Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests

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

Click here to request a new feature.

• /Archive/Implemented
• /Archive/Declined

Files for deletion

Status	Needs more 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)

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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – 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)

Redirects for discussion

Status	Investigating
Description	Another trival to add, low priority workflow: Redirects for discussion.
Requested by	Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:17, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "trivial to add", it differs somewhat from the other XfD workflows. In particular: When should an alert be generated - when the redirect has a project tag? (That's rarely the case.) When the target of a redirect has a project tag? That's feasible but would be very different from the other XfDs. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I thought it was trivial to add, I stand corrected. I know WP:PHYS tags some of its redirect (about 300 of them now, usually via bots), the majority of them created because of page moves. Some other projects do it as well. I hadn't thought about also checking the target of the redirect discussion, but that seems a good idea.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thinking more about it, the only way to make this working in a reasonable way would be to evaluate project tags on the targets. This would be an implementation that is quite independent of what I currently to for other deletion processes - though it's possible I should say. Need to investigate details. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I spent quite a while working on this, and realized that it's more complicated than it seems at first. Will get back to this later. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not tagging AAbot edits as "bot edits" so people can watch the page w/o having to "show bot edits"

Status	On hold
Description	I've asked about this at WP:Village Pump (technical)#Is there a way of having bot edits show up as regular edits, on a per-bot basis? and while I don't understand what's really being said, I think there's a way so the AAbot edits aren't lumped into "Bot edits". Feedback from the WP:BAG could be useful here.
Requested by	Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As per the VP discussion, this is possible, but currently not supported by the bot framework I use (JWBF). I may need to tweak it at that point anyway, for other reasons, so I can add the "no bot mark" feature as well; but this will be a rather deep modification that needs to be thoroughly tested, and I will implement it only at a later time. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team release version selections

Would it be possible to include in the bot a listing of the various articles of the project that have been included or are being considered for inclusion in one or more release versions of wikipedia?

Status	Needs more discussion
Description	Including those articles relevant to the project which have been or are considered for being included in on or more of the release versions of wikipedia. It would help out the 1.0 team a lot if the various relevant projects knew which of their articles were included in the release versions.
Requested by	John Carter (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Might be possible on the technical side - but what I wonder is the following: Article alerts are meant to be display articles that need (temporary) attention, with some kind of well-defined end date. (An AfD for example is closed after 5 days or so; a GA nomination closes after some time as well.) The release versions of Wikipedia, on the other hand, are supposed to stay. For distribution of rather static lists, it might be better to use other means. (See e.g. User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for cleanup-flagged articles.) The alerts lists would fill up otherwise and lose their main function. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point, thank you. Would it be possible to limit the lists to those articles "on hold" (generally for quality reasons) or being considered for inclusion? Often times, articles in either group are important enough, but may be lacking in some other way and be most in need of attention. John Carter (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Where would I find these articles? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

Status	Partially implemented; Needs more discussion
Description	Does this monitor image space? Does it have the ability to follow WP:FPC, WP:PPR and WP:VPC? I know a lot of images nominated are from commons and many images are never tagged by projects, but what are the possibilities?
Requested by	TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No, currently none of the image related processes (neither those that you mentioned nor IFD) are covered by the bot. This should be possible in principle, and for some it would even be very easy to do because they're very similar to AFD or FAC. However, I've always been waiting for projects that would actually use these processes. Does WP:CHICAGO systematically tag images in their scope? Who else does? --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I implemented WP:FPC and WP:VPC now. It's largely untested, since I'm lacking examples. But if you tag the candidate pictures with project tags as they are nominated, this might work out. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

As for WP:PPR, this is currently not very bot-friendly — I first thought it was be similar to WP:PR, but there's no template or category to find on the images that would indicate the nomination. --B. Wolterding (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't there a category?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably because no one bothered to create one. You should ask on WP:PPR about implementing categories. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming TFA

Status	Pending approval
Description	Is it possible to have the bot alert projects about WP:TFAs that have been scheduled for the near future.
Requested by	TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

For all I know, the bot already does this - the articles will appear as soon as they are tagged as such (with the "maindate" parameter in the "ArticleHistory" template); example here. However, currently the bot will report "<date> - <article> was featured on the main page" even if <date> is in the future. This wording should probably be changed. --B. Wolterding (talk) 11:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

 Fixed--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Has the wording been changed? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 06:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Splits and merges

Status	Pending approval
Description	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.
Requested by	Simply south (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WT:AALERTS

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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – 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 {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios should be higher on the list

Status	Pending approval
Description	Copyvios should follow deletions alerts to reflect the "priority" of the alert.
Requested by	Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Linking discussionis for WP:FAC and WP:FLC

