on in the article. I did not realize this was the case but I'm not usually too concerned about it because a bot "rescues" refs if something like that happens. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- This probably sounds a bit more blunt and impolite than I intend. 😅 I mostly just wanted to say that they're technically called refnames and you don't necessarily have to cleanup after people manually if you see that in the future. I do appreciate you doing it regardless. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- The name of the aforementioned bot is AnomieBot. One of the tasks it runs is User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/OrphanReferenceFixer.pm. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- In this edit, you removed the definition of the reference
"Global Network of Sex Work Projects 2018". The edit summary doesn't explain why the reference definition might have been deleted. Was it an accident? That left the article with a visible "invoked but never defined" error, because the reference was used later. The article was automatically added to the Category:Pages with broken reference names error tracking category. To fix this, I replaced the reference definition. A bot might have fixed the issue, but they might not -- they might or might not attempt a fix, and nobody knows when or if they will. Meanwhile, the article is left in a broken state. Note that AnomieBOT has a long history of making incorrect fixes, so even if it did try, it might make matters worse. I think it would be more prudent to review your own edits for the problems they might have caused. -- mikeblas (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)- I generally do try to review my edits. But you're incorrect that "nobody knows when or if they will". AnomieBot is quite consistent and frequent in fixing these edits the few times I've made such a mistake. It's also really good at not making mistakes and is way better than a human on that front. I was telling you this because I was hoping to save you time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have a friend that understands technical things like bots more than I do. Their name is Chlod. I think they can tell me if I'm completely misrepresenting what the above bot is capable of because I am less technically inclined and maybe my above assertions are incorrect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to run every 6 hours. Anecdotally, AnomieBOT does get the orphaned reference fixing right most if not all of the time. But yeah, leaving the article in a broken state for at worst 6 hours is not best practice, more so for frequently-visited articles (but at least this one isn't). The definition should always be kept somewhere; you can always move the definition to one of the invocations (i.e. "re-use" on VE) if you wanted to remove the ref at that spot. It's a bit harder to do on source, but definitely still doable. Chlod (say hi!) 15:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. For what it's worth, I was not getting rid of the definition intentionally (I have done some reading and realized that my statement about that specifically was incorrect). I don't edit recklessly with the mentality of "oh someone/something will fix mistakes". My mentality is more "I try my best but sometimes I still make mistakes." I do appreciate a second opinion on how reliable the bot is. Ultimately, it's up to everyone on an individual level on how they wish to spend their time. I just wanted you to be aware that this bot does indeed exist. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks -- I'm quite aware the bot exists because I often fix its mistakes. You both might check out Bots Behaving Badly to see some notes I kept for a while about bad bot edits. Or, more recently, review my edits to List of British Jewish writers, where I cleaned up four or five bot edits that left irrelevant references while "rescuing" the article. -- mikeblas (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you. For what it's worth, I was not getting rid of the definition intentionally (I have done some reading and realized that my statement about that specifically was incorrect). I don't edit recklessly with the mentality of "oh someone/something will fix mistakes". My mentality is more "I try my best but sometimes I still make mistakes." I do appreciate a second opinion on how reliable the bot is. Ultimately, it's up to everyone on an individual level on how they wish to spend their time. I just wanted you to be aware that this bot does indeed exist. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to run every 6 hours. Anecdotally, AnomieBOT does get the orphaned reference fixing right most if not all of the time. But yeah, leaving the article in a broken state for at worst 6 hours is not best practice, more so for frequently-visited articles (but at least this one isn't). The definition should always be kept somewhere; you can always move the definition to one of the invocations (i.e. "re-use" on VE) if you wanted to remove the ref at that spot. It's a bit harder to do on source, but definitely still doable. Chlod (say hi!) 15:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have a friend that understands technical things like bots more than I do. Their name is Chlod. I think they can tell me if I'm completely misrepresenting what the above bot is capable of because I am less technically inclined and maybe my above assertions are incorrect. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I generally do try to review my edits. But you're incorrect that "nobody knows when or if they will". AnomieBot is quite consistent and frequent in fixing these edits the few times I've made such a mistake. It's also really good at not making mistakes and is way better than a human on that front. I was telling you this because I was hoping to save you time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- In this edit, you removed the definition of the reference
- The name of the aforementioned bot is AnomieBot. One of the tasks it runs is User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/OrphanReferenceFixer.pm. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)