This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
{{ resolved}}
Tanga is a DAB page. Should the entry for this deleted article be deleted altogether instead of simply being unlinked? DMacks ( talk) 03:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looking further, I think a bunch of the other links were in See also sections, which likewise should have been removed instead of unlinked. I wonder if these are two known limitations (or bugs) in User:Evad37/XFDcloser? DMacks ( talk) 03:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the relevant entries before clicking through to this notification. It's not that hard to do manually, which I tend to do, because in some contexts removal isn't necessary (e.g. cast lists). But yeah, entries in DABs and See Also sections should be removed. @ Evad37: Is there a way to do this automatically I know the script does this for links in templates already? ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Patar knight, DMacks, and Czar: Having given this some thought, I might be able to do a full line removal where the list item is just the single link or unlinked text plus a single link. This would be the majority of cases I imagine. The problem I can see, however, is that it could turn a list like this
==See also== *[[Foo]] *[[Bar]] – AfD'd article **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]]
into
==See also== *[[Foo]] **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]]
more problem bulletting examples
|
---|
– or ==See also== *[[Foo]] **[[Bar]] – AfD'd article ***[[Bar sub-item 1]] ***[[Bar sub-item 2]] into ==See also== *[[Foo]] ***[[Bar sub-item 1]] ***[[Bar sub-item 2]] – or ==See also== *[[Bar]] – AfD'd article **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]] into ==See also== **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]] |
– which isn't desirable. - Evad37 [ talk 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi! I noticed that you deleted User talk:Stephadams07 while clearing up the redirects to Steph Adams. I think the user talk page had a couple of ordinary messages on it, and shouldn't have been deleted. Could you check, please? -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the script caught that. I've restored it. @ Evad37:: Would it be possible to not delete user talk pages via G8 if the userpage redirects to the deleted page? ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Patar knight: Just to clarify, you want the script to ignore all pages in User_talk: namespace (when deleting talk pages of redirects)? - Evad37 [ talk 18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
{{Resolved|1=Measures implemented appear to be working, another discussion can be started if problems reemerge. - Evad37 [ talk 01:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)}} Not really sure whether this is a problem with the script or people using it but I have seen multiple cases now with editors relisting discussions but the script not removing them from all old logs. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to East Germany was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 13 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 11 because Cyberbot I thought it was not correctly transcluded the first time (it was). Could XFDC be updated to check for all transclusions and remove all of them before adding the AFD to the new log? Also, is there a way to trigger a browser "do you really want to leave this page?" message when relisting is still underway (to avoid people closing the window too fast and thus breaking the relist)? Regards So Why 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Partly done – the script will now warn users if they try to leave the page while it still processing closes/relists - Evad37 [ talk 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Still problems with relistings, I just had to manually remove a bunch of AFDs relisted with XFDCloser from the old log. Looking through that log, it seems that the script sometimes removes the comment tags from an old AFD when relisting another for no apparent reason, e.g. [1] [2]. But those I manually commented out just now include also ones that were never removed first. Maybe you can take another look? Regards So Why 16:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Hi there. Currently a bot is removing this category from closed AfDs (cf. [3]) but I don't see a reason why the script can't do it directly. Regards So Why 14:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Should deleted redirects be unlinked too? Say A redirects to B and both are deleted at AfD. B is unlinked from articles, but A links remain? czar 16:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
{{ Resolved}}
Any idea about why using your script at TFDs (specifically) sometimes displays:--[Error retrieving page information (reload the page to try again) Details: HTTP error: error].Acc. in these times, it fails to recognize the nominated articles(works in basic mode) and is unable to relist/close.(The display window opens but pressing the submit button leads to nothing!) Winged Blades Godric 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Any idea about why the CFD closer fails to pick up the article(s) nominated and is always running in basic mode in every discussion? Winged Blades Godric 13:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Just wondering, is it deliberate that the "unlink pages" option appears as checked by default when making a "delete" close? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, did you really mean to blank the AfD when relisting it? Maybe a script error? Sandstein 16:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Sandstein:--To the best of my knowledge and belief, my sanity was allright at the time and as a rule, could not but put the blame on a script-error!! Maybe Evad37 will be able to share some more details! Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:-- This was par-excellence!Huh?! Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- If by 'par-excellence' you mean a right total balls-up that made me look arsehat of the decade, you're dead right! :o — fortuna velut luna 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I've got no idea what happened here, especially since SoWhy relisted it very soon after [4] with no problem, and all these other relists you did from around that time [5] seem to have been completed properly. - Evad37 [ talk 04:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Can XFDC be modified to analyze the amount of prior relists and add Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times when relisting a third time? Regards So Why 06:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the closer
Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
being deleted}}
notice for a holding cell listing, or something else? -
Evad37 [
talk
00:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I had a log page for AFD open that did not correctly reflect that an AFD was already closed, so I tried to close it and the script did not notice that. Maybe a conflict check can be added (such as when trying to relist a closed AFD) that aborts a close if the archive template is found on the page? Regards So Why 15:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it's possible since the script seems to load for every AFD separately but here goes: Oftentimes you want to relist quite a few AFDs for lack of participation, so it would be cool if you could check them on the log page and click relist once, with the script only having to edit the old and new log page once, thus reducing strain on the server. Regards So Why 15:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I was just reminded, that with RFD, one is expected to remove the log page's transclusion from the main RFD page if no more discussions are open, so I wondered, couldn't XFDCloser do that? Since unlike AFD, RFD has all discussions on a single page, the script is already editing said page to close discussions, so it would just also have to check if any discussion is still open and if not, remove the transclusion (the "still open" check already exists in the code for hiding closed discussions, does it not?). Regards So Why 06:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on this message on my talk page, I think XFDC could be made able to identify entries in lists and remove them completely, couldn't it? Regards So Why 16:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@
SoWhy and
Czar: I don't know if prompting would be practical, since "ambiguous cases" would likely have to be every case of the link being a list item, as I don't think there's a easy/reliable way to tell if a list should be 'all-notable' or 'not-all-notable'.
But thinking more about this, I can probably get around the subitems issue by assuming most lists don't go beyond 3 (***
) or 4 (****
) levels. And I wonder if I'm being too cautious regarding not-all-notable lists... would it be reasonable to assume that for most cases where the item should be retained, the AfD would end in redirection rather than deletion (e.g. from some minor character to a list of characters)? -
Evad37 [
talk
02:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Done in version 3 - Evad37 [ talk 09:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Oftentimes articles are tagged with WikiProject banners which contain class=X
parameters. I propose XFDC changes these to class=redirect
when closing an AFD as redirect and tagging the talk page with the OldAFD template. Regards
So
Why
10:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I just closed a multi-template TFD, and after going through the process of selecting delete, etc etc, the "are you sure you want to take 6 actions" box popped up behind the main "XFDcloser" box. Had to shift the main box out of the way (which it almost couldn't do thanks to its size) in order to click "yes". Primefac ( talk) 01:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've been working on a new major version of the script – a substantial rewrite to enable processing of multiple-result closes (e.g. "keep some, delete others"). Also:
*[[Example]]
, but not *[[Example]] – some text...
)There may be some new bugs (or the re-emergence of some old ones) due to the significant backend code changes. I'll post here again when it's ready. - Evad37 [ talk 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
{{R to related topic}}
, {{R from subtopic}}
, {{R to list entry}}
, and {{R to section}}
) followed by the "Related information" and "Fiction" groupings, before everything else.Updated to version 3.0.0! (The old version is still available at User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v2.js) - Evad37 [ talk 09:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
index.php?title=User:Evad37/extra.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:111 Uncaught TypeError: OO.ui.CapsuleMultiselectWidget is not a constructor at Object.extraJs.makeRcatCapsuleMultiselect (index.php?title=User:Evad37/extra.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:111) at Dialog.setup (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1967) at Discussion.openDialog (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:610) at HTMLSpanElement.<anonymous> (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:708) at HTMLSpanElement.dispatch (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki|mediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:65) at HTMLSpanElement.elemData.handle (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki|mediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:60)
@
SoWhy: Can I get you to try the new version again by adding the line var xfdc_beta = true;
to
your common.js?
