Please use this page to request new features for AAlertbot, and suggestions to extend the scope of AAlertbot to additional workflows.

Archives

AAlertBot (new bot) /Archive/New/Implemented /Archive/New/Other ArticleAlertbot (old bot) /Archive/Old/Implemented /Archive/Old/Declined /Archive/Old/Unresolved

After several months of inactivity, a new bot has been coded to replace User:ArticleAlertbot. See the bot request for approval for details. As this represent a total reboot of the project, all previous discussions have been archived under "ArticleAlertbot (old bot)" list just above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal  (will implement)

Filled by: Skotywa

Time filed: 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Description: A parameter to simplify the output

Comments: It would be great if we could add a parmeter that caused the output to be greatly simplified. The simplified output would just have the headings and a bulleted list of articles under each. No dates, no talk-edit-hist links, no last updated footer, no credits to the editors initiating the activity, but maybe still a link to the review page when appropriate. This new feature would make the bot's output potentially very useful/versitile for transclusion in various project/taskforce related templates. Thanks for considering this request.

Noted. Will implement this in the future. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of all of these, the dates should probably be kept. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose I can imagine both cases with and without dates useful. If I implement one, the other is a simple mod. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Implemented

Filled by: Simply south (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Description:

De-archived from Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Feature_requests/Archive/Old/Unresolved#Splits_and_merges.

Could there be notices for proposed merges and and splits on articles? It would be useful to save having to notify at numerous places manually and that. It would be useful as it would in some cases more quikly notify project users and potential people involved on what's going on.

Comments:

A significant ease should be that if on the article splits are proposed or merges, shouldn't people be notified of these? Simply south (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally wouldn't mind having these notices. Currently WolterBot handle these, but I think splits and merge as different enough from cleanup to warrant being on the alerts. In the meantime, I suggest making a feature request (link is given above) so it gets lumped with the other requests and archive propely once tackled etc.... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that proposed merges would be suitable for short-term alerts. They have a very significant backlog, actually more than 1 1/2 years. See Category:Articles to be merged. --B. Wolterding (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well I was thinking of a more "ticker-like" notice, where the bot picks up the new proposals, and if they don't get merged after the archive time, they are simply dropped from the alerts. And (depending on technical feasibility), the bot could report what got merged and what was chosen to be left as seperate articles, etc... It wouldn't reduce the backlog, but it would diminish the rate at which backlogs would build up, perhaps to the point that it would now be possible to clear the backlogs without being overwhelmed by the new entries.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also notice that the backlog isn't all that big. 1425 or so articles really isn't that much. And when you spread those over the 1500 or so projects... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also this is a bit different from the other cleanup categories, as more often than not involves a discussion (or at least that's my impression). It's not something long-term and vague like "expand" or "needs more refs". Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it would be good if each WikiProject was reminded (say, once per week) of all open merger proposals that fell within its scope . As I reader, I certainly find articles with open merger proposals to be disturbing; moreover, there is often merit to long-delayed proposals. A once-per week reminder might light some (much-needed) fires to fix this backlog problem. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(outdent) The backlog is actually ~15.000 articles long (not 1425), see Category:Articles to be merged. It's in the top-15 of Wikipedia backlogs, so to speak. I personally think that the WolterBot reporting is completely appropriate. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was about to propose that ((mergeto)) and ((mergefrom)) be added to the workflows covered. I think these are a different set of articles than Category:Articles to be merged. I think these are articles under consideration to be merged with current ongoing discussions that project members should be alerted about and the category you are pointing to is the one where merger discussions resulting in consensus to move have caused an article to be placed in a category of articles to be merged.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, 15 K spread on 1.5K projects and taskforces is not that much (and yes, the distribution isn't uniform, some projects with have hundreds, others 5, and so on). That's still something of a different nature than the "add more refs" and "remove weasel words" type of cleanup. These need to be discussed and thus should be covered in the Alerts. Simply report the new merge proposals and those which have been resolved. Those without activity can be removed after the archive time is up. See my 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC) post above. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 07:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

End of de-archived section.

• I strongly support this request. Although the backlog may be significant, the number of articles per project will be quite moderate. Also, I believe that this notification will help decreasing the backlog. Beagel (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Can I endorse this? Imzadi 1979 → 04:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Endorsements noted. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems that this feature is not endorsed yet. Could you please go forward with this endorsement. Beagel (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's "endorsed" in the sense of the word that I have not forgotten about it. It's close to top on my very long todo list. The logic of the workflow is very easy. It's just that 14,182 pages take forever to correlate between projects. It's about a minute to parse 500 pages, so about 30 min to parse them all. That's longer than the whole bot run currently. I'm in the countryside now and on very slow internet, so I don't have a chance of making it work now. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm still interested in this feature, it might even help WP:MERGE reduce some of its backlog! Is there any chance it will be added? Jack (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree. This feature would be greatly greatly appreciated, although given the large number of mergers at any one time in a project, initially only mergers proposed in the last month may need to be displayed. --LT910001 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Strong support for adding proposed merges to the article alerts to give these a higher visibility and help editors clean up merge backlogs.--Wolbo (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now live. Sorry for the *ahem* long wait. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Novickas (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Description: A 'confirmed copyvio'/project intersection - for example, those articles with talk pages tagged as Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania and listed in Category:Articles tagged for copyright problems. These are deleted after about a week if not addressed.

Comments:

Thanks! I will add the copyvio workflows eventually. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This would be a great idea. We delete anywhere from a couple to a dozen articles every day that could be salvaged if people knew they needed to be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:36, 1 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also Category:Possible copyright violations and subcats. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Implemented

 New proposal

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: List "child" articles for featured/good topic candidates. Unfortunately, many editors nominate with ((GTC)) and ((FTC)) and not ((GTCmain)) ((FTCmain)). Just GAC were not listed before and missed a bunch of articles. But also listing GAC creates a mess of entries.

Comments:

Tagged "child" article now group "under" the parent and don't take up entry space. Now need to detect non-tagged articles. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Implemented (participant count)

 Implemented (!vote count)

 Implemented (relists)

 New proposal  (problem tags)

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: Implement a rudimentary AfD discussion !vote count updating each run. Helps see which AfDs may nee further input. This is also relevant to future implementing "relisted" check or any other info (canvassing/delsorting) in some way.

Comments:

This is implemented as of 20 Feb run. The rules is a simple regex, that gives a little leeway to formatting and surrounding text. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I really don't like the vote count. Maybe number of participants would be better if trying to encourage additional input. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of participants is useful and planned (for all discussion workflows, in fact), if a bit hard to implement. I guess !vote count isn't really the ideal statistic and may not be seen as what it's intended for. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AAlertbot is very cool, but I agree with Starcheerspeeksnewslostwars. Number of editors of the page, number of edits to the page, size of the page would be fine. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think number of participants is good enough. Maybe something like Participation: X registered, Y IPs, or Participation: X autoconfirmed, Y others, or similar. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps. What value does differentiating registered and IP users add? zШизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you have 3 autoconfirmed editors and 2 IPs/new editors, it doesn't really tell you much. If you have 3 autoconfirmed editors and 25 IPs/New editors, then you most likely have a meatpuppet campaign. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I rather prefer reporting issues when the AfD gets canvass/SPA/sock tags, rather than post IP vs. registered editor count. That is the same kind of separation as !vote count, which was brought up. So something like "(12 participants, off-site canvassing)" may be better. Anyway, I understand WP is all about discussion and not voting, so posting !votes may seem like headcounting. I guess the number of participants should raise awareness about neglected AfDs just as well as low !vote counts. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, but how would the bot detect what's off-site canvassing, what's meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry, etc... ? So that extreme (complexity) doesn't seem viable. On the other extreme (simplicity), "20 participants" can mislead people into thinking "Well, enough people participated, so I don't need to" if it's 1 autoconfirmed editor 10 IPs and 9 newly created accounts. X autoconfirmed / Y non-autoconfirmed seems the simplest way to give an accurate report on the situation, without running into various political correctness problems. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"when the AfD gets canvass/SPA/sock tags", where "tags" are manually placed tag by editors (((Not a ballot)), ((spa)), and such); no very complex guessing/detection. I, personally, have no objection to counting editors (I did !vote count after all), I'm just concerned it will be brought up again. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It should now report the number of participants and if the AfD has been relisted. I am only checking the revision info and not the page content, so it will not be always accurate (nominator, relists and delsorts are counted as -1 to participants). The !vote count is now hidden in a ((tooltip)) surrounding the participant count.

Looks like this: (7 participants; relisted) So it hides the !vote count except to those that want to know. I don't really like the tooltip form, but I can't think of a better compromise for both showing and not showing the !votes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Description: Should a project page enter a workflow, it should be reported too. This mostly affects RfC. Basically, project pages are not banner/category tagged; at least not the same as pages. They all do start with the same prefix, i.e. project name, which would make sub-page detection quite easy. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

 Implemented (open and approved DYKs)

 New proposal  (queue and DYK closure)

Filled by: Piotrus (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Description: With each nomination having its own subpage, I wonder if AA could cover DYKs now? Checking the talk page of all nominated articles should not be impossible. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

Copied from Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Covering did you knows.

I'll try to implement it soon. I'm not quite sure what the new syntax is. Apparently subpages are created under Template:Did you know nominations/ but the articles themselves don't get marked. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updating status as per #Prioritize_DYK_workflow. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:49, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: NickPenguin (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Description: Today's articles for improvement is a weekly article improvement drive that is featured on the Main Page. Every Monday, a new collection of ten articles are displayed in a random rotation on the Main Page. I would request that this bot grab a list of all the articles tagged with WikiProject tags, and leave a message on the WikiProject's talk pages.

Comments:

Leaving messages on talk pages is outside the scope of this bot, but we could in principle add TAFI to the reports of relevant projects. I'll check it out. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Implemented (Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Mishandling_multiple_RfCs_on_one_talk_page)

I noticed that the discussion at Talk:Anila#suggested move which affects the disambiguation page Anila (disambiguation) and which had a notification of the discussion on the other page on its talk page did not show up in the alerts for the disambiguation project Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Article alerts. Is there a way such multi-page moves can be included where the different pages affected might involve various project? older ≠ wiser 13:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The problem with multi-moves is that the extra pages aren't actually tagged in any way. Like, if you had a multi-page CfD, you would put a template on each one. Instead, requested moves only appear on 1 page. So the bot could only see them way after it has started looking through individual pages for extra info. The bot could list the extra pages under the main page. But at that point in processing, it's not really plausible to add more full pages to reports (so that they would get reported for other projects). Only way would be to read all the RMs (~150) beforehand and add the extra pages that way. But then you have cases that some projects tagged all the pages, some of the pages, not tagged the main page, etc. So it's a mess, but I'll look into it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:25, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:RMCD bot already adds a notification to the affected pages (at least when the multi-page move request is properly formed). Perhaps User:Wbm1058 could have RMCD bot also add a template of some sort along with the notification that your alert mechanism would then be able to pick up? older ≠ wiser 13:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, it would be easy to add a template to the notification of the discussion on the other page if that would help. I could probably limit addition of such a template to ((WPDAB))-tagged pages, if that's what's wanted. But there's no mechanism for removing that template. Either instructions for removal would be added to WP:RMCI, some other bot would need to remove it, or the tag would sit on these pages "forever". ((Ping)) me if you have specific specs for the template that you want RMCD bot to add. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can work with that, although obviously there needs to be another bot then. The template/category would probably go on all pages though, not just DAB. I don't think any are notified at the moment, but if I'm correct there used to be a bot? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently, and has always been, just one bot handling the requested moves process, user:RMCD bot, formerly handled by user:RM bot. Multi-moves notification has been in place for a long time, since before I took on support for this process. All pages listed in ((subst:move-multi)) requests after the first page have notifications like Talk:Anila (disambiguation)#Move discussion in progress posted on their talk pages, and these notifications remain there, as-is, "forever", unless they are manually edited by a closing admin or other editor. WP:RMCI is fairly complicated, and currently there are no instructions there to "close" these notifications. I've thought about how the RM closing process might be semi-automated, but that's long been back-burner. Perhaps a new template ((Move notification)) could be added to these multi-notifications, then a new algorithm could be added to RMCD bot, that, after it was done with its current processing, pulled up all transclusions of this new template and checked to see if the RM that they linked to was still open (i.e., "Is there still a ((requested move/dated|multiple=yes on Talk:Anila?"), and if not, then removed the new template. That may be doable. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks folks. It looks like there may be some hope. Although I'm primarily interested in disambiguation pages, I'd think that if there is a discussion on one page that also affects another page tagged with some other projects, that those other projects might be interested in the move (assuming of course they've subscribed to the alerts). older ≠ wiser 19:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Implied move of a DAB for a related discussion. Andrewa (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implemented now that there are means to do it. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Czar (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Description: I noticed that TFA listings aren't archived, and I didn't see any obvious reason why not.

Comments:

They have different logic for getting the pages and different logic for when to show and remove them, so that's basically why. TFA isn't shown after the day, there is no "closed" version. So it doesn't ever reach the 2 week archive limit. Basically this was a nice to have announcement, but not a true workflow. I'll check how easy it is to do and add it to my pile of todos. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Redrose64 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Description: I see at #Categories for speedy deletion and renaming above that speedy deletions are not listed because they are often actioned within minutes. I'm aware that it can take up to 24 hours for a normal XfD to show in Article Alerts; but there are some speedy deletion criteria that are not for immediate action - there is a grace period. These criteria include most of those applicable to files, and a seven-day grace period is typical. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who#Image removal(s) where a recent post of mine concerns a file deleted under WP:CSD#F7 twelve days after tagging. I'm sure that the WikiProject would have liked to have been notified about that impending deletion, so that a FUR could be prepared. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

My worry is that listing all the CSD, even only those with longer grace periods, will just crowd up the alert page, which is supposed to be for participation foremost. I know we have PRODs, so it's not excluded. But CSDs are not supposed to be discussed, they are a shortcut for users without the delete button (or experience to be 100% accurate). That said, whatever CSDs are supposed to be, these cases are 7-day timeouts and apparently pretty much same as PRODs but for files. I'll take a look at how many there are, and may be just integrate it with FFD list, may be as extra items, may be as a new workflow. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will list individual workflows or conditional additions to workflow with reasonable grace periods as separate feature requests. Like G13 below. I also want to consider a more concise list for these. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those would be

CSD/Cats

• WP:CSD#C1

CSD/Files

• WP:CSD#F4/WP:CSD#F5/WP:CSD#F6/WP:CSD#F7/WP:CSD#F11

CSD/Templates

• WP:CSD#T3

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For files, all seem to make use of ((Deletable file)), but only enter categories after they've crossed the grace period. The list of files can be found WhatLinksHere. Exiting the workflow is done by being deleted, or by leaving the WhatLinksHere results. Date of deletion can be predicted, but varies depending on the F#, and will need more advanced parsing. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also this old FR. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also was thinking that a new subscription bypass option could be used for all grace speedies (!SPEEDY) if/when implemented. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Balaenoptera musculus (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Description: Add "In The News" candidate articles.

Comments: "In The News" candidates are listed at WP:ITN/C using template ((ITN candidate)).

It would be super-helpful if this bot were aware when articles were nominated on that page, so that editors with an interest in those articles (e.g. through a relevant WikiProject) could be alerted and have the chance to comment on the nomination and help to improve the relevant article before the link to it goes live on the Main Page.

It's my belief that this would improve the standard and participation level of discussion at WP:ITN/C and also improve the quality of articles linked in ITN.

Thanks!

 Proposal out of scope

Filled by: Stevietheman (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Description: Perhaps this requires a new parameter, but in the case of there being no alerts, I would like to have an empty result rather than a message "No Article alerts at this time." appear. This is because I use these alerts within a project alerts banner, and I would like the banner to not appear if there are no alerts. For this purpose, it's much more straightforward to check against an empty result than a formatted message.

Comments: Checking against a formatted messaged is not really hard. The following

((#ifeq:((page))|No Article alerts at this time.|Output if there is no alerts|Output if there are alerts))

or some variation of it should work. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That doesn't work as I've already tried to do something similar. The output is not simply the flat text "No Article alerts at this time.". It's easier to check against empty results. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Stevietheman: If you still need this, you could have a check like

((#ifeq:((Str find|((Wikipedia:WikiProject FOOBAR/Article alerts))|No [[Wikipedia:Article alerts|Article alerts]] at this time.))|-1|Output if there is no alerts|Output if there are alerts))

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: Automatic template redirect retrieval, check, and report page

Comments: Currently all the template names are hard-coded as part of workflow definitions. After like 5 years, they are more than likely at least partially outdated with new redirects and old deleted ones. This needs unreliable manual updating and should be done automatically. Some on-wiki page that reports what templates it found and used would help see what the bot actually does. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: On-site workflow settings

Comments: Store the settings on a page on-site as part of AA pages and read/parse/use it when running instead of hard-coding everything in code. Biggest concern is how easy it can be messed up, so would require a dev "sign-off" for changes (bot should report there's pending changes). Biggest code-site issue is that many pre-run options need this info, which implies we need a local cached settings version. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: Detect when the actual workflow is closed in a way other than pure cetegory. Problem is Category:Templates for deletion is including closed ones (to be merged, renamed, etc.), so it appears as open to the bot. See Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Bugs#Closed_TfDs_not_being_removed.

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: Restore the text insertion revision parsing, with an error allowance (for vandalism, reverts, and such). That is, check a few revision deeper before accepting the result. Already had this working before lost source code.

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Description: All messages, like first report, no pages, etc. to external AA pages that can get substed, otherwise it's all hard-coded.

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Ricky81682 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 06:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Description: For the WikiProjects that have added the Draftspace category (the default is drafts go into NA-class), I was wondering about a possible alert if the drafts become G13 eligible from there. It would possibly be triggered if the draft-space article was moved into Category:G13 eligible AfC submissions or better yet Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions. - Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

Now that drafts are reported, I might expand it to include when a draft goes into G13 as part of the same entry. I'll have to see how viable it is. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's a good idea. Same for the other speedies with grace periods. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an old request, but I hope it's eventually implemented: it would seem to be quite useful in finding the occasional "diamonds in the rough" that would otherwise perish into oblivion. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One problem is that this request is talking about soon-to-be-G13-eligible drafts, not G13-tagged ones -- those can get deleted almost instantly and without the tag. The bot doesn't have a way to detect the former easily. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 19:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the original proposer noted, Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions would probably do the trick. Those articles are within one month of G13 eligibility. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Bump) I second this request. This would be a perfect solution to some of the issues raised at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G13 delay (again) (which seems unlikely to ever reach a consensus). Category:AfC G13 eligible soon submissions does seem like it would be optimal for the task (if it isn't too large). --Paul_012 (talk) 04:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Od Mishehu (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Description: Please limit the number of links from any single WikiProject to any single discussion. There is no reason, for example, to flood WP:WikiProject Rivers with 874 alerts for a single discussion. I think that we could even say something along the lines of Category:Rivers (links) was CFDed by User:Od Mishehu (links). 873 others were also tagged for this discussion. See discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Description: The Article alerts on Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia report articles submitted for A class review at WP:MILHIST/ACR, but not at WP:AUS/ACR. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Implemented (Basic results)

 New proposal  (Advanced results)

Filled by: JFG (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Description: Alerts for recently-closed move requests only tell us that a particular RM was closed. It would be quite useful to see at a glance whether the move was performed. I suggest parsing out the bold part of the closer's message and displaying it in the summary alert, along with the closer's name. — JFG ^talk 14:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Example (before):

• 30 Apr 2016 – Gregory (lunar crater) move request by Anthony Appleyard was closed; discussion
• 23 Jul 2016 – War in Afghanistan (2001–14) move request by Georgia guy was closed; discussion
• 01 Aug 2016 – Ford Motor Company move request by SSTflyer was closed; discussion

Example (after):

• 30 Apr 2016 – Gregory (lunar crater) move request by Anthony Appleyard was closed by Tavix as withdrawn; discussion
• 23 Jul 2016 – War in Afghanistan (2001–14) move request by Georgia guy was closed by JFG as Moved; discussion
• 01 Aug 2016 – Ford Motor Company move request by SSTflyer was closed by Andy M. Wang as no consensus; discussion

Comments:

• Support as long as it's not buggy. Note that this would require closers to embolden their closure. SSTflyer 02:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SSTflyer: Yes, and most close messages have the operative decision in bold already; I used real examples above. We could make a note in WP:RMCI. — JFG ^talk 03:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move requests have very complicated potential closures, and in many cases I cannot even tell them apart automatically. The bot currently processes some ~10 different cases, each with variations. In short, pages move, as implied by description. This means the discussion travels to new places, disappears, redlinks appear, redirects appear, etc. This might be as good as it gets for now. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Doc James (talk · contribs)

Time filed: Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would be hugely useful. Posted here Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Commons_deletion_notices. Not sure if there is a better place to bring this up.

Comments:

• Would like to plug this one again, a few years later. Few relevant files are brought to FfD, as most files in use for WikiProjects are on Commons. The WMF's Community Tech team put together a bot in 2018 (after this request) to start notifying on article talk pages when a related Commons image was up for deletion/discussion (for example). Perhaps those notices can be scraped for Article Alerts' purposes, or the code adapted so that projects can be alerted when Commons discussions are closed? This would be very helpful for WikiProjects, especially when images are up for deletion on articles with little page watcher traffic. czar 22:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nope, they can't be scraped. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In the absence of full Commons discussion tracking, AABot wouldn't be able to patrol recent Community Tech bot talk page edits and add decaying notices based on the talk page's categories/banners? Even a ~one week decaying heads up would be better than no communal notification at all. czar 23:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • There is no category or template to keep track off, so AABot can't do anything there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I came up with something today, but it would require a modification of User:Community Tech bot. Going to ping @AEzell (WMF) and Hellknowz: and get some feedback. Instead of edits like [1], if the bot could initiallyhave something like

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
((commons discussion|ongoing))
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg|Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-02-26T03:46:39.465783 | Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 03:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

and then after the discussion is resolved

== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion ==
((commons discussion|ended))
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* [[commons:File:Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg|Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg]]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2021-02-26T03:46:39.465783 | Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg -->
Participate in the deletion discussion at the [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Galaxies-AGN-Inner-Structure.svg|nomination page]]. —[[User:Community Tech bot|Community Tech bot]] ([[User talk:Community Tech bot|talk]]) 03:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Then User:AAlertBot could detect those discussions (via ((commons discussion|ongoing)) / ((commons discussion|ended)), which would populate categories), and then those could be added to the current reports. 06:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

 Implemented (non-existent)

 Implemented (redirects)

 Implemented (no items)

 New proposal  (duplicates)

 New proposal  (same pages)

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments:

Make a sub problem report page with:

• Subscription sources that don't exist (e.g. redlink banner)
• Subscriptions sources that are redirects (e.g. banner redirect)
• Subscriptions sources that have no items (e.g. empty category or stuff like talk cat used as main)
• Subscriptions sources that are duplicates of each other (e.g. banner than includes category, so both are the same lists)
• Subscriptions that have same pages (e.g. subscriptions specify same sources)

—  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:39, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: They are way too long in reports, like half the entry

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: BLP Prod gets grouped with regular Prod, there is no way currently to have different report string based on what template/method/logic added it to the workflow. Same can then be extended to other workflows that do this.

Comments:

I might also merge book prods here, since there are just so few of them and a whole separate section seems weird. Then again, they are so rare they could get missed? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:10, 14 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Needs special kind of parsing, fix undated issues and discussion page closure stuff. 1, 2.

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: These are basically the same process -- TFA is the "closure" of TFAR. Currently different workflows cannot get combined under the same heading. This also needs to handle TFAR entry becoming a TFA entry -- currently I just remove them always and reparse each time.

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Encountered this ages ago -- the bot isn't detecting Category:Good article nominees currently on hold from ((GA nominee|...|status=onhold)) in any way, it just says open. Ideally, it would say "on hold". 1. lists these

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates, Template:GTRCmain, example

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Description: Notify if child pages being considered for FTC (first, add), FTCR, GTC (first, add), GTCR are not tagged on talk page. Example GTC add with main tagged but children not tagged. (Actually, the main article was not in process.)

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Description:

|infobox= (i.e. templates on main pages)

Generalize to

• |maintemplates=Template1; Template2; ...

or

• |maintemplate1=Template1; |maintemplate2=Template2; ...

|banner= (i.e. templates on talk pages)

Generalize to

• |talktemplates=Template1; Template2; ...

or

• |talktemplate1=Template1; |talktemplate2=Template2; ...

|maincategory= (i.e. categories on main pages)

Generalize to

• |maincategories=Category1; Category2; ...

or

• |maincategory1=Category1; |maincategory2=Category2; ...

|talkcategory= (i.e. categories on talk pages)

Generalize to

• |talkcategories=Category1; Category2; ...

or

• |talkcategory=Category1; |talkcategory2=Category2; ...

|mainsubcategories= (category subcats on main pages, doesn't currently exist)

Generalize to

• |mainsubcategories=Category1; Category2; ...

or

• |mainsubcategory1=Category1; |mainsubcategory2=Category2; ...

|talksubcategories= (category subcats on talk pages)

Generalize to

• |talksubcategories=Category1; Category2; ...

or

• |talksubcategory1=Category1; |talksubcategory2=Category2; ...

|delsort=

Generalize to

• |delsorts=Delsort1; Delsort1; ...

or

• |delsort1=Delsort1; |deslort2=Delsort2; ...

Comments: This seems like it would be a useful feature. I'm coming from here via [a request] that article alerts provide a broad coverage of articles under (but not explicitly tagged by talk page banners) Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life. I'm not sure what other projects would find a broader coverage useful. Tree of Life is effectively a meta-project covering all biological taxa, and the talk page is a more active hub for discussion than most of its child projects. Article alerts for Tree of Life will be more useful if generalized. Plantdrew (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never replied to Headbomb here, but the short version is that this would be a major refactor to the code and I haven't gotten around to it. It's something that makes sense to do now, but it is also something that fundamentally changes how the bot gets its pages. I've done some work that would enable this, but it's still a ways off. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 07:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:41, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Description: For example, Category:Wikipedia featured topic candidates cat and Category:Wikipedia featured topics subcats -- this shouldn't happen, so report this as an error. For each workflow, depends on the workflow, like missing AfD template or its discussion page, etc.

Comments:

• DYKN: Promoted, but still on the main templates: [2]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 00:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Description:

Comments: If/when this is done, the section headers should always be present, even if the sections are empty. This way they could be WP:LST'd to the relevant workflows' talk page (or similar) to alert them of issues. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:35, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Description:

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 12:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Description: [3]

Comments:

 Proposal out of scope

Is there a way to list DYK/GA articles that haven't yet started review? valereee (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both of those should already be reported. Are you not seeing a page in a report you expected to see? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm seeing a list of approved DYK noms at WiR's article alerts, but I was thinking it might be helpful to be able to easily find noms that haven't had reviews started yet. I'm not sure how it would work, but I often as I'm looking for a nom to start review on, I'm just scrolling down the page because it's hard to tell which have already been started without just scrolling and scrolling. If there were a list of certain-subject noms that haven't been started yet it on an alert page, it would make it easier for me to know when a DYK on a subject I'm interested in needs to be started. Maybe I'm just being stupid? :) valereee (talk) 14:46, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The report page should have all nominations. But it isn't smart enough to know when a "review" has started. The issue is that there is no indicator for that other then someone just starting to add comments to the page. Unlike, for example, GA, which have an actual subpage they create, so you know when a review has been started. For DYK, this is complicated. I have it planned above to at least detect reviewed/closed ones. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This isn't currently something the bot will be able to do until there are separate categories/templates for it. Te-parsing pages every run is somewhat out of scope because it would take literal hours to run. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Description: Sometimes there are mass-noms for certain workflows. Example

Comments:

 Implemented

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Description: Working on this.

Comments:

Now live and hopefully working. Using logic from multi-nom bot reports. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Description:

• AfD template not properly substed [4]
• TBD

Comments:

 Implemented

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Description: When articles get submitted through AFC, they enter Category:Pending AfC submissions. This should be reported. Three/four outcomes should be reported. Accepted by 'accepter' (moved into mainspace), Under review (is now in Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now), declined by 'decliner' (is now in Category:Declined AfC submissions), and (if possible) deleted by 'deleter' (goes from Category:Pending AfC submissions to being deleted).

Comments:

Adding next update. Closure can be deleted, declined, rejected or accepted. "Under review" won't be reported. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's amazing indeed! Looking forward to things! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:21, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz: is this in the version that ran this morning? Or the one you sent me? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 06:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now live. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Headbomb (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Description: Over the years, weird stuff crept up in the archives. Duplicate lines should get cleaned up like this or this.

Comments: This was done by applying \n(.*)(\n\1)+ →\n$1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Except there can also be multiple copies and they are not guaranteed to be next to each other. This is somewhere in the bug report page. It's kind of really low on priority list with all the other stuff to do. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This could also be done through a single bot run from another bot. Such a bot could sort things by date, then alphabetically. And yes, low priority, however this regex is pretty simple and works. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't work for non-consecutive duplicates. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True, but how many of those are there? Would still cleanup a lot of duplicate crap, even if doesn't catch everything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A lot. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 21:19, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Description: e.g. [5]

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Gryllida (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 08:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Description: Add main namespace to the alerts, not only Draft.

Comments: This could be useful to engage wikiproject members in new page patrol. Just like everything else and the drafts, it only works if someone adds categories to them as the first step.

• See also Wikipedia talk:Article alerts#Alert for new articles from main namespace. I've renamed this 'Unpatrolled' because 'Main space' is not a workflow, and indiscriminately listing all articles from a project makes no sense. I'll admit I'm not really sure what it is you're asking here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:32, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I read this and the talk page and I also don't really understand what you are suggesting. The bot does not report drafts, it reports pages in AfC workflow that are currently in review in the Draft and User namespaces when they are correctly tagged by a WikiProject, normally a banner. This is a specific well-defined workflow for reviewing submitted articles via the draft workflow. New page checking and reporting is out of scope for Article Alerts. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well unpatrolled is a well-defined workflow, hence the renaming of this section. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was thinking of reporting all new articles which are either in Category:Australia, or tagged with the ((WikiProject Australia)) on the talk page. This would expose them to the WikiProject volunteers who may be able to assist with notability checks and article improvements more quickly than generic NPP volunteers who do not specialize in the topic. I would be a bit surprised if this kind of report was out of scope here; if this is the case, pointers to another venue for this report would be greatly appreciated. --Gryllida (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll want to look at User:InceptionBot, the follow up to USer:AlexNewArtBot/User:TedderBot to find possibly related new articles (i.e. User:AlexNewArtBot/AustraliaSearchResult) and User:WP 1.0 bot to find newly tagged articles (i.e. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Australia articles by quality log). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been thinking aboutthe same thing as Gryllida. Just like AfC, NPP has a workflow. It currently has a backlog of around 9,500 pages (AfC has almost 2,00). At this point, I'm just interested to know what it would take to create something that would yield a list of unreviewed articles per project, something like what I get when I run this query for unreviewed articles that would be of interest to Wikiproject Australia: https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/59560 Vexations (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Galendalia (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 17:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Description: I am the project coordinator for the Wikipedia:Spoken Wikipedia project. I would like to verify if the bot is pulling Template:Spoken_article_requested and placing them on our page located at Category:Spoken_Wikipedia_requests. If not, I would like to work on getting this implemented per your specifications of what needs to be done. Thanks! Galendalia (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC) ^{Spoken Wikipedia Project Coordinator}Reply[reply]

Comments:

Hey! I am not exactly sure what you are requesting, but it doesn't sound like this is part of the bot's scope. AAlertBot delivers standardized report pages to projects based on subscriptions to certain banners/categories. If you said you wanted different projects to receive relevant notifications about spoken article requests, that would fall in the bot's scope (I'd still need to look into it though). But this sounds like you want to populate a category from a template, which I think can be done automatically anyway in the template's markup/code. If I misunderstand you and you need an actual custom bot, you can use WP:BOTR for general bot requests. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partially implemented

Filled by: 2pou (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 08:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Description: First, let me say that I love the AFC capability. I don't know if you get much feedback on that or not, but it's a great tool for AFC reviewers that pay more attention to certain WikiProjects. Thanks! I presume that AFC submissions that don't have a Talk page yet (and hence no WikiProject banners) get populated to project alerts using the infobox template as well based on what I've seen for Film and Television drafts, is that correct?

For the request, (assuming the answer to my question above is yes) is it possible for the Infobox → WikiProject logic to support wild cards? For example, if "((Infobox comic*" is observed, could that sort the following Infoboxes to the WikiProject Comics alerts?

• Infobox comic
• Infobox comic book title
• Infobox comic strip
• Infobox comics story arc
• Infobox comics character
• Infobox comics creator
• etc. (There's a ridiculous amount of them...)

Comments:

You can already specify an infobox, but needs to be done is to be able to specific multiple infoboxes (see #Generalize things than can be generalized above). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Description:

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Gryllida (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Description: would like to receive these alerts by email like these

Comments: already saw RSS feed option, but interested in email specifically. Thanks

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Description: See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Howard_Gibson_(2nd_nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amanda_Johnstone, bot fails to parse by default

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: 87.95.206.253 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 00:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Description: Many old articles get turned into redirects without a discussion, so it would be helpful if there was an alert when it happens.

Comments:

That's not really within the the scope of WP:AALERTS. But you could probably make a WP:BOTREQ to have a bot that covers this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:37, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Description: For example, [6] -- is this even the correct syntax? I do not remember if I implemented namespace parsing or talk page to main page conversion. I am 80% sure talk isn't stripped, and 50% sure namespace is used if used without space?

Comments: It worked fine for this edit a week earlier. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Redrose64: I replied to you on my talk talk page about your particular case. This reget list doesn't work exactly the way you think it does. Your addition didn't actually do anything for matching the page to a subscription. I am just wanting to check that a page added is actually a page the bot has in processing and warn if not. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Filled by: 2.55.139.223 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 20:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

If a mass-discussion includes several pages from a single WikiProject, the discussion should only be listed once. For example, on the current version of WikiProject medicine, a mass-CFD is listed 9 times; it should be condensed as "Page A and 8 others". Use the section parameters as a test of being the same discussion; where no such parameter is used in the tag, assume the page name as is standard in each of the discussion venues. 2.55.139.223 (talk) 20:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Description:

Comments:

See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Extracting_WikiProjects_on_a_talk_page_using_template/module. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 18:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Implemented (Archive boxes)

 Implemented (Archive numbering)

Filed by: Qwerty284651 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Description/Comments:

Greetin gs, I would like a new feature be implemented, wherein all article alert archive page have toc's with quick links to the archive page numbers as well as a search bar for all archive pages for convenience and ease of use. For instance, when one is on page X there is a link to a preceding page Y or subsequent page Z in the header, so you don't have to go back to the main article alerts page and then click archive page XY.

Mayhaps have something along the lines of ((talk header)), ((archive list)) or <inputbox> markup. Or update archive header template by adding the aforementioned templates beneath horizontal toc. It would make for a great addition to the archive lists on article alerts if this was implemented. Hope it's feasible. Yours sincerely, Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The archive header and footer are at Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report archive page header and Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report archive page footer respectively, so they can be edited and applied to every archive retroactively. I guess adding one of the archive boxes with a search box is a reasonable addition. I'll have to check it out. The one problem is that "Archive 1" is just called "Archive", so the templates like ((Archives)) don't recognize it automatically. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 18:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if a mass page redirect or page move was made for all pages containing "Archive" → "Archive 1", for e.g. "Wikipedia:PAGENAME/SUBPAGENAME (if any)/Article_alerts/Archive" to "Wikipedia:PAGENAME/SUBPAGENAME (if any)/Article_alerts/Archive 1", citing implementation of archive header and search box as a reason with the use of AWB regex or something? I don't know how to look up pages that contain XYZ/Article_alerts/Archive in their name to tell you how many of them are, but I am sure there is a way.

(There are cca. 2500 pages containing the archive as a subpage in the art. alert archive category, given many of them have 10s of archive subpages, it's safe to say there is about 1/3 to 1/4 of them with archive in the name, which equates to 500-700 pages needing redirecting/moving).Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I briefly looked at the template and it seems there's no way to have custom naming. That's probably for the best given the mess we had at some point in the past. There are about 2500 archives and about 1600 for the first page. These can definitely be moved citing a need for an archive box, although I would need to coordinate between bot run/deployment and actual moves by a page mover/admin or the bot will create a mess. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, 1671 individual wiki projects to be exact. Can't we just use AWB for batch-moves, even for WP pages. They aren't protected, are they? Qwerty284651 (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but I don't think we want to leave behind rather useless redirects. Moving pages without redirects needs either page mover right or just general admin flag. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 21:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You would still need an AWB code to rename/move specifically "///archive" to "///archive 1" pages, leaving the other 880 pages intact. They could do mass move, albeit up to 100 subpages. Qwerty284651 (talk) 21:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz, is there a way to make a possible fork template of ((Archives)) customized only for the Article alert archive pages, so we don't have to do bulk-page moving? Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In theory, but it's a complicated template/module that would get copied for a minor change, so who will update/maintain it long-term? I rather the AA project didn't add even more things to keep track of. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Primefac and Plastikspork:, I need help. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See my reply at WT:AWB (summary: might need a bot). Primefac (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tol:, is this a good enough consensus for a mass-page move? Qwerty284651 (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qwerty284651: Because it wasn't an RM, it doesn't technicaly fulfill the conditions (under BRFA 13D) for automatic approval. I can file a new BRFA for this, though. If you give me a list of pages to move, running the bot would be easy. @Hellknowz, does this sound good to you? If so, I'll file the BRFA. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:53, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tol:, Subtract this 2500 archives from this 1600 for the first page and you will get the list of pages. I would give you the exact list, but am not skilled enough to look it up. In short, we are attempting to move every /Article alert/Archive into /Article alert/Archive 1, so we can an archive search box, maybe even an index page, for every Wiki project out there, which currently sit at 800, see first link and have 1661 archived pages, see second link. ((Archives)) template does not support archiving non-numbered Article pages, but you already knew that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty284651 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a few concerns re: the above; for example, what happens when there already is an "Archive 1", does that need to be moved as well? If there are five archives? Is there an issue with the fact that if Archive 1 is moved to Archive 2, and the edit summary of the archive bot says "moved to Archive 1" that it is pointing to the wrong place? I ask these with my BAG hat on so as to avoid having to ask them at the BRFA. Primefac (talk) 07:36, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

With my BAG hat on, I will just give you a list :) The exact list of 1639 pages is here (formatted). For reference, this is only for "Whatever/Archive" -> "Whatever/Archive 1". There is never already an "Archive 1", the bot creates them as "Archive", "Archive 2", "Archive 3", etc. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well that's good to know; I must have either misread or misunderstood what was being proposed. Not having an Archive 1 and then going straight to 2 is definitely in need of a fix. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz, then the bot should be reprogrammed so it auto names new archive pages for future projects XYZ/Archive 1, XYZ/Archive 2, etc., instead of XYZ/Archive, XYZ/Archive 2,... to avoid future conflicts. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that's what I meant above by "I would need to coordinate between bot run/deployment and actual moves by a page mover/admin or the bot will create a mess". Also, the report page itself has archive links, which will need to get relinked/updated. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 16:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've thought about it and the 880 report pages contain non-TOC section   (Archives: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article alerts/Archive|1]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article alerts/Archive 2|2]]). Replacing that with ((Archives)) solves the problem. This could be done via AWB, I presume. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I meant that this is also something that needs to be implemented in bot's code before the moves. That's a bot-written part of the report, so nothing needs to be done about it manually -- the bot will rewrite it next time it edits the page. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 19:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, great. Glad to hear the bot will take care of the nitty gritties. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz @Primefac, do you need me for anything else to take care of, for e.g., filing a page move report or will the bot aka one of you take care of it? I am glad both of you are on board with this and that it is, in fact, feasible. Qwerty284651 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this point, I think I just need to coordinate with Tol for the bot task. I'll ping/message them below. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've filed the BRFA. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 05:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz, the BRFA got approved yesterday. Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New comments

Bot-related changes are now implemented. The bot rewrote all pages to point to "Archive 1" and will now use that as the first archive page. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz: Excellent, I am glad a feature like this got implemented. Now all we need to do is modify Report archive page header by adding an archive list and search bar in the template above, for e.g. ((Archives|image=none|large=no)). Or would you rather use some other archive template? Is it feasible to implement archive index subpages for the Article Alerts archive pages or would that be overkill? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I briefly looked at it but I couldn't figure out how to get the template to actually work on an archive page itself, because it's looking for subpages. I looked at some other templates but I'm not sure which are supposed to be used for something like this.

I don't think an index is useful if the archive template is present because the archives are all sequentially numbered and there aren't any extra pages. Also, nothing will update the index since the archiving is not done by any of the archival bots that would update the index (I think).

By the way, pinging only works when you add new lines and sign in the same edit (WP:PINGFIX). —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qwerty284651, by the way, feel free to try adding stuff to User:AAlertBot/Sandbox_article_alert/Archive_1. It has an ((Archives)) box I tried, but that obviously doesn't work because it's meant to be on the parent page :( Changing the actual header directly for testing is probably not a good idea because the software has to update all 2500 archive pages. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 19:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz, thanks for the pinging tip. The thing is, there are 1641 named /Article Alerts which use ((Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report page header)). As you mentioned, adding ((archives)) to that transclusion does not work since it requires the parent page. Now, every /Article alerts page begins with ((anchor|AAstart)). What if we replaced that anchor with ((archives|root=((FULLPAGENAME))|image=none|large=none)) ((anchor|AAstart)) using AWB? Would that work?

The same is for the 2566 archive pages. ((automatic archive navigator)) would not work, because it has to be added manually. All 2500+ pages begin ((Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report archive page header)). Replacing that with ((Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report archive page header)) ((aan|)) could solve the problem if AWB was used.

((archives)) also has a root parameter, which has a different base than ((FULLPAGENAME)). I guess changing the root might get it to work somehow, I don't know. Qwerty284651 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ohhh, it's the |root= param that we need. It was in the "search" section in the documentation so I didn't even consider it would apply to the whole logic/subpages. Well, good job spotting that because that means this Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report archive page header can work like this Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article alerts/Archive 1. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 09:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz, then how do we modify it so it's a universal solution? What do we put for the |root= param? Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Qwerty284651, oh, I meant that it does now work universally. The exact syntax is |root=((NAMESPACE)):((BASEPAGENAME)). I didn't realize there was a |root= param. But since that is there, modifying actual page names to pass it is just a matter of using the right magic words. I added this to Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report archive page header and you can see it on all archive pages now, e.g. Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Article_alerts/Archive_8. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 17:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz, this is great. Thank God, ((archives)) had a |root parameter that can be modified. Now if only we could somehow add the same template in the Wikipedia:Article alerts/Report page header, so it adds the archive box and search bar to all 1641 non-archive /Article alerts pages, that would be great. I looked at the source code briefly but can't make heads or tails of what to add. It seems to be hidden with noinclude tags for a reason, but don't know why. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bot already posts archive page links on the reports themselves in a shortened format. What it doesn't yet have is a search box. But I don't know how important this actually is. I don't recall anyone ever asking for archive search before. That said, I don't mind adding a search box. I would probably add it to the report page footer though rather than the top. And it most likely doesn't need to be an archives box, but just something like ((Search box)). I'll look into it probably tomorrow.

The noinclude stuff is because of how the header/footer appears transcluded to report pages and then reports themselves appear transcluded to other pages. It's a bit convoluted and depends on exactly where it appears. Like the "Article alerts" section on Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games, which doesn't have any of the header/footer stuff. In short, we wouldn't want a search box there, hence a combination of include tags. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 20:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the bot automatically adds truncated links to every archive subpage it creates, only a search button is needed, not the whole search box. I looked at the ((search box))'s code and honestly it should be on top for convenience and ease of access, just below the quick links. This way visitors of the report pages would quickly and easily find what they are looking, instead of having to scroll all the way down just to search for something.

I would insert the search box with something along the lines of: ((search box|root=((NAMESPACE)):((BASEPAGENAME))|type=fulltext|search-break=no|search-button-label=Search archives here)) or maybe search-button-label=Search all subpages here.

((search link)) is also a good more customizable alternative to search box, which lets you set domains and limit the search-result, which albeit useful is not necessary, in my opinion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Hellknowz, any luck with finding a solution about implementing the search box, or not? Qwerty284651 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've thought about it a bunch. I don't think the main report pages should have an archive search bar. The archives now have the search box, so they can be searched once you open any archive. I honestly think that's enough. I definitely want to keep the top of report pages clutter-free or at least have only the most used things. I was even weary adding archive links initially. And, as I mentioned, no one has ever requested to search archives and it doesn't really sound like a common use case. It doesn't mean no one has needed it so I'm okay to add whatever search and navigation boxes could be useful to the archives pages. —  HELLKNOWZ ∣ TALK 10:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with you about the report pages not needing to have an archive search bar. Luckily you implemented automatic adding of an archive link for every new archive page created by AAlertbot for quick access to the archive pages. Having those links, in the first place, is what started this whole endeavor of archive renaming and adding a search bar. Luckily, the archive page header was used everywhere and allowed for quick implementation of the ((archives)) template to all archive pages with a single edit. I think this should be it for now. Thanks for being on board with my idea and seeing it through to completion. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 New proposal

Filled by: Hellknowz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Description: For example, Film + India may imply India Film. See discussion that prompted this idea. May not work, need to investigate. I would have to look into how many projects would actually have some intersections - I don't suspect it's too many. And it means being tagged for both Film and India (or delsorted). It it's tagged for Film, it will likely be tagged for Indian Film as well, so that would be pointless. And delsort still requires someone sorting this for India, which generally I wouldn't expect for stuff like individual films. So it may be very few or rare cases, but the code for it would need to do inter-subscription page comparing (so there needs to be a second pass and page retrieval order), which is a time-consuming change.

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: Izno (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 22:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Description: Add when a page goes into the various edit request categories or relevant templates are transcluded. It somewhat duplicates the effort made by AnomieBot in maintaining User:AnomieBOT/Edit requests table but it would enable WikiProjects to provide expertise for longstanding requests.

Comments:

 New proposal

Filled by: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Description: Detect whether good article reassessments have been kept or delisted.

Comments: