This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

18:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey, is there any update regarding the merge with ((Football squad player2))? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Nehme1499, not much. It is definitely doable and I did a handful a while ago but I'm simply too busy now that I've taken on a couple of additional responsibilities in real life since I said I would start. I doubt I will have the time and the desire to spend that precious time on this project in the near future. I'll drop a note on TFDH and see if someone else want to do it. --Trialpears (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

17:40, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

17:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

00:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

19:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

17:50, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

23:20, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Deprecate_linking_to_Wikipedia_books_in_templates_and_articles--Moxy- 14:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Moxy, thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 16:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, on several Portal pages, for In the News, the PearBot hasn't run since 6 March 2021. When I remove Template:template cache, then it works. See diff, thanks Funandtrvl (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Funandtrvl, thanks for reporting! I logged in as PearBOT that day to check some files in PearBOTs WP:PAWS page. That inadvertenly logged it out on toolforge which is where it runs automatically. I have migrated over everything manual to PearBOT 2 so this shouldn't be an issue again, but I'll look into some sort of activity monitoring for PearBOT. The page looks exactly the same with and without template cache but it uses several seconds less lua time. All portals where template cache is used have regularly been hitting the lua time limit of 10 seconds which means the bottom parts of the page failed to load. --Trialpears (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this! Funandtrvl (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

16:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, many pages in Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls after your edits. My bot attempted to fix some [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48], but more remain: User:Trekphiler/Aircraft template page (eng1 alt, eng1 main), User:Kettlebelly/Aircraft template page (eng1 alt, eng1 main), User:The Bushranger/X-18 (eng1 name, eng1 number, eng1 type), User:TeeTylerToe/sandbox (capacity), User:TGCP/Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II (eng1 alt, eng1 main), User:Semi-Lobster/sandbox3 (capacity), User:Scintillus/sandbox (capacity), ... Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Plastikspork Oh, didn't even consider that. Converting these templates is done with an AWB script with tons of rules which take them 90% of the way and often times gives a working version with the same data. I've cleaned up and double checked all the mainspace ones, but when I came to User sandboxes and abandoned subpages I just let the bot version be without cleaning up manually (of course taking care to fix the ones that we're either recently edited main userpages or for other reasons were inappropriate to convert without checking). This resulted in planes with multiple engines some types of capacity/useful load parameters and a bunch of ones with unused parameters to get duplicate arguments. I'm sorry for the inconvenience I caused, but it should be fixed now! --Trialpears (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

17:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

19:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

		The Bot Creator Barnstar
		For the short description bot PearBOT 5. Grimes2 (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Grimes2 Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on adding dates to ShortDescBot, and I was wondering whether you'll be releasing your updated code for PearBOT II task 5 under a free licence? You have a lot more experience than me and I was hoping you wouldn't mind if I borrow steal some of the regex you use to pull out dates.

Second question: you recently generated for me a plain-text list of articles based on a Wikipedia search. Could you let me know how that can be done, please? It could save a lot of time over the alternative of a Petscan search. Many thanks, MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

MichaelMaggs User:PearBOT/Biography short descriptions/source is now updated. I just realized I may have weird multi licensing issues after publishing it both on wiki and toolforge but whatever the licensing situation you're free to use it. While the date part has worked very well for several hundred cases I tested it only supports living people right now and it deals with politicians by skipping them. I've also found out that a lot of biographies have a category such as Category:1990 births but doesn't mention it elsewhere. I'm not sure how much I trust these since they are always unsourced. The first example I checked where this occured the year of birth was removed with the edit summary rm unreferenced personal details per WP:BLP. Do not reintroduce without reliable sourcesindicating that the category simply was forgotten. Thus I don't plan on adding category support in the future.

