![]() | This page 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. |
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)
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)
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}}
on their talk page.{{
WikiProject Science Fiction}}
on their talk page.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Filled by: Beagel
Time filed: 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Description:
Status |
![]() |
---|---|
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 { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) |
Comments:
De-archived to have more discussion. Beagel ( talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
{{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. –
T
M
F
21:51, 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)
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)
Filled by: Nergaal ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Description:
Comments:
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)
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)
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:
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:
What do you suggest? How do others go about this? And should this perhaps explained in a bit more detail in the documentation? Schwede 66 03:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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? -- Admr Boltz 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)
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)
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)
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. -- SkotyWA T C 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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}}).{{
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)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:
Filled by: Headbomb ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 10:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Description: Several project do not tag important files related to their projects. So in addition to the usual "Check for banners present on (for example) File talk:Quark structure proton.svg", there should be a "super search mode" for everything in the File: namespace. What I mean by that is that AAlertbot should not only check for the banners present on File talk:Quark structure proton.svg, but also the banners present on all the talk pages of articles/pages that make use of File:Quark structure proton.svg. For this file, this would mean
So, the report for WikiProject Physics could read something like
if it is tagged directly. And something like
if it is not tagged directly.
I've omitted the "talk edit hist" links out of simplicity / laziness, but the jist of what I'm saying should have gotten through. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Filled by: SoWhy ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Description:
Comments: It would be useful to mark minor "No major changes" edits as minor. For example, when only updating participant count. I would exclude archiving because that is not a minor edit in my opinion, and other bots respect that also. Ꞷ umbolo 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Filled by: SoWhy ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Description: Can the bot be modified to create section headers instead of
description lists? That way, parts of the alerts page could be transcluded to other pages using
labeled section transclusion without having to tranclude all alerts (for example when you just want to transclude AFDs). Alternatively, if that's not feasible, coulde the bot generate section tags (e.g. <section begin=afd />[...AFD list...]<section end=afd />
)? Regards
So
Why
09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments:
<span style="font-weight: bold">heading</span>
the next most appropriate). --
Izno (
talk)
12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)<section>
tag (I've never seen it before). The sections currently have {{anchor|AfD}}
tags, but I don't think that helps with conditional transclusion. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
12:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report section header|AfD|Articles for deletion}}
produces <section begin=AfD />{{anchor|AfD<span style="font-weight: bold">Articles for Deletion</span><section end=AfD />
. I'm using <section>...</section>
for accessibility (and transclusion-compatibility reasons I mentioned above), {{
anchor}} for navigation, as before, and <span>...</span>
with bold text to match previous section-like formatting. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
14:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Filled by: Amorymeltzer ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Description: (Previous posted
here, meant to correct that earlier) AAlertBot uses
Template:Abbr via the {{
Tooltip}} redirect, but for accessibility reasons (see
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text) {{
Abbr}} should only be used for abbreviations. I don't think the source code for AAlertBot is available, but would you consider replacing the use with
Template:Hover title? The order of parameters is opposite, though, so the wikitext would have to go from {{tooltip|'''1''' participant|del: 0, keep: 0}}
to {{Hover title|del: 0, keep: 0|'''1''' participant}}
. The end result should be the same. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments:
{{
tooltip|show|hide}}
with {{
hover title|hide|show}}
for bot's output. It's not in the current build, but will be there in the next update. It won't fix anything in the archives though.
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Description: Automatic delsorts.
Comments:
Basically, parse all pages in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting that match the name/project, e.g. "WikiProject Video games" and "WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games". Instead of explicit |delsort=
, everyone gets the delsorts. Optionally, can opt out with |nodelsort=
or something. This could catch a good hundred+ pages that are otherwise untagged. Plenty of users are sorting stuff in delsorts as they go through AfDs, but not actually tagging the articles. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Hellknowz: is that case-insensitive? E.g. picking up "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Whatever and foobar" if project is Whatever and Foobar. What about redirects, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Books → Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature if projet is Books?. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 13:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Description: Because it's likely moved or suspended and need manual intervention -- do we update the subscription or do we disable it? This prevents the bot starting a "second history" and making a mess if we want to histmerge.
Comments: Or follow redirect, and deliver there? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 10:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Description: There are two workflows here: {{ GTCmain}} -> {{ GTC}} and {{ GTCaddmain}} -> {{ GTCadd}}
Comments:
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 12:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Description: A report can exceed the MediaWiki size limit (e.g. [8]), so the bot just fails the write call and doesn't update the report page. Instead, a template message is now delivered [9].
Ideally, I want to minimize the report by stripping information from entries, but that's a whole another big feature. This doesn't happen that often anyway.
Comments:
![]() | This page 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. |
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)
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)
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}}
on their talk page.{{
WikiProject Science Fiction}}
on their talk page.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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Filled by: Beagel
Time filed: 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Description:
Status |
![]() |
---|---|
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 { ταλκ κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) |
Comments:
De-archived to have more discussion. Beagel ( talk) 19:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
{{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. –
T
M
F
21:51, 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)
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)
Filled by: Nergaal ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Description:
Comments:
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)
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)
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:
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:
What do you suggest? How do others go about this? And should this perhaps explained in a bit more detail in the documentation? Schwede 66 03:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
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)
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:
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? -- Admr Boltz 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)
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)
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)
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. -- SkotyWA T C 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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
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}}).{{
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)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:
Filled by: Headbomb ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 10:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Description: Several project do not tag important files related to their projects. So in addition to the usual "Check for banners present on (for example) File talk:Quark structure proton.svg", there should be a "super search mode" for everything in the File: namespace. What I mean by that is that AAlertbot should not only check for the banners present on File talk:Quark structure proton.svg, but also the banners present on all the talk pages of articles/pages that make use of File:Quark structure proton.svg. For this file, this would mean
So, the report for WikiProject Physics could read something like
if it is tagged directly. And something like
if it is not tagged directly.
I've omitted the "talk edit hist" links out of simplicity / laziness, but the jist of what I'm saying should have gotten through. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Filled by: SoWhy ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Description:
Comments: It would be useful to mark minor "No major changes" edits as minor. For example, when only updating participant count. I would exclude archiving because that is not a minor edit in my opinion, and other bots respect that also. Ꞷ umbolo 19:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Filled by: SoWhy ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Description: Can the bot be modified to create section headers instead of
description lists? That way, parts of the alerts page could be transcluded to other pages using
labeled section transclusion without having to tranclude all alerts (for example when you just want to transclude AFDs). Alternatively, if that's not feasible, coulde the bot generate section tags (e.g. <section begin=afd />[...AFD list...]<section end=afd />
)? Regards
So
Why
09:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments:
<span style="font-weight: bold">heading</span>
the next most appropriate). --
Izno (
talk)
12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)<section>
tag (I've never seen it before). The sections currently have {{anchor|AfD}}
tags, but I don't think that helps with conditional transclusion. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
12:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report section header|AfD|Articles for deletion}}
produces <section begin=AfD />{{anchor|AfD<span style="font-weight: bold">Articles for Deletion</span><section end=AfD />
. I'm using <section>...</section>
for accessibility (and transclusion-compatibility reasons I mentioned above), {{
anchor}} for navigation, as before, and <span>...</span>
with bold text to match previous section-like formatting. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
14:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)Filled by: Amorymeltzer ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Description: (Previous posted
here, meant to correct that earlier) AAlertBot uses
Template:Abbr via the {{
Tooltip}} redirect, but for accessibility reasons (see
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Text) {{
Abbr}} should only be used for abbreviations. I don't think the source code for AAlertBot is available, but would you consider replacing the use with
Template:Hover title? The order of parameters is opposite, though, so the wikitext would have to go from {{tooltip|'''1''' participant|del: 0, keep: 0}}
to {{Hover title|del: 0, keep: 0|'''1''' participant}}
. The end result should be the same. ~ Amory (
u •
t •
c)
16:50, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Comments:
{{
tooltip|show|hide}}
with {{
hover title|hide|show}}
for bot's output. It's not in the current build, but will be there in the next update. It won't fix anything in the archives though.
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Description: Automatic delsorts.
Comments:
Basically, parse all pages in
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting that match the name/project, e.g. "WikiProject Video games" and "WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games". Instead of explicit |delsort=
, everyone gets the delsorts. Optionally, can opt out with |nodelsort=
or something. This could catch a good hundred+ pages that are otherwise untagged. Plenty of users are sorting stuff in delsorts as they go through AfDs, but not actually tagging the articles. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
18:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Hellknowz: is that case-insensitive? E.g. picking up "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Whatever and foobar" if project is Whatever and Foobar. What about redirects, e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Books → Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Literature if projet is Books?. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 13:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Description: Because it's likely moved or suspended and need manual intervention -- do we update the subscription or do we disable it? This prevents the bot starting a "second history" and making a mess if we want to histmerge.
Comments: Or follow redirect, and deliver there? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 14:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 10:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Description: There are two workflows here: {{ GTCmain}} -> {{ GTC}} and {{ GTCaddmain}} -> {{ GTCadd}}
Comments:
Filled by: Hellknowz ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 12:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Description: A report can exceed the MediaWiki size limit (e.g. [8]), so the bot just fails the write call and doesn't update the report page. Instead, a template message is now delivered [9].
Ideally, I want to minimize the report by stripping information from entries, but that's a whole another big feature. This doesn't happen that often anyway.
Comments: