User talk:Σ
 | I do not check my talk page. If you need to reach me, leave a message here AND send a copy to me via email.
The lowercase sigmabots and my Toolforge services are still running, but are unmaintained. In the event of crashes/outages/errors, note that aside from myself, User:0xDeadbeef, User:The Earwig, and User:Enterprisey also have administrative access and can troubleshoot. |
 | I cannot help with issues about archiving your own talk page. If you have read the documentation carefully and are still having problems, a prompt and friendly answer can usually be found by asking at the teahouse. |
 |
total number of archived discussions
[edit]Hello. I am not sure who is currently maintaining the bot, and who to ask this question/request (as you have been inactive here since 2 years).
Currently, I have a task to send out notifications for Teahouse thread/discussion archival (User:KiranBOT/Teahouse notification). For that task, it is crucial that Lowercase sigmabot III mentions the total number of discussions that were archived. For example, in this edit the bot archived 86 discussions in total, out of which 31 to "Archive 1246", and rest were to 1245. The edit summary says "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245". My request is, would it be possible to add the total number of archived discussions to the edit summary? ie, "Archiving 86 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245", if it is a lot complicated, then would following summary be possible "Archiving 31 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1246, Archiving 55 discussion(s) Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1245"? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- pinging @Enterprisey, The Earwig, and 0xDeadbeef: —usernamekiran (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I update the code at User:Usernamekiran/Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py. I have not tested it, but I think it would need some minor testing/fixing. Would you guys kindly do it? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think your solution with the yields will work correctly as you've written it. But either with your approach or a different one, this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. I'm swamped with personal things at the moment, but I've made a note to come back to this in a couple weeks if no one else takes a look. — The Earwig (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- oh. I was hoping it would work, or at least make it easier to find the actual solution. Thanks for the response, and for the help, it is appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've had a read with the original source code, and I am confused as to why the bot counts 31 in that case. It is supposed to count the number of sections it has removed, which should be correct. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think your solution with the yields will work correctly as you've written it. But either with your approach or a different one, this shouldn't be too difficult to fix. I'm swamped with personal things at the moment, but I've made a note to come back to this in a couple weeks if no one else takes a look. — The Earwig (talk) 00:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- I update the code at User:Usernamekiran/Lowercase sigmabot III/Source.py. I have not tested it, but I think it would need some minor testing/fixing. Would you guys kindly do it? —usernamekiran (talk) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Editor interaction analyzer suggestion
[edit]A thought: For the WP:Editor Interaction Analyzer, it'd improve the usability to have a dropdown list for the namespace restriction and database fields, so that it's harder to (as I just did) write "Commons" and then encounter an error and wonder why it wasn't working. (Re the banner at the top, I won't be emailing since this is a small thing. But cc pinging the other admins of your Toolforge tools, 0xDeadbeef, The Earwig, and APerson.) Cheers, Sdkb talk 02:01, 21 April 2025 (UTC)
- Honestly, you're right, the user experience there isn't very good. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
"😆" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect 😆 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/2025 April 29 § 😆 until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Where did you archive my comments?
[edit]You archived the topic I was engaged in on the Talk:Elvis Presley, but it’s not on the archive page 34 (the most recent). Where has it gone? QueenCoatsie (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) @QueenCoatsie: It's not been archived, and is still there; but you need to go to the bottom and click the "[show]" link on the WP:NOTAFORUM box to see it. It seems that some weeks ago, somebody tried to hide certain sections using collapsible boxes, but screwed it up, with the effect that more was hidden than was perhaps intended. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
- I've traced it back to this edit by Jpgordon (talk · contribs), where a
{{hab}}was moved from its original section into a different one. This meant that when threads were archived, the{{hat}}became divorced from the{{hab}}that it should have been associated with - they no longer pair up correctly, and so everything from the{{hat}}onwards is now hidden. I may need to spend some time sorting the mess. In the meantime, I've added a{{hab}}at the bottom of the same section that the{{hat}}occurs in, which will at least make subsequent sections visible again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC) - @QueenCoatsie: I've fixed it all up with these edits, so that each
{{hab}}is inside the same section as the associated{{hat}}. - @Jpgordon: In future, please make sure that each
{{hat}}/{{hab}}pair is inside the same section - that is, such a pair cannot enclose one or more level 2 headings. Enclosing level 3 subheadings is OK though. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2025 (UTC)- I usually don't even bother with such things; I was putting up the minimal effort to discourage the garbage. I'll be more careful with the hats in the future; thanks for the tip. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)