Any comments, feature requests, suggestions or questions can be placed here. Thanks – SD0001 (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for setting up this highly useful page! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad you found it useful! – SD0001 (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey,

I just came across User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible sorting a few days ago and noticed it hadn't updated in a few days. Just thought I'd leave you a note. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting hasn't updated since 9/23 either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 26 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

G13 soon sorting is only set to update twice a week (I'm not even sure if that page is useful given the sheer size), the one seems to have run today. There have been way too many 500 errors from ORES servers from the past few days and I don't know what's causing them. – SD0001 (talk) 12:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's phab:T263910. – SD0001 (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the information, SD0001. I was just told about these pages by MusikAnimal because I couldn't understand why Wikipedia:Database reports/Stale drafts has been coming up empty for the past few weeks when it used to list hundreds of stale drafts every morning about 1 am (my time zone). Since your bot has been active, editors have been preemptively going in and deleting drafts when they reach the six month period, without waiting for the database report each morning. So, I've been doing it as well for the past 2 days.

It's confusing that there are now 4 or 5 pages/categories that list stale (or soon-to-be-stale) drafts and none of them are entirely complete as far as I can see. Since I've been looking at the lists for the past two days, I found that none of them list the exact same stale drafts and other editors keep tagging drafts that are older than 6 months that aren't on any of the lists! I guess it's because there are so many thousands of drafts at this point and user sandboxes, too. It's amazing that they can even categorize them all. Thank you again for cluing me in on the updating frequency. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 27 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been meaning to take a look again at these reports and make them more useful for people seeking to rescue worthy stuff. I've been told User:SDZeroBot/G13 Watch has been useful because of the excerpts. The plan is to add excerpts on both these reports, and reduce the scope of G13 soon to only include pages whose last edit date falls in a period of one day which is about (6 months minus 1 week) before current. – SD0001 (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I now notice here I wrote the same comment on this talk page and your user page! My apologies for being repetitive.

Since you are checking this bot's talk page, we've started this conversation and I've been looking through stale drafts recently, maybe I'll be more specific about what my comment above refers to: Why does Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions and User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible sorting have different stale draft contents? Over the past couple of days, I keep finding G13 eligible pages that your bot has found that aren't listed in the G13 category. Are you drawing from different sources of data? It seems like the two pages would have similar content, with the category being larger and this specific bot page just listing drafts that had just expired from their six month period. Thanks for any insight you can offer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I hope this will be considered "constructive criticism" but I have a comment about User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible sorting. In the past hour, it just updated and posted eligible G13 stale drafts but it includes stale drafts that were "saved" during the day by an editor who made an edit to the page. So, instead of the last edit on some of the drafts being March 29, 2020, it is September 29, 2020. This is only happening to a few of them. But they still all get listed as eligible so I'm not sure what the "cutoff" time is for the bot to check their editing history. This is another reason not to use batch delete because it's necessary to check the edit history of each draft listed to see if it has been edited today.

Any way, sorry for all of the feedback...I usually work with categories but en.wiki has had a big lag time and the database report for empty categories hasn't been updated in a few days so I've been looking at drafts instead. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Liz, the AfC categories don't contain any drafts which don't have any AFC templates on them (which is technically natural since some template needs to be there that can apply the category). Anyway, a couple of days back I set up User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible which IMO is a better format. I see now that User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible sorting has stopped updating – oops, that was inadvertent, sorry if anyone was still looking at it. But I went ahead and stopped it for real to reduce the redundancy we already have (category, DB report, etc).

it just updated and posted eligible G13 stale drafts but it includes stale drafts that were "saved" during the day by an editor That must have been due to database replag. I amended the code so that it no longer relies solely on the database (which may be lagging), so this should not recur. Thanks for pointing that out. Any way, sorry for all of the feedback lol! I actually love to hear feedback. – SD0001 (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible is an improvement over User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible sorting because it contains more information about the draft than just a link.

