Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcuts:

Use this page to report bugs in the reports, such as articles not picked up by AAlertBot, incorrect information, broken links, etc. See How to Report Bugs Effectively for advice on how to write bug reports.

Click here to report a new bug.
Please make sure it is not listed below.
Green bug and broom.svg It says a page is "closed" and does not provide details
    Not all workflow closure details have been implemented. Some will just show closed when the page is removed from the workflow (deleted, moves, merged, promoted, etc.)
Green bug and broom.svg Discussion page is a red-link
    Some discussion pages await creation until a reviewer/commenter does so. The bot should say "start discussion" for red-links. That said, if the page linked to is wrong, report this please.
Green bug and broom.svg Wrong user/time for an article entry
    First, please check that this has not arisen due to vandalism of the page, i.e., a vandal removed the workflow tag and it was subsequently restored. If this is not the case, please report below.
Green bug and broom.svg Workflow X isn't covered
    See Wikipedia:Article alerts/Workflows for a current list of what is/is not covered at the moment. Request new workflows on feature requests page.
Green bug and broom.svg Old bot did X before, it doesn't do it now
    The bot is in development, and not everything is yet implemented from the previous bot's specification. Please do bring up crucial features on discussion page or new features on feature requests page.

Contents

Reboot of Article Alerts[edit]

After several months of inactivity, a new bot has been coded to replace User:ArticleAlertbot. See the bot request for approval for details. As this represent a total reboot of the project, all previous discussions have been archived under "ArticleAlertbot (old bot)" list to the right. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment[edit]

Filled by: GW Simulations (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Link(s): Alerts page, diff, linked discussion page, actual discussion page

Comments: I initiated a Good Article Reassessment (GAR) of Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures using the Individual Reassessment process, and created the discussion page at Talk:Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures/GA2 per the procedures for that type of review. The bot linked to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Experimental Assembly of Structures in EVA and Assembly Concept for Construction of Erectable Space Structures/1 when listing it on the WikiProject's alerts page. That would be correct location for a discussion page created using the Community Reassessment process, so the bot seems not to have differentiated between the two types of GAR. --GW 01:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, I didn't know there were 2 ways of doing this. Thanks for report! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Deferred to #Individual GA Reassessment. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary and entry longevity[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Ezhiki (talk · contribs)

Time filed: February 9, 2011; 22:57 (UTC)

Link(s): [1]

Comments: This edit removed two entries and added one RM, but the edit summary only shows "+1 RM". Is that a bug or a feature? Also, the Azarkhin AfD was only closed today—isn't the entry supposed to linger for a while to show the outcome?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); February 9, 2011; 22:57 (UTC)

Technically, it added 1 RM and archived 2 entries, so the summary is correct. It doesn't show archiving (-1 XxX refers to a workflow being closed), otherwise it would clog up a lot of alert page summaries. The fact that AfD was archived straight away is because the bot currently (wrongly) decides to archive based on time passed (2 weeks) since the original nomination date (related to this). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Summaries will in future make note of how many entries were archived just to clear up any confusion. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Now do. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Some of workflows use closed time now. More will be added as closure data is implemented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Pages moved mid-workflow get double reported[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 12:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Link(s): [2]

Comments:

Article moved during a workflow will cause the bot to close the entry of the former page name and open a new one for the current page name. To fix, should there be two entries with identical workflow/date where one is closed and the page itself redirects to the other, delete the former entry. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Some_AFDs_get_listed_twice_as_well_as_under_the_wrong_user_when_certain_events_happen. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Only list TfDs from non-transclusions[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Link(s): [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Problem_entries/Undated&oldid=425215473#TfD

Comments:

Only list TfDs and MfDs from non-transclusions (i.e. direct use of nom template). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed as of RfD bug below. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Subst templates in archived[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments:

Subst: expensive parser and unneeded templates in archive pages. Some are reaching limit and the load times are high. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Report cut off can leave open tags[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: PrimeHunter (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Link(s): [3]

Comments: In the above diff, AAlertBot cut off a prod reason after 250 characters so it ended with open tags and caused misformatting in the report. I saw the problem at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#My sig breaks AA and also posted there. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for report. Yeah, this is a partially known issue; the character limit does not gracefully handle formatting. Usually tags and formatting without closing counterparts get truncated by MediaWiki at the linebreak, but I guess it didn't here. I'll fix it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

A-class review articles missing[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Piotrus (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): See below.

Comments: Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1945) is at milhist A-class review, but not reported at such to relevant alerts, such as Poland and Polish milhist taskforce, see Wikipedia:POLAND#Article_news. In fact, milhist A-class reviews seem to be not reflected on other projects feeds at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. A class reviews are a mess. Reports only get delivered to projects that have their A class system and each project does it slightly differently. So WP Poland doesn't get those reported. The problem is that the same page can undergo one or more A class reviews by different projects and bot is having trouble telling which one (usually happens with Aviation and MilHist sharing a page). Unfortunately, AAB wasn't really designed like that (to choose different reporting places based on some criteria). So I did a semi-hackish job on A class reports.
But I will enable it for all projects, not just those with A-Class syntax and hope it works :) I'll also fix the discussion page syntax and assign the correct one depending on the project.
Now, Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1945) didn't get reported again because of it being failed here. However, by this time it had gotten archived. Now the bot has to keep track of projects that have or haven't it archived (because of different archive times), so the record stays in memory until all have it archived. Now the page got re-A-class-reviewed before it was removed from bot's data, but the bug lies in the fact that it didn't update/clear the list of projects that have the entry archived. So it's "open" globally, but "archived" for the project, so it doesn't get reported. I fixed that (I think) when entries are reopened and this shouldn't happen again (I hope). A subtle bug that was a pain to find.
I bet there is more than one entry like this somewhere there, but with over 5000 entries and no easy way of telling the broken ones, I'll have to leave them. I'll fix the "Battle of Bautzen (1945)" one [4] manually. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick follow-up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Renamed GA nominee gets duplicated[edit]

  Rare unfixable corner-case

Filled by: GregorB (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): diff

Comments: If an article is GA nominated, then renamed, it gets duplicated, i.e. it is listed twice in the alert list. A bit of a corner case. GregorB (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is sort of true for every workflow, GA, AfD, CfD, etc. Basically it's a big mess with records to detect reliably what was moved where. I'll try to look into it, but there's not a lot I can do and mid-workflow moves will generally cause problems. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay. As I said, it is a corner case: rarely happens and is only mildly confusing, so it really is a minor issue. GregorB (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some edits from this bot are not flaged as BOT edits.[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Richard-of-Earth (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): Special:Recent Changes

Comments: I looked in recent changes in the wikipedia namespace and all I saw was a bunch of edits from this bot, even though the show bot edits was not on. Whats up with that? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

This is on purpose, the report page deliveries are not flagged as bot edits so that editors watching the alert pages are notified of their watchlisted alert page changes, even if they have disabled bot edits in watchlist. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Old milhist A-class review still present[edit]

  One-time bug

Filled by: Piotrus (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments: At Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Article alerts, an old milhist A-class review is still present (started on Dec 17; closed on Feb 3). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. This is because Talk:Stanisław Koniecpolski is still in the Category:Requests for military history A-Class review category. This ought to fix that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I just came over to ask the same question and I saw this thread. It's not the fault of the bot; it only reports what its told. I just fixed another one that was from Jan 2011 and showing up on wpships alert. Whomever closes the review needs to make sure it's done correctly. Brad (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-Existant RfD Alerts Continue[edit]

  One-time bug

Filled by: Neutralhomer (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Comments: AAlertBot continues to post alerts about non-existant RfDs. - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. See also Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Confused by change to Wikipedia:WikiProject Oregon.2FArticle alerts. It was because of {{Nasdaq2}}'s RfD nomination without <noinclude>, which made it transclude onto ±1100 article pages, which bot detected as RfDs. I'll get rid of them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing RfD on alert page[edit]

  Bug fixed   (case 1)
  Bug fixed   (case 2)