For the second question: I used the search generator in AWB to generate a list of articles, copied that, and then used Regex search and replace to replace all new lines with ]]\n[[ which makes all but the ends wikilinks. Probably not the most elegant way, but it's the quickest I've managed to come up with. --Trialpears (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears, many thanks! MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trialpears, I hope this message finds you well. Is there any way you can add to Template:Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music, to allow it to work with the various bibliographies for musicologists? See here, as an example. Best - Aza24 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 Done now. It uses |aid= (author-id) and |aname= and works in the same way as links to composers. Here is an example using the link you provided:

((DIAMM|aid=688|aname=Reaney, Gilbert)) generating

List of publications by Reaney, Gilbert at the Digital Image Archive of Medieval Music --Trialpears (talk) 19:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, many thanks! Aza24 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

PearBOT II recently added a short description at Gina Martin listing her birth year as 1993 even though this is only listed as her approximate birth year in the infobox. Not sure if this is a big deal, but thought I'd drop a note here in case you'd like to review. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, why is it adding "(born XXXX)" anyway? This is not standard for short descriptions of people and in most cases does not help disambiguate them. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Bolingbroke, that's suboptimal. I will make sure it adds "c." in these cases as recommended at WP:SDDATES before restarting it, but I don't think it's worth it to track down all descriptions affected by it.

Joeyconnick It adds it because of the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Short description/Archive 8#Dates in short description which resulted in the current version of WP:SDDATES being adopted where it's recommended. I'm personally doubtful on the usefulness of it and appreciate the conciseness of not including it, but consensus is consensus. --Trialpears (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh my gods, that's APPALLING. I was wholly unaware. What a terrible decision. —Joeyconnick (talk) 21:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add that I also do not think having a bot automatically add a birth date in the short description is helpful as in many cases this information is not cited and it could be contributing to spreading misinformation. Helper201 (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

16:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trialpears: You seem to be abreast of this matter, so here goes. Is the ((Friendly search suggestions)) template actually going to be merged into the talk page notice, meaning that are all of the additional search options the FSS template has that the talk header template presently does not be included? Right now, the talk header template is missing the following search options that are existent in the FSS template:

• Archive.org
• Bing
• DuckDuckGo
• Free image search
• Gigablast
• Microsoft Academic
• Questia
• WorldCat
• Yahoo
• Yandex
• Washington Post

It is my sincere hope that all of the fine search options existent in the FSS template are not forgotten or omitted, and consensus at the discussion (here) was for all to be merged. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Northamerica1000, hm I wasn't really that involved with the implementation other than going through and removing some of the last remaining uses manually yesterday. Perhaps ProcrastinatingReader who closed the discussion and added the sources to the header and Primefac who did most of the removals have more thoughts here. --Trialpears (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth a discussion at Template talk:Talk header or Template talk:Find sources on which links to include as defaults. Immediately I don't intuitively see the value in linking to multiple different search engines for example (Google + Bing + DDG + Yahoo + Yandex). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Thing is, though, consensus was to merge, not to selectively merge. As such, the full merge should occur, because again, that was the WP:CONSENSUS. First of all, I thought from the start that the idea to merge all of the various search templates would be problematic, with the end result potentially being search options dumbed-down for those that perform research to improve articles, such as myself. Google is not always the best search engine for various topics either. Also, what about users that don't want all of their searches databased by Google? See "Why Google keeps your data forever, tracks you with ads", where it states "Google logs an astonishing amount of data, including the search logs from its flagship product. It keeps this data indefinitely...". This alone is a strong reason to include search engines other than just Google, as is presently in place. Why on earth should Wikipedia only support Google search, and no other, and why on earth would we want to limit people's options to perform searches to improve articles? Makes no sense whatsoever. This is exactly what I was worried about with this mess; despite the clear Merge result, then the actual merge is not performed, then more discussions occur, wasting more time. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Whilst the consensus was mainly on redundancy, I think to some degree it was synonymous with the differences on supported links being an arbitrary choice. As in, generally, one can't just fork a template, decide which links to support, put that on some pages, and someone else can do the same with different links on other pages. (An example of a valid time something like this could be done would be anything topical like medical articles, which have specific sources like PubMed. But this particular example isn't topical, it's generalised.) I think either Template:Find sources should be edited to add those links by default, or they shouldn't be the default anywhere. A discussion could take place on the template talk (or at the VP) to introduce more links, I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: So now, the ((Friendly search suggestions)) template is being eagerly removed from talk pages, and the notion of actually performing the merge according to the consensus that occurred is being ignored in favor of "having another discussion". I use the FSS template all the time, and now, instead of a proper merge being carried out, as was the consensus at the discussion, the notion of omitting data is being posited. Sorry, but this is just backwards; not the way things are supposed to work. The consensus should be respected. Plus, omitting the other searches just creates more unnecessary work for users who perform research. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I see where you're coming from, but it also wouldn't be acceptable to introduce more defaults into Template:Find sources as a result of the TfD. In part because there's no indication in the discussion that editors actually believe all the disparate links are of value. Most, if not all, the discussion was on the value of find sources functionality, not on any particular links. There was some mention of topical links (eg medical ones), but that's about all I see at a skim. Not sure what the consensus is on which links are considered useful; only way to know would be another discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: I disagree, because there is almost no mention of selectively merging based upon the types of links, and lots of commentary stating merge all. "Merge all" means just that in my opinion, to merge all into one template, not only some of their content, or none, as is the case with the FSS search terms being entirely omitted. Aaaah, just another Wiki mess to clean up, I suppose. You NAC-closed the discussion, and now you're stating that since particular links were not discussed, then no merge will occur, despite clear consensus in the discussion for all to be merged. I find this disappointing, because this type of problem occurs all too often nowadays on Wikipedia; consensus isn't followed in favor of WP:SUPERVOTE-style ideation from discussion closers, who then prevent the actual consensus of discussions from transpiring. Please consider changing your mind. I don't have much time to waste on this type of blather; consensus is formed, and then consensus is ignored because of (fill-in-the-blank) variable that wasn't discussed in the discussion. Please let me know if you start a discussion on one of the talk pages. Better yet, just perform the full merge, as was the consensus. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's more ambiguous than you say. The full vote is Merge all, add ((Find sources)) into ((Talk header)). Does this mean scrap all the separate templates in favour of ((Talk header)) with ((Find sources)) added to it? Or does it mean add the union of all the links into ((Find sources)) and then add that into ((Talk header))? I suppose the question could be posed to everyone who commented in the discussion by pinging them to it (perhaps, for absolute clarity, with a mockup of the two versions). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: See also: Module talk:Find sources § Why does this link to Google?; a post from another user I found there. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec)

