Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests

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

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

Click here to request a new feature.


Reboot of Article Alerts[edit]

After several months of inactivity, a new bot has been coded to replace User:ArticleAlertbot. See the bot request for approval for details. As this represent a total reboot of the project, all previous discussions have been archived under "ArticleAlertbot (old bot)" list just above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Custom categories[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb

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

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


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

A parameter to simplify the output[edit]

light bulb New proposal  (will implement)

Filled by: Skotywa

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

Description: A parameter to simplify the output

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

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

Mergers and Splits[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Simply south (talk · contribs)

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agree. This feature would be greatly greatly appreciated, although given the large number of mergers at any one time in a project, initially only mergers proposed in the last month may need to be displayed. --LT910001 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Strong support for adding proposed merges to the article alerts to give these a higher visibility and help editors clean up merge backlogs.--Wolbo (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Betterly and more intelligenterer media-related alerts[edit]


Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

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

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

So, the report for WikiProject Physics could read something like

if it is tagged directly. And something like

if it is not tagged directly.

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


Implemented for FFD. Example. Report entries also say which page uses it (numbered links if multiple or just count if insanely many (which I think can happen if a template used in many articles has an image that is FFDed)). Article space only for now (not sure where else we'd want this -- there's a lot of false positives in other places, like templates).
Also added User:AAlertBot/RegetWorkflows so that full workflow record re-parsing can be triggered on-site (like what is needed for the next run for existing FfDs to be detected).
This is sort of like tracking where pages redirect, but not really. I need to similarly run a query on every file to find all the file usages and then add all those pages to the processing list. (Redirects actually need to parse the page, because putting a template on the page "cancels" the redirect -- MW doesn't see it as such.) Then, when correlating pages to subscriptions, also check the matched files for banner/cats/whatever. Also need to locally save the record's file-used pages (and the save version is now 3). Plus a thousand tiny things. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:04, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Copyvio/project intersect[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Novickas (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

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

GTC/FTC child article listing[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

AfD !votes summary[edit]

 Implemented (participant count)
 Implemented (!vote count)
 Implemented (relists)
light bulb New proposal  (problem tags)

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

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

Project pages listed in reports[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

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

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


DYK workflow[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Piotrus (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

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

Post single events onto talk pages[edit]

shuffling arrows Proposal out of scope

Filled by: Ahnoneemoos (talk · contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

| afd = yes
| rfc = no
I don't know if that's in the scope of the bot. I don't see why the alert page needs to be duplicated on the project talk page. That is usually for pressing matters and non-routine nomination, and the bot can't make that distinction. Surely anyone wanting those notifications can just follow the alerts page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I didn't mean the whole alert page. I meant individual changes to be posted on a talk page. That way I can be notified through MediaWiki's New Talk message functionality rather than through a Watchlist (since I don't use the Watchlist feature). It's equivalent to receiving an email but within Wikipedia's system. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you mean like on a user (e.g. your) talk page? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, a User talk page or a Project talk page. We can test it on User talk pages first (mine) if you want. We can also add thresholds so that the bot doesn't massive spam. Kinda like how MiszaBot works. See User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo#Parameters explained; re: parameters minthreadsleft and minthreadstoarchive but within AAlertBot's context. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
By the way, so that you understand the rationale behind this: we have had a historic problem at WikiProject Puerto Rico where people nominate articles for deletion and don't notify the Project, its contributors, nor the person that created the article (see [1] [2] [3] and [4] for examples). Notifying people is not required but nominators usually do it. This requested feature would help alleviate this issue and allow us to participate in AfDs and RFCs promptly. We are only interested in AfDs, proposed deletions, categories for discussion, templates for discussion, files for deletions, and requested moves. Featured candidates, Good article candidates, and Peer reviews are irrelevant for us. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
But that ("people nominate articles for deletion and don't notify") is exactly why AAB exists -- so that there is a centralized page with only the relevant notices that everyone can watch. Also, you can filter which workflows you want (AfD, PROD, not FAC, etc.). See Wikipedia:Article_alerts/Subscribing#Choosing_workflows, you don't need to receive stuff you don't want. You can even set up multiple pages, each for different purposes. Also, I don't quite understand how you can get a new talk page message from project talk pages, I thought that ever only works with user talk pages? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
No no no, what I'm requesting is that the bot posts on your User talk page in order to leverage the New Talk message feature. The configuration can be done on the User Talk page so that we know that the user itself chose to be notified on his talk page. Remember, the way the bot works today is through the Watchlist feature, which I'm trying to avoid. People have to watch a page so that they can see it changes. However, by allowing the bot to notify on a User talk page we avoid the watchlist feature. It is more intrusive, but it's setup by the user itself, knowing that he will be spammed. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

TAFI article alert[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: NickPenguin (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

Categories for speedy deletion and renaming[edit]

shuffling arrows Proposal out of scope

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

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

Multi-page move notifications[edit]

light bulb New proposal

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

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

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

Archive TFAs[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Czar (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

Page curation[edit]

shuffling arrows Proposal out of scope

Filled by: Schwede66 (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

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

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

Speedy deletions with a grace period[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Redrose64 (talk · contribs)

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

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


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

Will list individual workflows or conditional additions to workflow with reasonable grace periods as separate feature requests. Like G13 below. I also want to consider a more concise list for these. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Those would be


Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For files, all seem to make use of {{Deletable file}}, but only enter categories after they've crossed the grace period. The list of files can be found WhatLinksHere. Exiting the workflow is done by being deleted, or by leaving the WhatLinksHere results. Date of deletion can be predicted, but varies depending on the F#, and will need more advanced parsing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

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

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Balaenoptera musculus (talk · contribs)

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

Description: Add "In The News" candidate articles.

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

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

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


Simplify output if there are no alerts[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Stevietheman (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Description: Perhaps this requires a new parameter, but in the case of there being no alerts, I would like to have an empty result rather than a message "No Article alerts at this time." appear. This is because I use these alerts within a project alerts banner, and I would like the banner to not appear if there are no alerts. For this purpose, it's much more straightforward to check against an empty result than a formatted message.

Comments: Checking against a formatted messaged is not really hard. The following

{{#ifeq:{{page}}|No Article alerts at this time.|Output if there is no alerts|Output if there are alerts}}

or some variation of it should work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't work as I've already tried to do something similar. The output is not simply the flat text "No Article alerts at this time.". It's easier to check against empty results. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Automatic delsort page parsing for matching projects[edit]


Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: Automatic delsorts.


Basically, parse all pages in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting that match the name/project, e.g. "WikiProject Video games" and "WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games". Instead of explicit |delsort=, everyone gets the delsorts. Optionally, can opt out with |nodelsort= or something. This could catch a good hundred+ pages that are otherwise untagged. Plenty of users are sorting stuff in delsorts as they go through AfDs, but not actually tagging the articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject names are now cross-matched with pages in Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting by topic name, which is basically "Whatever" in "project=WikiProject Whatever" and "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Whatever". Next revision, the subscriptions page needs to be updated to only specify this "Whatever" value and only if it already doesn't match delsort page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: is that case-insensitive? E.g. picking up "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Whatever and foobar" if project is Whatever and Foobar. What about redirects, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/BooksWikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature if projet is Books?. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Neither. I can make it case-insensitve, though what projects have that difference? Redirects don't appear in Category:Wikipedia deletion sorting and I don't want to query for redirects for every one of those pages -- those will need a manual entry. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Looking at WP:AALERTS/LIST, an example is Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, {{WikiProject Academic Journals}} and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academic journals. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Smarter template redirect and report page[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: Automatic template redirect retrieval, check, and report page

Comments: Currently all the template names are hard-coded as part of workflow definitions. After like 5 years, they are more than likely at least partially outdated with new redirects and old deleted ones. This needs unreliable manual updating and should be done automatically. Some on-wiki page that reports what templates it found and used would help see what the bot actually does. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

On-site workflow settings[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: On-site workflow settings

Comments: Store the settings on a page on-site as part of AA pages and read/parse/use it when running instead of hard-coding everything in code. Biggest concern is how easy it can be messed up, so would require a dev "sign-off" for changes (bot should report there's pending changes). Biggest code-site issue is that many pre-run options need this info, which implies we need a local cached settings version. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TfD holding cell[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: Detect when the actual workflow is closed in a way other than pure cetegory. Problem is Category:Templates for deletion is including closed ones (to be merged, renamed, etc.), so it appears as open to the bot. See Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Closed_TfDs_not_being_removed.


Smarter insertion parsing[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: Restore the text insertion revision parsing, with an error allowance (for vandalism, reverts, and such). That is, check a few revision deeper before accepting the result. Already had this working before lost source code.


Externalize messages[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: All messages, like first report, no pages, etc. to external AA pages that can get substed, otherwise it's all hard-coded.


G13 notification[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 06:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Description: For the WikiProjects that have added the Draftspace category (the default is drafts go into NA-class), I was wondering about a possible alert if the drafts become G13 eligible from there. It would possibly be triggered if the draft-space article was moved into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions or better yet Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. - Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


Limit the links to a single discussion[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Od Mishehu (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Description: Please limit the number of links from any single WikiProject to any single discussion. There is no reason, for example, to flood WP:WikiProject Rivers with 874 alerts for a single discussion. I think that we could even say something along the lines of Category:Rivers (links) was CFDed by User:Od Mishehu (links). 873 others were also tagged for this discussion. See discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

A class reviews[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Description: The Article alerts on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia report articles submitted for A class review at WP:MILHIST/ACR, but not at WP:AUS/ACR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Show the outcome of move requests[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: JFG (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Description: Alerts for recently-closed move requests only tell us that a particular RM was closed. It would be quite useful to see at a glance whether the move was performed. I suggest parsing out the bold part of the closer's message and displaying it in the summary alert, along with the closer's name. — JFG talk 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Example (before):

Example (after):


  • Support as long as it's not buggy. Note that this would require closers to embolden their closure. SSTflyer 02:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@SSTflyer: Yes, and most close messages have the operative decision in bold already; I used real examples above. We could make a note in WP:RMCI. — JFG talk 03:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding "images used by a Wikiproject that are up for deletion by Commons"[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Doc James (talk · contribs)

Time filed: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

This would be hugely useful. Posted here Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Commons_deletion_notices. Not sure if there is a better place to bring this up.


Keyword-based subscriptions[edit]

shuffling arrows Proposal out of scope

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:34, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Description: It would be neat if we also have keyword-based subscriptions, e.g. for WP:JOURNALS,

|keywords = abhandlungen; bulletin; comptes rendus; journal; letters; notices; proceedings; publications of; review; transactions; zeitschrift

Where the bot would check for those keywords in the title of the page [t]/ main text [m] / categories on the page [c] / relevant discussions [d].

|keywords = journal[dmt]

would look for 'journal' in discussions, main text, titles. Because searching in the main text would lead to a lot of crap results, I suggest making [cdt] the default setting when unspecified, so

|keywords = journal

is the same as

|keywords = journal[cdt]

Default settings could be overidden

|keywords = journal[ct]

which would look for 'journal' only in categories and titles. And you could combine options to have something like

|keyword = journal; impact factor[mctd]; WP:AJ[d]; WP:JOURNALS[d]; WP:JCW[d]


I don't know how I feel about non-deterministic approach for detecting pages. I rather we focus on projects and banners than try to struggle between false positives. Using main-space category and infobox is already going beyond maintenance-based project scope and is trying to guess projects. I'd rather see a bot that finds these and makes a list of "potential project pages that are untagged by the project", so that project can tag the page. I know new pages in workflow is an issue because they don't get tagged a lot. But I don't think making it part of AAB is quite the way to go. Also this means reading every single page and talk page. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree it might be too costly in terms of the number of queries that need to be made if we deal with the maintext. Maybe if it's restricted to titles/categories, since those can likely be mass queried via API for pretty cheap, but it might be a task more suitable for other bots. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Mark "No major changes" as minor edits[edit]

copy   Duplicate proposal
  Bug fixed

Filled by: SoWhy (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Comments: It would be useful to mark minor "No major changes" edits as minor. For example, when only updating participant count. I would exclude archiving because that is not a minor edit in my opinion, and other bots respect that also. umbolo 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply. Thanks for spotting this. The actual feature has already been implemented. But the bot was using outdated API syntax and the minor edits were not being marked as minor anymore. I fixed it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Use sections instead of description lists[edit]


Filled by: SoWhy (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Description: Can the bot be modified to create section headers instead of description lists? That way, parts of the alerts page could be transcluded to other pages using labeled section transclusion without having to tranclude all alerts (for example when you just want to transclude AFDs). Alternatively, if that's not feasible, coulde the bot generate section tags (e.g. <section begin=afd />[...AFD list...]<section end=afd />)? Regards SoWhy 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


  • I don't personally agree with LST, but this behavior should change regardless of that need. Sections are the most appropriate (and fake sections marked up with <span style="font-weight: bold">heading</span> the next most appropriate). --Izno (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • The report pages use definition lists for two reasons: so that we can make a custom TOC (note the disabled entries for sections that aren't on the page) and so that transcluded pages don't add sections to the page. I don't think it's a good idea to add full sections (due to transcluded page having them, even if we disable regular TOC), but I could add the <section> tag (I've never seen it before). The sections currently have {{anchor|AfD}} tags, but I don't think that helps with conditional transclusion. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Section-tags would be sufficient without screwing up the idea behind the description lists and should not be a problem with full page transclusions either. Regards SoWhy 17:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Implemented. Using Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report section header as the template for this. Example. Specifically, {{Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report section header|AfD|Articles for deletion}} produces <section begin=AfD />{{anchor|AfD<span style="font-weight: bold">Articles for Deletion</span><section end=AfD />. I'm using <section>...</section> for accessibility (and transclusion-compatibility reasons I mentioned above), {{anchor}} for navigation, as before, and <span>...</span> with bold text to match previous section-like formatting. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Subscription problem checking[edit]

 Implemented (non-existent)
 Implemented (redirects)
 Implemented (no items)
light bulb New proposal  (duplicates)
light bulb New proposal  (same pages)

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Make a sub problem report page with:

  • Subscription sources that don't exist (e.g. redlink banner)
  • Subscriptions sources that are redirects (e.g. banner redirect)
  • Subscriptions sources that have no items (e.g. empty category or stuff like talk cat used as main)
  • Subscriptions sources that are duplicates of each other (e.g. banner than includes category, so both are the same lists)
  • Subscriptions that have same pages (e.g. subscriptions specify same sources)

—  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Replace Template:Tooltip with Template:Hover title[edit]


Filled by: Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: (Previous posted here, meant to correct that earlier) AAlertBot uses Template:Abbr via the {{Tooltip}} redirect, but for accessibility reasons (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text) {{Abbr}} should only be used for abbreviations. I don't think the source code for AAlertBot is available, but would you consider replacing the use with Template:Hover title? The order of parameters is opposite, though, so the wikitext would have to go from {{tooltip|'''1''' participant|del: 0, keep: 0}} to {{Hover title|del: 0, keep: 0|'''1''' participant}}. The end result should be the same. ~ Amory (utc) 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)


Replaced all {{tooltip|show|hide}} with {{hover title|hide|show}} for bot's output. It's not in the current build, but will be there in the next update. It won't fix anything in the archives though.
P.S. MoS only applies to readers and not internal pages. But I guess we can add some accessibility to the report pages. They are however a massive garbled mess for any screen readers or navigators, so it's not a big improvement. If we were to actually apply MOS:ACCESS, we'd need to change a lot.
P.S.S. I'm also not clear why {{tooltip}} was redirected to {{abbr}} and not {{hover title}}? But I guess the concerns at the RfD was the misuse in article space. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, that's great. I assume the TfD 8.5 years either didn't know about {{Hover title}} or more likely figured that doing so would have meant a lot more work. Only a few participants at any rate. And yes, MOS doesn't apply in project space, but the RfD outcome was to deprecate it, and this is a helpful step. ~ Amory (utc) 21:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Change delsort subscription[edit]

copy   Duplicate proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 12:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Change it so |delsort=WikiProject Deletion sorting/Foobar is just |delsort=Foobar


  • As I said above, "Next revision, the subscriptions page needs to be updated to only specify this "Whatever" value". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:32, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Hellknowz: Well that's not quite a duplicate. E.g.

Currently, you'd need |delsort=Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation. But this would be simpler to have |delsort=Comics and animation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is what is implemented in the next revision (once it's released). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Detect when report pages are redirects and not post report[edit]


Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 13:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Because it's likely moved or suspended and need manual intervention -- do we update the subscription or do we disable it? This prevents the bot starting a "second history" and making a mess if we want to histmerge.

Comments: Or follow redirect, and deliver there? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Usually, the subpages are just deleted and the bot re-creates the page -- not clear how to detect that. But I've seen at least a couple projects across the years where a project or task force was deprecated and all pages redirected to some main page. So following redirects is not reliable (sort of WP:CONTEXTBOT) and I prefer the subscriptions to be "accurate" rather than the bot trying to "fix errors" instead of reporting them. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:25, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Wonder if there can be a way to detect / leave a notice of some type. Maybe just a post on [[Wikiproject talk:<Foobar>]] "Hey, someone moved something without updating WP:AALERTS/LIST, fix that shit please." Or a post at WT:AALERTS so we know and can just fix this shit ourselves when it comes up. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The bot spits out a warning in IRC and log. I guess, if there are errors, we could make it do a bigger notice? (I would say ping in irc, but irc doesn't have offline message delivery.) —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
[5] Delivery got ignored and log entry logged. Rolling out in next revision. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Shorten IPv6 IP user names in reports[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: They are way too long in reports, like half the entry


Report BLP Prods as BLP versions properly[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: BLP Prod gets grouped with regular Prod, there is no way currently to have different report string based on what template/method/logic added it to the workflow. Same can then be extended to other workflows that do this.


I might also merge book prods here, since there are just so few of them and a whole separate section seems weird. Then again, they are so rare they could get missed? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

TFA and TFAR closure details[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Needs special kind of parsing, fix undated issues and discussion page closure stuff. 1, 2.


Merge TFA and TFAR into the same section[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: These are basically the same process -- TFA is the "closure" of TFAR. Currently different workflows cannot get combined under the same heading. This also needs to handle TFAR entry becoming a TFA entry -- currently I just remove them always and reparse each time.


GAN on hold[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Encountered this ages ago -- the bot isn't detecting Category:Good article nominees currently on hold from {{GA nominee|...|status=onhold}} in any way, it just says open. Ideally, it would say "on hold". 1. lists these


Sort out GTC templates and usages[edit]


Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: There are two workflows here: {{GTCmain}} -> {{GTC}} and {{GTCaddmain}} -> {{GTCadd}}


Add GTRC workflow[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates, Template:GTRCmain, example


Notify if group nomination child pages are not tagged on talk page[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Notify if child pages being considered for FTC (first, add), FTCR, GTC (first, add), GTCR are not tagged on talk page. Example GTC add with main tagged but children not tagged. (Actually, the main article was not in process.)


Stub subscriptions[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Subscribe via stubs

Comments: Would be useful for when something like {{physics-stub}} is added, but nothing else. However, see below. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Generalize things than can be generalized[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


|infobox= (i.e. templates on main pages)
Generalize to
  • |maintemplates=Template1; Template2; ...
  • |maintemplate1=Template1; |maintemplate2=Template2; ...
|banner= (i.e. templates on talk pages)
Generalize to
  • |talktemplates=Template1; Template2; ...
  • |talktemplate1=Template1; |talktemplate2=Template2; ...
|maincategory= (i.e. categories on main pages)
Generalize to
  • |maincategories=Category1; Category2; ...
  • |maincategory1=Category1; |maincategory2=Category2; ...
|talkcategory= (i.e. categories on talk pages)
Generalize to
  • |talkcategories=Category1; Category2; ...
  • |talkcategory=Category1; |talkcategory2=Category2; ...
|mainsubcategories= (category subcats on main pages, doesn't currently exist)
Generalize to
  • |mainsubcategories=Category1; Category2; ...
  • |mainsubcategory1=Category1; |mainsubcategory2=Category2; ...
|talksubcategories= (category subcats on talk pages)
Generalize to
  • |talksubcategories=Category1; Category2; ...
  • |talksubcategory1=Category1; |talksubcategory2=Category2; ...
Generalize to
  • |delsorts=Delsort1; Delsort1; ...
  • |delsort1=Delsort1; |deslort2=Delsort2; ...


Log conflicts between workflow active and closed indicators[edit]

light bulb New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Description: For example, Category:Wikipedia featured topic candidates cat and Category:Wikipedia featured topics subcats -- this shouldn't happen, so report this as an error. For each workflow, depends on the workflow, like missing AfD template or its discussion page, etc.


Prioritize DYK workflow[edit]

question mark Suggestion

Filed by: Krelnik (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Description: Recently a DYK ran on the main page which used a 'hook' that a number of editors found offensive. Editors in the WikiProjects relevant to the article were appalled when they saw it, and would have intervened during the nomination if they had known about it. But as you know, the DYK process is a bit arcane and out of the normal travels of most editors. It is also not at all solvable using normal tools like watchlists, because the DYK work doesn't take place on the page itself or its talk page.

Including the DYK process in Article Alerts was proposed over 8 years ago. Can this be prioritized for future work, so we can prevent this happening again? Thank you. --Krelnik (talk) 03:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I was assuming that the bot could monitor the part of the namespace that all those templates you cite above reside in. That is, look for new article creations below Template:Did you know nominations. Then, chase the nomination back to its article, and pick up the monitoring criteria from there. Seems straightforward to me, but there's still a problem with new articles (and therefore DYK fodder) themselves not having talk pages. I see this happen all the time. However the DYK rules say that articles promoted in DYK should be "within policy" (rule 4). Isn't it good practice for all articles to be put in at least one WikiProject via their talk page? I think perhaps a little pressure on the DYK regulars to start enforcing this when they are reviewing the articles might be enough. But the gotcha is: would it be a problem for the article alert software if the talk page was corrected during the DYK nomination process after the nomination was created? Is that too late for the nomination to be picked up via the template? --Krelnik (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Krelnik I put a link to this request at WT:DYK. Reading your immediate above comments, it's time the DYK people had some input on what is reasonably possible and what isn't. Regarding your suggestion of DYK regulars enforcing Project banners in the review process, those banners are not under the authority of DYK. We're doing good if reviewers just check the existing basic review requirements. The individual WikiProjects decide the criteria on whether or not their banner should be on the talk page.— Maile (talk) 22:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "would it be a problem for the article alert software if the talk page was corrected during the DYK nomination process after the nomination was created" -- no, the bot already has to do this all the time. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
"the bot would need to follow from the DYK template page to the article that it links to, and then test the triggers against the article and its talk page" -- this is correct. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
|@Maile66:: I suppose that's a good point, that it's not the job of DYK to put things into WikiProjects. Here's an idea then - given Hellknowz comments above that seem to indicate what I proposed was workable, would it be possible to set up an Article Alert configuration that triggers on articles that are in absolutely no WikiProjects? Then those of us who are interested could monitor that article alert in order to keep an eye out for DYKs that might be slipping through the cracks. --Krelnik (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Krelnik - I don't know right off hand, but perhaps Wugapodes who programmed Wugbot to move the approved noms to their own page, and Shubinator who oversees the DYKUpdateBot, might have some practical suggestions of how to make this work smoothly. — Maile (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hellknowz My most practical suggestion would be that WugBot could be modified so that whenever it moves a hook from the nomination page to the approved page, it prints out needed data to some log page that AArticleBot could read and report on. My thought would be a subpage of either DYK or the bot's userspace and it would list the article name, the relevant wikiprojects, and perhaps a hook but given how DYK discussion work I'm not sure I can guarantee that last one all the time. If there's consensus for this, what would you want that data to look like? Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I think I can collect the pages myself from the main DYK template. I sort of do manual collection like that for TFA and TFAR. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 23:52, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
That seems like a better option, long term. This sounds like a good idea, thanks for maintaining this bot! Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 03:17, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support in general. If article alerts can be incorporated somehow, it can only benefit the process. Alex Shih (talk) 06:46, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Question and tentative Oppose: I would like to ask what exactly is being proposed here beyond the vague "prioritise DYK article alerts"? I will say that if this is just being brought up just because there was an "offensive" hook and designed as a way to stop so-called "offensive" hooks, then I must oppose on the grounds of WP:NOTCENSORED. Causing offence is a very subjective issue and often we do find that articles such as Oscar Wilde Memorial Sculpture often benefit from being in controversial hooks and are greatly improved by the community as a result. I'm happy to withdraw my tentative oppose if people can assure that this is not what this proposal is about. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • DYK has been on the wishlist forever. I just never have time to work on this, because DYK have drastically different syntax/use from pretty much all other workflows. Telling projects about upcoming DYKs seems reasonable, same as TFAs. I don't know what the recent DYK fail was, but I can imagine part of the problem is "not enough eyes" on "something too broad", which is what this bot tries to solve. As for priorities, there's a couple pressing bugs, but everything else is the same "wishlist priority". —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      Let me echo that. Article Alerts are designed to call attention to important things WikiProjects know about their articles. If one of their articles is about to appear on the front page, that certainly falls in that category, even if its just a nice piece of news that requires no action. But those who care can then participate in the DYK discussion regarding the hook, help clean up the article for the attention it is about to get, and so on. That's why we'd like it added to the Article Alert bot. --Krelnik (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      The C of E The origins of this request are at WT:WIR Lady_Angela_Forbes This is meant to be a means to help WIR keep track of their project articles on DYK. Because of the volume of activity on DYK, they feel it is too time consuming and confusing to keep track of any and all DYK nominations related to their project. Krelnik is searching for a viable alert system for them. It's not meant to make judgement calls about articles/hook, but to track what WIR has at DYK. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
      @Hellknowz: it wasn't a DYK fail: it was a DYK that went through the process as normal during late October/early November, without raising any kind of fuss; it made it to the main page at 00:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC) - within two hours, all hell broke loose. TL,DR: the DYK included a quotation that somebody decided was offensive, and as a consequence, the DYK was later pulled. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC)