User talk:Anne drew

Did I mess up? Need help with something? Start a conversation

Annotated links

I'm probably being dim but I installed your javascript and...? now what? I guess I expected an entry in the 'tools' section of the left hand column, like "RefRenamer" and "expand citations". What have I missed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JMF! The button will show up in the editing toolbar when you enter edit mode on an article with a "See also" section. I've improved the docs and added a screenshot - let me know if that helps! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back.

Well the good news is that I can see the FSA button and, on clicking it, pop-up asks if I want to resort alphabetically. But there is no evidence that it applies the {{anli}}. See ~~(history of)~~ Polish constitutional crisis, for example? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:13, 22 September 2025 (UTC) revised to remove "history of" because, as there were no changes, my 'edit' wasn't published. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Hey JMF! The script skips certain links - for example links to articles without short descriptions or disambiguation pages - to avoid cluttering the markup. In Polish constitutional crisis, several links are redirects, which get skipped to prevent showing irrelevant descriptions (since redirects often point to different topics or article subsections). I've updated the script's notification to show exactly how many links were skipped and why. Hope that helps! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:58, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being too strict (sic?). I have just added ANLIs manually to that article and the results seem fine. The only one I changed was Polish Ombudsman to use the long title instead. This is a fairly typical level of intervention required when annotating a See Also – it can't (shouldn't

) be done blindly.

Redirects should be annotated too. Any that redirects to a section should have its own SD (if it doesn't, that's an error). So maybe you should flag any redirect articles found as needing a check? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear ya, omitting redirect links from formatting might help avoid inaccurate descriptions, but there should be a way to include them anyway when it makes sense. I'll work on it, might take me a few days though! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun, I suspect that "this one will run and run". I never expected it to be easy. Thank you for doing this work.

I've been using {{annotatedlistoflinks}} quite a lot since its release and found that most redirects are fine. It is usually obvious when the displayed SD seems irrelevant: occasionally that's just a bad SD but more often it identifies a redirect to section without its own SD (which I have then had to fix).

There was some discussion at the anli talk page about identifying SDs inherited from Wikimedia and how that is a Bad Thing™. I mention it now only because that is maybe a featurette you might include in a future release. It may be helpful to be aware of it, to pre-empt the "now he tells me" syndrome. No obligation. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bunch of updates! Thanks for all your input, interested to hear what you think of the latest version. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, still not working for me. I tried Bill of Rights 1689. It offered to change two redirection names (to their primary targets): I chose one (the Toleration Act, which had the wrong date) and left one as a control. Nothing in the preview suggested that the {{anli}} had been applied (nor that the date of teh Act had been corrected), but I 'published' anyway. But, as you can see from the article history, nothing was published. Doing it again and clicking Changes says that nothing has changed... ? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JMF, I think I understand the confusion. That redirect modal allows you to wrap redirect links in {{anl}} templates - it doesn't replace the redirect links with direct links to the target page. I've updated the modal text and layout to clarify this behavior. Not sure I intend to support replacing redirect links entirely - that feels like it runs counter to WP:NOTBROKEN. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, definitely do not replace a redirect article link. Though if it is a "redirect to section" without its own SD, it would be great if you would highlight that fact, as it is an error. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although if the script isn't making changes at all, that certainly is a problem. It seems to be working as intended for me now - see diff (I selected just the "UK constitutional law" link in the modal). Is it possible you misclicked the newly added "undo" button (which reverts the section back to its initial state)? Or if it's really not working, can you let me know the browser you use and the version? Thanks Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, not working for me at all, although it seems to start out ok (example this time is Act of Settlement 1701) and I'm editing the See Also section [not the whole article]:

First I get Sort Links {{|}} Sort links alphabetically? {{|}} Yes No [replied yes]
Next I get Review descriptions for redirect links {{|}} These links are redirects. Their descriptions may come from the target page and could be misleading. Select which to format with descriptions: {{|}} Link text {{|}} Description {{|}} List of New Zealand monarchs {{|}} New Zealand sovereign and head of state from Monarchy of New Zealand
- Is this a beta-test diagnostic phase? I don't see why this is needed – in general, a redirect to the top of an article is no more misleading than SDs in general. The most I would do is identify it as redirect, without further comment. BUT IF, as I remarked above, it is a redirect to section without its own SD, that certainly should be flagged.
- I suggest that you positively identify articles that have no SDs rather than simply ignoring them. The major advantage of using {{Annotated list of links}} [and presumably your.js] is to identify such omissions and motivate fixing them. (List articles generally don't have SDs but no harm done.)
I chose Format selected then... nothing. No further messages, no anl{ prefixes, zilch.

No,definitely didn't use your revert key. I'm using Chrome Version 139.0.7258.164 (Official Build) (64-bit) [aka current live version]. I have other javascripts installed which all seem to work (are you allowed access to User:JMF/common.js, to see if there is anything odd? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ps I enabled "show JavaScript errors": no errors reported. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JMF, I figured out the source of the issue. Turns out wikEd is incompatible with scripts like FormatSeeAlso that interact with the editing area. For now, you can follow these instructions from the documentation:

Many of these scripts will still work if wikEd is temporarily turned off by pressing the button, making the changes, and re-enabling wikEd.

I will look into making the script compatible with wikiEd this weekend. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 13:50, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was just so obvious

How could we have missed it until now?? <tease emoji>

I ran it again on Act of Settlement 1701 and it worked with one serious exception: Royal Succession Bills and Acts is a simple redirect to Royal succession bills and acts, so it is entirely legitimate and necessary to inherit the latter's SD and show it. That is a show-stopper for me.

[I didn't save, so that we can continue to use it as a test bed.] 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it's working! You should be able to select the Royal Succession Bills and Acts row in the redirect modal and click "Format Selected". This "See also" section is a good example of why the confirmation step is needed, because we don't want to format the List of New Zealand monarchs link with the description New Zealand sovereign and head of state, which doesn't match. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And that's a great example to show why the correct response would be for you to report that List of New Zealand monarchs is a redirect to a section but does not have its own short description. Short description not inherited and link not annotated. In this case, you should not even offer to inherit the SD from the redirect target. (It needs an SD=none but let it stand until we've finished testing.)

(I"m on mobile right now so the retest will be later.)

And if you were being a real stickler for precision, you would report Royal Succession Bills and Acts is a redirect. Annotation inherited from target article. But that's just a nice to have. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back on desktop, may I question this popup:

Review descriptions for redirect links
These links are redirects. Their descriptions may come from the target page and could be misleading. Select which to format with descriptions:

If the redirect is unqualified, then the short description is not misleading, by definition. (or if it is, that's a broader problem and so 'out of scope'). So there is no need to request confirmation. Just do it.
If the redirect is qualified (because it is a redirect to section and does not have its own SD), the annotation is misleading, also by definition. Therefore you should not even offer to attach it, though ideally you should say why not. [Although I said that "ANLs should not be done blindly", I'm sure that you have seen as many cases where some people do use these tools blindly and carelessly, so let's code defensively.]

𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "qualified" in this context? Just that it redirects to a section? Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:25, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. (I'm using "qualified" in the sense of "with conditions or cautions attached". Best word I could come up with.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I don't think this is a safe assumption: If the redirect is unqualified, then the short description is not misleading, by definition.

As I've been using the script, there have been numerous examples of redirects from related topics or sub-topics which do not point to a section. This is allowed by WP:RPURPOSE: Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include... Subtopics or other topics that are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.) – emphasis mine.

There might, however, be some specific cases where we can assume the unqualified redirect description is accurate, like if the only difference is capitalization/casing (e.g. Some Topic → Some topic). Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:45, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow?

"Redirect to section" is entirely valid, no question. Not inly allowed but encouraged, I must have created over a hundred of them. And "redirect to anchor", even better.
- Such "qualified" article should have their own SDs, but only because it is good practice, not because of any policy.
  - If it does, then we can use it with anli but if it does not, then we can't use the SD from the target article – because we know that in all probability it will be inaccurate.
"Redirect to article" (at the top level) is also entirely valid, there are thousands of them. Almost always they are alternative spellings or alternative names (e. g., "period" v "full stop". So there is no good reason for the redirect to have its own SD and every good reason to inherit the SD from the target. This kind of redirect is saying that theses are two names for the same thing, they are identical.

Does that make sense? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect to article"... This kind of redirect is saying that theses are two names for the same thing, they are identical.

This is where I disagree. Both according to the redirects guideline and certainly in practice, there are unqualified redirects that don't point to an exact synonym. I'll grant that usually they do redirect to exact synonyms, but that isn't always the case. For example Environmentalist redirects to Environmentalism, and would be given the description Philosophy about Earth protection which doesn't make sense.

As another example, formatting the redirect links in Influence peddling § See also would result in Money trail being formatted with the description Catchphrase involving political corruption from Follow the money, which isn't accurate.

I'm more open to your feedback about qualified redirects - let me mull on that a bit. Not sure exactly how that should work. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 22:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair. I forgot about cases like Environmenalist/Environmenalism. And yes, there are a lot of those, it is not a rare exception that we can declare de minimis. Money trail is another good example. Rats.

So what can we do about it? Well the only solution I can come up with off the top of my head is, when the user selects no, to throw up a dialogue box inviting them to key in a local annotation. Maybe I'll have a better idea tomorrow.

---

By the way, what made you choose the word format rather than annotate? The latter is the long-standing term. To me, 'formatting' implies something like using bold or serif, SMALL CAPS, w i d e r spacing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few updates to the script, including:

Making it compatible with wikiEd
Handling links wrapped in quotes like "[[1984 (novel)|1984]]" properly
Using the word "annotate" instead of "format" in the redirect modal
Removing the confirmation step for redirects that are just differences in casing/punctuation

The idea of a custom UI for entering manual descriptions is interesting. I'll think about implementing that, but for now I don't find it too cumbersome just to key them in manually. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 19:10, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good so far! Great work, I already love this tool! Sorry, {{annotated list of links}}, it was nice knowing you but we need to move on in our lives.

Anomalies I discovered on a random walk:

At End of World War II in Europe, the entry Allied Commissions [sic] was not processed. There will be a lot of these "pluralisations". They need to be converted into {{anl|Allied Commission|Allied Commissions}}. (At Template:Annotated link/doc, a number of these special cases are described (and I can see you correctly handle the most common case, the ones where italics are needed. Applause!). The others are a lot more complicated so maybe keep for the next release?)
When an article has no SD (as opposed to SD=None), you really should flag it up for attention, not just skip it without explanation.
When the link is a "redirect to section or anchor" without its own SD, this needs to be flagged more 'vigorously' than "could be misleading". IMO, it is better to refuse to annotate than to offer the SD from the whole article.
At Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II, the article Russian Monument (Liechtenstein) is a redirect to section. (It didn't have its own SD, it does now, I have added it: {{anl|Russian Monument (Liechtenstein)}} correctly produces Russian Monument (Liechtenstein) – Memorial to Russian soldiers in the Wehrmacht, given asylum in 1945.) Erroneously, the script ignored the new SD and fetched the SD from the target. Not good. (I have left it unchanged so that you can use it to test the fix.).

I hope you find this useful. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 22:36, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JMF! Thanks, that is super useful. A few more updates for ya:

Agglutinated links like [[Allied Commission]]s are now handled properly
Redirects with their own descriptions are automatically accepted - not shown in the redirect dialog
Redirects without their own descriptions pointed to a section are automatically skipped - not shown in the redirect dialog
Abbreviations like [[United States]] (US) are now properly converted to {{anl|United States|abbr=US}}

I'm still thinking about how to flag links that are missing descriptions. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can distinguish between articles missing descriptions and those that have it intentionally set to "None" - they both appear the same in the Mediawiki API. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 21:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, we can just check if the article contains {{Short description|none}}. Simple enough. I put up a new version of the script that alerts you of any pages truly missing a short description. There might be some bugs still - it's hard to account for every possible scenario, so let me know if I've missed any! Anne drew (talk · contribs) 01:46, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's great work. I did a few dozen more yesterday and didn't discover any new anomalies. (But did find it super easy to use, which is why it was a few dozen and not just a few!)

If I find anything else, I'll let you know.

In my edit summaries, I've learned that it is wise to say why exposing SDs is a good idea, that it helps readers identify which articles will be of interest to them. It has meant a lot less knee-jerk reversions and long explanations. Is it possible to expand the tool's automated edit summary to include the reason why? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JMF, glad to hear its working well! Yes, the edit summary can be improved - I will work on that next. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:24, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:FormatSeeAlsoUndo.png

Thanks for uploading File:FormatSeeAlsoUndo.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dialog window

If you wish to avoid unnecessary reverts, please do this before that. It's not what you know, it's what you show.

You might want to add this meaning to wikt:modal, it seems to pass wikt:WT:ATTEST. Paradoctor (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 15:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, belay that. It's already listed at wiktionary:modal § Noun. Sorry, my bad. Paradoctor (talk) 15:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FormatSeeAlso.js

I note that you've been formatting "See also" sections using FormatSeeAlso.js. However, not every link in this section needs a description attached to it, nor does it always make sense to list the links alphabetically. So, it would be appreciated if you discussed on the article's talk page first. Assadzadeh (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Assadzadeh, thanks for the note. I only annotate links where I think it's useful, and sort "See also" sections that aren't already sorted by some other criteria (like chronologically). Such formatting is encouraged by MOS:ALSO. If there's a particular edit you disagree with, feel free to revert it and we can discuss. Cheers, Anne drew (talk · contribs) 20:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NOTSEEALSO states "Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous.". One of the annotations made to National Football League was "National Football League controversies – Controversies involving the National Football League. I think it's obvious from the title of the link that it's about controversies. So, I don't understand what additional clarity was provided by adding the annotation. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, point taken. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:24, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of 2024 United States drone sightings is under review

Your good article nomination of the article 2024 United States drone sightings is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Viriditas -- Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Software development

I'm retired now. And still missing it after about 16 years. Loved it too much, so did it too much, so burned out by about 45. Lacked the energy to learn C++ or something to save me from dinosaurhood. I was writing mostly in IBM 370 assembler and its descendants. How bout you? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 02:02, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mandruss, thanks for sharing that. Wow assembler is some low level stuff! My world is mostly TypeScript and Python, so the scripting I do here on-wiki is a fun extension of my day job. I can definitely relate to what you said about spending too much time coding - it's a fine line to walk to avoid burnout. Nice to connect with another developer on here :) Cheers Anne drew (talk · contribs) 02:56, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I detect someone who likes scripting (I assume that means JavaScript?). I have more than twice needed someone who likes scripting, and more than twice got no takers at village pump. I still lack the energy to learn a new language. Hell I lack the energy to get off my recliner (which makes waste elimination problematic lol). If I can remember the most important script need after years, would you by any chance be interested? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 03:10, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, JavaScript and its statically typed descendant! Feel free to share script ideas - if there's something I can help with and find interesting, I'd be happy to give it a shot. Anne drew (talk · contribs) 03:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You axed [sic] for it. [1] Let me know what you think. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 14:47, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ON SECOND THOUGHT, this is more important. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]