Open main menu

Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests/Archive/New/Implemented

< Wikipedia talk:Article alerts‎ | Feature requests

Contents

2009

Not tagging AAbot edits as "bot edits" so people can watch the page w/o having to "show bot edits"

  Implemented

Filled by: Headbomb

Time filed: 01:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Description: I've asked about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 57#Is there a way of having bot edits show up as regular edits, on a per-bot basis? and while I don't understand what's really being said, I think there's a way so the AAbot edits aren't lumped into "Bot edits". Feedback from the WP:BAG could be useful here.

Comments:

De-archiving. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that the bot is flagged, this is placed in code so the bot will not flag the report updates as bot edits (or minor for that matter). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

List number of changes in edit summary (make bot more watchlist friendly)

  Implemented

Filled by: Headbomb

Time filed: 16:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Description: (as a comment on a related request).. Better edits summaries should be possible however. There's a limit of 255 characters, so they can't be too explicit. But a good middle could be achieved such as +2 PROD, -1 PROD, +3 AFD, +4 GAN, -2 RM, +1 DYK for example.

Comments:

De-archived. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Implemented in form of "+1 AfD, -1 PROD, +1,-1 TfD", as in, 1 new AfD, 1 PROD closed, 1 new TfD, and 1 TfD closed. Should be active since today's run. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I think using a comma makes this a bit confusing (my first thought with the example above is that something is missing after +1). How about using a slash instead? With the hypothetical example above, the result would look as follows: "+1 AfD, -1 PROD, +1/-1 TfD".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); January 11, 2011; 20:57 (UTC)
Good point. Changed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorporating deletion sorting with alerts

  Implemented

Filled by: DoriSmith (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Description: This is easier to describe with an example, so, using Science Fiction:

WikiProject Science Fiction/Article alerts includes all articles with {{WikiProject Science Fiction}} on their talk page.
But… some of the articles listed at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Science fiction do not have {{WikiProject Science Fiction}} on their talk page.
Is there any reason why article alerts can't combine both into a single AFD section?

This would also be useful for WikiProject Computing/Article alerts & WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computing, and so on.

Comments: I don't think this a reasonable feature for the bot, as the deletion sorting pages are rarely organized along the WikiProject structures - they are usually set up at a much coarser level. However, there's a simple way to include these articles into the corresponding article alerts: Deletion sorters should just add the appropriate project banner to the articles while sorting. ArticleAlertbot will pick these up in the next run, and the articles will appear in the alerts list. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Above is from archive at Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Feature_requests/Archive/Old/Unresolved#Add_Deletion_Sorting_to_alerts.

De-archived. Been thinking of this but do not know exact method and result. In short, DELSORT often gets new/poor articles that are not tagged; similarly AAlerts list pages that DELSORTers sometimes miss/pick up late. Don't know how active are DELSORTs on various projects, but WP:VG is, for example, quite active. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The bot will now read the delsort page for projects (currently Software and Video games) and assume those articles are also part of the project. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Archival

  Implemented

Filled by: Saizai (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Description: Add a permanent archive like this one from WP:CL - i.e. a list of articles together with a short bunch of links to previous notable events (e.g. AfD, DRV, AfD 2, ...). This would need to respect grandfathered or human-added links (e.g. VfDs from back when they were called that) and increment the number appropriately (e.g. for 2nd AfD).

Comments:

This "archive feature" was discussed already a while ago - and I decided not to implement it. In particular, the bot does not honour any manual additions or modifications to its output pages. This by design, not by accident, and it has proven to be quite efficient. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Above from archive at Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Feature_requests/Archive/Old/Declined#Add_well-formatted_archive_of_previous_events.

De-archived for completness. Also mentioned by Headbomb. Some method of archiving can be implemented, though I am yet to decide how exactly. The easiest it to append removed entries to an archive page once they are removed from main list. It's cumbersome and inefficient to have bot keep track of the archives, however the bot can dump removed entries into archive and then forget about them. This makes it possible for humans to edit/change the archive as well. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Archiving is implemented as old entry storage in an "/Archive" sub-page. The bot created it where applicable in today's run. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
The documentation doesn't appear to be updated. What needs to be done to enable archiving? --SkotyWATC 08:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
It is currently enabled by default for closed entries older than some time (I don't remember what I put there). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:44, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

2010

Cover BPROD

  Implemented

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 01:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Description: Cover WP:BPROD.

