User talk:TigerfellBot

Please discuss Task 'Undefined Elements' here.

Replacement text

Your suggestion is to replace the text with the previously static text that would have shown. Would it perhaps be better to surround the previous template with nowiki tags so editors who come across them can work out what they should be now? Taking the first page with errors that I picked at random, Talk:Tag:tourism=camp_site (which I've now updated) currently has

site relation: {{Relation|type|site}}

which needs updating to

[[Relation:site|site relation]]

and I think changing it to

site relation: Relation not defined yet for site 

might make that slightly harder to work out what used to be there (would have to check history) than say changing to

site relation: <nowiki>{{Relation|type|site}}</nowiki>

--EdLoach (talk) 08:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply.

The scope of this edit is the change of template calls with the first parameter empty. Sorry, I did not point that out clearly. I did not know that users used this template in such an unusual way. {{Relation|type|site}} would have been expanded to

 type site (iD, JOSM, Potlatch2, history, analyze)

Beware of the useless links (searching for a relation id = type). I think I missed some links, but you get the point. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 19:18, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion with Stevea

If I understand things correctly, a plan (which seems imminent or "soon," is it waiting for some sort of additional community approval?) to "fix" things so that a BrowseRelation call (which in turn calls Relation) that has an empty value will go back to the original behavior of returning a polite string of "Relation not defined yet" instead of a Lua error is "in the works." Thank you in advance and I welcome this return to the old behavior. I'm not sure if it is a code change or a bot changing all the wiki so it no longer has empty values in BrowseRelation calls, but either way seems a satisfactory solution. Stevea (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

First of all, please remember that both of us value the community's opinion, that means that I will not execute any plans while we still discuss about it (it was so obvious that I did not write that down). But if you want to know it, I planned to start the preparation October 10 around 10 am (UTC) and do the rest of the change (including the automated editing) at the following weekend (October 13 + 14). That would have assured a minimum of one week of discussions (or one week of no one speaking up). This scheduling is obsolete now anyway.

Yes, it is a "bot changing all the wiki", but it does not bring back the old situation as it will change the existing code only once. So, if you were to add {{relation|}} after the bot change, it would be broken. Would that be acceptable for you? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 23:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks for the good communication. One reason that this has been done (and done, and done...) is to "educate" new wiki users that they don't have to memorize or learn the (not-too-difficult to learn, truly) BrowseRelation syntax (it is simply a couple of curly braces and a vertical bar and a number) by putting in the empty valued version, then they just have to plug-in the number of the relation. I'll stop doing that, your bot will run, and at least between the two of us, things will be great! Other wiki-authors, I'm not so sure. I'm not sure how to "promulgate far and wide" the message of these changes, it did take a couple of weeks for you and I to both get connected (first by my post to talk-us that I noticed Lua errors, then Yuri and I exchanging three or four emails, then me discovering that the Relation Template talk page was an appropriate venue, then me getting connected to you, then you and I having this conversation here. That's a pretty long pipeline, and I think both of us would dislike for it to happen again, but I don't know the best way to prevent that in the future. Again, thanks. Stevea (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Bot Edits werden in Liste "Recent changes" angezeigt, obwohl Filter "Human (not bot)" angewählt ist

Siehe Überschrift, also wenn ich [1] anschaue (mit Filter: "Human (not bot)") werden die letzten Edits vom Typ (running task 'Slippymap': replacing Slippy Map extension with MultiMaps extension) des users:TigerfellBot angezeigt und nicht herausgefiltet. Hast Du eine Idee, woran das liegen könnte? Danke im Voraus. --MalgiK (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ja, das liegt daran, dass das Benutzerkonto nicht der Benutzergruppe Bot angehört. Soll ich die Bürokraten(en) bitten, TigerfellBot den Bots zuzuordnen? --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 21:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Interessant - Danke. Falls die "Slippymap"-Update Aktion bereits größtenteils abgeschlossen ist, wegen mir nicht. Dann reicht es wohl bevor der/das nächste grössere Task/Programm läuft. --MalgiK (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

minor change flaged as minor

The bot edition to change Proposed feature into Proposal: took place yesterday and seeing no place where it is discussed, I react here: I received email notifications during 6 hours and useful notifications on these pages will be disabled until I go to see the renaming change.
suggestion for next time:

• renaming these pages by a bot seems minor to me, marking this change as minor has the advantage of not drowning contributors with these notifications while continuing to have notifications of changes made after the bot
• add the url describing the operation in the change comment

Thanks for the improvement. Marc marc (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It was discussed at talk wiki in December 2022 (announcement). Current discussion is here. Looking at the list of the bot's contributions you can see that all page moves were marked as minor. You might have activated the option "Email me also for minor edits of pages and files" in your preferences. I did that and I also received e-mails.

thanks for the feedbaack. indeed those change are flagged as minor. but my references for "Email me also for minor edits of pages and files" is unset but I still get en email for all those change Marc marc (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the bot adds a specific bot flag to its changes so you can filter them in the list of recent changes.

add the url describing the operation in the change comment

I decided to use the internal wiki link instead because internal links work with edit histories (you can directly click on them as opposed to external links). I agree that this does not work with e-mails and since there is no link to a "diff" in the e-mail one might be a bit confused. --Tigerfell  (Let's talk) 13:44, 1 May 2023 (UTC)