User talk:ChristieBot/Archive01

GA passing message
In the coming weeks, DYK is likely to remove its requirement that DYK nominations have not previously been boldlinked at OTD and ITN – I would say that it's probably not premature to remove that bit from ChristieBot's congratulatory message on an article passing GA. We should probably start encouraging those nominations now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent essay you linked to there; haven't seen that before. Is there a discussion for this change?  I should probably post a note at whatever that forum is to propose this change in case anyone objects. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mike Christie: Glad you liked it! :) You can find the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Feel free to post a note :) Also, what would you think about ChristieBot getting approval at Wikidata to update the article badges for newly promoted GAs? Seems like they're doing it manually... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:21, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't want to seem to be jumping the gun, so I think I should wait till the RfC closes -- it's a very quick change to make. If you could drop me a line when the change goes through I should be able to do it within a day or two. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent, will do :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * And re the Wikidata change, I don't want to take on new responsibilities for the bot at the moment -- there are still several corner cases that ChristieBot is not handling correctly and I'd like to get those nailed down before adding functionality. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Bot posting out of order
The bot seems to be posting GANs out of order- for example in this edit, where the summary says it's adding Butterfly Soup as a GAN, it inserts it into the middle of the section, rather than the end. -- Pres N  03:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is because of a recently implemented proposal which you can see here to change the sort order on the GAN page. The new sort order is that new nominators (no GAs to their credit) go at the top, and below that the sort order is by review-to-GA ratio of the nominator. (In fact there's a bug in the sort order in that it is not properly sorting for a given nominator; I hope to fix that tomorrow.)  There needs to be an explanation of the new sort order somewhere on the GAN page; I'll add that soon. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 04:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

No icon or notification
My article A Fistful of Gun passed GA tonight and ChristieBot correctly removed it from the GAN list, but it neither added the GA icon, nor notified me of the passage. Is this a bug? IceWelder &#91; &#9993; &#93; 12:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was my fault -- I was making some code changes and stopped it at a point that I thought was harmless. Looking back through the logs I see I stopped it while it was partway through processing A Fistful of Gun.  Sorry about that; I'll try to be more careful in future.  I've made the missing edits to add the GA icon and add the oldid to the talk page template. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No biggie. Thanks for all you do! IceWelder  &#91; &#9993; &#93; 13:03, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Bot not working
ChristieBot seems to not be working. I did not get a notification for Talk:Airport Central railway station/GA1 and there have not been any updates to Good article nominations since about 5 hours ago. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It was complaining because the bot account wasn't logged in. Apparently it requires that I keep a browser window open with ChristieBot logged in to Wikipedia for it to run.  Now I know that I'll make sure it's always true. It's running now and should just catch up; if it doesn't please let me know.  If an article was nominated and passed while it was not running it would have missed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to have done everything correctly, at least for my GAN. Steelkamp (talk) 12:50, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Deleted review statistics
, just letting you know that ChristieBot appears to have disregarded many reviews at User:GA bot/Stats and removed them from users' stats (diff). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- I just updated that code and was about to take a look to see if it had worked as intended. It was intended to remove reviews that weren't real (i.e. subsequently the review page was deleted) but apparently it had some side effects.  I'll revert the change and investigate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually it turned out to be a trivial fix; I just had a bit of logic backwards. I've corrected the code and re-run it, and it's restored nearly all the missing reviews, and removed five reviews as having been superseded, for four different editors.  Should be OK from now on.  I appreciate you (and anyone else) keeping an eye open for errors. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Transclude for GARs too
Would it be difficult to have the bot transclude WP:good article reassessments on talk too? It would be nice to make that process easier. Transclusion is slightly different for individual and community reassessments, as the title of the review page differs by reassessment method. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can certainly add it to my to-do list. There are still some things the bot doesn't cope with very well, and I want to get those dealt with before I add new functionality, but I think this is a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Brilliant, thanks :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apparently, a script already exists that does this, so not needed anymore :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Runtime?
How often does the bot run? I'm not seeing anything on its userpage so I have no clue how long I'm supposed to wait to see the bot has caught my GAN of Splatoon 3. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 16:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- it normally runs every twenty minutes. I've been working on some of the code and it may not be running properly at the moment; I'll take a look.  If your GAN isn't picked up in an hour let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah alright. Thanks for letting me know! ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It still does not appear to have been picked up. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It turns out the problem was caused by a user changing their username. They nominated an article under their old name, and now the bot has to reconcile the two names.  It's proving to be a little more fiddly to get right than I expected, but I'm working on it and hope to have it done shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Weird but thanks for attempting to fix the issue. It's kinda funny how sensitive bots can be to seemingly minor changes. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It certainly is! In this case the problem is that the bot wants to look up the last edit the user made, because it adds an "inactive" note if the nominator hasn't edited in 21 days.  When a user changes their name they have no edits under the old name, so the bot finds no edits.  I had written the code to assume that a nominator would have at least one edit, so that's why it crashed.  I think it's fixed now; I'm just rerunning it to update the page and we'll see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the time someone decided to change the font on a bunch of the vital article pages to be Trebuchet MS and ending up confusing the heck of of Cewbot, causing it to demote a whole bunch of articles from level 4 to 5. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Bot bug
Looks like the bot deleted a closing brace and broke the code. Hog Farm Talk 21:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And the bot's repeating whatever the flaw is after I tried to fix the brackets. Hog Farm Talk 21:58, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * On a plane at the moment; will be home in a couple of hours and can look at this then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I just had a look, and I can't see what's going wrong. However, it seems to have stopped removing the closing bracket, so I'm going to let well enough alone for now -- I'll have limited time on this computer for the next two days and I don't want to mess with the code at a time when I may not be able to quickly fix anything I break.  I'll take another look, probably on Friday or Saturday.  Thanks also to  for fixing it on the talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a loot at it! It doesn't seem to be breaking anything elsewhere, so maybe there's something off with the specific article title or a user signature that's causing it. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Playing nicely with short description
Hi. In this edit the bot has added the good article template in the wrong place. It should always go below the short description, not above - see WP:SDPLACE. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:44, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I think that shouldn't be too difficult to fix; I'll see if I can get to it one of the next couple of weekends. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Feature Request
I had proposed this a long time ago to LegoBot, and it may have been proposed already here, so apologies if I am repeating anything. Is it possible to split up some of the topics into more specific sub-topics? As an example, "Natural sciences" has four separate sub-topics. It currently has 35 articles in total in it, nicely split up by relevant topic. However, "Sports and recreation" has 82 nominations that range all across every varied sport or recreation on earth. Could we split "Sports and recreation" into "Football", "Baseball", "Basketball", "Cricket", "Pro Wrestling", "Other Sports" and "Recreation" (these come from the grouping at WP:GAN)? This would make it easier for reviewers to see interesting articles to review and allow WikiProjects or other interested groups to focus on specific areas. I am sure there are other large topic groupings that could benefit from this, but Sports and Rec is the one I usually work in and is typically one of the largest. Thanks for any consideration on this request. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 19:43, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- I'm fine with that sort of change, but we would need consensus from a discussion involving interested editors first. There have been some conversations at WT:GAN about the topic organization, but nothing got decided.  I would suggest starting a thread there and see what folks say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Started a discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations. « Gonzo fan2007  <small style="color:#2A2722">(talk)  @ 22:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review feature request
With regards to User talk:ChristieBot/Incompletely moved pages, I was wondering if it also tracked Peer reviews. Not related to the GA Process, but another subpage often left behind. CMD (talk) 01:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't track them -- I suppose I could add that. But surely they aren't a problem?  Since the link doesn't break with the move, because the article history link is to a subpage of PR, not a subpage of the article talk, there are no broken links and no need to move the PR page?  I'm pretty sure old FAC pages never get moved when an article moves, for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:18, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Not moving breaks the link in Template:Old peer review, similar to Template:GA. CMD (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I just looked at Talk:Isaac Asimov, where there's -- doesn't that "reviewedname" parameter control the link? Or does it default to current article name if not filled in?  I don't think it would be hard to add, but I'd like to avoid scope creep. Though I guess "Incompletely moved pages" is the scope creep and this would just be doing it properly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 01:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It defaults to the current name (eg. Talk:Hypothetical partition of Belgium), but I did not know about that parameter. I wonder if that suggests a separate bot run to add those might be a better fix. CMD (talk) 02:58, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Good articles without an oldid
Hello. I was wondering if ChristieBot could take over Category:Good articles without an oldid as Legobot is no longer updating GAN. That task for Legobot (number 18) is currently inactive. Thanks! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:44, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've no objection in principle, but I'm backlogged at the moment both with Wikipedia and RL tasks, and I don't know when I might be able to get to it. I'll add it to ChristieBot's to-do list and will try not to leave it too long. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect R/G
Hi, I noticed this a while ago but the recent change in the ordering of WP:GAN has prompted me to raise it. For some reason, I have only reviewed one article, even though I've reviewed at least 14. Five of these were after my username change so the issue must lie elsewhere. Any assistance or clarification would be appreciated. Thanks! – Rhain  ☔ (he/him) 14:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I have for those: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what is going on here, but I am listed as having 275 GAs. That is incorrect; I actually have 349. see User:Hawkeye7 for a full list. I don't think it is taking into account articles that have since been promoted to featured. I'm not sure what has happened to my reviews; in January I was credited with 341 reviews; now I have just 190. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:52, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi -- the GA numbers come from WP:WBGAN, which only counts articles that are still GAs. I imagine the discrepancy there is because you've taken so many of your articles to FA -- WBGAN doesn't count those.    I've just completed a scrape of the database that has given me a list of all GA reviews (both promotions and failures) since early 2008.  That list has 367 GAs that you're listed as nominator on; I can produce a list for you if you like.  It includes 8 fails/not listed.  We may start using that number instead of WBGAN in the R/G calculation but there will have to be a thread about that at GAN to establish consensus.
 * The reviews number has changed for a different reason. The original GA stats page was maintained by two different bots before I took over in November, and at least one of them had a bug that would repeatedly increment the counter for the same review.  When I got the data as clean as I could, a few days ago, I changed the stats to match.  You're not the only reviewer whose numbers were overcounted; it happened to the most prolific reviewers of course -- QatarStarsLeague's count dropped by 200 or more, if I remember rightly.  I lost a few myself.  Again I can give you a list of all the reviews of yours in the database if you want to take a look, or if you have your own list you could cross-check with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and generated the lists of GAs and reviews I have for you; see here and here. Let me know if anything looks wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We're getting closer! I now have 372 GAs by my recknoning, the . There are some anomalies:
 * Five articles are missing from both lists: 2011–12 Australia women's national goalball team, Para-swimming classification, Lauren Jackson, Landing at Lae and Pumpkin bomb
 * British Army during the First World War is in WP:WBGAN but not this list
 * I don't know what James L. Buie and United States are doing there
 * Para-alpine skiing classification, Para-alpine skiing are delisted GAs, but not on this list
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:04, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 2011–12 Australia women's national goalball team -- GA nominator was Vanished user adhmfdfmykrdyr.
 * Para-swimming classification - nominator was LauraHale (Wizardman was just updating her original nomination as the first review was incomplete).
 * Lauren Jackson - nominator was LauraHale
 * Landing at Lae - conom with AustralianRupert; there's no way to track more than one nominator for a GA, so this was only assigned to AustralianRupert.
 * Pumpkin bomb - when you nominated this you didn't subst the GAN template, so Sturmvogel 66 did. The result is that they get credited with the nomination (and in fact since that means the reviewer and nominator are the same, it gets removed from the statistics completely).  Unfortunately there's no way to fix this since Article history has no "nominator=" parameter -- I suggested adding one on the template's talk page but got no response.  I have thought about creating a GA attribution template that could be used to fix this, but a post at WP:VPI again got no support for anything like that.
 * British Army during the First World War - you created the review page, and that's how the reviewer is determined. Were you not the reviewer?
 * James L. Buie -- looks like you were the reviewer
 * United States -- that's a GAR, not a GAN (did you realize the list contains both?). I'm not immediately seeing why the bot assigned that to you; I'll take a look.
 * Para-alpine skiing classification - nominator was LauraHale.
 * Para-alpine skiing - nominator was LauraHale.
 * The United States entry was a bug in my code; now fixed. I've rerun the report so the nominations page no longer shows it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The bot appears to be undercounting my GA reviews. It currently says "22" whereas it previously was more like "42". czar  05:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, 22 is correct. You are the creator of 47 GA review pages, but 25 of those are redirects, meaning that you didn't do the review, you just moved it.  I'll post a list on your talk page -- if you know of any reviews that you did that are not on the list, let me know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:GAC sort order
Hello my friend. I notice the top of WP:GAC states Nominators who have no promoted GAs are sorted at the top of each section, in descending order of the number of GA reviews they have performed. Nominators who have at least one promoted GA are then listed, in descending order of the ratio of reviews they have performed to the number of GAs they have had promoted. For example, a nomination by a nominator who has 5 GAs and has done 10 reviews is listed above a nomination by a nominator who has 10 GAs and has done 5 reviews. However if we take a look at Good article nominations, I notice that 1) I am showing as having 1 GA instead of 0 (I should have 0) and 2) the order described above is not being followed. Was just wondering if that is a bug that you might want to fix? If not no worries. Thank you. – Novem Linguae (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Will reply on your talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:24, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Bot's GA count
I realise it's a little strange to be talking to a robot, but I notice that it's counted my GAs a little low (and therefore is probably giving my nominations too much prominence): I've nominated six GAs (one of which is now an FA, if that makes any difference), but it only credits me with four. Perhaps related to the issue raised by the excellently-named Novem Linguae above? I've got them listed on my user page if that's any help. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, anything you say to the robot ends up in my inbox, so ... you can always just go to my talk page if you like. In this case, yes, it looks like it might be partly the same issue.  The two that are missing are Panagiotis Kavvadias and Panagiotis Stamatakis, but for different reasons: Kavvadias is missing because it's been promoted to FA, and the bot that maintains those numbers only counts *current* GAs, not historical promotions.  I'm not sure why Stamatakis is missing from the count.  Pinging, the owner of the GA tracking bot -- SD0001, can you take a look?  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be because GA nominee was used inside WikiProject banner shell. – SD0001  (talk) 06:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thank you both. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Missing GA icon on a just-passed article
Passing Mother's Grave (an 1856 painting by Dutch master Jozef Israëls) may have received the GA token yesterday, but the page itself has not been updated to reflect this. To the bot or its owner How long before it gets picked up (assuming we mortals can't do it manually)? --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 10:41, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You can do it manually -- just add at the top of the article.  The bot tried to add it but there was an edit conflict.  At the moment it doesn't report edit conflicts, but I'll look into providing a notification of some kind when that happens.  It's very rare -- that's the only time it's happened in at least three months. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:06, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Idea: Good article placement should follow MOS:ORDER
Looks like diffs such as these place Good article in the wrong spot. According to MOS:ORDER, it should be a bit farther down, for example, below Short description and the hatnote for-multi. A minor feature request. If you have a bug tracker such as GitHub Issues let me know and I can create a ticket. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I've added it to the task list. At the moment I'm just keeping a list of tasks on the bot's user page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK has loosened its requirements for eligibility
Howdy! A while back, DYK changed its rules a bit on eligibility. The Main Page disqualifying rule was shortened to 1 year (so an appearance in the prose section of OTD 2 years ago is fine), with the exception of DYK (repeat runs remain impossible, except where the previous article was deleted as a copyright violation.) Could the ChristieBot message on the passing of a GA be updated to reflect something like that? The first one's more of a priority. You can see the full eligibility requirements here. Thanks! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:49, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Currently the message has this: If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. How about If the article has never appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section within the last year, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.?  Let me know and I'll make the change. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That works for me! Probably also slot TFA in there under the sections with year moratoria, and the names of Main Page sections aren't in title case, but other than that, looks good to me :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, so how's this: If the article has never appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility.? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did a smidge of copyediting – looks good to go! Thanks so much :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked in the code for this text to change ... and realized that it's actually inside GANotice, so you can change it directly yourself, as you're a template editor. Sorry, would have pointed that out before if I'd remembered. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

New reviewer
Hello, I've reviewed the Talk:Parliament railway station/GA1 nomination after the original reviewer abandoned it. How can I make sure that the bot counts me as the reviewer instead of the previous reviewer? — Golden  talk 20:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there's no current way to do this; see this conversation for an explanation. I'll post a note at WT:GAN in a few minutes raising this, to see if enough people would support a change to overcome the opposition there might be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:12, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

GA icons
Please thank your handler for helping you to add GA icons. I've noticed a few being added manually to articles which haven't been through GAN and clearly aren't good. (This is often through innocent copy-pasting of boilerplate headings such as an infobox from a real GA.) Does anything check automatically for good article or similar on articles which haven't earned it? I realise that this isn't ChristieBot's job and it might be difficult due to page moves, ancient GAs without a systematic GAN and other complications but I suspect you already have 90% of the required code. Certes (talk) 11:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. I can take a look at the code this evening, but this post might be better at WT:GAN, where there are people like  who I believe already do this sort of cross-checking.  I suspect human involvement would usually be necessary to resolve the conflicts, and I think there's even a category that is maintained of mismatches that Bryan and others keep an eye on, but the WT:GAN regulars would know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * periodically updates a list of category mismatches relating to Good Articles here, which a human can then address. Unfortunately, the issues are often not routine and take some human judgment to sort out. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both. Good to know someone's on the case!  I did a rough database query and all the pages it flagged are real GAs which moved recently, so it seems to be working well.  There are 2000 GAs without a Talk:Whatever/GA1 page, but I expect they're all moved pages and other oddities. Certes (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

GA nominations count inaccurate
Hi! I wanted to report a bug. I noticed that at WP:GAN, by an article I recently nominated, the bot seems to think I have only nominated 4 GAs, which means my nomination has been pushed to the top of the list. However, that count is not right, as a glance at my user page will show - I've nominated eight articles for GA, I believe. One of them was a co-nomination, so that one (Early life and career of Joe Biden) might well have been missed, leaving 7. Three of them are also now FAs - are those ones not counted by the bot? That would explain where it got the number 4 from. I assume the issue is affecting others as well. Thanks, as always, for your hard work on the bot. I'm curious to hear if my guess about the issue is correct here! —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The counts come from SDZeroBot -- I use whatever numbers it gives me. As you've guessed, it drops a GA from its list when it becomes an FA.  Looking here you can see it credited the Biden article to your conominator.  I've periodically thought about using an independent database to avoid these issues but it's not yet come to the top of my to-do list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 17:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Thanks for the quick answer. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Frequency of the bot runs
Can you please make a small FAQ for the bot? In particular, I'm interested in a question of a frequency of the bot runs if runs on schedule, or what triggers its runs, and whether it can be manually triggered? I completed a few reviews bot the bot didn't update the information on the Good_article_nominations according to the page's history. I read on the page User:ChristieBot that bot updates the following once every twenty minutes, but it is almost one day passed, but the bot didn't update the page I mentioned. Please help. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does run every twenty minutes, but there was a problem with the bot, which your note alerted me to, so thank you for that. I've just fixed it (I think) and the bot is running now. I'll keep an eye on it. ChristieBot (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep up the good work ChristieBot. Geometry guy 01:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Fail message sent when page moved
Transgender history in Brazil recently underwent a page move, and that apparently triggered the bot to tell the nominator it failed. I don't think that's supposed to happen… <b style="font-family:Monospace">-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH)</b> 07:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not ideal; thanks for letting me know about it. The bot knows that the article was being reviewed under the old title, and when it next looks after the redirection happens there is no longer a GA nomination under that title. The bot knows that a nomination can be either passed, failed, or "removed" (which is when the GA nomination template is simply deleted from the talk page and there is no review page).  It checked that the article was not a GA (it actually checked the redirect page, but it would have had the same result if it had followed the redirect) so it knew it wasn't passed. It then decided it was not "removed" because there was still a GA review page (actually a redirect, but it didn't notice that).  The best outcome would be if it had marked the nomination as removed instead of failed, but to do that it has to understand the relationship between the original and redirected pages.  It could be done, but given this is the first time this has happened in over a year and it would be a complex fix it's a low priority task.  I'll add a note about it to the bot's user page though in case it happens to others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And I've just noticed it is listed as a known issue on the bot's page. That means it has happened before, which I'd forgotten, though it's still true it's rare. I'll see if I can think of an easy way to fix it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

New blank review causes pass message
See Special:Diff/1190415894 (the bot correctly transcluding a newly-started review), Special:Diff/1190416546 (correctly marking it as on review), Special:Diff/1190407677 (incorrectly informing me that the new review was already a pass), Special:Diff/1190408441 (incorrectly removing the nomination from the nomination list), Special:Diff/1190407650 (incorrectly adding the good article star to the article), and Special:Diff/1190416650 (restoring the nomination with its review to the nomination list). —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is this edit. That changed the nominee template to a GA template, so the bot assumed it was a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, that explains it. So not really a bug, just a human mistake to clean up. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate GA's reviewed count
Hello,

I believe I was told it was fine to make a manual update to User:GA bot/Stats before, but that no longer seems the case - the Bot reverted me here. I'm not sure how ChristieBot decides who the reviewer was, but I'm guessing it's whoever started the subpage. However, that isn't quite correct for Talk:Pitfall!/GA1, where the original reviewer just abandoned it. I guess that by the letter of the law, it could have been a procedural fail followed by an immediate renomination, but that was skipped here in the name of NOTBURO and not having a misleading "failed" nomination in the history through no fault of the nominator. (Checking the history... I guess it updates the bot updates the counts when a review is claimed, not completed?  It looks like Indrian did get a credit around 11 June.  I'd definitely assumed it'd be on completion, myself.)  With the 2023 GA changes to the rules, the GA reviewed count is actually kinda important now. Would it be possible to update the numbers to include my review here? SnowFire (talk) 03:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the numbers reflect what's in the database, and as you've guessed that is determined by the creator of the review page. There has been periodic discussion about creating nominator and reviewer parameters for article history and/or GA, which would allow this to be resolved, but there has never been support for that.  Perhaps it would be best to fail and renominate in these cases; an editor's failed GAs aren't easily visible as the nominator is not recorded in the database so there's little stain on the nominator's reputation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the issue is that it's obviously too late in this particular circumstance to do such a quick-fail. And I'm not sure it's a good idea anyway - the tech should adapt to reviewers, not the other way around.   If it is truly a hard requirement, then I think this needs to go in the GA instructions somewhere that reviews must be performed by whoever started the GA review page.  Although really, fixing the tech is still preferable.
 * I looked at the code snippets from the user page. Does the Bot "reconstruct history" from the ground up, or are there reviewer totals in the DB that can just be incremented with deltas of recent changes?  If the latter, then can you just increment the count?  It seems like the kind of admin function that would be useful to have anyway.  This case will almost assuredly happen again.
 * I'm aware we're all volunteers here so I don't want to be too demanding, and I'm also aware that maybe this wouldn't be a big deal for most GA users who do quick reviews on short topics. I try to provide somewhat in-depth reviews and also tend to nominate topics that are very long, so being short on the new QPQ system is a lot more significant; it's not just a vanity concern anymore (I wouldn't have cared under the old system). SnowFire (talk) 08:42, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could just modify the internal database -- the numbers were reconstructed initially, but I could edit the output. I agree that the tech should adapt to the needs, not the other way round.  I would want to see a consensus that this should be done, and one thing I think would have to be settled is what is acceptable as authority to change the attribution of a review.  Can I just put in a delta because an editor requests it?  Or does someone need to verify it first?  And I think there would have to be an audit trail of some kind -- if someone says "why is X credited with N reviews" the database should contain the answer to that question.  So I don't think it's as simple as just editing a number.  I should also say that though it's clear the new sort order has had an effect, it hasn't had as big an effect as you might think --- old nominations by nominators who rarely review still get reviewed; it's not like a poor ratio leaves you languishing unreviewed for ever.  And there are other things about the current system that are less than perfectly accurate already -- for example, anyone who responds to a "second opinion" request gets no credit for it in the sort order.  Anyway, I would suggest starting a conversation at WT:GAN about this -- it's come up before and that's probably the best place to have this discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally, my suggestion would be to just accept any requests you get and assume good faith (including mine and the requests above), and if something really wacky is going on then to raise the issue at WT:GAN for whatever the problem seems to be. If someone exploits this to get "extra" GA reviews under their belt, shame on them, but the harm isn't that huge, and it'd be rapidly obvious after you get asked the second or third time that something is up.
 * I think it's more about the new social expectation. Doug Coldwell was being a huge leech by nom'ing tons of GAs while being too incompetent to do any reviews.  If I see someone nominating a big long article and not having enough reviews under their belt, I'd definitely be very uninterested in doing the review.  Maybe the articles still get reviewed, sure, but I'd want to attract high-quality reviewers to my noms, whom I suspect would care more about meeting QPQ expectations.  (And I realize after writing this that this makes me come across as some sort of GA megalomaniac despite having fairly few nom's and review's, but...  so it is.)  SnowFire (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Before this gets archived, can I again request the GA count be updated? Nobody really responded at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations/Archive_30, but I'd argue that fixing this should be uncontroversial - the review actually happened. SnowFire (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm reluctant to make a change like this without a consensus that it should be done. There's definitely no consensus (and in fact some minor opposition has been expressed in the past) to handling this by recording the nominator(s) with parameters on the GA template.  The only other option is ad hoc changes, which would take fewer code changes and would be easier to do, but for which I feel it would be necessary for the community to agree to rules for when the numbers can be changed.  I don't feel I can unilaterally make these changes; sorry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Drive-by removal notifications
Hi Mike, happy 2024! In Special:diff/1197628592 Christiebot made a talkpage notification of a failed GA when I removed a template as a drive-by nomination. Is this intended behaviour? I wouldn't say a reversion is technically a fail, at if it was I would suggest an exception here as these are often from new editors and slapping them with a big you failed message seems bitey. Best, CMD (talk) 08:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not where I can look at the code at the moment, but as I recall, once the bot sees a review has been opened, it has to figure out what happened when the review template disappears. It's the creation of the sub review page that causes the problem -- if nobody gets around to doing that just removing the nomination takes it off the GAN page.  With the review page having been created, as was the case here, the bot won't think it's a pass (it looks for the GA template to establish that) so it must be failed.  The only other approach I can think of is that it could look to see that the review page no longer exists.  Do you think that would be a reliable test for "this review shouldn't count"?  I do have a "superseded" status I use, but at the moment it only gets used once the second review for that number is created.  E.g. if the review page for nomination 1 is created, then deleted, so the nomination template still has a "1", when the review page is recreated the old one gets tagged as superseded.  So that half of the process is OK.  The hard part is how the bot can tell at the time the nomination template is removed that the nomination is going to be superseded.  Is the deletion of the subpage enough to say that for sure? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Deletion of the subpage wouldn't have helped here as they were deleted after the notification went out. If this is isolated to the specific edge case of page creation that's less urgent than my initial concern. It does happen sometimes, but usually the user will have received separate advice at some point. Best, CMD (talk) 01:21, 22 January 2024 (UTC)