Comments:

De-archived. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:58, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Now implemented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Files for deletion

    Duplicate proposal  (implemented)

Filled by: Beagel

Time filed: 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Description:

Status   Needs discussion
Description Yet another low-priority suggestion. Most of what is in there isn't tagged by projects, but it seems trivial to include WP:FFD amongst the workflows covered by AAbot.
Requested by Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


Comments:

Not too hard to implement, but would anybody use it? I checked this on an (old) database dump: Out of approx. 700 images on FFD, only one was actually project-tagged. Are there projects that systematically tag images or media? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know of any project that uses systematically tags their images, and if there are any they would be the exception rather than the norm IMO. Maybe this should be a feature that is disabled by default, but possible to enable on a per-project basis? Then we'd see which project, if any, uses it?Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that if hardly anyone uses it, I can't even say whether the implementation works. There's for example WP:MFD which was implemented months ago but is still largely untested, just because hardly ever a project-tagged article goes to MFD. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like to confirm that WP:Energy tags regularly also images, categories and templates, and on behalf of this project I would like to ask for an option to have also notices about these if tagged. There was just a few days ago a case when Template:EnergyPortal, a template just about 2,500 pages, was nominated for deletion without notifying WP Energy of Energy Portal. There are also quite often WP:CfD discussions and automated alert would be a great help. Beagel (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

De-archived to have more discussion. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

CfD and MfD are implemented, MfD will be. FFD is in discussion couple sections above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Discussion wiki-links

  Implemented (improvement discussion underway)

Filled by: GageSkidmore

Time filed: 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Description: If I recall correctly, the old ArticleAlert bot did not link to GAN discussions until the discussion was created (e.g. put "see discussion" after the title). As you can see at WP:FG, the AAbot links to a discussion, but it is a red link, as the discussion period has yet to begin. I don't remember this being the case with the old bot, and I may remembering wrong so please correct me if that's the case, but I was wondering if this could be ammended to where the phrase "see discussion" would not be added until the dicussion has been created. If not, it's no big deal. If it's an easy fix though, I thought I'd bring it up. Thanks. Gage (talk) 10:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

(edit conflict) Yes, the old bot didn't link to red-link discussions. The current idea is that the discussion is an easy-to-click redlink to start a new one. The problem is the wording ("see disc." vs. "start disc.").

The best way (for end-user) to do that is use Mediawiki's {{#ifexists: for every discussion link. The problem is that there is a limit of how many of these expensive parser function can be used. It's OK for small projects, but things like Biography 600 KB report page will end up with half the links being broken.

The other way is to do this in code – i.e. check if discussion page is missing or not, which will be slightly slower, and only update the links once a day. In addition, if this is the only change, it will trigger page rewrite. Furthermore, current logic saves bandwidth by not rechecking page entries every time, but only once and then storing the info for later use.

So, personally, I would use the parser function, but tell certain subscriptions that they are not allowed to use it. Perhaps, programmatically not add them if there are more than X discussion-linked entries. I'll test this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I checked Bio report and every discussion would make a little over 570 parser calls. But in practice only several workflows may have redlinks. Featured-quality-related discussions and some others should have the page created at nomination and not afterwards. Here's how the page looks with ifexists functions in it on the relevant workflows. I still prefer to keep the redlinks, just change the wording as the whole point of AAB is to make it easy to respond to entries. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to mark this as Implemented for now. Feel free to add further comments on any improvements to this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
The ifexist calls could be substed using {{subst:#ifexist:...}}, which would both bypass the expensive parser function limit and result in cleaner code. Granted, it wouldn't update in real time anymore, but the report generated by the old bot never did anyway. – TMF 21:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Didn't see that this idea was essentially considered above. It's what I would do, anyway. – TMF 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for comment. Well, the code is not a problem unless the editors want to do something to it, but those changes will be overwritten anyway. In any case, substing removes the real-time aspect, which I was aiming for. The old bot didn't do this, as it did not link to redlinks at all. I don't think this is as beneficial.
Biography has 127/500 and MILHIST has 74/500 expensive parser calls, which as far as I've seen are the largest. I think that's well within reason. Most project would have around 1-5 anyway. In return, editors get a clearer comment. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, the "start discussion" links should be linked to the same things they would be linked in the GAR template on the talk page, i.e. they should have pre-filled stuff in the edit window. That the discussion link for a Muhammad GAC would be something like "start discussion" (or maybe "start discussion"fix). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking about that. Plain external links are probably best if a little cluttery. Will implement. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Just thought of requesting this myself[1]. Please restore if needed as it shows some additional details. G.A.Stalk 05:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

2011

PROD endorsements and declines

  Implemented (prod2)
  Implemented (deprod)

Filled by: MuZemike

Time filed: 09:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: (more of old features, actually) I remember that the old bot reported every time a user endorsed an article that was PRODded via the {{prod-2}} template. This should be (re)implemented, preferably with a "sub-bullet" under the original PROD entry (which would include the user who endorsed the PROD plus any additional comment in the template).

On the same line, reporting of PROD declines would also be helpful, and a similar "sub-bullet" under the original PROD entry would also help. –MuZemike 09:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Will implement endorsements. The bot did actually do this, but I changed the logic for workflows that made this tricky now.

On the other hand, I am uncertain how to detect deprods relatively easily, would the revision of {{prod}} removal and summary automatically count as deprodding info? I guess so. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Implemented {{prod2}} (who, when, concern (see Pathnodes in this example)); should appear in today's run. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Last revision broke the prod2 (also related to BPROD using prod2). I will readd it soonish. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

deprod info should now be listed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

FTRC

  Implemented

Filled by: Nergaal (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Description:

Comments:

Above pasted from Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Subscription_list#Requests.
Will implement with next workflow batch. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
The workflow is now implemented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Article page templates (infoboxes, naboxes, etc.) to sort into projects

  Implemented

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: In addition to specifying project banner/category, the projects can select project-specific article templates, for example, {{Infobox video game}} for WP Video games. Even if untagged, new articles are likely to contain infoboxes, navbars, etc. This is basically an extension to how AAB finds pages relating to the project.

Comments:

Also, mark the entry as no banner and link to edit talk page's section 0. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Implemented for VG and Football, sandbox OK; test in today's run. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems to work fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Direct TfD links

  Implemented

Filled by: Admrboltz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: When linking to TfD discussions, can you link to the dated page, instead of the main TfD page? Once the discussion is archived, the link no longer works, and takes 4-million years to load the full TfD discussion page, at least for me. E.g. link to [2] instead of [3]? --Admrboltz (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Will change, I reverted it some time ago because some TfD didn't link properly for some reason (I think the current day's page wasn't yet created). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I see now. Unfortunately, {{Tfd}} does not give date (log's ymd) parameters. I could parse each of the dated log pages, but that seems like an overly complex/unreliable/long method for this. I'll leave this open for now, may be I'll get to this some day. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Since we changed the Tfd-template, can you integrate the feature now? mabdul 12:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I already did that; see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Article_alerts. Tell me if you see anything broken anywhere. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/Article alerts? Maybe the discussion is too old (20Jun) mabdul 12:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sub-categories

  Implemented

Filled by: Was implemented for old bot and has probably been suggested.

Time filed: 03:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: Sub-categories from category subscription.

Comments:

Below copied from Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts#AAlertBot following relevant discussion there.

I see that category subscriptions are now possible, and I've tried my luck. What I've tried doesn't work, though. We have a Category:WikiProject New Zealand politics articles, and I guess that the problem is that no articles are subscribed to that particular category, but they all belong to subcategories. I guess my options are:

  • Change the setup of the politics template so that all articles also belong to the parent category, or
  • Teach the subscription that it looks into subcategories.

What do you suggest? How do others go about this? And should this perhaps explained in a bit more detail in the documentation? Schwede66 03:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Category subscriptions are -- for now -- still on 1 category basis. The bot does not know how to parse sub-categories. I will implement this in time, and hopefully not too long. The documentation (i.e. Wikipedia:Article alerts/Subscribing) in this respect is up to date. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply; much appreciated. In that case, I shall wait for this to happen, rather than change the setup of the project banner. I'm guessing that I'll have to amend the subscription for the bot to start parsing subcategories. If so, it'd be great for you to drop a note here if you remember. Thanks for all your good work! Schwede66 16:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Above copied from Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts#AAlertBot.

I have now implemented the sub-category parsing (to 1 level, I don't think more is needed, but can be done if necessary). Your subscription now looks like this: {{ArticleAlertSubscription |project = WikiProject New Zealand/politics |category = New Zealand politics articles by importance |includesubcategories = yes }} and produces

Basically, adding |includesubcategories=yes makes sure the bot checks for sub-categories instead of the main category. So, in your case, Category:New Zealand politics articles by importance has Category:Low-importance New Zealand politics articles, Category:Mid-importance New Zealand politics articles, Category:NA-importance New Zealand politics articles, Category:Top-importance New Zealand politics articles sub-categories, which will be used to determine the pages belonging to the subscripting.

Test report looks O.K. I will leave documentation non-updated until today's run/more testing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sweet. Test report looks good. Thanks a million for your good work. Schwede66 17:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Even better edit summary

  Implemented

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: When there aren't a lot of changes, use remaining summary character limit to give details of changes -- i.e. exact page names and may be some details, e.g. "+1 AfD (Some person) -2 PROD (Nonotable woman deleted, Redundant dude redirected)". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Marking "no major changes" minor

  Implemented

Filled by: Admrboltz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: If when there are no major changes (just archiving of entries), can you mark those edits as minor? --AdmrBoltz 22:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comments: Right! I completely forgot I was marking the report pages as non-minor in the first place. Thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

A-Class Review

  Implemented

Filled by: Titoxd (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Description: Having a list of articles undergoing A-Class reviews would help in increasing the process's visibility in WP:WPTC, and I'm sure in other projects as well. Also, several projects also implement some sort of internal ACR, and are listed in Category:Requests for A-Class review. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

It's slightly more complex than other workflows, but I'll take a look. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

[4] [5] Let's see how today's run fares. Only issue so far is that project's use different syntaxes for their A-Class reviews, which makes it impossible to have a single record for all projects, which is how AAB is currently built. Some pages will get misreported if the page is under several projects, but reviewed only under one of them. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Watch + RSS

  Implemented

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Description:

At WikiProject Physics, we place the following at the top of our Article alerts.

I think that should be a default feature. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

I added it to Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report page footer. I don't think this needs to be at the top and centered, but I could make an optional switch for that? In any case, adding it to top means code rewrite and all page update. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:TFAR nominations

  Implemented

Filled by: Skotywa (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 02:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Description:

One type of nomination not covered right now is nominations on WP:TFAR. Since this bot is used to update pages on project and taskforce pages, this seems like the type of nomination/request that a given project's members would really want to know about. Just an idea. --SkotyWATC 02:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

I will try to implement this together with WP:TFA notification, as this is also not quite the same as all the other workflows. I'm a little tied up right now with work, but I will keep this in mind. Thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Mostly implemented together with TFAs. I'm now waiting for an "unspecified" date nomination to make it report correctly. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Most excellent. Thanks much for your work on this. --SkotyWATC 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

An other category for the bot to watch

  Implemented

Filled by: Od Mishehu (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Description: I've created a Category:Categories for splitting subcategory for the CFD process. Please include that in the article alert CFD feature. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Done. [6] —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

FFD and PUF (and possibly other file) worklows

  Implemented (FFD)
    Proposal on hold  (PUF)

Filled by: Acather96

Time filed: 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Description: Please could you implement reports for files? By that I mean FFD, PUF and also, when files are tagged for pseudo-speedy, when they have 7 days to fix a certain copyright problem. I think this would be really useful, as projects could save important images from deletion, when only a small amount of time is needed to resolve the issue. And as for PUF, project members may have specalist knowledge that could help with clarifying the copyright status. I think the implementation of FFD support also brings obvious benefits :) Thanks.

Comments:

I don't see why not. The bot is still not finalized, so we're focusing on covering these and making sure they behave as they should. When that's done, we'll start adding new workflows. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
None of the current files in either FFD or PUF have banners or categories that would put them as belonging to any project. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You're right, many projects do not tag images. However some do, or some may start to. Also, projects like WikiProject Albums and WikiProject Schools can use cats embedded in the Non-free licenses and FUR's. And even if the bot only does pick up a few image using project banners, its better than none. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I can use categories, but they have to be either be on file page xor file talk page. In any case, this is easily implementable. Just need some examples. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
For example, Category:Album covers, Category:Video game logos, Category:Game developer logos, Category:Academic institution logos. I could go on, just mainly non-free cats, as free media should be on Commons anyway. Though please do still implement project banners :) Acather96 (talk) 06:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I already have enough category examples :) I meant an example article put up for deletion by a project that has tagged/categorized it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
One more thing, with regards to MFD, I think that should be implemented, when you consider that some projects like WikiProject Australia have about 130+ project-class articles.Acather96 (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
MfD is now will be implemented. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I know that the Michigan State Highways Project has tagged all of its files. It's probably outside of the scope of the bot in the near future, but it would be very handy if the bot could report if a file is up for deletion on Commons. (The US Roads parent project has had two maps recently set up for deletion on Commons, and we didn't know about the second until it was deleted and removed from its article. It turned out to be a false alarm copyvio report.) Imzadi 1979  13:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Please see Category:File-Class United States articles, which contains over 12,000 files :)Acather96 (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is not the lack if tagged article examples, but example of articles nominated for deletion that are also tagged. Anyway, File talk:Bankim.jpg File talk:Deet.png File talk:Ferrocene.png are now up for deletion and are also tagged. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

2012

Mark most recent entries

  Implemented

Filled by: Czarkoff (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Description: Please make the bot somehow mark most recent entries' changes (those mentioned in edit summary). Eg. make them (or parts of them) italic or enclose them in <ins>...</ins> tags.

Comments:

I made newly opened entries or freshly closed entries display the page name is bold -- Example. <ins> seems too inconsistent with its formatting and boldface is used for similar purposed in other places on wiki, so I think it would fit better. P.S. I really should have implemented this ages ago. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


Proposal: Put all inactive items at the bottom, all active items at the top

  Implemented (sort of)

Filled by: Sbyrnes321 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Description: Better separation of active and inactive items.

Comments: It seems to me that the main purpose of the article alerts is to help people find and participate in ongoing discussions. Therefore it seems to me that the article alert page should be split in half. The main section should only contain the active, ongoing items. After listing all of those, there could be a big heading, "Recently closed items", with another list of all the categories. Really, I think almost everyone would ignore this bottom section, and just browse the top to see if there's anything worth commenting on. That kind of browsing is more difficult under the current scheme where open and closed items are interspersed (with red and black dates to distinguish them), and in practice the active items can be visually overwhelmed by the more numerous closed items. Just an idea, thanks for your consideration! --Steve (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong with current color-based separation? Also note, that some (me at least) use this page also to track closures of the discussions they don't want to keep on watchlist. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I browse the page once in a while, trying to answer the question: "I wonder there's something I should do right now?" With the color-based separation, it is unnecessarily slow and difficult to answer that question. You have to keep scrolling and looking carefully to see. (I don't want to exaggerate that this is impossible or the end of the world, just a missed opportunity to make the page a bit more convenient and useful.) I am not proposing to entirely delete the recently-closed items, only to get them out of the way. After all, maybe you are curious about how a recent discussion finally wound up turning out, but knowing the answer is good for nothing except satisfying your curiosity. On the other hand, seeing ongoing discussions is more important because that's where you can actually accomplish something useful for wikipedia. --Steve (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
How many pages do you want to format this way? I could set up an optional parameter for individual subscriptions; and the bot would make a subpage in the "separated" style. I could also <noinclude> the closed entries so you can transclude all the alert pages you are watching to a central page that won't display closed ones. This probably would also be beneficial for when the report is transcluded elsewhere. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The optional no-include would probably be best / easiest thing to achieve. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I made two custom parameters for transcluding the report page -- |hideclosed= and |showall=. |hideclosed= will not display any closed records and |showall= won't show the (x more...) link beyond limit, instead show all entries. Example report Transcludes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

AFC reviewer

  Implemented

Filled by: Mabdul (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Description: At the talkpage there should be normally a WikiProject template of the WP:AFC team with the parameter |reviewer=. Could you add this somehow to the 'list' (to all or opt-in)?

Comments:

Could you clarify what you mean by "add this somehow to the 'list'". What list? And add what -- add the reviewer to the report entry? So something like

Won't speak for Mabdul, but I would definitely love this addition (at least for AfDs and PRODs). And I would include this for all with no opt-in, as it is handy at assessing deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I added this to AfD and PROD workflows. Example. No opt-ins or opt-outs, because this seems like reasonable information (i.e. it was approved, so why is it being deleted now?). Not sure what other workflows this would be relevant to? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

2013

Bold links at top of the page when there is a new item in that section

New items are identified by bolding them at the top of their respective sections. Would it be possible to bold the links to those sections at the top of the page when there is a new item in them?

For example, if the report contains one or more new TfDs and RMs then the TfD and RM links at the top of the page would be bolded. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Implented a long while ago. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

2016

Redirects for Discussion Workflow

  Implemented (Raw RfD)
  Implemented (Target page parsing)

Filled by: Admrboltz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: Would it be possible to add the Redirects for Discussion workflow? --Admrboltz (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

I will add this when I get to additional workflow implementations. RfD was planned from start, but there was something weird about it that prevented a straight-forward implementation so I left it for future. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The workflow is now implemented. The issue is, however, that very few projects bother to tag the redirect pages. What needs to be done is to check where the page redirects to and additionally check what subscriptions the page belongs to based on the target page's banner/categories. Unfortunately, from MediaWiki perspective, redirect pages with {{rfd}} are no longer redirects, so the API call is a bit complex, needing to retrieve the actual content and parse it. Which I might do in future. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The bot should now also report RfDed pages whose redirect target happens to be within the project's subscription. So for RfD workflow, I'm now retrieving and parsing each RfDed page to determine the redirect target and storing it with the original. This happens before main parsing, so I can match the target page with subscription banners/cats/etc. like all the regular ones (only the original is in the RfD workflow though). So the subscriptions asking for relevant pages will also receive the ones whose redirect targets are tagged (since I stored what the targets are with each page, and I can check if that page included project's tags/cats/etc.). Hopefully, this should majorly expand the number of RfDs reported. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

2017

A subscribe button for the article alerts template

  Implemented

Filled by: Fixuture (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Description: For the article alerts template (Template:Article alerts columns) I suggest a subscribe button that adds the displayed article alerts to ones watchlist. I think this would be very useful as it is not quite clear that article alerts can be subscribed to...even though that's the best way to stay up to date with those "alerts". Probably the best place to put it would be the "Updated daily by..."-row on the bottom of the template.

Comments:

Most (if not all) AA pages already have a "Watch this alert page" link, see the last line of e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Article alerts. All that {{Article alerts columns}} does is take one of those pages and reformat it as three columns. Only the centre part of the AA page is transcluded, because the top and bottom parts are normally wrapped in <noinclude>...</noinclude>, and the "Watch this alert page" link is included in the bottom noincluded part (it's part of the {{Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report page footer}}).
It shouldn't be too difficult to do what you want, probably by adding e.g. {{watch|{{{1}}}}} to the second grey stripe (the "Updated daily by" one) in the {{Article alerts columns}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I've seen the "Watch this alert page"-button there, however most people never go to article alert pages but instead just see them embedded via the template (most probably don't even know that it's an embedded separate page). So if there are no objections I'm going to try to work this out using your tips. Haven't done much with templates yet though, but I'll figure it out if people are ok with this suggestion and nobody else edits it the next few days or so. --Fixuture (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Redrose64 and Fixuture: I've added the links to Template:Article alerts columns. This should take care of this. Sorry for the long delay in reply! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

2018

IRC improvements

  Implemented

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:49, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Description: When the bot starts, instead of something like [HB/153] [AUTORUN] Started processing stuff..., have [HB/153] [AUTORUN] [2017-04-24] Started processing stuff.... Basically adding the date so logs make it easier to tell what date that run was.

Comments:

Added the run date to the message. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Article alerts/Feature requests/Archive/New/Implemented".