Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs/Archive/Old/Not a bug
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Brad101 in topic No report on TfD's for WP:Ships
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Article alerts. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Not removing all old content
| Status | Resolved - not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | The bot is finally removing the bad DYKs from February 8 (10 day period). Sadly it only removed one of them and left the rest from that date. |
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | Diff |
| Report by | §hepTalk 00:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC) |
- I'd wait another day - most probably the items will be removed in the next run. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Lego ran the bot several times today, and those runs removed the items. Probably the one exception was just "nominated" between 0:00 and 0:05 on Feb 8, so that it had already expired in the first bot run. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- Seems I was too quick to jump the gun. Thanks, §hepTalk 21:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, Lego ran the bot several times today, and those runs removed the items. Probably the one exception was just "nominated" between 0:00 and 0:05 on Feb 8, so that it had already expired in the first bot run. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Report missing info
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | Today's report missed a new WP:GA promotion for Fountain of Time and a new WP:GTC for Washington Park (Chicago park). |
| Type | Overlooked page |
| Link to bug | Please link to the edit(s) that cause the bug(s). |
| Report by | TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC) |
- Suggest waiting another day. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Since these two are on the Chicago alert page, I suppose this is not a bug, but simply the one day delay caused by someone nominating the article immediately after the bot ran.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
AABot misses a few things at WP:MATH
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Current activity has another bot doing a sort of "article alerts" for them. It finds more things than ArticleAlertbot. The pages it missed since Feb 24 are
I haven't checked at things in details, so it may be that Jitse's bot looks into other categories than those made by the banner. |
| Type | Please specify the type of bug you are reporting. (Redlink, Overlooked page, Duplicate entry, Transclusion, or Other) |
| Link to bug | No relevant diffs here, but AAbot's output vs. Jitse's bot output. |
| Report by | Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC) |
- Upon further inspection, this isn't a bug. Jitse's bog looks for articles placed in math-related categories rather than in categories created by the math banner.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the Maths project applies their project banners very sparingly - I'm not quite sure why. --B. Wolterding (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Apparently it's too make sure that what gets tagged gets assessed, and that it gets assessed by humans. If that's the concern, I would simply tag them and simply not have the bot assess them. But hey, it's their project, so they can run it like they want.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, the Maths project applies their project banners very sparingly - I'm not quite sure why. --B. Wolterding (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Upon further inspection, this isn't a bug. Jitse's bog looks for articles placed in math-related categories rather than in categories created by the math banner.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Date error
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league/Article alerts as an example (see diff), it has in proposed deletion that the article Saints Song was PROD tagged removed on 24 March 2009. Then below it has in AfD, that AfD was started a day earlier. Now the PROD tag was removed and then I nominated for deletion. I am pretty sure it was on the same day (the article has been deleted, so I can't see history). This isn't a major bug, just bringing it to the attention of others. |
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | [1] |
| Report by | The Windler talk 12:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
This is not a bug, this has to do with the way the alert works (based on categories). Removing the PROD tag doesn't instantly depopulate Category:Proposed deletion. You have to wait a few days (here one extra day) before Wikipedia registers that the category has been removed. It's retarded, but that's how it is. There would be ways to improve date-handling, but that would involve reading articles rather than reading categories, meaning that it would slow the bot down considerably (although perhaps not enough to make this non-viable). Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 13:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I was just enquiring and bringing to the attention of this here, just in case. Thanks for the explanation, I'll unwatch this page so if there is anymore please alert me on my talk page, The Windler talk 20:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- To add a bit to the explanation: This is not exactly a delay in the category system, but slightly different. Mediawiki keeps exact track of the date and time when an article is added to a category - in this case, nominated for deletion. However, it does not keep track of when an article is removed from a category; so the bot can only make the best guess possible as to when the article was dePRODded, i.e., "now" (at run time of the bot). In this case, the article was moved from PROD to AFD on March 23, but the next bot run was on March 24. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Other news - Wikipedia Signpost
| Status | Not a bug / More discussion is needed |
|---|---|
| Description | Multiple instances, currently four, of "A new edition of the Wikipedia Signpost is out." appear in the other news section. It would probably be better if old editions were removed from the list each time a new one comes out. (later) Hm, looking at the diffs, is this part handled manually? Does the bot do anything with it? |
| Type | Duplicate entry |
| Link to bug | [2], all |
| Report by | -- kenb215 talk 18:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
- Yes, this is manually handled as this is rather different than the other alerts. I planned to keep things for a month's worth, but the other news section is much slower than I thought it would be. I didn't check out the centralized discussion so may that'll make it more active. Ideally there would not be two "The new signposts is out" next to each other, but I'm not too sure about removing the entries entirely.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
TfD alert labelled wrong
| Status | Won't be fixed |
|---|---|
| Description | On Template:London Bus Routes, i changed the tfd template so that it would become visible to a wider audience, . Unfortunately that resulted in the bot thinking i had nominated the template when someome else had. The report has been corrected to the right user. |
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | See here for my edit, here for the nomination and here for the bot report |
| Report by | Simply south is terug naar normaal 21:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC) |
This is in fact a known restriction in the bot - unfortunately I don't see a way around. It seems that your edit triggered the internal timestamp (in MediaWiki) that is set when an article is added to a category, in this case, the TfD category. The bot relies on these category entries. Since your edit was on the same day as the original nomination, with no bot run inbetween, there's unfortunately no way that the bot can tell your edit from the original nominator's. Thanks nevertheless for reporting this. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just anote, actually my edit was a day after. Simply south (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Actually through a little checking i found it may not be a bug. Looking through, i readded the tfd template someone removed by overhauling the template midway through discussion. Because i readded the template, that is why the bot misinterpreted it. However the fact it cannot check the history and deletion logs may be another restriction. Simply south (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Lists a responder as the AFD nominator (6 May 2009)
| Status | Won't be fixed |
|---|---|
| Description | Lists a responder as the AFD nominator |
| Type | "Other" |
| Link to bug | [3] lists me as the nominator of an AFD, but I was just a responder (and a speedy keep response at that!) |
| Report by | The-Pope (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC) |
- Yes, the bot got that wrong; unfortunately this is one of the situations that is very hard to catch. You edited Wade Thompson shortly after the AfD tag was put on the article. The bot doesn't analyze the actual article history - this would be not efficient enough - but it relies on a certain timestamp that the MediaWiki software records when the the article is put into a category (here: Category:Articles for deletion). Apparently the timestamp was updated when you edited. This shouldn't have happened, but apparently it did. Unfortunately I don't see a reasonable way of working around this; inaccuracies like this will always happen. I'll add it to the list of "known restrictions" above. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Not quite a bug but...
| Status | Outdated |
|---|---|
| Description | The bot report page always lists Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Article alerts as a problematic report, but as far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with it. What gives? |
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | [4] |
| Report by | Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC) |
- Seems that this problem no longer exists - and there's not much to be analysed without the bot logs. (Sorry, I was too late here.) --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Using wrong banner
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | Looks for default banner name ({{WikiProject Films}}) rather than one set by banner= ({{Film}}).
|
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | [5] |
| Report by | LegoKontribsTalkM 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC) |
The subscription banner used twice. One of the two banners didn't have banner=film in it, so it caused a conflict. I've fixed it by removing the duplicate subscription. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
DYK isn't dropped after a template is removed
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | I removed the physics template from Toothpaste tube theory, but the physics alerts keep displaying the DYK. |
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts; [6] |
| Report by | Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC) |
- This is expected behaviour - the DYK item is considered "closed" and thus never modified, regardless what happens with the actual article. It's an archive of past messages. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
CFD not showing up at WP:PHILO
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | There have been a few Categories up for discussion that have not made it to the A.A. list for WikiProject Philosophy (Category:Abstract objects most recently. There are two new ones that haven't showed up either, but it still may be too soon? |
| Type | Overlooked page |
| Link to bug | n/a |
| Report by | Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) |
- The bot currently only covers Categories for Deletion. It appears that those categories, at least Category:Abstract objects, were considered for renaming rather than deletion. So, it's not a bug, but might be a Feature request. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Rename work flow + overlooked page
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | Bringing this from Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Subscribing#CFDEL, which was back in May but never got over here to the Bugs page: I see that one of the workflows is Categories for Deletion however I'd suggest renaming that to Categories for Discussion since that's what it is. Secondly, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 19#Category:LGBT issues and religion, 3 days old now, never was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Article alerts even though the subscription parameter we have set is |workflows=ALL,!NEWS. |
| Type | Other + Overlooked page |
| Link to bug | Haven't a clue which edit(s) cause the bug(s) |
| Report by | - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC) |
- That's in fact expected behaviour. The bot currently covers Categories for deletion only, i.e., everything listed in Category:Categories for deletion. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost stopped at 15 June
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | On Wikipedia:WikiProject_Egypt the last reported new edition of Signpost is 15 June which should be 25 July as of now. |
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | Please link to the edit(s) that cause the bug(s). |
| Report by | Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC) |
That's a manually updated thing. If you notice it falls behind, feel free to edit Wikipedia:Article alerts/News. I'll try to update it soon.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 22:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Templates for deletion -> Templates for discussion
| Status | Not a bug |
|---|---|
| Description | Wikipedia:Templates for deletion has been moved to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion, which could be the source of errors with reports involving templates. |
| Type | Other |
| Link to bug | [7] |
| Report by | Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
No, the renaming doesn't affect the bot. The bot evaluates Category:Templates for deletion which still has its old name. The wrong reports seem to be due to the fact that the actual templates were deleted only on Oct 18, while the discussion was closed (and, probably, the deletion template removed) on Oct 15. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, it could be that there was a user sticking all the
{{tfd}}templates inside of<noinclude>...</noinclude>tags at around that point in time as well (in an effort to find unlisted stale tfds). I will be sure to let you know if I notice that the Category has been moved. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 19:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
No report on TfD's for WP:Ships
| Status | Not a bug / or Duplicate with above bug. |
|---|---|
| Description | Templates with WP:Ships project tag nominated for deletion here and here with no alert supplied. This has happened previously but this is the first notice. |
| Type | Overlooked |
| Link to bug | Please link to the edit(s) that cause the bug(s). |
| Report by | Brad (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC) |
AABot hasn't run in the last few days, so that may explain why. There's the above section that details a similar (same?) bug as well. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- The templates were nominated on March 31; bot last ran on April 6. --Brad (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)