Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs/Archive/2012

A-class review articles missing


Filled by:

Time filed: 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): See below.

Comments: Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1945) is at milhist A-class review, but not reported at such to relevant alerts, such as Poland and Polish milhist taskforce, see POLAND. In fact, milhist A-class reviews seem to be not reflected on other projects feeds at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for report. A class reviews are a mess. Reports only get delivered to projects that have their A class system and each project does it slightly differently. So WP Poland doesn't get those reported. The problem is that the same page can undergo one or more A class reviews by different projects and bot is having trouble telling which one (usually happens with Aviation and MilHist sharing a page). Unfortunately, AAB wasn't really designed like that (to choose different reporting places based on some criteria). So I did a semi-hackish job on A class reports.


 * But I will enable it for all projects, not just those with A-Class syntax and hope it works :) I'll also fix the discussion page syntax and assign the correct one depending on the project.


 * Now, Talk:Battle of Bautzen (1945) didn't get reported again because of it being failed here. However, by this time it had gotten archived. Now the bot has to keep track of projects that have or haven't it archived (because of different archive times), so the record stays in memory until all have it archived. Now the page got re-A-class-reviewed before it was removed from bot's data, but the bug lies in the fact that it didn't update/clear the list of projects that have the entry archived. So it's "open" globally, but "archived" for the project, so it doesn't get reported. I fixed that (I think) when entries are reopened and this shouldn't happen again (I hope). A subtle bug that was a pain to find.


 * I bet there is more than one entry like this somewhere there, but with over 5000 entries and no easy way of telling the broken ones, I'll have to leave them. I'll fix the "Battle of Bautzen (1945)" one manually. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick follow-up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 02:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate vote counts


Filled by:

Time filed: 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments: Not sure whether it is a proper place to write that, but I think that bot should also list everything coming to WikiProject Deletion sorting/Software, as it is a human-generated list of software-related AfDs with nearly no false positives. Also I noted, that bot's report of votes is inaccurate: may be it doesn't handle "weak/strong" votes? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delsort lists are generally messy, because different projects can do them slightly differently. But I can look into that, and assume every article listed belongs to the project. It shouldn't be tooo hard.
 * Now, I don't know specific cases where the !votes are wrongly reported. I'm sure there's plenty of minor discrepancies, because I cannot really predict all the variations people come up with to cast their !vote. "weak/strong" is accounted for, but of course actual syntax used can vary a lot. It is really just a rough estimate, after all it doesn't account for the actual arguments in any way. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, still there are some bugs that must be pretty major: eg., states that in this discussion  there are 1 "delete" and 2 "keeps" voice, while there are 2 "delete", 2 "keep" and 1 "withdraw" voices. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The " Sorry but it's a Delete " didn't get caught because the regex borked up on first apostrophe. I'll fix that one. It doesn't count "withdrawn" because that's not really a vote, it's nominators change of opinion. Also note that these counts are really only estimates to see if AfD is being neglected. That's why the vote counts are in a tooltip and not straight-visible, so there's no undue attention. Besides, if someone doesn't put the vote bolded, the bot won't pick it up. One could argue that's also a "bug". — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I just wanted to highlight a case, which could help improving the Bot. No complains from me. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks, I didn't account for apostrophes. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia_talk:Article_alerts/Feature_requests. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Old milhist A-class review still present


Filled by:

Time filed: 17:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):
 * WikiProject Poland/Article alerts
 * WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Stanisław Koniecpolski

Comments: At WikiProject Poland/Article alerts, an old milhist A-class review is still present (started on Dec 17; closed on Feb 3). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 17:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for report. This is because Talk:Stanisław Koniecpolski is still in the Category:Requests for military history A-Class review category. This ought to fix that. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I just came over to ask the same question and I saw this thread. It's not the fault of the bot; it only reports what its told. I just fixed another one that was from Jan 2011 and showing up on wpships alert. Whomever closes the review needs to make sure it's done correctly. Brad (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-Existant RfD Alerts Continue


Filled by:

Time filed: 20:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Comments: AAlertBot continues to post alerts about non-existant RfDs. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 20:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for report. See also Wikipedia talk:Article alerts. It was because of Nasdaq2's RfD nomination without, which made it transclude onto ±1100 article pages, which bot detected as RfDs. I'll get rid of them. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Missing RfD on alert page


Filled by:

Time filed: 19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):
 * RfD: U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada)
 * RfD in workflow
 * AAlertBot edit

Comments: Bot edit summary today includes +1 RfD. There is a valid RfD in the workflow. However, the bot did not include any information or summary of the RfD on the article alert page with this edit. --  LJ  ↗  19:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for report. It wasn't delivered because the template rfd wasn't found and that's to prevent the bug from above section. Apparently, we now use rfd/core and I wasn't aware of that, so I'll include that now. It shouldn't have included the counter in edit summary though, so that's a weird little bug. The bot should post all the missing RfDs. I'll try to closer monitor pages that don't get reported due to missing templates. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Appears fixed in today's run. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Moved from Wikipedia talk:Article alerts

The edit summary here says that some TfDs should be appearing in the report, but they do not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for report. Those TfDs aren't technically missing, since they aren't supposed to be listed. It's a subtle bug in my edit summary building, which keeps popping up. The TfDs are like this one Template:CTA_Brown_Line -- the template got categorized as TfD, but the actual nomination is a different template that's transcluded on this one. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hopefully fixed now. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Individual GA Reassessment


Filled by:

Time filed: 09:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments:

When a individual Good article reassessment is started the discussion part of the alert links as if a Community reassessment has been initiated. This ends up becoming a redlink. For individual reassessments the correct discussion link should be at Talk:Article name/GAPage number. For example the correct links for the diffs above should be Talk:County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)/GA2 and Talk:Literary sources for the origin of the Romanians/GA2 respectively. AIR corn (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just saw this is already mentioned above. AIR corn (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for report. It's a bit of a mess, given the same GAR/link syntax accommodates both options and chooses based on page existence, so I have to do the same. I think I (hopefully) fixed it for both cases (individual) and  (community). It won't update closed reassessments, but it will fix open ones and new ones. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Four weird non-existent TfDs


Filled by:

Time filed: 03:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): WP:VG/AA

Comments: At WP:VG/AA. Template:Infobox video game and three subpages. From the histories I don't see anything related to a TfD, there is no link to any discussion and it's undated... I really don't have the slightest clue what may have caused this. Salvidrim!  03:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for report. Urgh, it wasn't supposed to post them. It was Video game ratings that was TfDed and transcluded onto the infobox documentation pages. It didn't post them when the TfD was active but decided to post now. I'll fix it. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed, shouldn't report undated TfDs anymore. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate archive entries


Filled by:

Time filed: 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): Article Alerts Archive 5

Comments:

Can someone please take a look at Article Alerts Archive 5 for the WikiProject football? has been archiving large number of articles multiple times and out of order. Just as an example, the entry for José Villalobos appears in the archive a total 40 times. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh wow. This is weird and this already happened once, I thought I fixed it. I guess I'll have to take a look and fix the pages again. I have a feeling this has been going on for a while... *sigh* Individual records store which projects have the record archived, so it doesn't get double-posted. It might be that the record is saved, but when it is used by another project later in processing, it fails to re-save it with the new archived info (because the record is up to date, after all). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Did a run just now, and archived records seem to be removed from bot's memory, so they shouldn't be re-posted next run. Fingers crossed. After that I'll fix the multi-posted records. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever you did doesn't seem to have worked. Take a look at this. All those articles are already listed. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. It might be that I'm not re-saving them on repeat updates while archiving. The problem is I need to do a full run with multiple projects to actually test if it is working correctly, which makes it rather slow and tedious. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll keep an eye on it, and clean it up manually if I have to. Thanks for you help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, well this was an "interesting" bug. Here's the technical stuff (mostly for my future reference). I store the records as files and to avoid file-system incompatible characters I use an MD5 "encryption" (like "PROD-0472b18b98e85b35b5db6abc00fb3ab5-19") instead of the real file names (like "PROD-Esaú García Álvarez"). What I didn't realize is that string to byte array was dependent on the system's default encryption, which was different on different PCs. So the bot read the files fine because it wasn't trying to match the found file names to the expected file names (I'm going to do that now). So when it was time to save changed files, it would save them to the new "proper" location instead where they were located at the start. This caused the records to be duplicated, one original record at the old location and one modified record at the new location. This didn't cause any noticeable issues with the reports, because records would only be re-saved after they were marked as archived, at which point reports wouldn't report them anymore anyway. But when it was time to delete these unsused/archived files, the bot never found them where expected so it never deleted them (it skipped them like it skips all the records without files -- these are pages that don't belong to any project and are never processed and saved). This caused the record to be loaded again next run and archived again, then not deleted again, etc. This only happened to records where the page name had non-standard ASCII characters.


 * The bot may post duplicates one more time, depending on whether the archived project info was stored in the original or the duplicate. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Appears to be fixed now and I don't readily see any duplicates in the last archival. No files are reported as badly named either, so hopefully that's the end of that. I still need to clean up the few remaining duplicates, but my Regex is basically dieing on superlarge pages. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

FAC reported as PROD


Filled by:

Time filed: 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): diff

Comments: At WikiProject Chicago/Article alerts, the bot reported a WP:FAC as a WP:PROD.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for report. That was a little corner-case misformatting before I caught it due to a few recent changes I made to the report format. This might have happened a few other places as well. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:46, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And of course I forgot to deploy the new .exe —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate archive entries again
Seems to be similar to the bug I reported three months ago, though it may have been a one of issue this time around. A group of articles initially archived on 15 November to WikiProject Football/Article alerts/Archive 5 were archived a second time four days later. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no... Not this again! I was doing some code changes at the time, but I don't think that's it. There is so much going on in the code, I'm not even sure where to begin to look. The problem is, once it's done I have no way to tell what exactly happened. Last time (and the one before that) I thought I had gone through it all. I guess I'll look into it... — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The bot completely missed at least 6 software articles marked for deletion


Filled by:

Time filed: 08:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): The following articles were nominated for deletion by a deletionist, but the bot doesn't list them at WikiProject_Software/Article_alerts:
 * Trello
 * Glasscubes
 * Tree.io (software)
 * Apollo (software)
 * Goplan
 * Easy Projects .NET

Comments: The bottom of the WikiProject_Software/Article_alerts page claims the bot was run on 2012-02-11. Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 08:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for report. The bot did not know these belong to the project, because they have no banners on their talk page, so the bot did not know these are "software" articles. I added a check for "Infobox software" to the subscription parameters, so it should catch them too. The best thing is to tag the articles with WikiProject Software banner. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Some edits from this bot are not flaged as BOT edits.


Filled by:

Time filed: 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): Special:Recent Changes

Comments:

I looked in recent changes in the wikipedia namespace and all I saw was a bunch of edits from this bot, even though the show bot edits was not on. Whats up with that? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is on purpose, the report page deliveries are not flagged as bot edits so that editors watching the alert pages are notified of their watchlisted alert page changes, even if they have disabled bot edits in watchlist. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

article page needs editing for content


Filled by:

Time filed: 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments:

The article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaf_Kyrre needs editing. Several of the sentences contain errors or do not make sense. I don't want to do it because I am not an expert on the subject and would be guessing at the correct information. Veronicafitzrandolph (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. This page is for reporting software bugs with the Article Alerts system, and we don't deal with editorial issues. Try the article's talk page (Talk:Olaf III of Norway) or may be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Norse history and culture. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Renamed GA nominee gets duplicated


Filled by:

Time filed: 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Link(s): diff

Comments: If an article is GA nominated, then renamed, it gets duplicated, i.e. it is listed twice in the alert list. A bit of a corner case. GregorB (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * This is sort of true for every workflow, GA, AfD, CfD, etc. Basically it's a big mess with records to detect reliably what was moved where. I'll try to look into it, but there's not a lot I can do and mid-workflow moves will generally cause problems. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. As I said, it is a corner case: rarely happens and is only mildly confusing, so it really is a minor issue. GregorB (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bot reporting changed TFA


The bot restored the TFA listing for an article (M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan)) that was first moved from July 2 to July 7 and then removed from the TFA schedule completely. The article's talk page no longer lists it under either date, so I don't know what's tripping the bot to think it's still going to be a TFA.  Imzadi 1979  →   22:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for report. Since the bot keeps all the records in its local database and TFA have a completely different rules, this makes a mess when something is changed midway. I'll make it re-retrieve TFAs every time and not save old entries. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)