Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests

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

Please use this page to request new features for AAlertbot, and suggestions to extend the scope of AAlertbot to additional workflows.

Click here to request a new feature.


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 As this represent a total reboot of the project, all previous discussions have been archived under "ArticleAlertbot (old bot)" list just above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

FFD and PUF (and possibly other file) worklows[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented  (FFD)
Gnome-appointment-soon.svg   Proposal on hold  (PUF)

Filled by: Acather96

Time filed: 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Description: Please could you implement reports for files? By that I mean FFD, PUF and also, when files are tagged for pseudo-speedy, when they have 7 days to fix a certain copyright problem. I think this would be really useful, as projects could save important images from deletion, when only a small amount of time is needed to resolve the issue. And as for PUF, project members may have specalist knowledge that could help with clarifying the copyright status. I think the implementation of FFD support also brings obvious benefits :) Thanks.

Comments:

I don't see why not. The bot is still not finalized, so we're focusing on covering these and making sure they behave as they should. When that's done, we'll start adding new workflows. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
None of the current files in either FFD or PUF have banners or categories that would put them as belonging to any project. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right, many projects do not tag images. However some do, or some may start to. Also, projects like WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Schools can use cats embedded in the Non-free licenses and FUR's. And even if the bot only does pick up a few image using project banners, its better than none. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I can use categories, but they have to be either be on file page xor file talk page. In any case, this is easily implementable. Just need some examples. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
For example, Category:Album covers, Category:Video game logos, Category:Game developer logos, Category:Academic institution logos. I could go on, just mainly non-free cats, as free media should be on Commons anyway. Though please do still implement project banners :) Acather96 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I already have enough category examples :) I meant an example article put up for deletion by a project that has tagged/categorized it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, with regards to MFD, I think that should be implemented, when you consider that some projects like WikiProject Australia have about 130+ project-class articles.Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
MfD is now will be implemented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I know that the Michigan State Highways Project has tagged all of its files. It's probably outside of the scope of the bot in the near future, but it would be very handy if the bot could report if a file is up for deletion on Commons. (The US Roads parent project has had two maps recently set up for deletion on Commons, and we didn't know about the second until it was deleted and removed from its article. It turned out to be a false alarm copyvio report.) Imzadi 1979  13:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see Category:File-Class United States articles, which contains over 12,000 files :)Acather96 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not the lack if tagged article examples, but example of articles nominated for deletion that are also tagged. Anyway, File talk:Bankim.jpg File talk:Deet.png File talk:Ferrocene.png are now up for deletion and are also tagged. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Custom categories[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb

Time filed: 04:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Description: Could the bot be extended include custom categories? For example say WP Chemistry is interested in monitoring a hypothetical what is covered by the "Chemist biography taskforce" (from the Biography banner) and "History of Chemistry taskforce" (from the History of Science banner). It would then add something like |extracats=Chemist biography articles, History of Chemistry taskforce articles" to the subscription template.

Comments:

De-archived. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Files for deletion[edit]

Folder-copy.svg   Duplicate proposal  (implemented)

Filled by: Beagel

Time filed: 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Description:

Status Pictogram voting info.svg Needs Discussion
Description Yet another low-priority suggestion. Most of what is in there isn't tagged by projects, but it seems trivial to include WP:FFD amongst the workflows covered by AAbot.
Requested by Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Comments:

Not too hard to implement, but would anybody use it? I checked this on an (old) database dump: Out of approx. 700 images on FFD, only one was actually project-tagged. Are there projects that systematically tag images or media? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any project that uses systematically tags their images, and if there are any they would be the exception rather than the norm IMO. Maybe this should be a feature that is disabled by default, but possible to enable on a per-project basis? Then we'd see which project, if any, uses it?Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that if hardly anyone uses it, I can't even say whether the implementation works. There's for example WP:MFD which was implemented months ago but is still largely untested, just because hardly ever a project-tagged article goes to MFD. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to confirm that WP:Energy tags regularly also images, categories and templates, and on behalf of this project I would like to ask for an option to have also notices about these if tagged. There was just a few days ago a case when Template:EnergyPortal, a template just about 2,500 pages, was nominated for deletion without notifying WP Energy of Energy Portal. There are also quite often WP:CfD discussions and automated alert would be a great help. Beagel (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

De-archived to have more discussion. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

CfD and MfD are implemented, MfD will be. FFD is in discussion couple sections above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion wiki-links[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented  (improvement discussion underway)

Filled by: GageSkidmore

Time filed: 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Description: If I recall correctly, the old ArticleAlert bot did not link to GAN discussions until the discussion was created (e.g. put "see discussion" after the title). As you can see at WP:FG, the AAbot links to a discussion, but it is a red link, as the discussion period has yet to begin. I don't remember this being the case with the old bot, and I may remembering wrong so please correct me if that's the case, but I was wondering if this could be ammended to where the phrase "see discussion" would not be added until the dicussion has been created. If not, it's no big deal. If it's an easy fix though, I thought I'd bring it up. Thanks. Gage (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

(edit conflict) Yes, the old bot didn't link to red-link discussions. The current idea is that the discussion is an easy-to-click redlink to start a new one. The problem is the wording ("see disc." vs. "start disc.").

The best way (for end-user) to do that is use Mediawiki's {{#ifexists: for every discussion link. The problem is that there is a limit of how many of these expensive parser function can be used. It's OK for small projects, but things like Biography 600 KB report page will end up with half the links being broken.

The other way is to do this in code – i.e. check if discussion page is missing or not, which will be slightly slower, and only update the links once a day. In addition, if this is the only change, it will trigger page rewrite. Furthermore, current logic saves bandwidth by not rechecking page entries every time, but only once and then storing the info for later use.

So, personally, I would use the parser function, but tell certain subscriptions that they are not allowed to use it. Perhaps, programmatically not add them if there are more than X discussion-linked entries. I'll test this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked Bio report and every discussion would make a little over 570 parser calls. But in practice only several workflows may have redlinks. Featured-quality-related discussions and some others should have the page created at nomination and not afterwards. Here's how the page looks with ifexists functions in it on the relevant workflows. I still prefer to keep the redlinks, just change the wording as the whole point of AAB is to make it easy to respond to entries. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as Implemented for now. Feel free to add further comments on any improvements to this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The ifexist calls could be substed using {{subst:#ifexist:...}}, which would both bypass the expensive parser function limit and result in cleaner code. Granted, it wouldn't update in real time anymore, but the report generated by the old bot never did anyway. – TMF 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see that this idea was essentially considered above. It's what I would do, anyway. – TMF 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for comment. Well, the code is not a problem unless the editors want to do something to it, but those changes will be overwritten anyway. In any case, substing removes the real-time aspect, which I was aiming for. The old bot didn't do this, as it did not link to redlinks at all. I don't think this is as beneficial.
Biography has 127/500 and MILHIST has 74/500 expensive parser calls, which as far as I've seen are the largest. I think that's well within reason. Most project would have around 1-5 anyway. In return, editors get a clearer comment. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the "start discussion" links should be linked to the same things they would be linked in the GAR template on the talk page, i.e. they should have pre-filled stuff in the edit window. That the discussion link for a Muhammad GAC would be something like "start discussion" (or maybe "start discussion"fix). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about that. Plain external links are probably best if a little cluttery. Will implement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Just thought of requesting this myself[1]. Please restore if needed as it shows some additional details. G.A.Stalk 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A parameter to simplify the output[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal  (will implement)

Filled by: Skotywa

Time filed: 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Description: A parameter to simplify the output

Comments: It would be great if we could add a parmeter that caused the output to be greatly simplified. The simplified output would just have the headings and a bulleted list of articles under each. No dates, no talk-edit-hist links, no last updated footer, no credits to the editors initiating the activity, but maybe still a link to the review page when appropriate. This new feature would make the bot's output potentially very useful/versitile for transclusion in various project/taskforce related templates. Thanks for considering this request.

Noted. Will implement this in the future. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of all of these, the dates should probably be kept. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose I can imagine both cases with and without dates useful. If I implement one, the other is a simple mod. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cover WP:FSC.[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb

Time filed: 05:16, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: Cover WP:FSC.

Comments:

Will do together (at same priority) with WP:FP and WP:PPR. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mergers and Splits[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Simply south (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Description:

De-archived from Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Feature_requests/Archive/Old/Unresolved#Splits_and_merges.

Could there be notices for proposed merges and and splits on articles? It would be useful to save having to notify at numerous places manually and that. It would be useful as it would in some cases more quikly notify project users and potential people involved on what's going on.

Comments:

A significant ease should be that if on the article splits are proposed or merges, shouldn't people be notified of these? Simply south (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't mind having these notices. Currently WolterBot handle these, but I think splits and merge as different enough from cleanup to warrant being on the alerts. In the meantime, I suggest making a feature request (link is given above) so it gets lumped with the other requests and archive propely once tackled etc.... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that proposed merges would be suitable for short-term alerts. They have a very significant backlog, actually more than 1 1/2 years. See Category:Articles to be merged. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I was thinking of a more "ticker-like" notice, where the bot picks up the new proposals, and if they don't get merged after the archive time, they are simply dropped from the alerts. And (depending on technical feasibility), the bot could report what got merged and what was chosen to be left as seperate articles, etc... It wouldn't reduce the backlog, but it would diminish the rate at which backlogs would build up, perhaps to the point that it would now be possible to clear the backlogs without being overwhelmed by the new entries.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
I also notice that the backlog isn't all that big. 1425 or so articles really isn't that much. And when you spread those over the 1500 or so projects... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Also this is a bit different from the other cleanup categories, as more often than not involves a discussion (or at least that's my impression). It's not something long-term and vague like "expand" or "needs more refs". Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be good if each WikiProject was reminded (say, once per week) of all open merger proposals that fell within its scope . As I reader, I certainly find articles with open merger proposals to be disturbing; moreover, there is often merit to long-delayed proposals. A once-per week reminder might light some (much-needed) fires to fix this backlog problem. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) The backlog is actually ~15.000 articles long (not 1425), see Category:Articles to be merged. It's in the top-15 of Wikipedia backlogs, so to speak. I personally think that the WolterBot reporting is completely appropriate. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I was about to propose that {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} be added to the workflows covered. I think these are a different set of articles than Category:Articles to be merged. I think these are articles under consideration to be merged with current ongoing discussions that project members should be alerted about and the category you are pointing to is the one where merger discussions resulting in consensus to move have caused an article to be placed in a category of articles to be merged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Again, 15 K spread on 1.5K projects and taskforces is not that much (and yes, the distribution isn't uniform, some projects with have hundreds, others 5, and so on). That's still something of a different nature than the "add more refs" and "remove weasel words" type of cleanup. These need to be discussed and thus should be covered in the Alerts. Simply report the new merge proposals and those which have been resolved. Those without activity can be removed after the archive time is up. See my 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) post above. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
End of de-archived section.
  • I strongly support this request. Although the backlog may be significant, the number of articles per project will be quite moderate. Also, I believe that this notification will help decreasing the backlog. Beagel (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements noted. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems that this feature is not endorsed yet. Could you please go forward with this endorsement. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It's "endorsed" in the sense of the word that I have not forgotten about it. It's close to top on my very long todo list. The logic of the workflow is very easy. It's just that 14,182 pages take forever to correlate between projects. It's about a minute to parse 500 pages, so about 30 min to parse them all. That's longer than the whole bot run currently. I'm in the countryside now and on very slow internet, so I don't have a chance of making it work now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm still interested in this feature, it might even help WP:MERGE reduce some of its backlog! Is there any chance it will be added? Jack (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree. This feature would be greatly greatly appreciated, although given the large number of mergers at any one time in a project, initially only mergers proposed in the last month may need to be displayed. --LT910001 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

SfD detection[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Od Mishehu (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 07:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: Alert for {{sfd-c}} and {{sfd-t}}, which refer to the Stub types for deletion process. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Will add this when implementing more workflows in the futurish time. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Betterly and more intelligenterer media-related alerts[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: Several project do not tag important files related to their projects. So in addition to the usual "Check for banners present on (for example) File talk:Quark structure proton.svg", there should be a "super search mode" for everything in the File: namespace. What I mean by that is that AAlertbot should not only check for the banners present on File talk:Quark structure proton.svg, but also the banners present on all the talk pages of articles/pages that make use of File:Quark structure proton.svg. For this file, this would mean

So, the report for WikiProject Physics could read something like

if it is tagged directly. And something like

if it is not tagged directly.

I've omitted the "talk edit hist" links out of simplicity / laziness, but the jist of what I'm saying should have gotten through. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Direct TfD links[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented

Filled by: Admrboltz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: When linking to TfD discussions, can you link to the dated page, instead of the main TfD page? Once the discussion is archived, the link no longer works, and takes 4-million years to load the full TfD discussion page, at least for me. E.g. link to [2] instead of [3]? --Admrboltz (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Will change, I reverted it some time ago because some TfD didn't link properly for some reason (I think the current day's page wasn't yet created). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see now. Unfortunately, {{Tfd}} does not give date (log's ymd) parameters. I could parse each of the dated log pages, but that seems like an overly complex/unreliable/long method for this. I'll leave this open for now, may be I'll get to this some day. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since we changed the Tfd-template, can you integrate the feature now? mabdul 12:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I already did that; see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Article_alerts. Tell me if you see anything broken anywhere. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Article alerts? Maybe the discussion is too old (20Jun) mabdul 12:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio/project intersect[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Novickas (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: A 'confirmed copyvio'/project intersection - for example, those articles with talk pages tagged as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania and listed in Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. These are deleted after about a week if not addressed.

Comments:

Thanks! I will add the copyvio workflows eventually. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

  • This would be a great idea. We delete anywhere from a couple to a dozen articles every day that could be salvaged if people knew they needed to be. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
See also Category:Possible copyright violations and subcats. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Redirects for Discussion Workflow[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented  (Raw RfD)
Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal  (Target page parsing)

Filled by: Admrboltz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: Would it be possible to add the Redirects for Discussion workflow? --Admrboltz (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

I will add this when I get to additional workflow implementations. RfD was planned from start, but there was something weird about it that prevented a straight-forward implementation so I left it for future. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The workflow is now implemented. The issue is, however, that very few projects bother to tag the redirect pages. What needs to be done is to check where the page redirects to and additionally check what subscriptions the page belongs to based on the target page's banner/categories. Unfortunately, from MediaWiki perspective, redirect pages with {{rfd}} are no longer redirects, so the API call is a big complex, needing to retrieve the actual content and parse it. Which I might do in future. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Even better edit summary[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: When there aren't a lot of changes, use remaining summary character limit to give details of changes -- i.e. exact page names and may be some details, e.g. "+1 AfD (Some person) -2 PROD (Nonotable woman deleted, Redundant dude redirected)". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

GTC/FTC child article listing[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented
Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: List "child" articles for featured/good topic candidates. Unfortunately, many editors nominate with {{GTC}} and {{FTC}} and not {{GTCmain}} {{FTCmain}}. Just GAC were not listed before and missed a bunch of articles. But also listing GAC creates a mess of entries.

Comments:

Tagged "child" article now group "under" the parent and don't take up entry space. Now need to detect non-tagged articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

AfD !votes summary[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented  (participant count)
Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented  (!vote count)
Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented  (relists)
Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal  (problem tags)

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: Implement a rudimentary AfD discussion !vote count updating each run. Helps see which AfDs may nee further input. This is also relevant to future implementing "relisted" check or any other info (canvassing/delsorting) in some way.

Comments:

This is implemented as of 20 Feb run. The rules is a simple regex, that gives a little leeway to formatting and surrounding text. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I really don't like the vote count. Maybe number of participants would be better if trying to encourage additional input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Number of participants is useful and planned (for all discussion workflows, in fact), if a bit hard to implement. I guess !vote count isn't really the ideal statistic and may not be seen as what it's intended for. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
AAlertbot is very cool, but I agree with Starcheerspeeksnewslostwars. Number of editors of the page, number of edits to the page, size of the page would be fine. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I think number of participants is good enough. Maybe something like Participation: X registered, Y IPs, or Participation: X autoconfirmed, Y others, or similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps. What value does differentiating registered and IP users add? zШизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
If you have 3 autoconfirmed editors and 2 IPs/new editors, it doesn't really tell you much. If you have 3 autoconfirmed editors and 25 IPs/New editors, then you most likely have a meatpuppet campaign. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I rather prefer reporting issues when the AfD gets canvass/SPA/sock tags, rather than post IP vs. registered editor count. That is the same kind of separation as !vote count, which was brought up. So something like "(12 participants, off-site canvassing)" may be better. Anyway, I understand WP is all about discussion and not voting, so posting !votes may seem like headcounting. I guess the number of participants should raise awareness about neglected AfDs just as well as low !vote counts. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, but how would the bot detect what's off-site canvassing, what's meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, etc... ? So that extreme (complexity) doesn't seem viable. On the other extreme (simplicity), "20 participants" can mislead people into thinking "Well, enough people participated, so I don't need to" if it's 1 autoconfirmed editor 10 IPs and 9 newly created accounts. X autoconfirmed / Y non-autoconfirmed seems the simplest way to give an accurate report on the situation, without running into various political correctness problems. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
"when the AfD gets canvass/SPA/sock tags", where "tags" are manually placed tag by editors ({{Not a ballot}}, {{spa}}, and such); no very complex guessing/detection. I, personally, have no objection to counting editors (I did !vote count after all), I'm just concerned it will be brought up again. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
It should now report the number of participants and if the AfD has been relisted. I am only checking the revision info and not the page content, so it will not be always accurate (nominator, relists and delsorts are counted as -1 to participants). The !vote count is now hidden in a {{tooltip}} surrounding the participant count.
Looks like this: (7 participants; relisted) So it hides the !vote count except to those that want to know. I don't really like the tooltip form, but I can't think of a better compromise for both showing and not showing the !votes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Project pages listed in reports[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: Should a project page enter a workflow, it should be reported too. This mostly affects RfC. Basically, project pages are not banner/category tagged; at least not the same as pages. They all do start with the same prefix, i.e. project name, which would make sub-page detection quite easy. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

DYK workflow[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Piotrus (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Description: With each nomination having its own subpage, I wonder if AA could cover DYKs now? Checking the talk page of all nominated articles should not be impossible. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 18:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Covering did you knows.

I'll try to implement it soon. I'm not quite sure what the new syntax is. Apparently subpages are created under Template:Did you know nominations/ but the articles themselves don't get marked. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

New pages in WikiProject bot[edit]

Hi Hellknowz, recently I requested a new bot to monitor for new pages added to a WikiProject and you said you might be able to help out if you had some time. If you do get a spare moment, it would be great if you could have a look into creating something like this? Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean to interupt but I thought Tedderbot was already doing this in replacement of AlexNewarticlealertbot -Kumioko
He is, but it's detecting all pages and with false positives (depending on rules), whereas this request is for tagged pages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Expert-subject[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Czarkoff (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 00:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Description: The reports should include the content and changes in categories, populated with {{expert-subject}} and {{expert-subject-multiple}}.

Comments:

Sorry for late reply, I completely missed the message. The Category:All articles needing expert attention category includes 5400+ pages, which is more that the total number of pages across all the other workflows. Since pages here don't have strict closure times, this category is more suitable for cleanup listings, that doesn't do extensive parsing for reports and runs less frequently. I might come up with something myself, but I doubt I will implement this for the main report since I'm short on time and this is a resource intensive task. I'll keep it in mind though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mark most recent entries[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented

Filled by: Czarkoff (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Description: Please make the bot somehow mark most recent entries' changes (those mentioned in edit summary). Eg. make them (or parts of them) italic or enclose them in <ins>...</ins> tags.

Comments:

I made newly opened entries or freshly closed entries display the page name is bold -- Example. <ins> seems too inconsistent with its formatting and boldface is used for similar purposed in other places on wiki, so I think it would fit better. P.S. I really should have implemented this ages ago. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Put all inactive items at the bottom, all active items at the top[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented  (sort of)

Filled by: Sbyrnes321 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Description: Better separation of active and inactive items.

Comments: It seems to me that the main purpose of the article alerts is to help people find and participate in ongoing discussions. Therefore it seems to me that the article alert page should be split in half. The main section should only contain the active, ongoing items. After listing all of those, there could be a big heading, "Recently closed items", with another list of all the categories. Really, I think almost everyone would ignore this bottom section, and just browse the top to see if there's anything worth commenting on. That kind of browsing is more difficult under the current scheme where open and closed items are interspersed (with red and black dates to distinguish them), and in practice the active items can be visually overwhelmed by the more numerous closed items. Just an idea, thanks for your consideration! --Steve (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with current color-based separation? Also note, that some (me at least) use this page also to track closures of the discussions they don't want to keep on watchlist. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I browse the page once in a while, trying to answer the question: "I wonder there's something I should do right now?" With the color-based separation, it is unnecessarily slow and difficult to answer that question. You have to keep scrolling and looking carefully to see. (I don't want to exaggerate that this is impossible or the end of the world, just a missed opportunity to make the page a bit more convenient and useful.) I am not proposing to entirely delete the recently-closed items, only to get them out of the way. After all, maybe you are curious about how a recent discussion finally wound up turning out, but knowing the answer is good for nothing except satisfying your curiosity. On the other hand, seeing ongoing discussions is more important because that's where you can actually accomplish something useful for wikipedia. --Steve (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
How many pages do you want to format this way? I could set up an optional parameter for individual subscriptions; and the bot would make a subpage in the "separated" style. I could also <noinclude> the closed entries so you can transclude all the alert pages you are watching to a central page that won't display closed ones. This probably would also be beneficial for when the report is transcluded elsewhere. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The optional no-include would probably be best / easiest thing to achieve. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I made two custom parameters for transcluding the report page -- |hideclosed= and |showall=. |hideclosed= will not display any closed records and |showall= won't show the (x more...) link beyond limit, instead show all entries. Example report Transcludes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

AFC reviewer[edit]

Gnome-emblem-default.svg   Implemented

Filled by: Mabdul (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Description: At the talkpage there should be normally a WikiProject template of the WP:AFC team with the parameter |reviewer=. Could you add this somehow to the 'list' (to all or opt-in)?

Comments:

Could you clarify what you mean by "add this somehow to the 'list'". What list? And add what -- add the reviewer to the report entry? So something like

Won't speak for Mabdul, but I would definitely love this addition (at least for AfDs and PRODs). And I would include this for all with no opt-in, as it is handy at assessing deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I added this to AfD and PROD workflows. Example. No opt-ins or opt-outs, because this seems like reasonable information (i.e. it was approved, so why is it being deleted now?). Not sure what other workflows this would be relevant to? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Resident Mario (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Description: Would it be possible to implement some sort of mail client on specific article alerts? I don't always have time for Wikipedia, but I do want to keep track of what's going on with my project, and I check my e-mail very often. Thanks, ResMar 21:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

Post single events onto talk pages[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 03:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Description: ability to post a single change into a talk page.

Comments: the bot would post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico every single change as a new section. For example, the bot would post the following wiki code on the project talk page:

==Article nominated for deletion: name_of_article==
The article [[name_of_article]] has been nominated for deletion. This is a post by a bot. ~~~~

We could also specify which changes we would like to be posted; something like:

| afd = yes
| rfc = no
I don't know if that's in the scope of the bot. I don't see why the alert page needs to be duplicated on the project talk page. That is usually for pressing matters and non-routine nomination, and the bot can't make that distinction. Surely anyone wanting those notifications can just follow the alerts page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean the whole alert page. I meant individual changes to be posted on a talk page. That way I can be notified through MediaWiki's New Talk message functionality rather than through a Watchlist (since I don't use the Watchlist feature). It's equivalent to receiving an email but within Wikipedia's system. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like on a user (e.g. your) talk page? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a User talk page or a Project talk page. We can test it on User talk pages first (mine) if you want. We can also add thresholds so that the bot doesn't massive spam. Kinda like how MiszaBot works. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Parameters explained; re: parameters minthreadsleft and minthreadstoarchive but within AAlertBot's context. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, so that you understand the rationale behind this: we have had a historic problem at WikiProject Puerto Rico where people nominate articles for deletion and don't notify the Project, its contributors, nor the person that created the article (see [4] [5] [6] and [7] for examples). Notifying people is not required but nominators usually do it. This requested feature would help alleviate this issue and allow us to participate in AfDs and RFCs promptly. We are only interested in AfDs, proposed deletions, categories for discussion, templates for discussion, files for deletions, and requested moves. Featured candidates, Good article candidates, and Peer reviews are irrelevant for us. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
But that ("people nominate articles for deletion and don't notify") is exactly why AAB exists -- so that there is a centralized page with only the relevant notices that everyone can watch. Also, you can filter which workflows you want (AfD, PROD, not FAC, etc.). See Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Subscribing#Choosing_workflows, you don't need to receive stuff you don't want. You can even set up multiple pages, each for different purposes. Also, I don't quite understand how you can get a new talk page message from project talk pages, I thought that ever only works with user talk pages? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No no no, what I'm requesting is that the bot posts on your User talk page in order to leverage the New Talk message feature. The configuration can be done on the User Talk page so that we know that the user itself chose to be notified on his talk page. Remember, the way the bot works today is through the Watchlist feature, which I'm trying to avoid. People have to watch a page so that they can see it changes. However, by allowing the bot to notify on a User talk page we avoid the watchlist feature. It is more intrusive, but it's setup by the user itself, knowing that he will be spammed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Check please[edit]

I tried to create Wikipedia:WikiProject Greece/Article alerts from copying the Poland alerts and altering it. Did this once before years ago and it worked, but think I've forgotten/missed something this time. Can someone take a look please. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Added [8]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks Hellknowz, can I make the same request for Wikipedia:WikiProject Armenia/Article alerts, or is it okay to make the bot edit myself (probably better not). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Added [9]. You can change to subscription list yourself. The actual delivery page will be made by bot, you don't need to do that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks, unfortunately I'm getting a misload on the page (related to my own unstable firewall) would you please also add WikiProject Writing systems. Many thanks again. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Same firewall problem. Any chance of adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Portugal/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Belgium/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Austria/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mexico/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Colombia/Article alerts. These national projects are evidently lamentably semi-dormant. But all the same a good tool like Alerts will do nothing but help. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Add a talk page link[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Alan Liefting (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 05:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Description: For the Popular pages listing add a talk page link next to the article name. The link need only be piped as "(talk)". This will allow reader to go directly to the talk page to update WikiProject parameters.

Comments: Sorry, I'm not even sure which "popular pages" this refers to, but I have a feeling this isn't related to Article Alerts. As far as I know, all AA reports have talk page links. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ooops. Got the wrong bot. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw. Wrong forum. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

TAFI article alert[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: NickPenguin (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Description: Today's articles for improvement is a weekly article improvement drive that is featured on the Main Page. Every Monday, a new collection of ten articles are displayed in a random rotation on the Main Page. I would request that this bot grab a list of all the articles tagged with WikiProject tags, and leave a message on the WikiProject's talk pages.

Comments:

Leaving messages on talk pages is outside the scope of this bot, but we could in principle add TAFI to the reports of relevant projects. I'll check it out. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Categories for speedy deletion and renaming[edit]

I may be mistaken, but it appears that the bot does not send alerts for categories tagged with {{Db-c1}} (deletion) or {{Cfr-speedy}} (renaming). I assumed that these were listed under the Article Alerts section: Categories for discussion, but I think I was mistaken. If they are not listed I would like to request that the bot add these category flags to the alerts. Since some at CFD already believe as I did that Article Alerts already does this 1, 2 3, I think it would be a good idea. 71.93.195.143 (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for request. The bot does not list any speedy deletions, because they are just that - speedy. They can be gone in minutes. The bot only deals with workflows that are fairly long and/or require community input. Speedies should do not require discussion, just a sanity check from the admin before deleting. And, more importantly, they are placed/removed way too often to have a reliable report once a day. It will clog the history/watchlist with changes that basically don't need any input (except for some rare controversial cases, but those shouldn't have been speedied to begin with). Most of the time, they will become redlinks, that non-admins cannot check in any way. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I completely understand the concern that the the reports should not be clogged with unnecessary and uncontroversial deletions and renames. So leaving out the speedy renames makes sense in that regard. The {{Db-c1}}, however, seems more akin to the {{Prod}} flag used on articles which is listed in the article alerts. It requires 4 days on the category and requests that anyone that opposes the deletion remove the flag or populate the category, much like {{Prod}}s requirement that the flag be removed or the issues fixed or it will be deleted. This of course requires that people be aware that it was {{tl|Db-C1))'d in the first place. This flag is not used for vandalism and such just empty categories. I would like to request that at least this one be added to the article alerts. Thanks for your help. 71.93.195.143 (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see how db-c1 needs more attention than other cases. Empty categories that are not used for anything seem like a very straight-forward case where there shouldn't be any need to notify a broad community. PRODs are very commonly contested, speedies aren't meant to be. In fact, there was consideration initially whether PRODs should even be reported. So the only factor I see is that it is supposed to be tagged for 4 days. That's a quite arbitrary case, and I still don't think it's in the scope of AA. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention to this. While it is of coarse true that unused categories that aren't needed is a straight-forward case for deletion. Categories are often emptied out, not because they are not needed but because a user intentionally or more likely unintentionally emptied the category by removing or changing categories on pages. Unlike pages, categories are not emptied by going to them but by changes to its member pages. I'll respect your decision either way. I originally thought I was just reporting an oversight but apparently not.
Since editors at CFD cite article alerts as a reason not to notify creators and other interested parties (i.e. wikiprojects) when categories are deleted, 1, 2 3 it may be beneficial to inform them that this is not always true. Thanks again for your help. 71.93.195.143 (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

DePROD talk page[edit]

When things get WP:PRODded and dePRODded, only a small fraction of the time the talk page gets properly tagged with a T:AH. Could you develop a second bot or add a feature to the current bot to assist with T:AH updates, especially for dePRODs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This would fall outside the scope of AAB, and I don't want to add that to the current bot, as it already takes ages to run. But I have actually considered making article history parsing bot (I think AnomieBot was doing this at one point?) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I did think it would probably be better as a second bot, but basically AAB is noting all these dePRODs that no one is archiving correctly on talk pages. A 2nd bot that works inconjunction with AAB in this regard is about the only way to handle this issue. Keep in mind that PRODed articles are often by novice users. When they dePROD they make no record of it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:DEPROD doesn't require any action other than the removal of the {{proposed deletion/dated}} Several other actions are listed, but the text "you are encouraged, but not required, to ..." is very much not binding. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Bold links at top of the page when there is a new item in that section[edit]

New items are identified by bolding them at the top of their respective sections. Would it be possible to bold the links to those sections at the top of the page when there is a new item in them?

For example, if the report contains one or more new TfDs and RMs then the TfD and RM links at the top of the page would be bolded. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Expiration of inactive items?[edit]

For larger projects (in this case Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine) the generated list is often large and cluttered with inactive items. It seems like all items are currently kept for a whole six months. Could a (optional?) time limit be set, so we could specify all items inactive for more than e.g. one month to be removed? That would give a much clearer overview of current events. --WS (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Or is there anything wrong with the way it has been set-up for medicine? Looking through them, it doesn't seem like any of the other large projects have so many expired items listed.--WS (talk) 12:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This is because the subscription was {{ArticleAlertSubscription |project = WikiProject Medicine |archivetime = 90 }} with 90 day archive time. I cleared it to the default. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah Thanks! That will help a lot. Just curious, what is the default? --WS (talk) 14:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it was a week or two after being closed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Multi-page move notifications[edit]

I noticed that the discussion at Talk:Anila#suggested move which affects the disambiguation page Anila (disambiguation) and which had a notification of the discussion on the other page on its talk page did not show up in the alerts for the disambiguation project Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts. Is there a way such multi-page moves can be included where the different pages affected might involve various project? olderwiser 13:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with multi-moves is that the extra pages aren't actually tagged in any way. Like, if you had a multi-page CfD, you would put a template on each one. Instead, requested moves only appear on 1 page. So the bot could only see them way after it has started looking through individual pages for extra info. The bot could list the extra pages under the main page. But at that point in processing, it's not really plausible to add more full pages to reports (so that they would get reported for other projects). Only way would be to read all the RMs (~150) beforehand and add the extra pages that way. But then you have cases that some projects tagged all the pages, some of the pages, not tagged the main page, etc. So it's a mess, but I'll look into it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
User:RMCD bot already adds a notification to the affected pages (at least when the multi-page move request is properly formed). Perhaps User:Wbm1058 could have RMCD bot also add a template of some sort along with the notification that your alert mechanism would then be able to pick up? olderwiser 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it would be easy to add a template to the notification of the discussion on the other page if that would help. I could probably limit addition of such a template to {{WPDAB}}-tagged pages, if that's what's wanted. But there's no mechanism for removing that template. Either instructions for removal would be added to WP:RMCI, some other bot would need to remove it, or the tag would sit on these pages "forever". {{Ping}} me if you have specific specs for the template that you want RMCD bot to add. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I can work with that, although obviously there needs to be another bot then. The template/category would probably go on all pages though, not just DAB. I don't think any are notified at the moment, but if I'm correct there used to be a bot? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
There is currently, and has always been, just one bot handling the requested moves process, user:RMCD bot, formerly handled by user:RM bot. Multi-moves notification has been in place for a long time, since before I took on support for this process. All pages listed in {{subst:move-multi}} requests after the first page have notifications like Talk:Anila (disambiguation)#Move discussion in progress posted on their talk pages, and these notifications remain there, as-is, "forever", unless they are manually edited by a closing admin or other editor. WP:RMCI is fairly complicated, and currently there are no instructions there to "close" these notifications. I've thought about how the RM closing process might be semi-automated, but that's long been back-burner. Perhaps a new template {{Move notification}} could be added to these multi-notifications, then a new algorithm could be added to RMCD bot, that, after it was done with its current processing, pulled up all transclusions of this new template and checked to see if the RM that they linked to was still open (i.e., "Is there still a {{requested move/dated|multiple=yes on Talk:Anila?"), and if not, then removed the new template. That may be doable. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks folks. It looks like there may be some hope. Although I'm primarily interested in disambiguation pages, I'd think that if there is a discussion on one page that also affects another page tagged with some other projects, that those other projects might be interested in the move (assuming of course they've subscribed to the alerts). olderwiser 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Implied move of a DAB for a related discussion. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Archive TFAs[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Czar (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Description: I noticed that TFA listings aren't archived, and I didn't see any obvious reason why not.

Comments:

They have different logic for getting the pages and different logic for when to show and remove them, so that's basically why. TFA isn't shown after the day, there is no "closed" version. So it doesn't ever reach the 2 week archive limit. Basically this was a nice to have announcement, but not a true workflow. I'll check how easy it is to do and add it to my pile of todos. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Pages or files listed at WP:NFCR[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Redrose64 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Description: Pages or files that get listed at WP:NFCR don't get a mention on Article Alerts. For example, File:Sensorites.jpg is listed at WP:NFCR#File:Sensorites.jpg, and File talk:Sensorites.jpg bears {{WikiProject Doctor Who}}, but the page is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts. Similarly, An Unearthly Child is shown at WP:NFCR#An Unearthly Child but is not listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts; however, File:Doctor Who and an Unearthly Child.jpg, which is one of the three images under discussion at WP:NFCR#An Unearthly Child, is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Article alerts - but that's only because it's going through WP:FFD as well as WP:NFCR.

Comments:

Yeah, NFCR doesn't get reported to AA. I guess I could add it alongside FFD. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Page curation[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Schwede66 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Description: I was wondering why Wikipedia:Page Curation isn't showing up in article alerts. Ok, I appreciate that new articles are generally lacking project tags, but some new pages do get tagged without the reviewer noticing the page curation link on the article page. I'm sure that editors who keep an eye on a Wikiproject would be interested in new pages. Schwede66 17:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

@Schwede66: Sorry, when I first saw the request, I didn't quite understand it, and then I totally forgot about it.

Can you explain, please, what exactly related to page curation are you saying should show up in article alerts? I know new pages often get tagged and deleted before projects even see them, but there aren't any good ways to reliably determine that projects want to see them. That's pretty much new article bot (don't remember it's latest incarnation's name). I already detect infoboxes for some projects and even parse manual delsorts, but most new pages still need manual banner tagging before can pick them up among all the other pages. What do you suggest? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is the new article bot. What I'm thinking of is slightly different, though. I'm suggesting that articles be included in article alerts when the following conditions have been met:
  1. The article appears in Special:NewPages. I believe that feed includes pages created in the last month.
  2. The article is unreviewed, i.e. it is highlighted in yellow on that page, and has the link [Mark this page as patrolled] on the article page.
  3. The talk page has been tagged as belonging to the project that warrants its inclusion in article alerts.
This will create a much shorter list for editors than what the new article bot produces, as it requires project tagging. I for one don't bother with the new article bot as that bot just guesses which articles belong to a project based on key words, and depending on the key words chosen, there may be many false entries that do not belong to a project. So what I'm suggesting is to simply include the pages where all three conditions listed above are met. The heading could be 'Page curation', and the text could be: "The following new pages are unreviewed:" Schwede66 18:16, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletions with a grace period[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Redrose64 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Description: I see at #Categories for speedy deletion and renaming above that speedy deletions are not listed because they are often actioned within minutes. I'm aware that it can take up to 24 hours for a normal XfD to show in Article Alerts; but there are some speedy deletion criteria that are not for immediate action - there is a grace period. These criteria include most of those applicable to files, and a seven-day grace period is typical. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Image removal(s) where a recent post of mine concerns a file deleted under WP:CSD#F7 twelve days after tagging. I'm sure that the WikiProject would have liked to have been notified about that impending deletion, so that a FUR could be prepared. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

My worry is that listing all the CSD, even only those with longer grace periods, will just crowd up the alert page, which is supposed to be for participation foremost. I know we have PRODs, so it's not excluded. But CSDs are not supposed to be discussed, they are a shortcut for users without the delete button (or experience to be 100% accurate). That said, whatever CSDs are supposed to be, these cases are 7-day timeouts and apparently pretty much same as PRODs but for files. I'll take a look at how many there are, and may be just integrate it with FFD list, may be as extra items, may be as a new workflow. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Add "In The News" candidate articles.[edit]

Dialog-information on.svg   New proposal

Filled by: Balaenoptera musculus (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Description: Add "In The News" candidate articles.

Comments: "In The News" candidates are listed at WP:ITN/C using template {{ITN candidate}}.

It would be super-helpful if this bot were aware when articles were nominated on that page, so that editors with an interest in those articles (e.g. through a relevant WikiProject) could be alerted and have the chance to comment on the nomination and help to improve the relevant article before the link to it goes live on the Main Page.

It's my belief that this would improve the standard and participation level of discussion at WP:ITN/C and also improve the quality of articles linked in ITN.

Thanks!