Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs

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

Click here to report a new bug about Article Alerts bot.
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.

Reboot of Article Alerts[edit]

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 As this represent a total reboot of the project, all previous discussions have been archived under "ArticleAlertbot (old bot)" list to the right.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

Subst templates in archived[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

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

Link(s):

Comments:

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

Renamed GA nominee gets duplicated[edit]

  Rare unfixable corner-case

Filled by: GregorB (talk · contribs)

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

Link(s): diff

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

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

Bot reporting changed TFA[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

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

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

Bot reporting new AFD[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Meco (talk · contribs)

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

Link(s): [1]

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

Thanks for report. I didn't realize renamed (moved mid-workflow) entries get miscounted in edit summaries. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Here's more of the same.[2] __meco (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. It's a little weird. I must have messed something up (again). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
I think this is now fixed (3 years later, lol) as part of #Stated_TFD_does_not_appear_in_the_report. Didn't realize what the issue was at the time and didn't see it again (it's hard to reproduce as I need to manually grab previous data files and keep re-running those, assuming nothing on wiki related to that changes). In hindsight, it makes perfect sense why it got summarized but not reported.. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: France3470 (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Czarkoff (talk · contribs)

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

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

Comments:

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

Mass move nominations[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Fyunck(click) (talk)

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

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

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

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

Duplicate archive entries again 2[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Sir Sputnik (talk · contribs)

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

Link(s):

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

Thanks for report. Okay, so this definitely happens when I/Headbomb switch who is running at the time [3]. 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]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

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

Link(s): [4]

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]

Green bug.svg   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)

Lutheranism category not picked up in Christianity[edit]

  Bug fixed   (Legacy code)

Category talk:Lutheran sermon writers is tagged with {{WikiProject Lutheranism}} which puts it in Category:Category-Class Christianity articles. It was CFD'd on Nov 25 but does not appear in Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Article alerts. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for report (and I know I am super-late to the party). I think this is a bug in revision insertion parsing. My old code is gone, so I would be writing it anew anyway, hopefully without the bug. (For my reference: CfD added here (2nd revision). Next bot report here. In the same report, Category:Church was picked up fine with CfD here (many revisions).) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Bold new entries?[edit]

  Bug fixed

I'm not sure whether this a bug or design decision, but the bot has stopped bolding new entries when it adds them to WikiProject specific AA pages. Either way, it would be nice to have it back, since it was a convenient way of tracking which pages I had or had not checked. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

On an article alerts page, boldface was used to highlight an item that was newly-added, or which had changed since the last time that AAlertBot (talk · contribs) built the page. Headbomb, Hellknowz - it appears that this boldface is no longer added. Is there a reason for that? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my hard drive died and I had to restore the source code from an older version. I have not yet reimplemented all the stuff changed since. I've gotten some of the bugs re-fixed, but some of the features are missing. Real-life is a lot of work (har har). Didn't even realize the new entry boldface was one of them, it seems like it has been around forever. Thanks for reporting and do report anything else missing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

GA noms on Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Article alerts[edit]

Filled by: Rodw (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments: I'm not sure whether this is a bug, but I can't understand why alert bot picks up some GA nominations for WikiProject Somerset and misses others. Recent nominations of Watchet, Blagdon Lake, Cadbury Castle, Somerset and Westonzoyland Pumping Station Museum are not appearing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset/Article alerts, even though (as far as I can see) they are formatted in the same way as earlier nominations.— Rod talk 09:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's really weird. I don't see any obvious reason for this. Both included and excluded pages look the same. I'll investigate. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Couldn't debug this case in time, same bug now at Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Multiple_GANs_missing_from_report_after_multiple_days -- will resolve there. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:36, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Article prefix/namespace bug[edit]

Howdy; I'm chasing down an odd article prefix/namespace bug - see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#Article prefix/namespace bug. The articles below seem to have been created in namespace 0 (rather than 4):

- TB (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha. Well, that's interesting. These seem to have all been created on Jan 27, 2015 during the bot's run. No other before or since. I have not changed API in any way regarding page creation either. I can only guess this is some kind of MediaWiki bug that was live for a very brief time. I have no clue how to fix these, I can't even tell on-wiki that they are in article space, not from API sandbox either.
  • 09:23, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+9,964)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject Serbia/Article alerts ‎ (BOT: Updating Article alert report: +1 PR) (HB/111/AR)
  • 09:23, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,383)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Science and education in Russia task force/Article alerts ‎ (BOT: Updating Article alert report: No major changes) (HB/111/AR)
  • 09:21, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+221,036)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Article alerts/Archive ‎ (BOT: Updating report archive with 1 entries) (HB/111/AR)
  • 09:20, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+1,461)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject New York Yankees/Article alerts ‎ (BOT: Updating Article alert report: No major changes) (HB/111/AR)
  • 09:14, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+4,723)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/Article alerts ‎ (BOT: Updating Article alert report: No major changes) (HB/111/AR)
  • 09:13, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+20,766)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject Delaware/Article alerts/Archive ‎ (BOT: Updating report archive with 2 entries) (HB/111/AR)
  • 09:11, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+127,819)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force/Article alerts/Archive ‎ (BOT: Updating report archive with 1 entries) (HB/111/AR)
  • 09:08, January 27, 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+5,072)‎ . . N Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Article alerts ‎ (BOT: Updating Article alert report: -1 TfD) (HB/111/AR)

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for checking. Jackmcbarn has identified phabricator:T87645 as the relevant MediaWiki bug. I'll let you know if/when the articles are properly relocated just in case it perturbs this tool. - TB (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The misplaced copies of the above 8 articles have now been deleted. - TB (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Stated TFD does not appear in the report[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Keith D (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Link(s): alert report

Comments: In the above alert report the summary says "+1 TfD (Template:Lincolnshire Loop Line)" but there is no entry in the report covering the template.

Thanks for report. I think I know why. The bot doesn't report entries for certain workflows that it cannot properly parse. In this case {{Tfm/dated}} for Template:Colorbox placed the Template:Lincolnshire Loop Line that transcludes it in Category:Templates for merging. I bet the summary logic didn't account for entries the bot didn't report, but saw/tracked internally. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:41, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I fixed it now. Summary builder now checks for the kill flag that undated records receive (and thus don't get posted). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Not updating WP:Video games[edit]

  Bug fixed

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts hasn't been updated for a week which is unusual given how active the page usually is. Is the bot skipping it? --The1337gamer (talk) 11:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's certainly an issue, thanks for reporting. So what the bot got was a response:
<?xml version="1.0"?><api><edit spamblacklist="google.com/cse" result="Failure" /></api>
Basically, it tried to add a link that's in the spam blacklist. This is probably because one of the PROD summaries included it or something and the bot tried to quote it. I'll add logic to detect when spam blacklisting happens and to deliver the report without custom user text. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Multiple GANs missing from report after multiple days[edit]

  Bug fixed
  Bug fixed

Filled by: Czar (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 08:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Link(s): Multiple recent GAN listings missing from the past few updates of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo/Article alerts

Comments:

Thanks for report. I've been trying and failing to find the cause of missing pages. (Mostly, by the time I got to debugging, the pages have moved about and I can't reproduce.) This time, I think I got it. Had two bugs in closely related places. Fixing one just produced almost the same results and left the other around, so I didn't realize my fix was fine but there was another issue. Comparing half-fix with full fix actually made a difference to VG report, so I managed to track down both. Will see on next run when the version gets updated.

For my later reference: multiple batches in same pagelist addpage request overwrote list rather than appended; last batch final page index check fail against page count due to non-workflow skipped pages. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! With this fix (apparently), WP Louisville just got an alert for a GAN started on August 2, as well as a Requested Move, started on August 2. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 11:41, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. WP Languages also was updated for four requested moves filed July 25–27. Wbm1058 (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Not updating WP:MADONNA[edit]

Hello Article alerts, the bot has not been updating the above project for a long time. Can you please check what's the issue? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: The bot did run today just now, but it did not update the GAN log correctly. —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 08:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for report. See recent update above #Multiple_GANs_missing_from_report_after_multiple_days, hopefully the same issue. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

RFD bug[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

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

Link(s): [5]

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)

WikiProject:Professional wrestling AfDs[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Ribbon Salminen (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:54, 26 August 2015

Link(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arukas Cup Six Man Tag Tournament
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novus (professional wrestling)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Road to Keiji Muto Tournament

Comments: The bot hasn't added these AfDs to the project's article alerts page. It updates the page daily, but for some reason skipped these. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 08:13, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

The bot doesn't know that those pages belong to the project. Mainly, because they don't have project talk page banners. I will add Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wrestling for subscription dellist option, though that will only include manually listed pages. Is there any other way one could detect pages automatically that are part of the project, like a list somewhere? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
They've now been added. Thanks. Didn't realize it could be about the missing talk pages. Will keep that in mind in the future. リボン・サルミネン (Ribbon Salminen) (LOLTNA) 10:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrong MFD[edit]

  Bug fixed

Filled by: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Link(s): Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Article alerts, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians (wrong one), Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians (3rd nomination) (correct one).

Comments: In this update, the bot includes the MFD notice for Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians but writes it as "undated" and links to the 2011 discussion, not the current 3rd one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I see an above example that's based on a wrong substitution of the MFD template. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for report. MfD template should not be substituted. The bot cannot read them once they're expanded, it will simply notify us to un-subst the template. Generally, the bot doesn't require to do something that's not part of regular template instructions.
The actual issue is that the MfD is using {{mfdx}} template, which we hadn't added to the list. I didn't realize it even exists, as it is not a redirect to the main {{mfd}} template [7]. I see it mentioned in instructions now. I will add it to bot's templates and it should pick it up. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently the discussion page syntax is different too. Anyway, seems good. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft namespaces[edit]

  Bug fixed

Moved from User_talk:AAlertBot#Draft_namespaces

Pages in the draft namespace should show a link in the draft talk namespace rather than a link such as [[Talk:Draft:Draft|talk]]. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I tried finding this at the time you posted but couldn't. Could you provide any example for this? I'm not sure where this happens. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I finally figured out what's going on after seeing an example and investigating. A talk add/remove logic issue, basically we didn't have Draft at the time the API was created and it never got added (and a bunch of others too, like Help). fixed example. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Lingering files for discussion[edit]

In Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisville/Article alerts there are 3 files for discussion that have been sitting there since October and the link to the respective discussions doesn't show the files being discussed. Same on Wikipedia:WikiProject Kentucky/Article alerts. It looks like there's a common issue here. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for report. The entries are still there because the files still have {{ffd}} templates, so they are still in Category:Wikipedia files for discussion. October does appear to be the right date when the template was first added [8]. It was however updated later [9] to a new location, but the bot doesn't recheck pages as that would take a lot of resources for all the pages. Finally, I didn't know there was an undocumented |1= parameter for the {{ffd}}, so it wouldn't link to the section -- I can fix that at least. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. They belong in the alert list after all, but the discussion link is decayed because these files were left out of the original discussion. Hrmmm. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 13:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
The section names should now work [10] (although it seems individual entries on FFD subpages still create anchors for linking to file names direct), but this is more inline with the template. Now, re-retrieving active pages is more complicated than that. Before some source code was lost, I had User:AAlertBot/Reget, where I could manually give it some page names to re-retrieve, so I need to at least get that working again. The problem is detecting this automatically. Naively, it would involve going through every page every time looking for changes, which is pretty time and resource costly. It definitely needs a smarter way, but that becomes pretty involved and complicated very quickly. For example, I could read the current FFD log pages and see if any new entries have the same files as the bot has already seen -- then there's a good chance it needs to recheck them. But the number of discussions that get changed once started isn't very high, so this hasn't been a priority to fix. I am keeping it in mind though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

RfDs not reported[edit]

  Bug fixed

The {{RfD}} breaking syntax changes caused no RfDs to be reported for quite a while. Should be fixed now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RfD bug - January 2016[edit]

  Bug fixed   (Not AAB bug)

Filled by: HyperGaruda (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Link(s): [11]

Comments: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Article alerts. In the mentioned edit, an RfD was added, but without a date or a link to the discussion. (ping me if I have to reply, thanks!) - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@HyperGaruda: That one was due to some database lag. It should be fine tomorrow. Thanks for the report though! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This was a MediaWiki issue, the pages hadn't properly updated their categories. Purging the cache fixed the issue and they no longer appear in Category:All redirects for discussion. The affected RfDs (at least, the ones tagged by any project) were:
example API report

