Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs

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

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

Please make sure it is not listed below.
Green bug and broom.svg It didn't report a page being discussed in a workflow in my WikiProject
    Make sure that your WikiProject's banner is present on the talk page of the article being discussed. While talk page tagging is the most reliable way to include a page in the article alerts, your project may also subscribe to article alerts via different ways (e.g. categories, deletion sorting). You can customize subscription options at your project's subscription settings to catch some of those untagged articles.
Green bug and broom.svg It says a page is "closed" and does not provide details
    Not all workflow closure details have been implemented. Some will just show closed when the page is removed from the workflow (deleted, moves, merged, promoted, etc.)
Green bug and broom.svg Discussion page is a red-link
    Some discussion pages await creation until a reviewer/commenter does so. The bot should say "start discussion" for red-links. That said, if the page linked to is wrong, report this please.
Green bug and broom.svg Wrong user/time for an article entry
    First, please check that this has not arisen due to vandalism of the page, i.e., a vandal removed the workflow tag and it was subsequently restored. If this is not the case, please report below.
Green bug and broom.svg Workflow X isn't covered
    See Wikipedia:Article alerts/Workflows for a current list of what is/is not covered at the moment. Request new workflows on feature requests page.
Green bug and broom.svg Old bot did X before, it doesn't do it now
    Not everything is yet implemented from the previous bot's specification. Please do bring up crucial features on discussion page or new features on feature requests page.

Subst templates in archived[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

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



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

WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: France3470 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

bug   New bug

Filled by: Czarkoff (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

Mass move nominations[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Fyunck(click) (talk)

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

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

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

Thanks for report. Well, the page is not in Category:Requested moves, so it wasn't picked up. And the bot doesn't parse the actual nomination text, where the multiple pages are listed. It's not really a bug, more like an unimplemented feature. But I am aware of this and know this needs doing.
It is a bit of a mess from algorithm perspective. The bot first attempts to get the list of all the pages that will need reporting (AfD, TfD, RM, etc.), and only then parse individual ones as needed for subscriptions/projects. For example, RMs come from Category:Requested moves and multiple nominated pages do not appear there. So, once the bot reads the actual multiple nominations, it would need to add these new pages to the list. However, projects to whom these pages belong may have already had their report delivered. For example, Hungary's report is delivered before Tennis' (alphabetically), and if bot discovers pages while checking Tennis-related RMs and one of those pages happens to belong to Hungary as well, it won't be delivered there anymore. Next run, same problem, as the pages don't appear in preliminary lists and bot would think they are removed from RMs until it again gets checking individual pages. However, it doesn't even check pages it has seen already because it is very big waste of resources (with 1k pages per run). I guess I would need to parse all the RMs prior to even starting writing reports. This is possible, but will need a bigger rewrite than a simple fix. That said, I can detect when {{requested move/dated|multiple=yes}} is used (I'll probably change the template to categorize pages) and check those only. Anyway, pardon the technicalities, just thinking aloud. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually it's interesting to hear you think aloud. I'd swear it didn't used to be this way. That when editors did multi-rms they were required to do it differently so that all articles under a multi-rm were listed under Category:Requested moves. It seems like I had to do it that way in the past myself... but it looks like no more. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): You're right! This predates my becoming active on Wikipedia, so I had to do some digging to find it... On 23 November 2006 Duja created Template:Multimove, a new template for multiple page moves, and updated the instructions to explain its intended use. {{Multimove}} populated Category:Requested moves. But it wasn't until two years later (31 December 2008) that the closing instuctions were updated to say "don't forget to remove the {{move}} tag from the talk page and {{multimove}} from the talk pages of any bundled pages." On 29 May 2009 Harej (the original RM bot operator) changed the procedure and removed these multimove instructions. The last version of the instuctions to request moving several pages at once looked like this. On 8 August 2009 Harej deprecated Template:Multimove, changing it to say "This template has been deprecated. A bot will post on this page that a move discussion is in progress." On 30 October 2009 Harej removed "and {{multimove}} from the talk pages of any bundled pages" from the closing instructions.
Now that I've reviewed the history of this, let's see if I can restore the old functionality using RMCD bot. I'm upgrading this to high priority, so expect a solution soon. wbm1058 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Contemporary discussions about this issue and the related changes I listed above are at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 16 § Multimove integrated yet? and Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 16 § Phasing out multimove templates. Note that {{moveheader}} was userfied to User:Wbm1058/Template:Move header over six years ago, so that I could look at it (before I became an administrator). {{moveheader}} has been de facto superseded by by User:RMCD bot/subject notice. wbm1058 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Another mass move request for List of rail accidents by country that includes 30 pages, but no notifications. I had been wondering why; good to see that it's a known problem. If we were to manually add Category:Requested moves to the relevant talk pages, would that solve the notification issue without upsetting anything else? And further to this, there is of course the option of changing the way your bot operates. But why aren't mass move pages not all be included in said category? Isn't that where the way things are done should be changed? Schwede66 18:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Paul_012, see my reply to Fyunck(click) above. wbm1058 (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: Fixing this may require a little coordination between us. I looked for your source code, and found that when Community Tech asked to see it, you emailed them. I see above that you start processing RMs by working through Category:Requested moves. But that just gives you the pages requested to be moved; how do you identify the proposed new titles? I assume you read the talk pages in Category:Requested moves to locate the {{Requested move/dated}} template, and parse the move target parameter out of that. The original ArticleAlertbot which was coded in Java ran from September 2008 to April 2010, so it predated the requested moves bots, the first of which began operation in May 2009. As I mentioned above, {{Multimove}} was created in 2006 and from its beginning it added tagged articles to Category:Requested moves. I don't know whether the original Java version supported requested moves, but if it did, it likely would have looked for {{Multimove}} and parsed the move target parameter out of that. However {{Multimove}} was deprecated in August 2009, which inadvertently removed this needed support for the alerts bot. So, if {{Multimove}} support existed in the Java version, it would have been nonfunctional by the time you rewote it for your version of the alerts bot. But, if you didn't know it was nonfunctional, you may have ported the logic anyway. So, can you look to see whether the current code looks for {{Multimove}} as well as {{Requested move/dated}}? If it does, I can just restore that deleted template and update it for the current need to populate Category:Requested moves, and you may not need to update your code at all. If the current version doesn't look for {{Multimove}} then you will need to update your code to support this, and since you would be coding the check from scratch, I may make a new template as a subpage of RMCD bot, as with User:RMCD bot/subject notice that template would be "bot use only" (intended for placement and removal by the bot). Oh, I see you just tagged the documentation, so you may be working on this. wbm1058 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I suppose getting all the pages transcluding User:RMCD bot/subject notice, as Paul suggested, would be another approach to this, but not all RMs may get subject-notice tags. If the page is admin-protected, that notice will only be placed if an admin (likely me) notices and places the tag, since the bot only has template-editor privileges. Also the bot is exclusion compliant (respects {{nobots}}) so an article so tagged will not have a notice of the talk page discussion of its requested move. wbm1058 (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

"when Community Tech asked to see it, you emailed them." -- The code would need an update to security and licensing if I were to publicly post it. It currently has stuff I can't disclose and stuff I can't license easily. But I can explain any details you need.
"you start processing RMs by working through Category:Requested moves" -- Yeah, that's how I currently get the list.
"But that just gives you the pages requested to be moved; how do you identify the proposed new titles? I assume you read the talk pages in Category:Requested moves to locate the {{Requested move/dated}} template, and parse the move target parameter out of that." -- Yes, I read the talk page of the article, find {{Requested move/dated}} and parse what page it points to. (I also parsed |multiple= to grab the first title from |new1=, but that hasn't existed for a while [1].) I never parsed multiple noms.
"So, if {{Multimove}} support existed in the Java version, it would have been nonfunctional by the time you rewote it for your version of the alerts bot. [..] you may have ported the logic anyway." -- I wrote everything from scratch, I never saw the old code. And I never used {{Multimove}} because it didn't exist. So I guess we don't need to worry about any of that.
"I can just restore that deleted template and update it for the current need to populate Category:Requested moves" -- That won't matter, because by the time the bot parses the talk page, it's too late to add more pages. This is the issue I detailed above. I need the pages to be detectable at the same time or I make a big concurrency mess.
"Oh, I see you just tagged the documentation, so you may be working on this." -- I am thinking to just use this template for key info -- detecting pages, getting the discussion page and section, and getting the new name (which I don't need to do, but it's convenient). I would still parse the talk page for date and author and later for closure. I'm still early testing the viability and I was going to ask you some details in a little while, but you beat me to it :)
See also User:AAlertBot/Workflows near "RM" workflow, it has some hints on what the bot does. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You could just add:

RMCD bot would be responsible for removing User:RMCD bot/multimove from talk pages after the discussion closed. It would work similarly to the automated removal of User:RMCD bot/subject notice from closed discussions. Of course, if the closing administrator removes those without waiting for the bot to do it, that's fine. The bot just saves the closing admins the bother of that task, and ensures that the notices are removed in a timely manner. wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

How do we keep commenting within seconds... —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Good question – coinkydink, or because today is April 1?! These came _that close_ to being edit conflicts. I didn't see your edits before I saved mine. wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
So I think I can do multi-page requests fine now: [2]. I'm using {{User:RMCD bot/subject notice}} to find these and {{Requested move/dated}} to parse extra detail. (This isn't live.) I will change this to {{User:RMCD bot/multimove}} once I can test it. Could you please document the parameters that {{User:RMCD bot/multimove}} is going to have, so it's clear and I don't make any incorrect assumptions. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I just used the parameters for the subject notice, as you suggested.
{{User:RMCD bot/multimove|1=List of Annoying Orange episodes|2=Talk:The Annoying Orange#Requested move 31 March 2019 }}
1= the requested new title for the page
2= the page and section hosting the discussion. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I think I won't use the |1= and parse {{Requested move/dated}} directly since I need to read the page for that template anyway most of the time. But, out of curiosity, how does the bot handle {{Requested move/dated|?}} / {{Requested move/dated|new1=?}} cases -- what's set in |1=?
See THIS DIFF for an example. I just write the single ? character, and the bot knows that isn't literally meant to mean the ? article about the question mark. There would be a bit of a syntax conflict if anyone ever proposed moving question mark to ?, but I guess I'll wait to cross that bridge when I see it. wbm1058 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Heh, I'm glad today is April 2, and not the first. wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm using {{User:RMCD bot/multimove}} now and it looks good: [3] -- all three cases work (single nom, multi nom self, multi nom other).
Technical stuff follows, mostly for my own future reference. Weirdly, this approach actually means that I have to do more parsing and add more options for the workflow. Even though all the pages are now in the Category:Requested moves, which let's me find them easily, the "responsible template" for adding them to the category can be either {{Requested move/dated}} or {{User:RMCD bot/multimove}}. I don't know which one until I parse the talk page. Once I do, I get the actual template and therefore can parse the actual discussion location. I already had (most of) the logic to construct the discussion page name based on which template is "responsible". I use either |1= from {{User:RMCD bot/multimove}} or the section under which {{Requested move/dated}} is added. So far so good, but now I need to parse the {{Requested move/dated}} for the target page and addition revision for date/user, which is what every other workflow does. But the responsible template I have could very well be {{User:RMCD bot/multimove}} and the user/date there are not correct. In fact, I need to read the discussion page which definitely has the {{Requested move/dated}} template. I can't encode this into workflow options without making a mess, so I need to add this as separate options. So I added "auxiliary" template, which is only {{Requested move/dated}}. And I specify options to parse further values from the (1) discussion page and the (2) auxiliary template instead of the "normal" location where the responsible template is. So the second step of further parsing (which normally runs on the same responsible template and page) can instead choose a different page and different template to use for further parsing, which is how RMs get their user/date/target values. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I've implemented the basic code changes for this. I see that on Wikipedia:Requested moves/Article alerts all of these multimoves are listed as undated. Also, it can be hard to track down some of the discussions after they close if the pages are moved, especially in cases where a disambiguation page was involved and there was a change in primary topic. I'd still like to implement improved mechanisms on my end for tracking down these discussions after they've been closed and moved elsewhere. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I still need to push the update that implements the above functionality. The bot found these pages because of Category:Requested moves (but then failed to read the discussion from the talk page).
Detecting what happens to the discussion is definitely not straight-forward. I am doing this as well for the closure results, but there are just so many things that can happen to it. It's further complicated for me by the fact that the bot needs to "repair" other records when people move pages during active discussions, like during TfD or something. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Something happened on a particular run of my bot that made it remove all these new notices. Probably a bug in my code... I need to investigate. wbm1058 (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Yes, someone combined two requests into a multi request, and then updated the bot's notice, rather than letting my bot do it. Just the presence of underscores in a title is enough to make it "different" when compared to the title with spaces instead of underscores. I suppose Murphy's Law says I should make my bot check for this, as it's likely someone else will make similar edits in the future. wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Update now live with (mostly) dated multi-noms. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate archive entries again 2[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs)

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


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

Thanks for report. Okay, so this definitely happens when I/Headbomb switch who is running at the time [4]. I couldn't reproduce this on my own last two times after I fixed the initial issue. So this definitely has to do with something going wrong if bot is transitioned to run on different computers. I'll look into it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Missing date and names for MfD[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Link(s): [5]

Comments: For some reason, the bot is missing some dates and for MfDs. Handles group nomination well however. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Without example, I assume the MfD tag template was substituted incorrectly. This is reason for no date for like 95% of the cases. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Closed TfDs not being removed[edit]

bug   New bug

For some reason, two TfDs that were closed in March and April are not being removed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Article alerts by the bot. Any ideas why? Number 57 14:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that it has to do with the facts that both templates are still tagged with {{being merged}}, which make them populate Category:Templates for deletion. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'll see about detecting when a page is in a the TfD "holding cell" (Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests#TfD holding cell) at "some point". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

RFD bug[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Link(s): [6]

Comments: The bot correctly reports the RFD in the edit summary, but the RFD itself is missing from the reports. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Untagged RfDs don't get archived[edit]

  Not a bug  (Archiving)
  Rare unfixable corner-case  (date prediction)

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Link(s): [8][9]

Comments: See also [10] where things don't get archived either. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I see report removing entries and archive adding entries. I don't see any removals in [11]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I meant the bunch of undated entries that date back to ~Summer 2015. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:37, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Undated do get archived, just pretty late, something like archive time * 2 + week (and physics has 60 days archive). I think I mentioned somewhere I need to add a date the record itself was created/closed, so I can use that for when the date is missing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I thought that behaviour had been changed? Guess not. What is the purpose of haveing a double+ archive time?Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Because default is 7 days and most workflows are also 7 days (AfD). If it's undated and I only wait 7 days from creation (and something like RM that sit there for decades), then it would never appear as closed before getting archived. So it's 2*7 plus something. I don't remember the actual number, but with 60 day archival it's pretty high, though not as high as it used to be. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
So why not just archivetime + 7? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

In any case, the underlying issues of undated entries should get fixed. The special handling of undated is basically a workaround. I might make some bug reports for better handling of undated, but I believe I already have them in FRs. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:58, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Undated A-class reviews[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Link(s): Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts

Comments: The A-class reviews are undated. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

TfM not picked up[edit]

  Bug fixed
Moved from Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Missed TfD for WikiProject Shakespeare

Template:Infobox Shakespearean character was TfD'ed on 29 April (and closed today), but never showed up on WikiProject Shakespeare's alerts page. The template is tagged with the project's banner, and other article alerts have been updated at least as late as 8 April (which is also, apart from this TfD, the last relevant process to affect the project's articles that I'm aware of). I'm also not aware of any changes to the project banner, the project's article alerts subpage, or its subscription. The other WikiProject that has tagged the template also did not get an alert for this TfD so far as I can tell. And I can't immediately spot anything about the format of the TfD itself that might trip up the bot, nor find anything in the public log, and I see it picking up other TfDs today. Anything else I should check before concluding ArticleAlertBot had a hickup somewhere? --Xover (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Shakespeare/Article alerts hasn't been updated since 8 April. I thought at first that there could be a problem with the settings for that project; but I checked the contents of the (now deleted) template talk page, which was:
{{WikiProject Shakespeare|class=Template|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Fictional characters|class=template}}
{{tfdend|date=29 November 2010|result=no consensus}}
Now {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} is also set to trigger an article alert, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters/Article alerts - but the infobox wasn't listed there either. Since the latter did receive other updates in this period, the bot must have been ignoring either the Tfd or the whole of the template talk page. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The page wasn't picked up because the bot only looks for {{Template for discussion/dated}}. (And if it cannot find it, it skips reporting the TfD even as undated, because the likeliest scenario is that the user transcluded the nomination and polluted the category, which has happened before with hundreds of unrelated pages "nominated".) I don't know what {{Template:Infobox Shakespearean character}} had, but {{Infobox character}} had {{Tfm/dated}} from {{Tfm}}, which the bot doesn't know about. I didn't realize this was a separate template, so I need to use that. On a related note, it also doesn't pick up Modules. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
The TfD proposal was to merge into {{Infobox character}}, so it's indeed highly likely that both had {{Tfm/dated}}. So, mystery cleared up it seems. Thanks! --Xover (talk) 15:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it had
{{Tfm/dated|page=Infobox Shakespearean character|otherpage=Infobox character|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 April 29#Template:Infobox Shakespearean character|type=sidebar|help=off|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}
so indeed it was {{Tfm/dated}} --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Fixed next update. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Now live. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Modules not reported for TfD[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)



Fixing next update. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:05, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Now live (haven't checked, but it's straight-forward). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Mishandling multiple RfCs on one talk page[edit]

  Rare unfixable corner-case  (Outside bot's design)

Filled by: Bradv (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


Comments: The bot is creating the article alert for the current RfC, but using the date and author from the previous closed RfC, which is still on the talk page. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law shows the correct information. – bradv🍁 16:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Safrolic who raised the issue on my talk page. – bradv🍁 16:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. Yeah, the bot doesn't do well with multiples of the same workflow. To the bot, a page is either in a workflow or not in a workflow. For RfC date and user, the bot looks for the RfC template insertion, and this fails when there was a previous one already like in the reported case here. In contrast, the RFC bot searches and parses sections and reads the user/date from there (I am like 85% sure that how it works), which isn't how AAB does it. And I can't really fix this easily. When the bot was designed, I didn't consider that the same workflow can be active multiple times for the same page, since none of the other workflows (AfD, RM, etc.) can (the only other comparable exception is ACR, which is project-dependent and the bot also breaks on it half the time). I will think about this, but I cannot promise fixing this soon. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:52, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
By "RFC bot", do you mean Legobot (talk · contribs)? If so, this bot ignores sections and signatures. See source on github, in which this is the relevant regexp:
As I understand it, this looks for the five-character sequence "{{rfc" (case-insensitive) which it takes as the start of an open RfC; the next valid timestamp is taken as the end of the RfC statement. Anything that occurs after that timestamp is ignored unless another instance of "{{rfc" is found on the same page. User signatures before the timestamp are treated as text. That timestamp is also used as the start time for the purposes of calculating the 30-day duration of the RfC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, I guess it doesn't care about sections, just the occurrences of rfc templates. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna tag this as unfixable for now, because having multiples of the same workflow on a page is basically impossible for the bot to detect. This happens very rarely and only for stuff like RfC and I can't really justify such a major rework. Unfortunately that means a rare missing/incorrect RfC. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it does happen, particularly on (i) general discussion pages like WP:VPR and (ii) the talk pages of controversial articles. To illustrate the latter, Talk:Electric smoking system had, at one point less than a month ago, no fewer than eight open RfCs, but they're all gone now. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I might consider smarter parsing to list all RfCs on a page, but it will still consider it a single entry. That might suffice, although the dates and users will likely be broken. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

RFD gets removed upon relisting[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): See [12], while Journal of the American Society of Nephrology : JASN is relisted.

Comments: And later re-appears... [13]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why. The bot doesn't care about relists. Nothing that I can see in histories changed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove FPOC[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


FPOC is deprecated, templates are being removed. It was removed from bot's list, but of course it's still being reported with 0 pages.

Anyway, removed in next update. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:22, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Now removed. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

File reported[edit]

  Bug fixed

Hi, the alert appears to be reporting File:OOjs UI icon edit-ltr-progressive.svg but there is no talk page for any project tags to be on. Keith D (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a lot of trouble with this one today, it crashed the bot and everything. The bot reports images in FFD if they are used by any of the project's articles. So if page Sun uses File:Sun.png, it will get reported in Astronomy AA. In this case though, it's used on 687,798 pages, so technically pretty much every project had it reported as some page of theirs ends up using it (but of course the exact pages aren't listed, because there are 670k of them). I didn't really think of this case before.
I need to add a bunch of limits so the bot ignores such files. I thought I did so for today, but I messed something up. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:32, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Files with too many page usages won't be reported next update (although it's probably too late for this one before I can push it). New pages won't get added to workflow list. Old records will get (silently) removed. FFD has a workflow param to limit it to 100. Ideally, it would limit to the number of subscriptions, but that's too much effort for this corner case. It would still (theoretically) report if it the file itself belongs to a project, just not based on its usages. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Now live (and removed from all reports). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Still in Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture/Livestock task force/Article alerts Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
It is also still in Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Article alerts. I was under the impression that the bot only reports pages whose talk pages are tagged as part of the WikiProject (in this case, {{WP Elements}}). ComplexRational (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Attempt #2. The file got readded (simply put) due to different circumstances on the follow-up run. Once the bot sees it and decides it wants to report it, it's really hard to flush it out of the system... I manually hard-coded it to skip it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Too much content before AfD closure makes bot skip it[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 08:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): [14]


By design, but it seems there are valid cases like the link. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Didn't skip over vandalism in history parse[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): [15] [16]


Not sure why. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I see the bug/issue here? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, cluebot. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect discussion link[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Keith D (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): [17]

Comments: The BOT has added 2 "Articles to be merged" entries but for the first of the entries the discussion link is to the incorrect talk page as the discussion is on the talk page of the second entry.

Thanks for reporting. I now realize that the default discussion location is implied depending on the template. The problem is getting the merge "directions" as otherwise the bot reports both articles, which isn't actually what I wanted, as I expected there to be {{merge to}} and {{merge from}}, not {{merge}} and {{merge to}}. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:48, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

AFC submission date should use most recent submission[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 07:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): See [18], which reports Draft:SoftwareX as dated from '25 Jan 2019'. Whereas the current submission's timestamp is 20190728231814 → 28 July 2019. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

  • You can tell it's the most recent submission by the empty |1= in the {{AFC submission}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


AFC closure weirdness[edit]

bug   New bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): [19]


In the 30 July 2019 report, we had

In the 31 July report, we had

and Archives 2 had

So a few things were. The declined wasn't reported (Draft:Communications Physics), and Draft:Psychreg (moved into mainspace) just disappeared. It probably would a good idea to keep the items in the listing for a few days [1 archive time? 7 days?] after 'closure'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a one time thing due to dropped pages due to bot crashes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The premature archiving is fixed at #Closure date based on close date, which is a slightly bigger overall thing. No idea where Draft:Communications Physics went. Likely one-time bug. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

AfC promotion[edit]

  Bug fixed   (tagged with banner)
bug   New bug  (without banner)

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): [20]


Moved to mainspace = promoted. Need to parse talk page banner. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Redirected drafts detected and talk page parsed for closure properly, e.g. [21]. Current closed and prematurely archived stuff (#Closure date based on close date) won't appear. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Pages moves to mainspace without placing the banner on talk page don't get closure details. I need to manually parse the move. Might also mention if it's the author moving it (like deprods). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Closure date based on close date[edit]

  Bug fixed   (dated closure)
bug   New bug  (undated closure)

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): every other report


Was based on open date. This leads to workflows that are active for more than a week to fall off quicker than archive time. So really old ones got archived instantly. Now using the actual closure date + archive time. Undated will keep using open date + archive time + 7. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

workflows = !AFC ignored[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 12:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Article alerts#AFC despite the subscription page having |workflows=!AFC


"!AFC" means "The workflows I want is not AFC". So no workflows are selected, because that value doesn't say what workflows you want. Technically, it's working as intended, because no reports have been delivered since. What you want is "ALL, !AFC". I'll make the bot throw a warning if this happens. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. Stupid brainfart. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It still includes the AFC stuff btw. Should that just be manually deleted? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The code is "ALL", not "All". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Banners being transcluded on log pages[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: JPG-GR (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Link(s): [22]

Comments: Log linked above has WikiProject Banners incorrectly transcluded instead of (presumably) linking to them, causing the log page itself to appear in Category:WikiProject banners with formatting errors. - JPG-GR (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Will fix, thanks for report. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)