From User talk:Stepshep
- Thanks for setting up article alerts for WikiProject Kentucky. I think it's going to be really useful. I noticed one anomaly, though. According to the article update page, John Breckinridge Castleman was listed on DYK on December 10. But according the the article history, that article hasn't even been touched since November 25, 2008, and it was hardly a major expansion. It's still a cool bot, but it may have a little glitch. Just thought I'd let you know.|Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the report. It appears that this recent edit to the talk page updated the internal timestamp of the DYK category entry - although it shouldn't have. Currently the bot relies on this timestamp only and doesn't evaluate the date given in the actual DYK tag on the talk page (which is August 2 2007 in the present case). I agree that the bot should be more careful at that point. For the time being I'm listing this under "known problems" above. --B. Wolterding (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- (copied from below)For the second day in a row the DYK section has a bunch of incorrect information at WP:CHICAGO. I see some other project such as WP:OHIO and WP:PHYSICS are having the same problem and some projects such as WP:COMICS are not.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- (copied from below) May be a related problem but this change in today's run gave a DYK entry from 16 Mar 2008 as though it had happened on 9 February 2009. Keith D (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Another long list of false notifications today for WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to be back in order. The last two days have had no problems.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Something like this happened with WP:COMICS, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Article alerts. I added the dyk template to quite a few talk pages, which accounts for almost all of the false positives, but the one that I can't account for is Talk:John Stanley (comics), talk page hasn't been edited this year. I'm guessing the 9th November listing of William Donahey is related to issues above. Hiding T 11:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
(←)Two more false positives for WP:SHIPS (Article alerts page): Greek submarine Delfin and Greek frigate Hellas are both listed as DYKs on 1 March. Neither article/talk page combo has been edited recently… — Bellhalla (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Should be fixed now. But please report any further false positives. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note: this was due to vandalism [1]; still the problem could have been avoided by better result caching in the bot code. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Ah. I missed that. Thanks, §hepTalk 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- I improved the code at that point - nominator and nomination date, once known for an article, will never be updated by the bot, so they should be insensitive against vandalism. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- The fix is on the live bot now. If we can somehow get hold of a fresh example, we should verify it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) No comments in a month +, I'm assuming the fixed work and so I'm archiving.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
| Status
|
Fixed
|
| Description
|
Ripcurl was tagged by the {{physics|fluid-dynamics=yes}} banner, then was nominated for deletion. As the article is not in the scope of the physics project, or the fluid dynamics taskforce, the banner was removed. Rather than removing the entry from the alerts, AABot interpreted this as Ripcurl being kept.
|
| Type
|
Other
|
| Link to bug
|
[3]
|
| Report by
|
Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
|
- Yes, that's indeed what the bot does. It's not correct, but this one might be a tricky one to fix. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- How about an "ifexist" check? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure what you refer to? Well, the internal situation in the bot at that place is as follows: The database delivers a list of "all pages with AfD tags that have talkpages in category (wgcat)". The alerts are built from this list. If you remove the project tag, the article just disappears from the list. Which it does as well if an AfD is closed as "keep". Of course there are ways to fix this, but I need to think a bit about a good variant that is good to implement for all workflows (same problem would appear for any other workflow too).
- By the way, what is the expected situation in this case: Should the bot just drop the entry from the alerts list? Or should it list a message "project tag removed from ..." or similar? --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well for that specific example, the bot could do a "hard check" to see if Ripcurl still exists. If it doesn't exist, then it's been deleted. If it exists, but it's not marked by {{physics}}, then you'd simply remove the entry from the alerts. A message such as "The project's tag was removed form the article" could be nice, but I don't think it's necessary, and it would possibly trigger a flew of requests to have the bot list what articles have been de-tagged, and what have been tagged. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 21:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fixed now. If in an active entry, the article is removed from the project / workgroup, the entry will silently be dropped from the list, and not be displayed as "closed". --B. Wolterding (talk) 01:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Fix is live. Does anyone have a comparable example so that we can check what happens? --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- No comments in 1 months+. I'm assuming this is fixed & archiving.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- The technical background is as follows: The bot looks for the {{ITNtalk}} template on the talk page to read the date of main page appearance. In the case at hand, it doesn't find the tag (because the date is integrated into {{ArticleHistory}} here). Therefore it assumes that the date is that of the category entry - which is often false as we know from the DYK problems.
- I can confirm that this behavior will change with the next version of the bot - it would just ignore the article on not finding {{ITNtalk}}. (BTW, the same solution is now implemented for DYK.) I'm not sure whether this is the final solution to the problem yet. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Is this normal/related to the fix? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- No ,that was a problem with the rollback after the (attempted) rollout. ITN should now appear again. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Note that the bug reported below occurs with all deletion-related processes, not just AfD. I have made a change in the code that will hopefully resolve this problem. However, the change is not yet in the live bot at this time. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It is now in the live bot; I have seen several examples where it worked, i.e. AfD articles are reported as "deleted" rather than disppearing from the list. Marking this as "verified". --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- Because WP:CHICAGO doesn't have a {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} template placed on the page. I think that the Chicago project was one of the participants in the early test phases, and that the manually configured subscription that was set up back then (when the template-based subscription template was not yet in place) is still active today. If you place the subscription template on the page, the manual configuration can be removed from the database (this won't happen automatically though). --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- You should make sure all test projects get added. Also, what page do I correct and what exactly do I do?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
- As with all other projects, you need to place {{ArticleAlertbotSubscription}} on your project page. This has been done meanwhile, and now your project appears in the category. I will ask Legoktm to remove the old subscription from the test phase, so that you can control all settings via the subscription template. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- Problem solved meanwhile. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
| Status
|
Fixed (under test)
|
| Description
|
Instead of (original) * 19 Mar 2009 – Talk:Independent Party of Oregon#Request for comment (IPO): Two editors have recently been editing this article, who have the strong appearance of a conflict of interest. (One edits under the username "SPeralta," which suggests he is one of the party's three officers.) They have sustained an argumentative tone with three longtime WikiProject Oregon editors (including me), and shown little regard for WP policies and guidelines (edit warring, talk page use, etc.) I hope for some comment from the community about how to best proceed.
the alerts page produced (buggy version) * 19 Mar 2009 – [[Talk:Independent Party of Oregon#Request for comment (IPO) !! reason=Two editors have recently been editing this article, who have the strong appearance of a conflict of interest. (One edits under the username "SPeralta," which suggests he is one of the party's three officers.) They have sustained an argumentative tone with three longtime WikiProject Oregon editors (including me), and shown little regard for WP policies and guidelines (edit warring, talk page use, etc.) I hope for some comment from the community about how to best proceed.
!! time=17:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)|RFC]] (politics) opened for Independent Party of Oregon (talk).
|
| Type
|
Please specify the type of bug you are reporting. (Redlink, Overlooked page, Duplicate entry, Transclusion, or Other)
|
| Link to bug
|
[5]
|
| Report by
|
Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
|
- Different bug, different cause. Fixed in the code now. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
- The fix is live. However, this will only be effective for RFCs that are added from now on. Let's see whether the bug appears again. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
- This happens when there is no line break after the redirect specification. Needs to be fixed in the bot. Unfortunately the category will now stay in the article alerts page until the item expires. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- I believe the linebreak would not categorize the redirect - at least I had problems in the past and seem to remember that it has to be on one line. Most likely why we do not see that many categorized redirects about. In this particular case it was a save from prod where the article would not show notability any time soon but would be a plausible searchterm which would be covered at the target. Agathoclea (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Problem in the code should be fixed now. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
| Status
|
Fixed
|
| Description
|
Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment/Article alerts does not implement |discussions=2 correctly (whereas Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment/Article alerts, which uses the same parameters does). Template calls are identical:
{{ArticleAlertbotSubscription|workflows=GTC, FLC, FAC, GA_NOM, FTC, PEERREV, RFC|banner=WikiProject Anime and manga|abbreviate=0|discussions=2|archivetime=2}}*
{{ArticleAlertbotSubscription|workflows=GTC, FLC, FAC, GA_NOM, FTC, PEERREV, RFC|banner=WikiProject Japan|abbreviate=0|discussions=2|archivetime=2}}
*: |archivetime=2 has been removed since.
|
| Type
|
Other
|
| Link to bug
|
All (Sample: diff)
|
| Report by
|
G.A.Stalk 11:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
|
- First, I hope I have fixed this now and the next bot run will produce the correct results (current setting is discussions=1 but you can change this). Second, the underlying technical problem is this: Due to the way the bot reads the subscription parameters (namely, via the category sortkey), there is an upper limit for the length of all parameters combined (approx. 70 characters). It appears that this was exceeded here. By "saving" a few characters by deleting whitespace, I was able to fix it. However, in the long run, it may be necessary to modify the way the bot handles its parameters. --B. Wolterding (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, that did the trick. A note on the subscription page should help; you could also consider abbreviating the subscriptions in the short term. G.A.Stalk 20:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