The earlier version of User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon, where you could sort by date, was more useful to me than ordering them on the list by quality...I'm not even sure how you or a bot can quantify/judge draft quality, that is really quite impressive. The quality aspect is more useful to editors working in the AFC area, rather than my work which is deleting expired or inappropriate content (vandalism, duplicates, tests, spam). I hope editors in AFC are aware of your wonderful new pages and that it helps them prioritize their limited time to review drafts. What you've put together is really remarkable and I wish I understood more of the intelligence behind the topic sorting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't the header of the page basically tell how it's done? It's nothing fancy – put the ones tagged as ((promising draft)) at the top, ones which are rejected, too short, declined as "blank" or as "test" at the bottom. Among the remaining, the sourced ones are put above the unsourced ones. Further tie-breakers include the ORES quality prediction (which uses machine learning, but it's an imperfect model that turns up lot of weird results), and then the page size (bigger ones come higher up). – SD0001 (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC) Now that I think of it, I can think of another metric which could be used in the future – the proportion of unreliable/deprecated/blacklisted sources used on the page, which can be detected using the way User:Headbomb/unreliable does it. – SD0001 (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, SD0001,

On User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting page, could you make a list for the parent categories like Culture and Geography/Regions like you have for the STEM category (that includes all of the STEM subcategories)? It makes it much easier to browse when there is one large, parent category that contains all of the subcategories in it.

I realize that this is opposite to your original purpose of sorting G13s by topic but I'm using the page to look for expiring stale drafts in a more general way. If you don't want to incorporate this change, I understand. All of the new SDZeroBot pages are something that we are all getting used to. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the page is already more than 1MB in size, duplicating the entries in the parent categories would turn up the size over 2MB, essentially rendering the page unnavigable. The STEM category does not include the list items from STEM subcategories. – SD0001 (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another comment, I'm not sure you'll see, is there is a problem with User:SDZeroBot/G13 Watch. For example, it posts at 00:00 UTC on Oct. 11, drafts that expire on Oct. 11th. But by posting the drafts that expire at the end of the day that they expire, the drafts posted had been deleted when it was posted. So, it just contained a list of links to already deleted drafts.

If you could post, on Oct. 11th, the drafts that are due to expire on Oct. 12th, it would be more useful. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes that's what G13 Watch is supposed to do. It is list of pages which have already been nominated for G13; used by a few folks like Calliopejen. (The way it's generated is quite different from the other pages – it's a bit unstable and prone to failures as seems to have happened today). – SD0001 (talk) 12:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something going on at Draft:Bamtang Games, the bot has thrice edited the date today. The first and third edits were wrong, as that's the date it was moved from draft to main. The 2nd edit in the middle was correct with the date I moved it from mainspace to draft. -- ferret (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW it was moved from mainspace to draftspace both in July and August. The repeated edits were because the bot first processed the July moves for trial. Later when approved for full run, it processed the August moves then the July moves. It was set up to replace any existing tag because there existed a lot of wrongly dated tags added by another editor. In any case, this task finished many days back so obviously this won't happen again. – SD0001 (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:SDZeroBot/G13_soon hasn't been updated in a couple of days. I assume the bot is down. ~Kvng (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

further, it seems to be randomly tagging pages without any justification causing the timer to reset. See the following example, [1] supplied by 2pou (talk · contribs)/ It's several days later now. If it is continuing to do this, I shall block the bot. This is of importance to those few of us who work on the articles in this particular situation, which is essential part of the AfC process. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply it was random. Apologies, DGG. I think it is just carrying out a one-time passthrough based on this approved task: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 5. -2pou (talk) 04:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

but the approved task is having unfortunate side effects, in destroying the usefulness of Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions, a critical category used by several active reviewers. I'm blocking the bot pending further discussion. .Can tthe status of this cateogry before the task run be restored, or is the information lost? DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DGG, the bot's task (which was one-time) has long since finished, there's nothing to be gained in blocking it now. Please unblock. Regarding the issue at hand, I replied at WT:WPAFC#Category:AfC_G13_eligible_soon_submissions. There's no way to restore the category itself to how it was before. But a list of titles that would have been on the category are available at User:SD0001/AfC G13 eligible Oct 2020 or special:permalink/984263470. In hindsight, I agree that this task may have been a net negative, but I had no idea that so many of the pages the bot would tag would be in Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. – SD0001 (talk) 06:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I understand,Before I unblock, I would like assurances that future entries into that category will proceed as before. If not , it would seem necessary to rework and reorganize the structures here in consultation with all those who would be affected . � DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DGG, there was a recent discussion about these moves here with BD2412. It apparently came out of a Village Pump discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remain somewhat confused bout what was don�e, and why, but I'm unblocking. DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I got notified of an AfD discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Ferguson) in which I was the one who initiated. It's true that I expanded the article before nominating, but it doesn't make much sense to leave a talk page notification for the nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay – I didn't anticipate the same person both expanding an article and nominating for deletion. Let me see what I can do. – SD0001 (talk) 04:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure rare anomalies of this sort are worth the coding. I think this particular one happens about 2 or 3 times a year. Anyway, as I see it, the notice confirms the system has recognized the request DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed users who've already edited the AFD (by the time SDZeroBot gets to it) won't be notified from now. – SD0001 (talk) 18:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delighted to learn that SDZeroBot has won the m:Coolest Tool Award in the Newcomer tools category! I don't know much about how this award is organised or decided, but thanks to everyone who recommended it or voted for it. – SD0001 (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't know about it before the CTAs. Hopefully this will help it reach more people, because it's such a great tool. --Zack (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, this edit posted to a redirect. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 15:06, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Redrose64.  Fixed shouldn't happen again. – SD0001 (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SD0001, could you remove User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/log from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls? it looks like the problem is ((history|1=German exonyms (Transylvania)|List of German exonyms for places in Transylvania|2=h)) which has two |1= parameters (one named and one unnamed). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having a sort category for Culture/Food and drink lets me find AfCs that are right in my wheelhouse, that I can often assess almost from my own knowledge base. Thanks for this! —valereee (talk) 16:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SDZeroBot's task "AfD notifications" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 24 hours, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the activity configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the ((/task)) template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This occurred to this edit in Template:Afd2. Have updated the regex. – SD0001 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from User talk:SD0001 § SDZeroBot glitches

 – – SD0001 (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SD0001,

Once again, SDZeroBot has a hard time handling months that have a different number of days. Tonight, User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible, which usually has 0 titles listed, has over 400 drafts it identifies as "eligible" for deletion. Except that they are not eligible, they'll be eligible on September 1st or September 2nd. But SDZeroBot thinks that every month has the same number of days. Because February had 28 days but August has 31 days, it is identifying drafts as being eligible before they are because, I guess, it thinks that August 30 is actually September 2.

This is less of a problem now than it is in February when there are fewer days and the bot just skips daily reports for three days in order to catch up. Then, DGG, who regularly scans the report to rescue promising drafts, is frustrated because SDZeroBot just jumps three days ahead and omits those days so he misses three days worth of draft reports and the drafts are simply deleted by patrolling admins.

This is a regular problem and has been since the bot's operation started a year ago. Since most months have 30 or 31 days, editors and admins who work with the G13 Eligible Soon list just adjust to the bot's quirks. But when there is a three day difference, this becomes a larger problem. I hate to nag you about this, because I'm so grateful for the work that the bot does, but you really need to find a way to fix this aberration, maybe by asking other technically-minded editors and admins who work with bots. If any of them have this talk page on their Watchlist and have any ideas for solutions, it would be greatly appreciated before we get to the end of September and this happens again. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a new issue. If I recall correctly, we were only having calendar-related issues with User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. G13 eligible is more simple in that it just lists anything that's >6 months old. It doesn't assume anything about the number of days in a month (beyond what the programming language internally does).

The issue appears to stem from JavaScript's datetime computation:
> new Morebits.date()
Morebits.date {_d: Tue Aug 31 2021 16:37:54 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)}

> new Morebits.date().subtract(6, 'months')
Morebits.date {_d: Wed Mar 03 2021 16:38:08 GMT+0530 (India Standard Time)} // ???

The 2nd result is bizarre.

Thankfully, in SQL the date math makes more sense (quarry:query/58105):

> SELECT NOW()
2021-08-31T11:13:31

> SELECT NOW() - INTERVAL 6 MONTH
2021-02-28T11:13:46

I'll shift the six-month-subtraction from the JS part to the SQL part. Thanks for the bug report!

Regarding the date issues with G13 soon, I'll see if I can take a shot at them tonight. – SD0001 (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon, I realise that in the list of old links in the header, the dates are all off by 1 (eg. 30 August report is linked as "29 August") – result of copy-pasting the code for User:SDZeroBot/Recent AfC declines (where the off-by-1 actually makes sense) 🤦‍♂️ – SD0001 (talk) 18:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have made the changes for the G13 soon report. Will test it out tomorrow night before putting up live. – SD0001 (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, Explicit and I primarily work with the G13 Soon page although I check the G13 Eligible page daily in case we miss anything. It looks like SDZeroBot stopped reports yesterday and then started up again today. We already had a G13 Soon report for March 9th and then it started up today with a report for March 7th. It was actually nice to be a few days ahead, I know DGG probably appreciated this since he reviews the report ahead of the six month expiration date. Right now though, SDZeroBot has issued 3 reports for March 7th, this one on 8/28, and two today that look identical. Should we use the latest one because you say the dates were off by a day? Just ignore the previous March 7, March 8 and March 9 reports and then the bot will resume with a new March 8th report today?

I appreciate your speedy response to my query. The bot is reliable 99% of the time so when there is a glitch, it stands out. Thanks again! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is something odd about that March 7th G13 Soon report, there are typically about ~200 drafts that expire daily and that list is over 400 drafts! Maybe there was a lot of AFC activity and drafts reviewed that particular day but it sure stands out. I rarely have seen a list with 400+ drafts, maybe once or twice before. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We already had a G13 Soon report for March 9th and then it started up today with a report for March 7th
That again arises from the date math. From now on, this will not occur - rather, the bot will skip create multiple reports in a day or none at all, to keep pace with the calendar. That is, there would no report on next year's Sep 1 and Sep 2, and multiple reports at the end of Feb / start of March. So that there is exactly one report for each calendar day the drafts were last edited.
Should we use the latest one because you say the dates were off by a day?
They should all be correct, though yeah the latest one will have less entries as it skips the ones that have been edited in the last few days. – SD0001 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two reason I work ahead of the date.one is so I have a chance for some life in the intervals, or if not life outside WP, at least life for somthing else in WP, by taking a day or two away from the list; the other is that I only work with articles that have at least some possibilities, and they need at least a little thinking. I can delete at the rate of 2 or 3 a minute as fast as the script will run, but I cannot think at that speed. I try to catch two things for articles in fields I can handle--ones that were misreviewed and actually show or could easily show notability , and drafts which were never even looked at. Most of those are because they seem boring, but some are because they seem difficult. I hope now that we have temporarily caught up with the afc backlog, that 5 months from now, there will start being many fewer of these. (fwiw, as others have also found, reviewing quality during the rapid catchup drive seems to be the same quality as ordinary. I expected otherwise, and am vey glad my prediction was wrong.). DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, some of the extracts placed on NPP sorting subpages, like User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting/Culture/Biography causes them to be placed in Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Database report has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is extremely misleading for a bot to rate an article GA (even though such ratings are inadmissible), when that is a rating always decided by the community at the GAN process. I suggest it be removed entirely, possibly replaced by A class ratings. Aza24 (talk) 05:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re this Aza24 (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Aza24: Out of Ahmad ibn Isa ibn Zayd, Armorial of railways in Great Britain, Dark Ages (Europe), Black-topped pottery, and List of castles in Jordan, which did you have in mind? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well the whole point of GA and FA recognition is going through a review in those respective venues, so there is never a need for a bot to make that evaluation, even if informally. Lists should presumably always be rated list class; Ahmad ibn Isa ibn Zayd and Black-topped pottery are perhaps B and the others are either lists or at AFD (Dark Ages (Europe)). Aza24 (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose it would make sense to add a * mark to GA and FA ratings for clarification. The bot merely reports back whatever ratings it gets from ORES so I don't think removing it or replacing it with A-class would be appropriate. In any case, these are only used on WP:NPPSORT and WP:AFCSORT; the people who review those pages would know better than to take the predictions at face value. – SD0001 (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In this edit made by your bot, the ((bots)) template was already placed with |deny=all set. I don't know if this has been fixed in future versions of the code. Both ((nobots)) and ((bots)) are templates which are to say to a bot whether to not or to edit a page. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It respects ((nobots)), but not bots|deny=all and other variations. Will try to add the support for those when I get time. (I see you posted on GitHub as well - if you can file a pull request that'd be great!) – SD0001 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know how common my approach is, but when I send something to AfD, I would use the standard template notice only for relatively new editors. If it's a regular with experience in the area, I'd just leave a short note about the AfD, I reckon that's less impersonal. Even with new editors, it's sometimes better to go for a handwritten note, like here, where the AfD is not about deletion at all, but about redirecting or merging. Well, it turns out that instead of making things a little bit better, my approach makes them worse, because the bot will invariably come along and slap on the template anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. I suppose it would be better for the bot to check if the talk page has a link to the AFD. It currently checks for text that looks like the standard section header for AfD notifications. So until the change is done in the bot, the nasty trick would be to place <!-- ==Nomination of [[Languages of the Indian subcontinent]] for deletion== --> on the talk page along with your message. – SD0001 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. According to the QPQ check, I have 24 DYKs. However, according to your DYK nominations count link, I only have 21. I was wondering why this was miscounting as I am sure the 24 count is correct. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MrLinkinPark333, 21 nominations seems to be correct, I checked the QPQ Check list and found Template:Did you know nominations/Chip Rives, nominated by another editor, Template:Did you know nominations/Spyridon Louis, nominated by another editor then taken over by you, and Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Sauvé, nominated by another editor. TSventon (talk) 06:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah I see. In that case, the QPQ check tool needs to be swapped with the DYK nominations count tool (or something similar) in the DYK toolbox. QPQs are now needed for a total of 5+ nominations made by an individual user instead of a total of 5+ DYK credits by an individual user. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way SD0001, should your DYK nominations counts be listed at User:SDZeroBot? TSventon (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have added it to the user page. – SD0001 (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just checking to see if User:FunnyKills Bot is you. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 11:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather No, it isn't. – SD0001 (talk) 12:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Page deleted and blocked. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 12:44, 11 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi it looks like the bot hasn’t updated the NPP sort since 8 June. Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Mccapra: See WP:REPLAG also WP:VPT#System problem? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SDZeroBot's task "AfD notifications" failed to run per the configuration specified at Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor/Configurations. Detected only 0 edits in the last 24 hours, whereas at least 1 was expected. If/when the issue is fixed, please change the section title (e.g. append " - Fixed") or remove this section completely. When that is done, this notice will be reposted if the bot task is still broken or is re-broken. If your bot is behaving as expected, then you may want to modify the task configuration instead. Or to unsubscribe from bot failure notifications, remove the |notify= parameter from the ((/task)) template. Thanks! – SDZeroBot (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the Good Article counter list the count in reverse count. In my case I have 218 Good Articles from GANs, so it would be more logical to list 218 on top of the list with the most recent Good Article received, for example John Johnson (inventor) (2022-06-17). The first Good Article I received of Conclusion of the American Civil War (2009-03-08) should be as number 1 (not # 218). Can the counter be programmed to facilitate this counter number in a reverse numbering? Number 1 logically should be at the bottom and the highest number (i.e. #218) at the top of the list with the most recent Good Article received. How does that sound? --Doug Coldwell (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Doug Coldwell Fair enough,  Done – SD0001 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! --Doug Coldwell (talk) 09:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect this is a case of not recognizing an alternative AFD notification template. Editor is notified via Template:AfD-notice-NPF which is used from page curation and generates different text than Template:Afd notice. Bot notice was delivered a short while later. Whpq (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it possible to have WP:WBGAN include all promotions, instead of cutting off at 14, as it currently does? This would be helpful in assessing user reviews vs. nominations. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SD0001, if this is not possible, could it be extended at least a bit further? I have proposed a bot that would need this information to function well. I was hoping this would be as simple as removing the current limit, which appears to be 500 rows. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike Christie There are 4748 users who have written GAs – listing them all would make the page too big. SDZeroBot maintains the public database s54328__goodarticles_p on toolsdb (and updates the on-wiki list daily by querying it) – which does contain nominator data of all GAs. If your bot is hosted on Toolforge, you can also query this database directly instead of parsing the wiki page. – SD0001 (talk) 16:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the pointer to the database -- that's clearly the best option for me. I am a bit surprised that 4748 is too many records for a daily refresh; WP:GAN has about 1,000 lines and can get refreshed every twenty minutes. Anyway, thanks for the help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why my pages were nominated for deletation? জাবিরটটক (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How Can I avoid this nomination of deletation? জাবিরটটক (talk) 07:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why "Translation of Quran into Hebrew Language" was nominated for deletation process? জাবিরটটক (talk) 07:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi জাবিরটটক, the reason they are nominated for deletion can be found on the discussion pages linked from your talk page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran translations into Bengali language and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quran translations into Hebrew language. SDZeroBot didn't open the nominations, it just notified you about them since you worked on the articles. – SD0001 (talk) 11:19, 5 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi -- I'm working on a replacement for the GAN functions of Legobot (BRFA here) and I just noticed this page. Do you construct it by scanning the GA nominee category, or by reading WP:GAN? If the latter, would you be able to test if it works with User:ChristieBot/GAN existing format, which, if the bot is approved, will be the new contents of GAN? It's very similar to the existing format but it's not quite identical and I wanted to check that the change, if it happens, wouldn't break your code. If you build it by scanning the category, there's nothing to worry about, of course. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Mike Christie, it's built by scanning the category. – SD0001 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:59, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the very useful ((Database report)). I'm working through my old Quarry queries which detect various anti-patterns in Wikipedia pages, and setting up those which are still relevant to run weekly. Everything is running smoothly and I've already fixed plenty of articles as a result. One suggestion: would it be sensible and easy to add a little technical information such as query duration? I'll be using this to tweak the run frequency (e.g. change quick jobs to daily and expensive ones to monthly). I can get a good estimate from Quarry, but it might highlight SQL inefficiencies for everyone's benefit. The time of last run (as in date+UTC rather than duration) might also be convenient, though it's easily obtained from page history. Thanks again, Certes (talk) 12:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Certes  Done – the bot will now write query_runtime and last_updated params to its ((database report/footer)) call. Feel free to edit that template if you want to tweak the formatting. (It would have been good to put the timestamp just below the update button, but that area is created by the main template whose params are harder for bot to modify.) – SD0001 (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SD0001: This is something I have craved for a while. I am so glad you've made it! It works even better than if I'd made it myself. A couple questions:

• Is it possible to specify a footer? That is, a control sequence that you can put at the end of a page, and have it not update past there? On something like Template:Signpost/Number of issues I have wrapped the whole thing in <onlyinclude> tags, so that transcluding the page just gives the number as the output, but this required some clever jiggery-pokery with the row template.
• Is there a way to specify the offset from the interval? For example, if you want it to be every week, but indexed to the beginning of the month.
• How often should I be running them? At Template:Signpost/Number_of_articles, for example, the number will only change once every couple of weeks when we publish... but I have it set to just run every day (because I don't want to have to manually run the thing every time I run the already-onerous publishing script). I don't want to put undue strain on the bot, though: is this an actual concern, or should I just feel free to set the interval to 1 by default? jp×g 21:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Would it be useful to have the report written to a subpage of the page where configuration exists? That way, it can be directly transcluded. This is already possible per this thread, though not documented!
2. Not really, but the check on whether to update is based on SDZeroBot's last edit to the page. So if you web-trigger an update on 1st of the month, then with |interval=7, subsequent updates will take place on 8th, 15th, and so on. Though I wouldn't be opposed to having a cron-based schedule option (without support for hours and minutes as the bot processes periodic updates just once a day), eg. |cron=*/7 * *.
3. Since the query runtime there is just 2-3 seconds, it's totally fine. Only issue would be the edit history pollution.

– SD0001 (talk) 11:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! There's currently 3 nominations at User:SDZeroBot/GAN sorting that are listed as [failed to parse]: Walter Nash, Polson Logging Co. 2 and Cross Island MRT line. These are not the ones hidden in the Additional nominations collapsible sections, so I'm not sure why they are tagged this way. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the first two cases, the GA nominee template is in a section and not on the top of the talk page as per guidelines.
In the third one, ((GAnominee)) is used instead of ((GA nominee)) – this can be easily handled in the bot's code so I've pushed up a fix. – SD0001 (talk) 06:46, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I don't think this page should be deleted. The subject has a relatively large internet presence and has millions of streams on some of his songs. While not all of his projects are particularly notable, I think it is important that this page remain entact. SaltieChips (talk) 13:35, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello - I find the "SDZeroBot/G13 soon sorting" information quite helpful, but the information has not been updated since 27 March 2023. I checked the 'err' link, but it is blank. Is there a way to start this service running again? Thanks. DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It has run today. The last scheduled update on April 3 got skipped due to toolforge maintenance downtime. The NFS was down so the error logs are empty as well. – SD0001 (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perfect - thanks for update, and thanks for this tool. I quite like the tool and find it super useful. DaffodilOcean (talk) 13:17, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SD0001,

There seems to be a problem with several bots today and that includes SDZeroBot. Is this a system issue? I also ran into this with HaleBot. Thanks for any help you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This same problem happened with HaleBot and so bot operator Legoktm moved the bot over to a different "platform" because there is a problem with the "grid" (?). And now HaleBot issued its report. Maybe this would help with SDZeroBot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This should be fixed now. I was in the middle of migrating away from the Grid when the supposed issue with grid occurred. Not sure if that was actually responsible. All SDZeroBot jobs now run on Kubernetes. – SD0001 (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Last edit to User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting is April 18. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be fixed now. – SD0001 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SD0001,

For some reason, SDZeroBot didn't issue its 00:00 UTC CSD G13 reports tonight. The ones I look at are User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible and User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. It's been active today. so the bot isn't down, it just seems to be having some issues with expiring draft reports. Thanks in advance for any solutions you can offer! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SD0001,

For some reason, SDZeroBot issued User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible tonight but not User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon. It has continued to issue its regular reports so this seems to be an anomaly. But if we could get the latest User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible report for tonight, that would be welcome. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SD0001,

Thank you! Looks like things are back to normal. Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SD0001,

Okay, tonight there was a User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon report but no User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible report! Before, it was the other way around. This is less urgent as we really need User:SDZeroBot/G13 soon and use those reports every day while User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible is kind of a bonus. But it might be worth figuring out what's going on. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be a transient issue with the new kubernetes platform. The job just failed to even start up at the scheduled time - no error and no failure email. – SD0001 (talk) 12:04, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, SD0001,

Same old issue. Two days without reports. I figured that SDZeroBot would skip one G13 soon report because November had 30 days while May has 31 but now it's skipped two days. I'll add that I'm also seeing issues with other bots whose reports I rely on like AnomieBOT III, HaleBot and others. Things haven't been the same since the replag on s1. Even when it got "caught up", we never saw the backlog of pages/articles that should exist after 5 days with no reports. I'm not sure that everything was restored if they just patched up a solution. Luckily, with SDZeroBot, we have a 7 day lead time so missing reports aren't a dire situation until next week but I thought I'd let you know. Many thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz This isn't related to the replag or the the end-of-the-month disparity, but the same issue from 22 May - the new kubernetes platform just didn't start up the job! I have opened phab:T338006 regarding this. – SD0001 (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, okay, well, thank you for looking into this. It's odd that it would only affect some reports and not others. Thanks again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three days now without a G13 soon or G13 eligible report. I'm starting to get a little nervous. Though if I remember rightly, when the bot kicks in, it issues reports to catch up. Fingers crossed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, it's been 4 days now. We are working on the May 4th report and the last report that was issued was for May 7th. I made a comment on the phab ticket but it doesn't look like it is getting much response. Do you have any suggestions of what we could do without the report? There used to be a Stale Drafts Database report but I think that was discontinued after SDZeroBot's excellent work started. There is a category for G13 expiring drafts but, for some reason, it only seems to include about 60% of the drafts that appear in SDZeroBot's report. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Liz I can still run the trigger reports manually - which I have done now. It created 3 reports - one for each day which was missed. – SD0001 (talk) 10:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whew! Disaster averted. Thank you very much. Although I have noticed that the G13 lists are shorter than in the past. I guess we have fewer new editors joining the project. Or some editor has swept through the Draft space with AWB correcting commas and we'll end up with 1,000 drafts expiring over one hour sometime during the summer. That's always fun when it happens. ;-) Thanks again for being available and your responsiveness. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue is that the platform is too busy at exactly midnight. I have changed the job schedules to run few minutes after midnight instead. – SD0001 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I want this for use in fawiki where can i copy Wikipedia:Database reports/Drafts with categories Baratiiman (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Baratiiman SDZeroBot only runs on enwiki. The SQL code is available on the page which you can use to setup a bot on your wiki. – SD0001 (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was making use of Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages/Talk to find long Talk pages that might benefit from archiving, but I had limited success because the report includes subpages, which may include existing archives, RfCs, etc.. Could we get a second, similar report that includes only Talk pages that are top level, not subpages? Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, you would want to reach out to @JPxG instead, who set up those pages. – SD0001 (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for teh ping. @Netoholic: Try Wikipedia:Database reports/Long pages/Talk (no subpages), this may be the netohol you crave? jp×g 09:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolutely amazing. Thank you! -- Netoholic @ 23:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be possible to add the section name to the edit summary while updating a database report? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not easily. The bot doesn't know what section it's editing - there can be multiple reports in the same section, or no sections at all. – SD0001 (talk) 10:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia talk:User scripts/Most imported scripts § New script not included

Hey, the bot hasn't updated WP:AFDSORT in a while. It looks like it's trying to fill it up with more than 2MiB of data. My guess is an AfD nom is causing a problem (maybe Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Nippon destinations?). Could you look into this please? SWinxy (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, the issue is that this AfD includes 119 articles, each of which is supposed to appear on AFDSORT. Worse, most of these articles are sorted under multiple topics, so the nomination text is repeated 315 times. And as the nomination text is very long, AFDSORT going over the 2 MiB limit. – SD0001 (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SWinxy I've put in a hacky fix to exclude this particular AfD nomination text being included so AFDSORT is back up now! – SD0001 (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yay! Thank you! SWinxy (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SD0001, AfD notifier doesn't seem to recognize ((AfD-notice-NPF)), resulting in the bot giving notifications to people who have already been notified. See example at User talk:RockyMasum#Deletion discussion about Zubaida Rahman. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 16:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed. – SD0001 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI @SD0001, User:SDZeroBot/NPP sorting has not updated for a week now. This is a bit unfortunate as the NPP backlog drive has just started. Can this possibly be updated? Thanks a lot, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 13:38, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looked into it but it's not clear what the issue is – bot is randomly stopping in the middle of the process with no errors logged. Will take a look again later today. – SD0001 (talk) 07:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's updated now. Thanks a lot! Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting. Seems like the issue temporarily resolved on its own. Anyway, have found the root cause now and have fixed it. – SD0001 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SD0001: For NPP sorting pages (such as this), would it be possible to separate the creator and creator edit counts into two separate columns, so that reviewers can more easily sort to find more or less experienced authors (which should nominally correlate with more or less challenging reviews)? Thanks, I love your tool(s)! Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Iazyges I've made it such that the creator field sorts by the edit count, rather than alphabetically. This is similar to how the class field actually sorts by the class (GA > B > C). As for splitting it into two columns, that would make the table wider - which is more of a problem nowadays as many folks are using vector-2022 which provides lesser horizontal space. – SD0001 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello SD0001,

When checking Pending AfC submissions and the draft I'm working on, Draft:V (programming language), I noticed it took a large dramatic drop. There were no edits of the draft, so the change seems likely the result of the algorithms used by the bot. The days in question are 27 September 2023 to 28 September 2023. I'm curious as to what could be the reasons or if it's anything to be concerned about.

Additionally, and this might not be under your area, but the "Prior AfD" listed is not to the present V language. What's linked to, is to a different programming language, from 2008. The present one in the draft is from 2019. These different languages, though sharing the same letter, need to be disconnected from each other. Thanks for your work and consideration in advance.Wukuendo (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]