Open main menu

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.


Contents

Reboot of Article AlertsEdit

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 As this represent a total reboot of the project, all previous discussions have been archived under "ArticleAlertbot (old bot)" list just above.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)

A parameter to simplify the outputEdit

  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 SplitsEdit

  Implemented

Filled by: Simply south (talk · contribs)

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

Description:

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.

Comments:

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)

Now live. Sorry for the *ahem* long wait. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Copyvio/project intersectEdit

  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.

Comments:

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 listingEdit

  Implemented
  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.

Comments:

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 summaryEdit

  Implemented (participant count)
  Implemented (!vote count)
  Implemented (relists)
  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.

Comments:

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 reportsEdit

  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)

Comments:

DYK workflowEdit

  Implemented (open and approved DYKs)
  New proposal  (queue and DYK closure)

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)

Comments:

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)

Updating status as per #Prioritize_DYK_workflow. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

TAFI article alertEdit

  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.

Comments:

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)

Multi-page move notificationsEdit

  Implemented (Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Mishandling_multiple_RfCs_on_one_talk_page)

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)

Implemented now that there are means to do it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Archive TFAsEdit

  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.

Comments:

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)

Speedy deletions with a grace periodEdit

  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)

Comments:

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

CSD/Cats
CSS/Files
CSD/Templates

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)

See also this old FR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Add "In The News" candidate articles.Edit

  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.

Thanks!

Simplify output if there are no alertsEdit

  Proposal out of scope

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)

@Stevietheman: If you still need this, you could have a check like

{{#ifeq:{{Str find|{{Wikipedia:WikiProject FOOBAR/Article alerts}}|No [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]] at this time.}}|-1|Output if there is no alerts|Output if there are alerts}}

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Smarter template redirect and report pageEdit

  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 settingsEdit

  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 cellEdit

  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.

Comments:

Smarter insertion parsingEdit

  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.

Comments:

Externalize messagesEdit

  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.

Comments:

G13 notificationEdit

  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)


Comments:

Now that drafts are reported, I might expand it to include when a draft goes into G13 as part of the same entry. I'll have to see how viable it is. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Same for the other speedies with grace periods. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Limit the links to a single discussionEdit

  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 reviewsEdit

  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 requestsEdit

  Implemented (Basic results)
  New proposal  (Advanced results)

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):

Comments:

  • 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)

Move requests have very complicated potential closures, and in many cases I cannot even tell them apart automatically. The bot currently processes some ~10 different cases, each with variations. In short, pages move, as implied by description. This means the discussion travels to new places, disappears, redlinks appear, redirects appear, etc. This might be as good as it gets for now. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding "images used by a Wikiproject that are up for deletion by Commons"Edit

  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.

Comments:

Subscription problem checkingEdit

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

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

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

Comments:

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)

Shorten IPv6 IP user names in reportsEdit

  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

Comments:

Report BLP Prods as BLP versions properlyEdit

  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.

Comments:

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 detailsEdit

  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.

Comments:

Merge TFA and TFAR into the same sectionEdit

  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.

Comments:

GAN on holdEdit

  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

Comments:

Add GTRC workflowEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

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

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

Comments:

Notify if group nomination child pages are not tagged on talk pageEdit

  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.)

Comments:


Generalize things than can be generalizedEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

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

Description:

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

Comments: This seems like it would be a useful feature. I'm coming from here via [a request] that article alerts provide a broad coverage of articles under (but not explicitly tagged by talk page banners) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life. I'm not sure what other projects would find a broader coverage useful. Tree of Life is effectively a meta-project covering all biological taxa, and the talk page is a more active hub for discussion than most of its child projects. Article alerts for Tree of Life will be more useful if generalized. Plantdrew (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I never replied to Headbomb here, but the short version is that this would be a major refactor to the code and I haven't gotten around to it. It's something that makes sense to do now, but it is also something that fundamentally changes how the bot gets its pages. I've done some work that would enable this, but it's still a ways off. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 07:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Log conflicts between workflow active and closed indicatorsEdit

  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.

Comments:

  • DYKN: Promoted, but still on the main templates: [1]

Make a daily report of all untagged pages in workflowsEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 00:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Description:

Comments: If/when this is done, the section headers should always be present, even if the sections are empty. This way they could be WP:LST'd to the relevant workflows' talk page (or similar) to alert them of issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Report RfD redirects that couldn't be retrieved/parsedEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Description:

Comments:

Shorten archive links when there's a lot of themEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 12:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Description: [2]

Comments:

DYK needing review?Edit

  Proposal out of scope

Is there a way to list DYK/GA articles that haven't yet started review? valereee (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Both of those should already be reported. Are you not seeing a page in a report you expected to see? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm seeing a list of approved DYK noms at WiR's article alerts, but I was thinking it might be helpful to be able to easily find noms that haven't had reviews started yet. I'm not sure how it would work, but I often as I'm looking for a nom to start review on, I'm just scrolling down the page because it's hard to tell which have already been started without just scrolling and scrolling. If there were a list of certain-subject noms that haven't been started yet it on an alert page, it would make it easier for me to know when a DYK on a subject I'm interested in needs to be started. Maybe I'm just being stupid? :) valereee (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
The report page should have all nominations. But it isn't smart enough to know when a "review" has started. The issue is that there is no indicator for that other then someone just starting to add comments to the page. Unlike, for example, GA, which have an actual subpage they create, so you know when a review has been started. For DYK, this is complicated. I have it planned above to at least detect reviewed/closed ones. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

This isn't currently something the bot will be able to do until there are separate categories/templates for it. Te-parsing pages every run is somewhat out of scope because it would take literal hours to run. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Merge multiple nominationsEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Description: Sometimes there are mass-noms for certain workflows. Example

Comments:

Move request target pageEdit

  Implemented

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Description: Working on this.

Comments:

Now live and hopefully working. Using logic from multi-nom bot reports. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Detect and report common incorrect nomination problemsEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Description:

  • AfD template not properly substed [3]
  • TBD

Comments:

AFC supportEdit

  Implemented

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Description: When articles get submitted through AFC, they enter Category:Pending AfC submissions. This should be reported. Three/four outcomes should be reported. Accepted by 'accepter' (moved into mainspace), Under review (is now in Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now), declined by 'decliner' (is now in Category:Declined AfC submissions), and (if possible) deleted by 'deleter' (goes from Category:Pending AfC submissions to being deleted).

Comments:

Adding next update. Closure can be deleted, declined, rejected or accepted. "Under review" won't be reported. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That's amazing indeed! Looking forward to things! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hellknowz: is this in the version that ran this morning? Or the one you sent me? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Nope. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 06:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Now live. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Archive dupe cleanupEdit

  New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Description: Over the years, weird stuff crept up in the archives. Duplicate lines should get cleaned up like this or this.

Comments: This was done by applying \n(.*)(\n\1)+\n$1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Except there can also be multiple copies and they are not guaranteed to be next to each other. This is somewhere in the bug report page. It's kind of really low on priority list with all the other stuff to do. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
This could also be done through a single bot run from another bot. Such a bot could sort things by date, then alphabetically. And yes, low priority, however this regex is pretty simple and works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't work for non-consecutive duplicates. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
True, but how many of those are there? Would still cleanup a lot of duplicate crap, even if doesn't catch everything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
A lot. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Article alerts/Feature requests".