Status	Pending approval
Description	At WP:CHIAA, the WP:FAC and WP:FLC alerts do not contain discussion links. This is a nuisance.
Requested by	TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP problem articles

Status	Needs more discussion
Description	Many of the projects relate to some degree to a number of BLP articles. Several of these face, at some time or another, BLP issues. In many of these cases, editors of those projects might be among the better people to bring in to address those issues, and the help in clearing the backlog would be appreciated. Would there be any way, possibly by a change to the Biography project banner if required to indicate such concerns, to provide notification of the various relevant projects of these articles?
Requested by	John Carter (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what the request asks for. Is there already a way for the bot to identify those articles with BLP issues - such as, a certain "dispute" tag or similar? Or do you want to introduce such a tag, say, "This article needs immediate attention due to BLP concerns", and the bot should pick this up and notify related projects? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Support for projects without a banner

Status	Needs discussion
Description	Could the template be modified to support projects which do not have their own banner, but share one with another project, for example WP:SPACEFLIGHT uses the same banner as WP:SPACE. As WP:SPACEFLIGHT uses quality assessment, I can't use the wgcat parameter as a workaround. Perhaps a new parameter could be added to specify the base category for a project's assessment categories, from which the bot could find the individual categories.
Requested by	GW… 07:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand your request, this is already possible with the current bot. It just needs an appropriate modification to the banner. See WP:WikiProject Films and its task forces for a large project that uses this kind of subscriptions. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GA request alert

Status	Pending approval
Description	Add an alert for {{GA request}}
Requested by	TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Idea regarding maintenance WikiProjects

Status	Pending approval
Description	Could the bot handle maintenance WikiProjects? For instance sending alerts for articles that are tagged with specific maintenance tags rather than WikiProject topic banners on their talkpages? I would find it useful for WikiProject Orphanage to know which articles tagged as orphans go up for deletion to get some kind of perspective on how often this happens, what effect this has in the long-term in the context of reducing the backlog of orphaned articles, and to get a better idea on which types of articles are worth attempting to de-orphan. I'm a little unfamiliar with how the article alerts system works, and this request may be motivated just by curiosity for interesting statistical information rather than usefulness of the report, but if it's something that's easy to implement then cool, if not then nevermind my rambling. :)
Requested by	Ϫ 23:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Date tweak

Status	Pending approval
Description	Dates in the 02 Mar 2009 format, instead of the 2 Mar 2009 format. This is a terribly minor change, so there's really no rush to implement it, but it would improve the alignment of things.
Requested by	Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Add Deletion Sorting to alerts

Status	Needs more discussion
Description	This is easier to describe with an example, so, using Science Fiction: WikiProject Science Fiction/Article alerts includes all articles with {{WikiProject Science Fiction}} on their talk page. But… some of the articles listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction do not have {{WikiProject Science Fiction}} on their talk page. Is there any reason why article alerts can't combine both into a single AFD section? This would also be useful for WikiProject Computing/Article alerts & WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing, and so on.
Requested by	Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this a reasonable feature for the bot, as the deletion sorting pages are rarely organized along the WikiProject structures - they are usually set up at a much coarser level. However, there's a simple way to include these articles into the corresponding article alerts: Deletion sorters should just add the appropriate project banner to the articles while sorting. ArticleAlertbot will pick these up in the next run, and the articles will appear in the alerts list. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Add well-formatted archive of previous events

Status	Won't be implemented
Description	Add a permanent archive like this one from WP:CL - i.e. a list of articles together with a short bunch of links to previous notable events (e.g. AfD, DRV, AfD 2, ...). This would need to respect grandfathered or human-added links (e.g. VfDs from back when they were called that) and increment the number appropriately (e.g. for 2nd AfD).
Requested by	Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This "archive feature" was discussed already a while ago - and I decided not to implement it. In particular, the bot does not honour any manual additions or modifications to its output pages. This by design, not by accident, and it has proven to be quite efficient. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Blanking detection

Status	Pending approval
Description	Add page blanking / blank-with-redirect to detected events
Requested by	Sai Emrys ¿?✍ 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

New workflows

Status	Pending approval
Description	Can the following workflows be added: Wikipedia:Featured portal review, Wikipedia:Portal peer review, Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, Wikipedia:Picture of the day, Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates, Wikipedia:Picture peer review, Wikipedia:Featured sound candidates, Wikipedia:Files for deletion & Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion? Also, now that WP:TfD is Templates for Discussion, can AA distinguish Category:Templates for merging?
Requested by	PC78 (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)