User talk:Merge bot

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

Merge bot, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Merge bot! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
How cute, a bot inviting another bot to tea. Unfortunately it will be some time before Merge bot has the intelligence of Watson and will be able to intelligently participate ;) Wbm1058 (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Recommended change to Merge Bot[edit]

Hello Wbm1058! Thank you for running User:Merge bot all this time. I have a recommended change: for proposed merger log entries, use the template {{Merge log entry}} instead of having the formatting hard-coded into the script. Partly this is because there is a specific formatting I would like to see implemented (as you can see on the template), but also I think it is in the spirit of the wiki to have as few things as hard-coded as possible. The syntax for the template is as follows: {{merge log entry|1=First article mentioned|2=Second article mentioned|talk=Location of discussion|type=[into|with]}}. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Harej (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi! So you don't want to use the red and blue merge arrows anymore? I'll look into it. Thanks for clearing out all the bot's old pages. Just a reminder that if you remove one of the pages from the log, as well as the log for that month you also need to delete the associated category, or the bot will just add the page link back to the log (the bot just sees that the category exists, it doesn't look to see whether it's empty). I also updated RMCD bot to use {{Dashboard grouping}}. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Nothing against the arrows :). Just that in the context of the specific lists, having that high a concentration of symbols is overwhelming and less effective at conveying the necessary information than using simpler symbols in the body of the lists. Thank you for the reminder regarding the categories and for updating the bot to use the template. Incidentally, would it also be possible to code the bot to actually see if a category is empty, and then explicitly mark its own pages for deletion? That would neatly avoid the current situation of log pages being abandoned and left in lingo. Cheers, Harej (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Harej: The bot's using {{Merge log entry}} now; check it out. I added a third, sometimes used parameter to the template, and fixed it so it wouldn't number every line item as #1. Each of the possible use combinations is in Template:Merge log entry/testcases, both old-style and new. I've put checking for empty categories on my to-do list; that's a good idea. Cheers, Wbm1058 (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks great! Thank you! Harej (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Merge bot[edit]

Hi – does Merge bot still work, and if so, how often? I'm just asking because I don't know if it regularly checks the items on Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log and deletes ones that have been taken care of and removes them from the log. For example, if you look at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log/January 2013 and scroll right down to the bottom, you'll see what appears to be the same proposed merger duplicated. I've been carrying out some of the easier and less controversial mergers (e.g. duplicated articles) and wondered if they get removed from the 'to do' list. Richard3120 (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Merge bot runs once a day. Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log is actually maintained and updated by the bot (check the revision history). October 2011 will fall off the top of the list within a day of the last four items on that list getting done. WP:WikiProject Merge tracks the progress. It's moving slow because very few editors actively work in this area. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks – yes, I really should have checked the revision history first before asking that dumb question, shouldn't I? Still baffled as to why that entry in January 2013 is listed twice though. I've found another where the merger appears to have been completed and yet it's still showing in the list, and I'm not sure why: all the merger tags have been removed.
There are actually two merge tags on Yaaruku Yaaro. Scroll down and find them at the top of both the Cast and Critical Reception sections. – Wbm1058 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's why – thank you! I'll delete the second one as it's for a single uncited line and the actor has already been mentioned earlier in the article, as per WP:OVERLINK. Richard3120 (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Task 2 – first run since full approval[edit]

An unexpected error occurred:

Merge history failed!! 890: Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses <-- Robot: Moved from Category:Defunct Roman Catholic dioceses.
Authors: Amit6, VolkovBot, EmausBot, DSisyphBot, Jaraalbe, Benkenobi18, Cydebot, Good Olfactory, ZéroBot, Place Clichy, JASpencer, Vanished user ewfisn2348tui2f8n2fio2utjfeoi210r39jf, Francvs...

   [error] => Array
           [code] => mergehistory-fail-timestamps-overlap
           [info] => Source revisions overlap or come after destination revisions.
           [*] => See for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.
   [servedby] => mw1284

Walking through the algorithm:

Selection set item is:

There is mergable history:

That's 2 minutes after Cydebot's move. Should those 4 revisions have been restored? They're blocking the way for history-merging the revisions that Cydebot would have moved back on 3 February 2015, if that were possible. On the other hand, Cydebot may not have moved anything if Fayenatic london had restored the 4 deleted revisions three minutes earlier. Is this sort of like an edit conflict?
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Cydebot properly executed the rename. I don't understand why the 4 deleted revisions were restored.

Pinging @Od Mishehu: since you took the most interest in this BRFA, other than IPs. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I see that it was Feb 2015 so Cydebot renamed the category in the old way, deleting Category:Defunct Roman Catholic dioceses and creating Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses. This was a few months before editors or bots could move category pages with their page history. Evidently I noticed that there was former page history from 2009 at the new name, and I considered that it would be useful to undelete the 2009 versions, so I did so.
As one page had history going back to 2008 and the other to 2009, i.e. they are almost equally old, I would have been inclined even now to keep the 2009 page history of Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses, rather than merging the 2008–2015 page history from the "Defunct" name. However, if somebody thinks we should merge the history, then go ahead. Let me know if you need me to re-delete the 2009 page history.
Please note that if Merge bot is going through all category histories, there will be other cases like this. I have undeleted (or kept) page history at the target name after, I estimate, two dozen merges and a dozen renames. I have not kept any records of these cases from which I could trace them in advance for you. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
I just deleted the old revisions and did a history merge. And I believe that if not for thre history mege needing to be done, Fayenatic london would have been correct in this restoration - and the restoration was done before any option for moving category hiatory was possible. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Od Mishehu. IMHO, the result of the history merge is now confusing in a new way, because the move is not explicitly recorded. I suppose the edit by Cydebot, with the edit summary removed, is the clue that a move happened. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
The BRFA consensus was not to preemptively remove Cydebot's edit summaries; I agree that seeing them provides reassurance that my bot performed its task as intended. The last trial did 250 hist-merges. My first post-approval run was intended to do 1000 (I'm doing a cautious roll-out) but stopped at 508. I'll restart it do do up to 1000 more, and see how far it gets this time. wbm1058 (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, that one ran all the way through, #509 was manually merged, now 1000 more done without a hitch. Ramping up to 3000 for the next run. wbm1058 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Wiki in read-only mode[edit]

    [error] => Array
           [code] => readonly
           [info] => The wiki is currently in read-only mode.
           [readonlyreason] => The database has been automatically locked while the replica database servers catch up to the master.
           [*] => See for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at <> for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.
   [servedby] => mw1282

First time I've seen that. Just 201 merged before that happened. wbm1058 (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

After restart, a successful run that hist-merged 3,000 categories yesterday. Just under 5,000 processed so far. Starting another run to do 3,000 more today. wbm1058 (talk) 16:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Overlapping timestamps, #2[edit]

Ran into the second case of overlapping timestamps today:

Again the bot halted processing, pending resolution of this. 642nd item to be processed today. We have two different discussions linked here, is that the source of the mistake? wbm1058 (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah, this was me again. An unusual case: it was moved from X to Y on 23/7/14, then immediately re-nominated and speedily moved back from Y to X. (I misunderstood Bencherlite's re-tagging the page when it was at Y, undid his edit, then reverted my own edit.) After the speedy move back by Cydebot on 27/7/14, I undeleted the old history at X up to 23/7/14.
It may be best to manually merge the history in this case. (I'd do it for you, but I fear making it even more confusing.) – Fayenatic London 20:41, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Indeed complicated. Five admin-actions later (delete, restore, merge, delete, restore), I believe I have it sorted out. Onward to restart the bot. wbm1058 (talk) 18:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Overlapping timestamps, #3[edit]

Category:American actor-politicians <-- Robot: Moved from Category:American actor–politicians. Authors: Fayenatic london, Miniwildebeest, Addbot, Luckas-bot, KConWiki, Cydebot, HandsomeFella, Johnpacklambert, Bearcat, BizarreLoveTriangle, Good Olfactory, GenQuest, Armbrust

I just went ahead and fixed this one. Similar 5-step process as #2 above. wbm1058 (talk) 02:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Stopped by maxlag[edit]

Merge history failed!! 7348: Category:Skeleton World Cup champions navigational boxes <-- Robot: Moved from Category:SkeletonBiathlon World Cup Champions navigational boxes. Authors: Nickst, Cydebot
    [error] => Array
            [code] => maxlag
            [info] => Waiting for 28.243166208267 seconds lagged.
            [host] =>
            [lag] => 28.243166208267
            [type] => db
            [*] => See for API usage. Subscribe to the mediawiki-api-announce mailing list at &lt;; for notice of API deprecations and breaking changes.

    [servedby] => mw1189

I manually merged Category:SkeletonBiathlon World Cup Champions navigational boxes into Category:Skeleton World Cup champions navigational boxes. That was the first and only hist-merge performed by this run. But before that, it churned through 6669 not-mergeable items (that had previously been merged). Maybe I should tweak the script to skip those, as they've already been processed multiple times. wbm1058 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Articles left behind after category deleted[edit]

I'm seeing a bunch of categories where Mergebot appears to have moved the category to merge in with another one, but left the articles behind. So for instance Category:Taoyuan City, Category:People from Taoyuan City from 15 August and a load of Sport in (Manchester borough) categories like Category:Sport in Bolton, Category:Sport in Stockport etc from 18 August. Something is clearly going badly wrong - can this be tidied up and the bot changed to stop doing this? Le Deluge (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Just found Category:Bishops in Poland, Category:Bishops of Turku, Category:Buildings and structures in Bolton and Category:Buildings and structures in Bury as well.Le Deluge (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
OOPS, thanks for reporting this. I should have checked to see whether a category had been re-created before restoring the deleted revisions for history-merge. At least the history-merges appear to have been all correctly executed. Now I need to go back and find all the other cases like these. There's likely more than what you've found. wbm1058 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Is it useful for me to report more as I come across them, or have you got it under control? Category:Cassella is the latest one I've found.Le Deluge (talk) 12:54, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm working on the fix right now; it should be done soon. No harm in reporting more cases, in case you find something caused by a different bug in my bot's program. wbm1058 (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Still making progress on this, but taking longer than expected due to multiple scenarios where I need to clear false-positives. Still hoping to finish this later today. wbm1058 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
@Le Deluge: User:Wbm1058/Category history merges: pages to be restored lists 73 pages that I will instruct my bot to restore, including the 9 you reported above, unless there is a reason why some of them should be kept deleted. I'm not restoring any deleted pages that are #REDIRECTs or {{Category redirect}}s, or have CFD templates. That's 73 out of 6,669 categories history-merged by the bot so far. – wbm1058 (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
From my point of view, I'm more than happy for them all to be restored, I'm only seeing them because they show up in a report of red-linked categories - I see the prince-bishops are there as well. But I'd be a wee bit cautious - some that stand out are the early 20s in the Ottoman Empire which were moved correctly - it's a bit debatable during the civil war but technically the Ottoman Empire existed until 1922. I suspect you might need to whitelist some of the movers like Tim! and Cydebot (who I think implements many of the speedies?). The likes of BrownHairedGirl and Marcocapelle also can be trusted. But the sooner they get off my report the better! <g> Le Deluge (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

OK, these 73 categories have been restored. These should all be categories that were re-created after Cydebot "moved" the category to a different title. My bot's hist-merge is intended to more formally complete Cydebot's "move" that was done before it was technically possible to move categories. The only whitelisted users are myself and Merge bot because we created a lot of redirects as a side-effect of our hist-merge operations, and those redirects are intentionally deleted. It's anything else that was unintentionally deleted; I was not looking for editors to re-create the category after it had been merged to another category, though I should have been. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Le Deluge, Mikemor92, Spiderjerky, Bearcat, Borsoka, and Rikster2: You created some pages to fill the gaps left by Merge bot's erroneous deletions; now the history is restored so you can compare your version with the previous version, e.g.:
@BrownHairedGirl, John Tann, and DinosaursLoveExistence: Alas, some categories may have been emptied as a result of the erroneous deletions, so now are empty cats upon restoration, e.g.
Sorry for the inconvenience I've caused y'all. – wbm1058 (talk) 11:53, 23 August 2017 (UTC)