{

   "batchcomplete": "",
   "query": {
       "pages": {
           "4898795": {
               "pageid": 4898795,
               "ns": 0,
               "title": "Hexal International Group",
               "categories": [
                   {
                       "ns": 14,
                       "title": "Category:All redirects for discussion"
                   },
                   {
                       "ns": 14,
                       "title": "Category:Redirects for discussion from November 2015"
                   },
                   {
                       "ns": 14,
                       "title": "Category:Redirects to list entries"
                   }
               ]
           }
       }
   }

}

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, great! Thanks for the heads up. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

alerts not being archived[edit]

  Not a bug  (archive time)
  Bug fixed   (closure dates)

Filled by: 8bitW (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Link(s):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Article_alerts

Comments: Alerts aren't being archived. According to user:Headbomb, 'archive time is set to " |archivetime = 90".' I was told to report it, so here it is. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitW (talkcontribs)

Hey! I removed the |archivetime=90 from Astronomy subscription. This just meant the bot tries to wait 90 days since closure before archiving closed entries instead of usual 7. In addition, if the closure date is not known, it waits twice the archive time. This happens to be 90*2, so 6 months since most entries didn't have a closure date. I'll change it to something more like +7 days internally. AfDs should now have closure dates on deleted ones too. A bunch of workflows don't have exact closure dates implemented yet. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Untagged RfDs don't get archived[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

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

Link(s): [12][13]

Comments: See also [14] 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 [15]. —  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)

WP:OPENACCESS not updated[edit]

Green bug.svg   New bug

Filled by: Daniel Mietchen (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Link(s): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Article_alerts&oldid=672100563

Comments: The current revision still lists an RfC that was closed in August 2015. There also seems to have been some confusion between RfC and RfD, as per the last edit. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for report. This is weird, the bot hasn't edited the report since July 2015, although the subscription seems active. The RfD seems like a separate bug (may or may not still exist, I know sometimes it report things in summary not posted in the report). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not a bug[edit]

This may not be a bug per se, but I was looking at the category of expired PRODs and noticed articles about two Japanese footballers, Ryuji Okada and Ryo Okatani. Neither of them have been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Article alerts, so it got me wondering whether there is a gap that these two articles may have fallen through. Both are listed in Category:Japanese footballers. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that's not really a bug. The bot doesn't know the two pages belong to WikiProject Japan, because they are not tagged with the project's banner (which is how the project's subscription is set up). Individual categories are not used (one category can be used, but not subcategories). The Category:Japanese footballers is not something the bot even considers. Some day I might extend it to gather pages in more ways, such as a list of custom categories. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. So the important message here is that, when tagging an article for prod or Afd, taking an extra minute to add appropriate banners will bring extra eyes to the page. I will try to do this myself in future. Cheers! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
See also the item "It didn't report a page being discussed in a workflow in my WikiProject" under the "report a bug" button up on this page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that after I typed my last reply. Not sure how my eyes glossed over it the first two times... Sorry for the bother. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Not a bother, just pointing out the additional options for subscriptions (like deletion sorting or whatever) your project might consider on top of banners. They might not have covered the two articles above however, as banners are the best/most reliable way to put articles in your project's daily reports. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect reporting of AFD closure[edit]

  Not a bug

Filled by: Athomeinkobe (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 00:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Link(s): WikiProject Australia alert, relevant AFD

Comments: Yesterday's (3rd August) article alert for WikiProject Australia reported the AFD of Lavington Square Shopping Centre as being closed, when in fact it is still open and only 2 days old. I note that "It says a page is "closed" and does not provide details is a common bug listed at the top of the page that shouldn't be reported, but I think this is a slightly different situation, since it is reporting the closure of something that isn't closed at all.

Thanks for report. This happened because the AfD template was not present on the page when the bot ran: [16]. The closure is "incorrect" because the discussion didn't have anything the bot recognized as a close result. There's very little I can do to detect this reliably and it's really rare anyway. In any case, it should pick the page up again on the next run (in a bit from this time). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. I see a bot restored the template 4 hours later, so it's just a matter of luck that the article alert bot ran during that period. I understand that sort of thing can't be helped. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
It has been re-added to today's report. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)