Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests/Archive/Old/Unresolved

Files for deletion

 * Not too hard to implement, but would anybody use it? I checked this on an (old) database dump: Out of approx. 700 images on FFD, only one was actually project-tagged. Are there projects that systematically tag images or media? --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any project that uses systematically tags their images, and if there are any they would be the exception rather than the norm IMO. Maybe this should be a feature that is disabled by default, but possible to enable on a per-project basis? Then we'd see which project, if any, uses it?Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is that if hardly anyone uses it, I can't even say whether the implementation works. There's for example WP:MFD which was implemented months ago but is still largely untested, just because hardly ever a project-tagged article goes to MFD. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to confirm that WP:Energy tags regularly also images, categories and templates, and on behalf of this project I would like to ask for an option to have also notices about these if tagged. There was just a few days ago a case when Template:EnergyPortal, a template just about 2,500 pages, was nominated for deletion without notifying WP Energy of Energy Portal. There are also quite often WP:CfD discussions and automated alert would be a great help. Beagel (talk) 07:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

 * I wouldn't say "trivial to add", it differs somewhat from the other XfD workflows. In particular: When should an alert be generated - when the redirect has a project tag? (That's rarely the case.) When the target of a redirect has a project tag? That's feasible but would be very different from the other XfDs. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I thought it was trivial to add, I stand corrected. I know WP:PHYS tags some of its redirect (about 300 of them now, usually via bots), the majority of them created because of page moves. Some other projects do it as well. I hadn't thought about also checking the target of the redirect discussion, but that seems a good idea.Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking more about it, the only way to make this working in a reasonable way would be to evaluate project tags on the targets. This would be an implementation that is quite independent of what I currently to for other deletion processes - though it's possible I should say. Need to investigate details. --B. Wolterding (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I spent quite a while working on this, and realized that it's more complicated than it seems at first. Will get back to this later. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not tagging AAbot edits as "bot edits" so people can watch the page w/o having to "show bot edits"

 * As per the VP discussion, this is possible, but currently not supported by the bot framework I use (JWBF). I may need to tweak it at that point anyway, for other reasons, so I can add the "no bot mark" feature as well; but this will be a rather deep modification that needs to be thoroughly tested, and I will implement it only at a later time. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Images
No, currently none of the image related processes (neither those that you mentioned nor IFD) are covered by the bot. This should be possible in principle, and for some it would even be very easy to do because they're very similar to AFD or FAC. However, I've always been waiting for projects that would actually use these processes. Does WP:CHICAGO systematically tag images in their scope? Who else does? --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I implemented WP:FPC and WP:VPC now. It's largely untested, since I'm lacking examples. But if you tag the candidate pictures with project tags as they are nominated, this might work out. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As for WP:PPR, this is currently not very bot-friendly — I first thought it was be similar to WP:PR, but there's no template or category to find on the images that would indicate the nomination. --B. Wolterding (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Why isn't there a category?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably because no one bothered to create one. You should ask on WP:PPR about implementing categories. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 06:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Splits and merges
''Moved from WT:AALERTS

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)


 * 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

(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)


 * 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)


 * 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 {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

BLP problem articles
I'm not completely sure what the request asks for. Is there already a way for the bot to identify those articles with BLP issues - such as, a certain "dispute" tag or similar? Or do you want to introduce such a tag, say, "This article needs immediate attention due to BLP concerns", and the bot should pick this up and notify related projects? --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Add Deletion Sorting to alerts
I don't think this a reasonable feature for the bot, as the deletion sorting pages are rarely organized along the WikiProject structures - they are usually set up at a much coarser level. However, there's a simple way to include these articles into the corresponding article alerts: Deletion sorters should just add the appropriate project banner to the articles while sorting. ArticleAlertbot will pick these up in the next run, and the articles will appear in the alerts list. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

New workflows
Well, I might add some of these if I find the time (at a later time). Some of these I already considered in the past, for example, Featured topic removal candidates, and I left them away because there were no examples whatsoever. Others are already covered, such as Valued picture candidates. Again others have problems, such as the redirects - browse this page and its archives to find out more. --B. Wolterding (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Which are the ones that are already covered? I've been going by the list of workflows covered on the main AA page, so presumably the list is not up to date? PC78 (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

TFA language tweak

 * I think not, since this gives warning to the projects that they'll have to keep an eye out on the upcoming articles, and have a chance to give a final review before it gets read by up to 60K people in one day. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Should the wording change to "will feature" until featured? Simply south (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that's probably a good idea. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)