Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Bugs/Archive/2016

Draft namespaces

 * Moved from User_talk:AAlertBot

Pages in the draft namespace should show a link in the draft talk namespace rather than a link such as talk. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting. I tried finding this at the time you posted but couldn't. Could you provide any example for this? I'm not sure where this happens. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I finally figured out what's going on after seeing an example and investigating. A talk add/remove logic issue, basically we didn't have Draft at the time the API was created and it never got added (and a bunch of others too, like Help). fixed example. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

RfDs not reported


The RfD breaking syntax changes caused no RfDs to be reported for quite a while. Should be fixed now. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

RfD bug - January 2016


Filled by:

Time filed: 13:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Link(s):

Comments:

See WikiProject Pharmacology/Article alerts. In the mentioned edit, an RfD was added, but without a date or a link to the discussion. (ping me if I have to reply, thanks!) - HyperGaruda (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That one was due to some database lag. It should be fine tomorrow. Thanks for the report though! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This was a MediaWiki issue, the pages hadn't properly updated their categories. Purging the cache fixed the issue and they no longer appear in Category:All redirects for discussion. The affected RfDs (at least, the ones tagged by any project) were:


 * undated – Joseph-Francois-Louis-Charles (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph-Francois-Louis-Charles&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph-Francois-Louis-Charles&action=history hist]) →Joseph-François-Louis-Charles de Damas was RfDed
 * undated – Nearest neighbor clustering (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nearest_neighbor_clustering&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nearest_neighbor_clustering&action=history hist]) →Single-linkage clustering was RfDed
 * undated – Nearest neighbor cluster (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nearest_neighbor_cluster&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nearest_neighbor_cluster&action=history hist]) →Single-linkage clustering was RfDed
 * undated – Hexal International Group (talk · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hexal_International_Group&action=edit edit] · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hexal_International_Group&action=history hist]) →Novartis was RfDed

{   "batchcomplete": "", "query": { "pages": { "4898795": {               "pageid": 4898795, "ns": 0, "title": "Hexal International Group", "categories": [ {                       "ns": 14, "title": "Category:All redirects for discussion" },                   {                        "ns": 14, "title": "Category:Redirects for discussion from November 2015" },                   {                        "ns": 14, "title": "Category:Redirects to list entries" }               ]            }        }    } }

— HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, great! Thanks for the heads up. - HyperGaruda (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

alerts not being archived


Filled by:

Time filed: 18:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Link(s):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Article_alerts

Comments: Alerts aren't being archived. According to user:Headbomb, 'archive time is set to " |archivetime = 90".' I was told to report it, so here it is. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8bitW (talk • contribs)


 * Hey! I removed the 90 from Astronomy subscription. This just meant the bot tries to wait 90 days since closure before archiving closed entries instead of usual 7. In addition, if the closure date is not known, it waits twice the archive time. This happens to be 90*2, so 6 months since most entries didn't have a closure date. I'll change it to something more like +7 days internally. AfDs should now have closure dates on deleted ones too. A bunch of workflows don't have exact closure dates implemented yet. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:OPENACCESS not updated


Filled by:

Time filed: 21:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Link(s): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Open_Access/Article_alerts&oldid=672100563

Comments: The current revision still lists an RfC that was closed in August 2015. There also seems to have been some confusion between RfC and RfD, as per the last edit. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for report. This is weird, the bot hasn't edited the report since July 2015, although the subscription seems active. The RfD seems like a separate bug (may or may not still exist, I know sometimes it report things in summary not posted in the report). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's being updated again, so no idea what was going on. — HELL KNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect reporting of AFD closure


Filled by:

Time filed: 00:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Link(s): WikiProject Australia alert, relevant AFD

Comments:

Yesterday's (3rd August) article alert for WikiProject Australia reported the AFD of Lavington Square Shopping Centre as being closed, when in fact it is still open and only 2 days old. I note that "It says a page is "closed" and does not provide details is a common bug listed at the top of the page that shouldn't be reported, but I think this is a slightly different situation, since it is reporting the closure of something that isn't closed at all.
 * Thanks for report. This happened because the AfD template was not present on the page when the bot ran: . The closure is "incorrect" because the discussion didn't have anything the bot recognized as a close result. There's very little I can do to detect this reliably and it's really rare anyway. In any case, it should pick the page up again on the next run (in a bit from this time). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having a look. I see a bot restored the template 4 hours later, so it's just a matter of luck that the article alert bot ran during that period. I understand that sort of thing can't be helped. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It has been re-added to today's report. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not a bug
This may not be a bug per se, but I was looking at the category of expired PRODs and noticed articles about two Japanese footballers, Ryuji Okada and Ryo Okatani. Neither of them have been listed at WikiProject Japan/Article alerts, so it got me wondering whether there is a gap that these two articles may have fallen through. Both are listed in Category:Japanese footballers. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's not really a bug. The bot doesn't know the two pages belong to WikiProject Japan, because they are not tagged with the project's banner (which is how the project's subscription is set up). Individual categories are not used (one category can be used, but not subcategories). The Category:Japanese footballers is not something the bot even considers. Some day I might extend it to gather pages in more ways, such as a list of custom categories. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. So the important message here is that, when tagging an article for prod or Afd, taking an extra minute to add appropriate banners will bring extra eyes to the page. I will try to do this myself in future. Cheers! AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See also the item "It didn't report a page being discussed in a workflow in my WikiProject" under the "report a bug" button up on this page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that after I typed my last reply. Not sure how my eyes glossed over it the first two times... Sorry for the bother. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a bother, just pointing out the additional options for subscriptions (like deletion sorting or whatever) your project might consider on top of banners. They might not have covered the two articles above however, as banners are the best/most reliable way to put articles in your project's daily reports. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:23, 15 April 2016 (UTC)