... it is well-known that Google is very privacy-invasive. On a site like Wikipedia, which was founded on the ethos of freedom and ethics in software and technology, why are we heavily linking to a company's services that are the complete opposite of that?

I'm not saying your point about privacy is right or wrong. Tbh, I don't personally care what the links end up looking like. I'm just saying a reasonable argument can be made for either, and it's not clear to me from that discussion that there was any discussion (much less a consensus) on this particular. It's ambiguous. So if you want a tweak on this detail, I don't really see a shortcut other than further discussion with a sample of both mockups. Either the point is as obvious as you say, and it'll just be a mild inconvenience for editors to affirm that opinion and take no longer than a few days (probably), or they'll opine otherwise and then we'll have that to go by. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

(ec) @ProcrastinatingReader: There were four templates discussed at the discussion. It is obvious that when all of those folks wrote, "Merge all, add ((Find sources)) into ((Talk header))", they were essentially stating to merge all of the templates into the ((Find sources)) template, and to then add the Find sources template to the Talk header. When people say to "Merge all", they are certainly not stating to "scrap all the separate templates" as you state above. Merging is not deletion. I am astounded that this is not clear to you. It is very plainly obvious they were referring to merging into the Find sources template, and it's obvious for the updated Find sources template to then be added to the Talk page header. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

– It is obviously implied that the merge target is the Find sources template, because it is the template stated directly after the comma in those !votes. Why would all of those users say "merge all" without providing any merge target, and then state to separately add the Find sources template to the Talk page header without any merge occurring. It makes no sense that all of those users would all think that way, to merge to some unidentified target and then perform the Find sources addition without any merge occurring. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Then surely it can't hurt to ping them all to a discussion with the two versions side by side (so everyone is on the same page) asking them to leave a short comment confirming that this is, indeed, what they meant? That way we don't need to do comma analysis. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: That appears to be one way forward at this time, at least from your perspective. Would you like to initiate the discussion? I will be off wiki soon, and my time varies, but this matter does need to be resolved. Thus far, you're the only one I have come across who seems against the merge of FSS being performed. For starters, as the NAC-closer of the discussion, you should be rather impartial, rather than heavily involved in the matter. You also come across as uncertain about your own discussion closure at this time. Perhaps the discussion should have been allowed to continue for a bit longer, or would have been better off closed by an administrator.

It seems obvious to me that "merge all," means "merge all", and that the comma was used to connect that sentiment to merging all to the Find sources template, and then adding the Find sources template to the Talk page header. Omitting a merge of the Friendly search suggestions template makes no sense, because "all" means "all", not "some".

Since you closed the discussion, I feel that you should initiate the discussion with mockups, although I feel that you may be doing so per some personal desire to omit the FSS search criteria, in part per what you stated above, " Immediately I don't intuitively see the value in linking to multiple different search engines for example (Google + Bing + DDG + Yahoo + Yandex)". You're ignoring the consensus from the discussion in favor of your own opinion; this is not how Wikipedia functions whatsoever, nor should it be. Wikipedia is driven by consensus, not by the discussion closer. Please familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Consensus policy page.

It doesn't matter if you personally don't see the inherent value or not, because you closed the discussion. What matters is that other users saw the value, and !voted as such to "merge all", not some. You should not be making WP:OWNERSHIP-like decisions regarding the merge after closing the discussion. If anything, you should withdraw participation entirely in this matter and I will either perform the merge myself or attain assistance in doing so.

I get the impression that you're possibly against the merge occurring. Would the FSS template parameters "clutter" the Find souces template too much? Meantime, consensus is being held up while you or someone devises mock-ups, initiates a discussion when one with a rather clear consensus has already occurred, waits for a new consensus to occur when one already exists, and only then performs the merge as was desired by overall consensus. Your approach of resisting the merging of "all" from occurring is troubling, and also inappropriate, in my opinion. If you felt this way, you should have !voted in the discussion, rather than closing it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's take a step backwards before we take a step forwards. Some of the words you put in quotation marks (implying I've said them?) don't appear to be quotes from my message at a glance. e.g. I haven't used the word "clutter". Also, I'm not "uncertain about my closure". What you're asking is a question about a detail not in the discussion. I can't impose a preference on that detail (in your favour or anyone else's), even if I had one, because there is no ascertainable consensus on that detail in the discussion, because it wasn't explicitly discussed. Performing a lexical analysis trying to guess what people meant doesn't make sense to me. Either people want more links added or they don't, and I don't think there's any lexical analysis of that discussion which can answer that question, verses directly posing that question to editors.

There were concerns raised in the discussion by editors about potentially bloating the talk header (quote from my close: Those against the idea argue ... that adding additional words to it would be bloating it), and on that basis I'm saying that my feeling is that your interpretation may not be as unobjectionable as you believe. What you're asking me to do (presumably, as I was pinged to this discussion in my role as closer) is say that I agree with your interpretation and give an "OK" for you to add links to ((Find sources)). I'm not sure if there is consensus to do that, so I won't say there is (next thing you know, someone will object to it, and you'll point to a diff with my name on it giving an 'OK'). If, instead, you're not asking for my interpretation on the close (as the closer) and are instead just asking for something to be done, then note that I'm not standing in your way. I haven't touched the merge for months and am not currently implementing it. So I guess you can ask Trialpears, or edit the template ((Find sources)) yourself if you wish. I'm not standing in your way, objecting to that change, or saying I'll be reverting it. I'm simply saying I don't think that's what the consensus in that discussion was, so I'm not going to put my name under the change. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nb. I posted a comment regarding this matter at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#Other. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the easiest way to deal with this is starting a discussion about what links to include at Module talk:Find sources, probably with pings to TfD participants or advertising at some more prominent talk page. I haven't read the entire TfD since October, but I've had a quick look and have to agree with PR that there probably is no consensus on what links to include and further discussion is the only way to solve that. Ideally this question should have been brought up early in the process when implementing, but it wasn't. Which I can't really blame anyone for since it wasn't much discussed at TfD.

Being part of the implementation of a TfD you closed is common and it can happen that you get more involved than a closer arguably should after the fact when doing so, it has happened to me to. It looks quite bad when it happens but I'm not concerned about PR adding ((find sources)) to ((talk header)) over a month after they made the close.

If you want my assistance with any of the technical parts I'm happy to help out, but I won't comment on what is the best implementation would be since I don't have any strong feelings on the matter. Regardless of what happens next I doubt my talk page is the best venue for that discussion. --Trialpears (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

21:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think this discussion and the TfD should be resolved somehow? There hasn't been any further discussion after my last post on 19 April. It's not really come to any conclusions either besides the already-established position of not saying ((#invoke:)) in mainspace. User:GKFX^talk 21:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

GKFX I've made a module section since the discussion didn't look to progress like you said. I suspect there will be some edits to it though. With regards to the TfD I don't plan on doing anything though. --Trialpears (talk) 23:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

15:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to ask about the weather templates. I saw they still exist and just wanted to know when the talkpage banners will be changed over. Noah^Talk 18:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah Just the never ending problem of me taking on too many tasks simultaneously. I'll start working on it now. Will almost certainly be completely handled within the week. --Trialpears (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah All done now. Just let me know if there are more mergers you want me to deal with! --Trialpears (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• Two more mergers for now:

• Template:WikiProject Severe weather
• Template:WikiProject Non-tropical storms

Note that some of these articles are already in other taskforces for WP Weather. These projects have been merged into WP Weather and turned into task forces btw. I dont have a count on how many pages have multiple banners, but some do have 2 or 3 banners right now. Noah^Talk 20:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Hurricane Noah I'll take care of those as well then. I saw there may be some mergers going on with Template:WikiProject Meteorology as well. Do you know anything about this? --Trialpears (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have to manually sort them into task forces since they are all unsorted. Noah^Talk 22:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

WP Severe weather is now disputed. They waited until after we had two discussions and began to merge before objecting. Noah^Talk 04:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright ping me with a link to the relevant discussion if and when you want me to have a look at it. --Trialpears (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

15:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear, I hope Alhamdulillah is well with his family in this pandemic situation. This article or section needs sources or references that appear in credible, third-party publications. And as far as I know, it is not necessary to give the reference of the translated article, because the reference is already given, that tie becomes automatic. And yes the page was removed earlier due to lack of significant references and now I have fixed the references which are approved by the Government of Bangladesh. So you are requested to review the page again. Should I move the article to the main title? And I will use the Chittagong University Museum article for more information. I thought that since I would translate from Bengali to English and the references would remain the same so I did not feel the need to give new references. Thanks. --Aftab0199 (talk) 13:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Aftab0199 I'm unsure what you want me to do and am not familiar with the previous article. I don't recall editing the article although my bot or I may very well have performed some maintenance. If you translate an article you should include the sources in the translated article as well. It's difficult for English speakers to visit and understand which source is for what content at another Wikipedia. I would recommend that you go through the articles for creation process where someone can review your article and if it has several appropriate sources and a neutral point of view it will likely be accepted. --Trialpears (talk) 17:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Trialpears, interested in turning this blue? Was looking around for possible candidates. If so please look over this page and this page. Then think of what the answers to these initial questions would be:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

If you are interested and have answers to those questions feel free to ping me for review and a possible nomination. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Xaosflux I do happen to have plans on turning that link blue in the quite near future. I already have two nominators I trust but I'm glad you're reaching out. I think there are a bunch of other editors that could be willing to take up the mop if they know several experienced admins like yourself think they would be a good candidate. --Trialpears (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

13:48, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	My diet consists of wet socks and expired ketchup Pink Saffron (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Pink Saffron Thanks? Please enjoy this bottle then, the upload date was in 2007 so most definitely expired by now. --Trialpears (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello T. I did think your post at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#A link bot was funny without a hint of snark. I apologize if my post caused offense. Thanks for all you do here at the 'pedia and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 21:25, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

MarnetteD not at all! I know it can be difficult to convey tone in text and just wanted to make sure that it wasn't interpreted incorrectly. Have a good week! --Trialpears (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks T :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

A token of thanks Hi Trialpears! I've nominated you to receive a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation. Enjoy! Cheers, ((u|Sdkb)) talk 18:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb Wow that's increadibly kind of you! I haven't actually looked into this initiative before and it looks quite great. Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it's definitely a hidden resource! I forget where I first came across it (it wasn't since I was nominated lol), but I've been trying to make it more active recently since there are many many editors who deserve the thanks for hard work (you among them ). ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 03:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Trialpears! I don't know what this edit summary means -- are you saying we can get rid of the bot parameter in search box template? I'm all for making this the simplest it can be, as it's basically for me and others who can't remember off the top of their heads the required code. And who really don't care to understand the entire process at Help:Archiving, just want to quickly set up archiving while avoiding breaking anything. —valereee (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee The bot parameter just adds what bot archives the page to the archiving notice which I don't think anyone cares about. For all intents and purposes Cluebot and lowercase sigmabot are equivalent, even for people working with archiving like myself. There wasn't any consensus on this point when the feature was added though and I didn't want to stall the addition of the auto archiving notice. What really matters, however, is the archiving period specified with |age=. I noticed Help:Archiving gives some poor advice on this point though which I will fix. --Trialpears (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

17:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello! Would you consider creating a page for American actress Karen Bankhead? https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0052071/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0 New Attitude (series) on wikipedia. Thank you very much for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaphneeK (talk • contribs) 02:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello DaphneeK! I do not plan on creating that article. I would recommend going through the articles for creation process where you create a draft at Draft:Karen Bankhead and submit it for review when you believe it would be ready to be published as an actual article. I also noticed that there has been a previous draft that was deleted in 2015. You could request it being brought back at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion.

As with all articles it is important that there are multiple reliable sources about the subject. That would not include the imdb page, the fandom wiki, her social media profile and so on. Based on a quick google search I doubt you will find enough sources to get it included, but you're always free to try. --Trialpears (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello Everyone --Diep.Bui.73 (talk) 08:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I asked a question at your RfA and another user has struck it and is now arguing about it on the talk page. I want you to know it was never my intention to bring any sort of controversy to your RfA. I did not expect a difference of opinion about how RfA is handled to be brought into your RfA like this.

I just want you to know that you can answer or not answer, I am not going to hold it against you either way. I am sincerely curious about what you think, but I am not going to sweat about it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Swedish bot service

Thank you for quality articles such as Gasklockan, Gothenburg, and the list of countries by Human Development Index by region, for creating bot functions and dealing with templates for discussion, for offering admin service, for "that looks both feasible to do and sensible to put in a template", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2610 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Hey Trialpears, can you please ask your wonderful bot to adjust its ((User scripts table)) output like this? The bot is putting text inside a table but outside of any cells, which is causing Linter errors on those template pages. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 Will do, I'm not super excited about making it edit outside the Template cache bottom comment, but it seems to be necessary here. --Trialpears (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I suppose you could wrap it in a colspanning borderless row and cell of its own, but whatever happens, it can't just be stray text in between table rows. That makes Linter sad and attracts gnomes, which is the last thing your helpful bot needs. Ugh, gnomes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 I'll just put it straight after the table close tag. Exam week is starting for me tomorrow though so it will probably have to wait until the end of the week. I'm so sorry to annoy you gnomes now that you're close to emptying all templates of lint errors. --Trialpears (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Just jumping in here to wish you all the best in your exams. MichaelMaggs (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Trialpears (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

”I ... tend to be as easily distracted as a dog seeing a squirrel”. Exam week going well then? MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I it went well, though it would have been even better if there weren't so many Wikipedia Squirrels. I should try to hunt them all down before next time... --Trialpears (talk) 10:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, should be easy enough to fix up Wikipedia by then. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Jonesey95 Alright it should be all fixed now, there was some added complexity when dealing with noincludes as well but that should be resolved as well. Remaining lint errors should be fixed with the next update (which should be within 24 hours). --Trialpears (talk) 21:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

It looks good to me now. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

20:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Chy is single (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Chy is single Thanks! It's really cute! --Trialpears (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)