Anyone else who wants to test the new version can do the same (ping (@
Czar and
Primefac:) -
Evad37 [
talk
07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
When viewing an AFD log page, "Hide closed discussions" is now the default setting, however, they are still shown when first loading and only removed when you click "Show closed discussions" and then "Hide closed discussions". Regards So Why 06:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
12:30:22.601 Error: Script terminated by timeout at: Dialog.prototype.makeRationaleBox/$rationale<@https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v3.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1396:9 dispatch@https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%7Cmediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:65:913 add/elemData.handle@https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%7Cmediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:60:459 1 index.php:1396:9
AFD affected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Indoor Football League season (both on log page and on AFD page), trying to close as keep with rationale. Waiting did not help. I wanted to try it with my alt account but the script is not loading for it (even after I added it to the extended confirmed group). I closed a couple of other AFDs in the mean time but this one still hangs... Regards So Why 10:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
{{R to
" with the braces. Would it be possible/better to only have to type "section" to get {{R to section}}
?
czar
06:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Updated everyone to version 3 - Evad37 [ talk 02:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC) {{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
{{ resolved}}
Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concision? It only showed the first page when closing despite both noms being linked to by the {{ la}} template. Regards So Why 12:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
{{la}}
changed the resulting html enough to throw off the detection. I'll look at adjusting the script tomorrow. -
Evad37 [
talk
14:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I just closed a TFD as "delete" and listed at the Holding cell, but while it correctly changed the {{ tfd}} to a {{ being deleted}} it added a {{ db-talk}} to the talk page. Is that normal? Primefac ( talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing discussion: Done!
Updating templates: Done!
Listing at holding cell: Done!
Tagging talk pages for speedy deletion: Done!
@ Primefac: Fixed - Evad37 [ talk 03:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Copied from User talk:Tavix § XFDcloser?Hey Tavix, I'm not sure how XFDcloser works since I do not use it. But ... just FYI, I had to add these anchors since the tool added an edit summary to the deletion that redirect to nonexistent sections. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Tavix and Steel1943: Will look into it. Probably has to do with the script not expecting a link in the section header. - Evad37 [ talk 00:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Unlinker skipped one instance because there were "no direct links". The article did have a link, but it had a superfluous space: [[ like so]]
. Regex could filter out those spaces to unlink properly
czar
16:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Might there be a way to automatically exclude unlinker instances that are based in "article alerts" transclusions? E.g., Template:Article alerts columns/doc, Template:Article alerts columns, and Template:WPUnited States Article alerts are listed (even though the links aren't removed, it's a formality to click through). czar 16:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I closed this discussion as redirect, and when the closer did it's thing it removed an important link because it thought it was a circular redirect. Don't know if this is a template-specific issue or what, but it was brought to my attention ( permalink) so I thought I should pass it along. Primefac ( talk) 17:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
When trying multiple AFDs today, I always go this error:
Closing discussion: Aborted.API error: invalidsection – Could not edit page
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Petry; could not close discussion
I tried both on the list and on the nomination page itself. Relisting works but even after relisting closing does not. Happens with all results. AFDs I tried to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sariola (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Petry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga (entertainer). Regards So Why 09:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
invalidsection
is the
API:Edit error for the section parameter not being an integer or 'new'). Can you close anything on
User:Evad37/sandbox/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 26? Have you recently installed any new scripts or gadgets? Can you close anything with your alt account? -
Evad37 [
talk
00:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
@
Czar and
SoWhy: Would it be helpful to add a hidden tracking category for unlinked list items (those with more than just a single link), so they can be manually reviewed? – i.e. * [[Example]] description
→ * Example[[Category:Articles with unlinked list items for manual review|Example]] description
-
Evad37 [
talk
05:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to compile diffs for some of the edge cases here (you're welcome to join). Perhaps we can deduce some patterns. czar 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
xfdc_beta
, if you want to go that route.) The unlink was simple (
Xunlink handled it) so the issue is likely the new change. Re: the new feature, I didn't get any false positives worth noting before, so I'd keep those automatic. It'd be nice, if possible, to be prompted (remove, skip, skip all) with a diff for any edge cases as part of affirming the closer's intention to unlink. I'd only really need to see the surrounding lines and the section header it's under, but I don't know the difficulty of displaying the diff.
czar
17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Undone for now - Evad37 [ talk 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@
Czar and
SoWhy: I've set up a beta version of the script, activated by having var xfdc_beta = true;
in your common/skin js (like before). At the moment the only differences are "behind the scenes" stuff – assuming there's no problems there, I'll look at implementing the prompting for list item links. -
Evad37 [
talk
04:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Added to main version, since the beta version doesn't seem to have had any problems - Evad37 [ talk 04:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [ talk 09:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Closing an RfD as "disambiguate" is a fairly typical result. When a disambiguation is proposed at RfD, it has become common for someone to draft a dab under the redirect. Therefore, I think the default behavior for closing an RfD as disambiguate would be to completely remove {{ rfd}}, including the redirect content in the middle. If a disambiguation is already drafted below the redirect, it would then be good to go. If not, there would be a blank slate to create the disambiguation from. -- Tavix ( talk) 04:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Adding the RfD template to a redirect causes the redirect to be categorized as an article. Recently, {{ Rfd}} was updated to add Category:Temporary maintenance holdings to fix this incorrect categorization. After I closed Augusta Ubiorum, I noticed that the category is still there even though XFDC has removed the Rfd template. Can XFDC be updated to remove the category after a close? Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 17:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Thought you might like to see this, Evad. I found Phra ram long song listed at WP:BADAFD. The article had been moved during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praramlongsong. Should be fixed now, but better double check me. Courtesy ping ( Ammarpad— Paul 012— Spartaz). Sam Sailor 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
You can see an example here but it seems that when closing an RfD that has been relisted, the "date" parameter in the template is entered as null. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
/(?:\d\d:\d\d, )(\d{1,2} \w+ \d{4})(?: \(UTC\))/
for those who understand regex). But I've now got a fallback, that if no date is found, it will use that date of the log page – which isn't technically correct for relisted discussions, but is way better than null (I actually had this fallback coded already, but the logic for activating wasn't quite right). So hopefully this will improve things. -
Evad37 [
talk
09:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Now that I know what's going on, I should be able to build a workaround - Evad37 [ talk 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I saw this on my watchlist this AM, and Steel1943 just brought it up on my talk page, but apparently when I've closing RfDs, the links in deletion rationales and the oldrfd template have a space after the octothorpe and before the section header. Not super tragic, but annoying. I haven't been able to find any examples of this happening in other closures, so no hints. Only help I can offer is that since it shows up in the keep edit summary, the oldrfd template paramter, and the deletion log, it must be when the link is defined. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I just discovered XFDcloser is smart enough to spot a closing template and delete it for you. Nice job! -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Not sure how easy this would be to implement, but as redirect and full protect is becoming a more common alternative to deletion these days, might it be possible to incorporate that as a closing option? Thanks. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
If the result of an AFD is to move it to draftspace, would it be possible for the script to automatically disable the categories with a colon to follow WP:DRAFTNOCAT? ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I suggest allowing the addition of redirect categories (rcats) for "keep" closures, similar to the functionality available with "retarget" closures. feminist ( talk) 05:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
XfD closer needs to be updated to handle modules for deletion; it converted my Module:ConvertTestcase nomination into one for Template:ConvertTestcase in the old log when it did a relisting. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 20:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
This is caused by the way the script removes the discussion from the old log page and rebuilds the {{ tfd links}} templates. I should have it fixed soon. Evad37 [ talk 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I had to fix about 6 different closures because it mangled adding the {{ being deleted}} tag when there was already a {{ deprecated template}} tag. Could also have something to do with the fact that the TfD tag was already noincluded. See, for example, here where it caused the {{ deprecated template}} tag to be transcluded in article space! I got a lot of angry messages :) Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags if present, since sometimes the nomination template is noincluded. What happened here is that the regex matched the opening tag, and the nomination template, but didn't find the closing tag. I'll have to think about how to fix this. -
Evad37 [
talk
15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I've noticed this a time or two before, but only a week or so after the close - I just closed this TFD as no consensus, but as I watched it refresh I noticed that it gave me these notes about the deletion template not being found. However, all three templates have the XFD notice. Is it just a coincidence that it's the second, fourth, and sixth nominated template? Primefac ( talk) 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
It looks like the new syntax highlighting breaks this. I assume this is looking for some specific class pattern in the DOM and syntax highlighting changed what it's looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
{{ resolved}}
Tanga is a DAB page. Should the entry for this deleted article be deleted altogether instead of simply being unlinked? DMacks ( talk) 03:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looking further, I think a bunch of the other links were in See also sections, which likewise should have been removed instead of unlinked. I wonder if these are two known limitations (or bugs) in User:Evad37/XFDcloser? DMacks ( talk) 03:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
- I've removed the relevant entries before clicking through to this notification. It's not that hard to do manually, which I tend to do, because in some contexts removal isn't necessary (e.g. cast lists). But yeah, entries in DABs and See Also sections should be removed. @ Evad37: Is there a way to do this automatically I know the script does this for links in templates already? ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 03:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@ Patar knight, DMacks, and Czar: Having given this some thought, I might be able to do a full line removal where the list item is just the single link or unlinked text plus a single link. This would be the majority of cases I imagine. The problem I can see, however, is that it could turn a list like this
==See also== *[[Foo]] *[[Bar]] – AfD'd article **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]]
into
==See also== *[[Foo]] **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]]
more problem bulletting examples
|
---|
– or ==See also== *[[Foo]] **[[Bar]] – AfD'd article ***[[Bar sub-item 1]] ***[[Bar sub-item 2]] into ==See also== *[[Foo]] ***[[Bar sub-item 1]] ***[[Bar sub-item 2]] – or ==See also== *[[Bar]] – AfD'd article **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]] into ==See also== **[[Bar sub-item 1]] **[[Bar sub-item 2]] |
– which isn't desirable. - Evad37 [ talk 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Hi! I noticed that you deleted User talk:Stephadams07 while clearing up the redirects to Steph Adams. I think the user talk page had a couple of ordinary messages on it, and shouldn't have been deleted. Could you check, please? -- John of Reading ( talk) 06:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, the script caught that. I've restored it. @ Evad37:: Would it be possible to not delete user talk pages via G8 if the userpage redirects to the deleted page? ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Patar knight: Just to clarify, you want the script to ignore all pages in User_talk: namespace (when deleting talk pages of redirects)? - Evad37 [ talk 18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
{{Resolved|1=Measures implemented appear to be working, another discussion can be started if problems reemerge. - Evad37 [ talk 01:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)}} Not really sure whether this is a problem with the script or people using it but I have seen multiple cases now with editors relisting discussions but the script not removing them from all old logs. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to East Germany was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 13 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 11 because Cyberbot I thought it was not correctly transcluded the first time (it was). Could XFDC be updated to check for all transclusions and remove all of them before adding the AFD to the new log? Also, is there a way to trigger a browser "do you really want to leave this page?" message when relisting is still underway (to avoid people closing the window too fast and thus breaking the relist)? Regards So Why 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Partly done – the script will now warn users if they try to leave the page while it still processing closes/relists - Evad37 [ talk 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. Still problems with relistings, I just had to manually remove a bunch of AFDs relisted with XFDCloser from the old log. Looking through that log, it seems that the script sometimes removes the comment tags from an old AFD when relisting another for no apparent reason, e.g. [1] [2]. But those I manually commented out just now include also ones that were never removed first. Maybe you can take another look? Regards So Why 16:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Hi there. Currently a bot is removing this category from closed AfDs (cf. [3]) but I don't see a reason why the script can't do it directly. Regards So Why 14:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Should deleted redirects be unlinked too? Say A redirects to B and both are deleted at AfD. B is unlinked from articles, but A links remain? czar 16:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
{{ Resolved}}
Any idea about why using your script at TFDs (specifically) sometimes displays:--[Error retrieving page information (reload the page to try again) Details: HTTP error: error].Acc. in these times, it fails to recognize the nominated articles(works in basic mode) and is unable to relist/close.(The display window opens but pressing the submit button leads to nothing!) Winged Blades Godric 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Any idea about why the CFD closer fails to pick up the article(s) nominated and is always running in basic mode in every discussion? Winged Blades Godric 13:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
{{ Resolved}}
Just wondering, is it deliberate that the "unlink pages" option appears as checked by default when making a "delete" close? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 16:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, did you really mean to blank the AfD when relisting it? Maybe a script error? Sandstein 16:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Sandstein:--To the best of my knowledge and belief, my sanity was allright at the time and as a rule, could not but put the blame on a script-error!! Maybe Evad37 will be able to share some more details! Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:-- This was par-excellence!Huh?! Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- If by 'par-excellence' you mean a right total balls-up that made me look arsehat of the decade, you're dead right! :o — fortuna velut luna 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I've got no idea what happened here, especially since SoWhy relisted it very soon after [4] with no problem, and all these other relists you did from around that time [5] seem to have been completed properly. - Evad37 [ talk 04:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Can XFDC be modified to analyze the amount of prior relists and add Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times when relisting a third time? Regards So Why 06:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the closer
Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
{{
being deleted}}
notice for a holding cell listing, or something else? -
Evad37 [
talk
00:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I had a log page for AFD open that did not correctly reflect that an AFD was already closed, so I tried to close it and the script did not notice that. Maybe a conflict check can be added (such as when trying to relist a closed AFD) that aborts a close if the archive template is found on the page? Regards So Why 15:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if it's possible since the script seems to load for every AFD separately but here goes: Oftentimes you want to relist quite a few AFDs for lack of participation, so it would be cool if you could check them on the log page and click relist once, with the script only having to edit the old and new log page once, thus reducing strain on the server. Regards So Why 15:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I was just reminded, that with RFD, one is expected to remove the log page's transclusion from the main RFD page if no more discussions are open, so I wondered, couldn't XFDCloser do that? Since unlike AFD, RFD has all discussions on a single page, the script is already editing said page to close discussions, so it would just also have to check if any discussion is still open and if not, remove the transclusion (the "still open" check already exists in the code for hiding closed discussions, does it not?). Regards So Why 06:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Based on this message on my talk page, I think XFDC could be made able to identify entries in lists and remove them completely, couldn't it? Regards So Why 16:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@
SoWhy and
Czar: I don't know if prompting would be practical, since "ambiguous cases" would likely have to be every case of the link being a list item, as I don't think there's a easy/reliable way to tell if a list should be 'all-notable' or 'not-all-notable'.
But thinking more about this, I can probably get around the subitems issue by assuming most lists don't go beyond 3 (***
) or 4 (****
) levels. And I wonder if I'm being too cautious regarding not-all-notable lists... would it be reasonable to assume that for most cases where the item should be retained, the AfD would end in redirection rather than deletion (e.g. from some minor character to a list of characters)? -
Evad37 [
talk
02:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Done in version 3 - Evad37 [ talk 09:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Oftentimes articles are tagged with WikiProject banners which contain class=X
parameters. I propose XFDC changes these to class=redirect
when closing an AFD as redirect and tagging the talk page with the OldAFD template. Regards
So
Why
10:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I just closed a multi-template TFD, and after going through the process of selecting delete, etc etc, the "are you sure you want to take 6 actions" box popped up behind the main "XFDcloser" box. Had to shift the main box out of the way (which it almost couldn't do thanks to its size) in order to click "yes". Primefac ( talk) 01:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've been working on a new major version of the script – a substantial rewrite to enable processing of multiple-result closes (e.g. "keep some, delete others"). Also:
*[[Example]]
, but not *[[Example]] – some text...
)There may be some new bugs (or the re-emergence of some old ones) due to the significant backend code changes. I'll post here again when it's ready. - Evad37 [ talk 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
{{R to related topic}}
, {{R from subtopic}}
, {{R to list entry}}
, and {{R to section}}
) followed by the "Related information" and "Fiction" groupings, before everything else.Updated to version 3.0.0! (The old version is still available at User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v2.js) - Evad37 [ talk 09:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
index.php?title=User:Evad37/extra.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:111 Uncaught TypeError: OO.ui.CapsuleMultiselectWidget is not a constructor at Object.extraJs.makeRcatCapsuleMultiselect (index.php?title=User:Evad37/extra.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:111) at Dialog.setup (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1967) at Discussion.openDialog (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:610) at HTMLSpanElement.<anonymous> (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:708) at HTMLSpanElement.dispatch (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki|mediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:65) at HTMLSpanElement.elemData.handle (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki|mediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:60)
@
SoWhy: Can I get you to try the new version again by adding the line var xfdc_beta = true;
to
your common.js?
Anyone else who wants to test the new version can do the same (ping (@
Czar and
Primefac:) -
Evad37 [
talk
07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
When viewing an AFD log page, "Hide closed discussions" is now the default setting, however, they are still shown when first loading and only removed when you click "Show closed discussions" and then "Hide closed discussions". Regards So Why 06:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
12:30:22.601 Error: Script terminated by timeout at: Dialog.prototype.makeRationaleBox/$rationale<@https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v3.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1396:9 dispatch@https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%7Cmediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:65:913 add/elemData.handle@https://en.wikipedia.org/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%7Cmediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:60:459 1 index.php:1396:9
AFD affected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Indoor Football League season (both on log page and on AFD page), trying to close as keep with rationale. Waiting did not help. I wanted to try it with my alt account but the script is not loading for it (even after I added it to the extended confirmed group). I closed a couple of other AFDs in the mean time but this one still hangs... Regards So Why 10:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
{{R to
" with the braces. Would it be possible/better to only have to type "section" to get {{R to section}}
?
czar
06:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Updated everyone to version 3 - Evad37 [ talk 02:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC) {{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
{{ resolved}}
Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concision? It only showed the first page when closing despite both noms being linked to by the {{ la}} template. Regards So Why 12:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
{{la}}
changed the resulting html enough to throw off the detection. I'll look at adjusting the script tomorrow. -
Evad37 [
talk
14:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I just closed a TFD as "delete" and listed at the Holding cell, but while it correctly changed the {{ tfd}} to a {{ being deleted}} it added a {{ db-talk}} to the talk page. Is that normal? Primefac ( talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Closing discussion: Done!
Updating templates: Done!
Listing at holding cell: Done!
Tagging talk pages for speedy deletion: Done!
@ Primefac: Fixed - Evad37 [ talk 03:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Copied from User talk:Tavix § XFDcloser?Hey Tavix, I'm not sure how XFDcloser works since I do not use it. But ... just FYI, I had to add these anchors since the tool added an edit summary to the deletion that redirect to nonexistent sections. Steel1943 ( talk) 00:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Tavix and Steel1943: Will look into it. Probably has to do with the script not expecting a link in the section header. - Evad37 [ talk 00:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Unlinker skipped one instance because there were "no direct links". The article did have a link, but it had a superfluous space: [[ like so]]
. Regex could filter out those spaces to unlink properly
czar
16:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Might there be a way to automatically exclude unlinker instances that are based in "article alerts" transclusions? E.g., Template:Article alerts columns/doc, Template:Article alerts columns, and Template:WPUnited States Article alerts are listed (even though the links aren't removed, it's a formality to click through). czar 16:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I closed this discussion as redirect, and when the closer did it's thing it removed an important link because it thought it was a circular redirect. Don't know if this is a template-specific issue or what, but it was brought to my attention ( permalink) so I thought I should pass it along. Primefac ( talk) 17:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
When trying multiple AFDs today, I always go this error:
Closing discussion: Aborted.API error: invalidsection – Could not edit page
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Petry; could not close discussion
I tried both on the list and on the nomination page itself. Relisting works but even after relisting closing does not. Happens with all results. AFDs I tried to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sariola (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Petry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga (entertainer). Regards So Why 09:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
invalidsection
is the
API:Edit error for the section parameter not being an integer or 'new'). Can you close anything on
User:Evad37/sandbox/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 26? Have you recently installed any new scripts or gadgets? Can you close anything with your alt account? -
Evad37 [
talk
00:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
@
Czar and
SoWhy: Would it be helpful to add a hidden tracking category for unlinked list items (those with more than just a single link), so they can be manually reviewed? – i.e. * [[Example]] description
→ * Example[[Category:Articles with unlinked list items for manual review|Example]] description
-
Evad37 [
talk
05:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to compile diffs for some of the edge cases here (you're welcome to join). Perhaps we can deduce some patterns. czar 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
xfdc_beta
, if you want to go that route.) The unlink was simple (
Xunlink handled it) so the issue is likely the new change. Re: the new feature, I didn't get any false positives worth noting before, so I'd keep those automatic. It'd be nice, if possible, to be prompted (remove, skip, skip all) with a diff for any edge cases as part of affirming the closer's intention to unlink. I'd only really need to see the surrounding lines and the section header it's under, but I don't know the difficulty of displaying the diff.
czar
17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Undone for now - Evad37 [ talk 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@
Czar and
SoWhy: I've set up a beta version of the script, activated by having var xfdc_beta = true;
in your common/skin js (like before). At the moment the only differences are "behind the scenes" stuff – assuming there's no problems there, I'll look at implementing the prompting for list item links. -
Evad37 [
talk
04:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Added to main version, since the beta version doesn't seem to have had any problems - Evad37 [ talk 04:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [ talk 09:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Closing an RfD as "disambiguate" is a fairly typical result. When a disambiguation is proposed at RfD, it has become common for someone to draft a dab under the redirect. Therefore, I think the default behavior for closing an RfD as disambiguate would be to completely remove {{ rfd}}, including the redirect content in the middle. If a disambiguation is already drafted below the redirect, it would then be good to go. If not, there would be a blank slate to create the disambiguation from. -- Tavix ( talk) 04:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Adding the RfD template to a redirect causes the redirect to be categorized as an article. Recently, {{ Rfd}} was updated to add Category:Temporary maintenance holdings to fix this incorrect categorization. After I closed Augusta Ubiorum, I noticed that the category is still there even though XFDC has removed the Rfd template. Can XFDC be updated to remove the category after a close? Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 17:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
Thought you might like to see this, Evad. I found Phra ram long song listed at WP:BADAFD. The article had been moved during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praramlongsong. Should be fixed now, but better double check me. Courtesy ping ( Ammarpad— Paul 012— Spartaz). Sam Sailor 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
You can see an example here but it seems that when closing an RfD that has been relisted, the "date" parameter in the template is entered as null. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
/(?:\d\d:\d\d, )(\d{1,2} \w+ \d{4})(?: \(UTC\))/
for those who understand regex). But I've now got a fallback, that if no date is found, it will use that date of the log page – which isn't technically correct for relisted discussions, but is way better than null (I actually had this fallback coded already, but the logic for activating wasn't quite right). So hopefully this will improve things. -
Evad37 [
talk
09:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys. Now that I know what's going on, I should be able to build a workaround - Evad37 [ talk 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I saw this on my watchlist this AM, and Steel1943 just brought it up on my talk page, but apparently when I've closing RfDs, the links in deletion rationales and the oldrfd template have a space after the octothorpe and before the section header. Not super tragic, but annoying. I haven't been able to find any examples of this happening in other closures, so no hints. Only help I can offer is that since it shows up in the keep edit summary, the oldrfd template paramter, and the deletion log, it must be when the link is defined. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I just discovered XFDcloser is smart enough to spot a closing template and delete it for you. Nice job! -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Not sure how easy this would be to implement, but as redirect and full protect is becoming a more common alternative to deletion these days, might it be possible to incorporate that as a closing option? Thanks. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
If the result of an AFD is to move it to draftspace, would it be possible for the script to automatically disable the categories with a colon to follow WP:DRAFTNOCAT? ---- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
I suggest allowing the addition of redirect categories (rcats) for "keep" closures, similar to the functionality available with "retarget" closures. feminist ( talk) 05:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
XfD closer needs to be updated to handle modules for deletion; it converted my Module:ConvertTestcase nomination into one for Template:ConvertTestcase in the old log when it did a relisting. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 20:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
This is caused by the way the script removes the discussion from the old log page and rebuilds the {{ tfd links}} templates. I should have it fixed soon. Evad37 [ talk 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
I had to fix about 6 different closures because it mangled adding the {{ being deleted}} tag when there was already a {{ deprecated template}} tag. Could also have something to do with the fact that the TfD tag was already noincluded. See, for example, here where it caused the {{ deprecated template}} tag to be transcluded in article space! I got a lot of angry messages :) Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
<noinclude>...</noinclude>
tags if present, since sometimes the nomination template is noincluded. What happened here is that the regex matched the opening tag, and the nomination template, but didn't find the closing tag. I'll have to think about how to fix this. -
Evad37 [
talk
15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC){{ resolved}}
I've noticed this a time or two before, but only a week or so after the close - I just closed this TFD as no consensus, but as I watched it refresh I noticed that it gave me these notes about the deletion template not being found. However, all three templates have the XFD notice. Is it just a coincidence that it's the second, fourth, and sixth nominated template? Primefac ( talk) 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
{{ resolved}}
It looks like the new syntax highlighting breaks this. I assume this is looking for some specific class pattern in the DOM and syntax highlighting changed what it's looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)