Filled by: Ljthefro (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments: Bot edit summary today includes +1 RfD. There is a valid RfD in the workflow. However, the bot did not include any information or summary of the RfD on the article alert page with this edit. -- LJ  19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. It wasn't delivered because the template {{rfd}} wasn't found and that's to prevent the bug from above section. Apparently, we now use {{rfd/core}} and I wasn't aware of that, so I'll include that now. It shouldn't have included the counter in edit summary though, so that's a weird little bug. The bot should post all the missing RfDs. I'll try to closer monitor pages that don't get reported due to missing templates. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Appears fixed in today's run. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#TfDs missing.3F

The edit summary here says that some TfDs should be appearing in the report, but they do not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. Those TfDs aren't technically missing, since they aren't supposed to be listed. It's a subtle bug in my edit summary building, which keeps popping up. The TfDs are like this one Template:CTA_Brown_Line -- the template got categorized as TfD, but the actual nomination is a different template that's transcluded on this one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully fixed now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual GA Reassessment[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Aircorn (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):[5] [6]

Comments: When a individual Good article reassessment is started the discussion part of the alert links as if a Community reassessment has been initiated. This ends up becoming a redlink. For individual reassessments the correct discussion link should be at Talk:Article name/GAPage number. For example the correct links for the diffs above should be Talk:County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)/GA2 and Talk:Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians/GA2 respectively. AIRcorn (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just saw this is already mentioned above. AIRcorn (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for report. It's a bit of a mess, given the same {{GAR/link}} syntax accommodates both options and chooses based on page existence, so I have to do the same. I think I (hopefully) fixed it for both cases [7] (individual) and [8] (community). It won't update closed reassessments, but it will fix open ones and new ones. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Four weird non-existent TfDs[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Salvidrim (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 03:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): WP:VG/AA

Comments: At WP:VG/AA. Template:Infobox video game and three subpages. From the histories I don't see anything related to a TfD, there is no link to any discussion and it's undated... I really don't have the slightest clue what may have caused this. Salvidrim! 03:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. Urgh, it wasn't supposed to post them. It was {{Video game ratings}} that was TfDed and transcluded onto the infobox documentation pages. It didn't post them when the TfD was active but decided to post now. I'll fix it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Fixed, shouldn't report undated TfDs anymore. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Bot reporting changed TFA[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

The bot restored the TFA listing for an article (M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)) that was first moved from July 2 to July 7 and then removed from the TFA schedule completely. The article's talk page no longer lists it under either date, so I don't know what's tripping the bot to think it's still going to be a TFA. Imzadi 1979  22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. Since the bot keeps all the records in its local database and TFA have a completely different rules, this makes a mess when something is changed midway. I'll make it re-retrieve TFAs every time and not save old entries. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Bot reporting new AFD[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Meco (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 07:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): [9]

Comments: The edit summary says +1 AfD; +1 FLC, but since the "AfD" is simply making changes to the article's spelling, it shouldn't use that edit summary. __meco (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. I didn't realize renamed (moved mid-workflow) entries get miscounted in edit summaries. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's more of the same.[10] __meco (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. It's a little weird. I must have messed something up (again). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: France3470 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 19:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts, see the following requested moves:

Comments: Not a bug per se. But I have noticed that for Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts multi-moves involving disambiguation pages don't appear to be picked up. Since such multi-moves are a frequent occurrence for dab article might there be a way for to be changed. Thanks, France3470 (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. To not repeat myself, I explained this below -- #Mass_move_nominations. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Bot mistakes deletion sorting templates substitution with participation in discussion[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Czarkoff (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 12:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): any AfD with {{delsort}} substitution

Comments:

Probably the bot should try to match the comments against {{subst:delsort}}. Unfortunately I have no knowledge of the bot's algorithm, so I can't propose any particular diff. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for report. The bot does this slightly differently. It counts the number of participants from the page's history (contribs list), not the actual comments as I don't rely on signature parsing. It also takes away 1 from the totals if delsorts are detected (assuming the same user made all the delsorts). So, in the most cases, delsorts are actually taken into account and it's rarish that multiple users do delsorts. I'm sure I could come up with a diff where this isn't the case.
I didn't spend too much time on this, as the numbers are supposed to be approximations anyway since pure !vote counts and participant counts don't really matter and only arguments do. I could at some point make this parsing smarter, but the bot already eats a lot of resources checking each AfD each run. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mass move nominations[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Fyunck(click) (talk)

Time filed: 08:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Varga (tennis): Talk:Robert Varga (tennis) – Requested move

Comments: Robert Varga (tennis) was put up for RM (in a multi-move) on August 7. It's August 9 and it has not appeared on article alerts for Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis. Is it slow right now? I'm lucky I noticed it but other tennis editors will miss the ship if it doesn't show up a Tennis Project. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. Well, the page is not in Category:Requested moves, so it wasn't picked up. And the bot doesn't parse the actual nomination text, where the multiple pages are listed. It's not really a bug, more like an unimplemented feature. But I am aware of this and know this needs doing.
It is a bit of a mess from algorithm perspective. The bot first attempts to get the list of all the pages that will need reporting (AfD, TfD, RM, etc.), and only then parse individual ones as needed for subscriptions/projects. For example, RMs come from Category:Requested moves and multiple nominated pages do not appear there. So, once the bot reads the actual multiple nominations, it would need to add these new pages to the list. However, projects to whom these pages belong may have already had their report delivered. For example, Hungary's report is delivered before Tennis' (alphabetically), and if bot discovers pages while checking Tennis-related RMs and one of those pages happens to belong to Hungary as well, it won't be delivered there anymore. Next run, same problem, as the pages don't appear in preliminary lists and bot would think they are removed from RMs until it again gets checking individual pages. However, it doesn't even check pages it has seen already because it is very big waste of resources (with 1k pages per run). I guess I would need to parse all the RMs prior to even starting writing reports. This is possible, but will need a bigger rewrite than a simple fix. That said, I can detect when {{requested move/dated|multiple=yes}} is used (I'll probably change the template to categorize pages) and check those only. Anyway, pardon the technicalities, just thinking aloud. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it's interesting to hear you think aloud. I'd swear it didn't used to be this way. That when editors did multi-rms they were required to do it differently so that all articles under a multi-rm were listed under Category:Requested moves. It seems like I had to do it that way in the past myself... but it looks like no more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate archive entries[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): Article Alerts Archive 5

Comments:

Can someone please take a look at Article Alerts Archive 5 for the WikiProject football? AAlertBot (talk · contribs) has been archiving large number of articles multiple times and out of order. Just as an example, the entry for José Villalobos appears in the archive a total 40 times. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow. This is weird and this already happened once, I thought I fixed it. I guess I'll have to take a look and fix the pages again. I have a feeling this has been going on for a while... *sigh* Individual records store which projects have the record archived, so it doesn't get double-posted. It might be that the record is saved, but when it is used by another project later in processing, it fails to re-save it with the new archived info (because the record is up to date, after all). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Did a run just now, and archived records seem to be removed from bot's memory, so they shouldn't be re-posted next run. Fingers crossed. After that I'll fix the multi-posted records. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Whatever you did doesn't seem to have worked. Take a look at this. All those articles are already listed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. It might be that I'm not re-saving them on repeat updates while archiving. The problem is I need to do a full run with multiple projects to actually test if it is working correctly, which makes it rather slow and tedious. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll keep an eye on it, and clean it up manually if I have to. Thanks for you help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, well this was an "interesting" bug. Here's the technical stuff (mostly for my future reference). I store the records as files and to avoid file-system incompatible characters I use an MD5 "encryption" (like "PROD-0472b18b98e85b35b5db6abc00fb3ab5-19") instead of the real file names (like "PROD-Esaú García Álvarez"). What I didn't realize is that string to byte array was dependent on the system's default encryption, which was different on different PCs. So the bot read the files fine because it wasn't trying to match the found file names to the expected file names (I'm going to do that now). So when it was time to save changed files, it would save them to the new "proper" location instead where they were located at the start. This caused the records to be duplicated, one original record at the old location and one modified record at the new location. This didn't cause any noticeable issues with the reports, because records would only be re-saved after they were marked as archived, at which point reports wouldn't report them anymore anyway. But when it was time to delete these unsused/archived files, the bot never found them where expected so it never deleted them (it skipped them like it skips all the records without files -- these are pages that don't belong to any project and are never processed and saved). This caused the record to be loaded again next run and archived again, then not deleted again, etc. This only happened to records where the page name had non-standard ASCII characters.
The bot may post duplicates one more time, depending on whether the archived project info was stored in the original or the duplicate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Appears to be fixed now and I don't readily see any duplicates in the last archival. No files are reported as badly named either, so hopefully that's the end of that. I still need to clean up the few remaining duplicates, but my Regex is basically dieing on superlarge pages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FAC reported as PROD[edit]

  One-time bug

Filled by: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): diff

Comments: At Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Article alerts, the bot reported a WP:FAC as a WP:PROD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. That was a little corner-case misformatting before I caught it [11] due to a few recent changes I made to the report format. This might have happened a few other places as well. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
And of course I forgot to deploy the new .exe Facepalm3.svg Facepalm —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

article page needs editing for content[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Veronicafitzrandolph (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments: The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Kyrre needs editing. Several of the sentences contain errors or do not make sense. I don't want to do it because I am not an expert on the subject and would be guessing at the correct information. Veronicafitzrandolph (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. This page is for reporting software bugs with the Article Alerts system, and we don't deal with editorial issues. Try the article's talk page (Talk:Olaf III of Norway) or may be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate archive entries again[edit]

Seems to be similar to the bug I reported three months ago, though it may have been a one of issue this time around. A group of articles initially archived on 15 November to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article alerts/Archive 5 were archived a second time four days later. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh no... Not this again! I was doing some code changes at the time, but I don't think that's it. There is so much going on in the code, I'm not even sure where to begin to look. The problem is, once it's done I have no way to tell what exactly happened. Last time (and the one before that) I thought I had gone through it all. I guess I'll look into it... —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD from 2005 popping up at WP:VG/AA[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Salvidrim (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 08:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Link(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Nightmare Before Christmas: The Pumpkin King

Comments: Not so much as bug as I have a pretty good idea why it is showing up now, but considering the... unusual formatting of the page, I'm not sure exactly what needs to be done to stop the AA bot from reporting it? Salvidrim! 08:27, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The page originally had the wrong discussion linked, and that's what the bot parsed. Hence the old date. Only new entries are re-retrieved, so the bot never rechecked the page. I made it recheck records that are really old are are probably an error. Should be fixed now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong "Requested move" (template) attributions on two WikiProjects’ article alert pages: Japan, Actors and Filmmakers[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Macropneuma (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 07:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Link(s): --

Comments:

Please help us to fix the article alert bot’s (AAlertBot) attribution of the wrong username for the move request on page Talk:Jūzō_Itami.

The wrong user attribution has happened on article alert pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Japan/Article_alerts & Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Article_alerts (see their histories where i've frustratedly tried to manually fix the wrong, after not having success finding and fixing the wrong on the talk page).

Obviously user:JoshuSasori (diff) requested that move, not me.

Please help to fix the article alert bot in effect misattributing the username, presumably caused by some unknown–to–me aspect of the talk page’s past edits by user:JoshuSasori. i am aware that the section creation seen here (diff) by user:JoshuSasori, was accidentally substituted partly incorrectly, by their leaving the move request reason and their signature outside of the "Requested move" template.

I've made a few attempts at fixing that talk page layout and 'encouraged' user:JoshuSasori to re-sign their requested move template, which they’ve now done, but the last daily article alert bot run (about 17 hours ago, last night my time), again did not attribute it right.

Also, i’m comparing another "Requested move" template setup: –diff, with that problematic talk page requested move template setup: –diff—for my comparison example.

No worries! I'm confident that you the coder know simply and directly why this problem occurred and can fix it for us easily (and a please!). ——--macropneuma 07:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reporting this (I moved this to Bugs page).
The problem initially was that the revision history API syntax changed and I didn't realize that, so the bot would never get the right number of pages. This also affected lots of other pages with >20 edits between nomination and bot's visit. That is fixed now.
The other issue is bot mis-attributing nominations. Without going into too much detail why, I'll make it looks further into recent history to see if the template was more likely added by someone else. This may have false positives, but not as many as false detections. Here's an example with WP Japan RMs. It should update with next run (tomorrow). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Waiting to see it for real with the next run. ——--macropneuma 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good [12]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep! Looks good. All done! Thank you for your prompt fix. For my days of frustrations of figuring out, how to try to fix it and who to call about fixing it: At last! Thx. ——--macropneuma 06:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong date (talk page creation, not move request date) being reported[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: PamD (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Link(s):http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation/Article_alerts&diff=next&oldid=533024484

Comments: The entry for Brand New, under "Requested moves", is dated 4 September 2007. In fact the talk page was created on that date, but the move request was on 15 January 2013. Something weird here.

Thank for report! Now that this is reported, I realize exactly what mistake I made.. This is why I was putting off doing that bug for so long, it's a bugnest waiting to happen.
Anyway, should not do that now [13]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks good [14]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Multiple AfD closure string matches in discussions[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Randykitty (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Link(s): [15] AfD

Comments:

Hi, the bot just marked a closure as keep, although the decision actually was "redirect". I think that makes some difference and would appreciate if you could look into this. Thanks and keep up the good work! --Randykitty (talk) 18:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There was another string that matches a closure result, I'll have the bot parse it a bit smarter. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I see. That may have been a previous irregular non-admin closure that was reverted. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Should be good now [16]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Unbelievable how fast, thanks a lot!! --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

AfD closed as keep reported as no consensus[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Thryduulf (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Link(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart (train)

Comments: At Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Article alerts#AfD the bot reported the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart (train) as "no consensus". The AfD was actually closed as "keep. WP:SNOW". Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, I had the wrong label on keeps... I will be reparsing all AfDs next run and that should hopefully fix it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Reparsed all AfDs. Appears to have fixed all the entries with this issue. Thanks for report. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for such a quickly executed fix. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate archive entries again 2[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments: Like the last two times I posted here, articles are being listed several times in the archive for the WikiProject:Football. The first of the two links above is the first duplicate posting in this set, the second is the most recent one. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for report. Okay, so this definitely happens when I/Headbomb switch who is running at the time [17]. I couldn't reproduce this on my own last two times after I fixed the initial issue. So this definitely has to do with something going wrong if bot is transitioned to run on different computers. I'll look into it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wiki Monument Link Error[edit]

Filled by: 103.21.126.55 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 07:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments: The Wiki Monument contest box appearing on each wiki page on en.wikipedia.org/<some-article> is redirecting to the same article page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.126.55 (talkcontribs)

I don't really know what you are talking about and as far as I can tell, this is not related to Article Alerts (bot). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I guess this is about the problem at commons:Commons talk:Wiki Loves Monuments 2013#Site notice broken? It says it should be solved now. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Article title is different than article name in Details[edit]

Filled by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deepak_dsingh (talk · contribs)

Time filed:6:47 PM IST

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihadeeswarar_Temple

Comments:

There is a article named "Brihadeeswarar Temple". But in description of the Article the name is mentioned as "Brihadeeswara Temple".

Expected:It should be same on both occurence.


Deepak [email redacted]

I guess you are referring to Wikipedia search results for Brihadeeswarar Temple. This is unrelated to Wikipedia:Article alerts. The search shows an excerpt from the article Brihadeeswarar Temple. It correctly shows what the article says: "The Peruvudaiyar Kovil, also known as Brihadeeswara Temple". If you think the article should spell it differently then you can edit the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed TfD for Template:Doctor Who actors listed as new[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Redrose64 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Link(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Article_alerts&diff=585586410&oldid=585269887

Comments: The TfD for Template:Doctor Who actors was raised on 19 November 2013, and notified via Article Alerts the following day. It was closed as "keep" on 6 December and two days later was removed from the Article Alerts. All this is correct behaviour, if a little late. However, it showed up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts today, although there had been no changes to the TfD page which might have caused it to show as reopened. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for report, but that's because of this edit (now fixed). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Article alerts[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments: Article alerts aren't being updated daily as usual, which means projects aren't being notified of deletion discussions, etc. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

But the bot did run today.

Last bot run around 12:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories for discussion not closed[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Admrboltz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Link(s): ↓

Comments: Category:Former named state highways in Oregon is still "open" in WP:USRD/AA. It was relisted, then closed but still is showing as an active discussion --AdmrBoltz 13:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That's expected behavior. The closer didn't remove the TFD template after adding {{Listify}}. So the bot sees it as open (it doesn't detect or continuously re-read all the discussion pages). And the category isn't yet empty to be deleted. I removed the TfD template. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Okie dokie. Thanks :) --AdmrBoltz 14:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion missing[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Admrboltz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Link(s): Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:M-54 and M-83 (Michigan highway), Draft talk:M-54 and M-83 (Michigan highway), WP:USRD/AA

Comments: This draft was listed on MfD the 29th, however it did not appear in the most recent AA run. --AdmrBoltz 13:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It was skipped again in this mornings run as well. --AdmrBoltz 13:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I haven't added Drafts yet to the namespace list. It'll need a day to deploy. I was half-expecting there to be a new deletion venue for them, rather than re-use of MfD. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... I was hoping for something more than MfD as well... --AdmrBoltz 13:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


Particularly Dangerous Situation[edit]

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Article alerts, why does is say that EdJohnston made that move request? That move request was made by me, not EdJohnston. Dustin talk 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Technically, it was made by EdJohnston with this edit, he is the author of the revision which inserted the move request template and categorized the page. The bot cannot parse context and detect that he was doing it on behalf of somebody else. Even if it parsed the non-standard signatures, this would be way too open to misuse. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar case: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_U.S._Roads%2FArticle_alerts&diff=595724286&oldid=595589688 (I added the template but then removed it). --NE2 14:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a side-issue of trying to avoid errors due to vandalism. Basically, ever so often someone would inappropriately remove a nomination template, just for it to be restored very soon. In this case Imzadi197 placed almost the same template shortly after you removed it and the bot decided you were the original nominator. Besides it being really hard to predict such cases, it would take too many resources to actually load and compare every revision, check every user, etc. just to avoid a false positive. The thing is, this case is very rare, where you nominated, but then changed your mind, just for it to get nominated in the same manner shortly afterwards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fails to update AfD status to Keep - after it was mistakenly made a Delete[edit]

  One-time bug

Filed by: Jonpatterns (talk)

Time filed: 12:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Link(s): Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Article alerts

Margret Bird AfD discussion

Margaret Bird public log - this show that the page was deleted, then restored

diff example

Comments: Margaret Bird had an AfD that the closing editor mistakenly deleted. After contacting the editor he restored the article, and amend to AfD discussion page stating the outcome was Keep.

The problem is now AAbot has continued to say the outcome was Delete.

I have been manually editing the entry to say Keep. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reporting, this is a known "issue". The bot doesn't go back to check closed AfDs it has seen once unless it is forced to (I can't remember what it does with closed ones when forced to recheck the page in question). There are too many pages to recheck, and that is both very time-consuming and resource-consuming (the page history has to be parsed). Besides, there are a hundred ways to mess up the report with opening/closing/reclosing/reopening/moving/renaming/refactoring the discussions. I'll see if rechecking the page updates the closure, but I don't think it does at the moment. Manually editing the page won't do anything, the bot will overwrite any changes. It is impossible to detect what changed users might try to make to the report page. You can only change the archived entries. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it was working correctly after a couple of days. smile Jonpatterns (talk) 13:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)