This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I Am The Sea
Closing discussion.... Done.
Updating talk page(s)... [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Campuzano-Polanco family" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Simon Eaddy" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Jason Voelker" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Blair Miller" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Credera" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Williston Lamar Dye" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Fig Tree Hall, University of New South Wales" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Aspect Enterprise Solutions" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Aranye Maniac Killer Mystery" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Sri Sankaradeva Nethralaya, Guwahati" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Matthew Janney" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Tommy Davis (actor)" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Mahesh Mhatre" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Afro-Eurasia" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Chhina (rapper)" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Mechnova" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Alireza Khanderoo" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Jesus Christ Only TV" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:List of deceased space travelers" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:The Bomb Factory Art Foundation" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Auburn Avenue (publication)" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:OmarGosh" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Most Valuable Player Award (PIHA)" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Renard Widarto" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Nikky Blond" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Audric Ping" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Paul Massara" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Allison Roberts" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Illinois Inline Hockey hall of fame" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Pune District Court" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Mavelikkara Additional District Court" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Tis Hazari Courts Complex" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:District Courts, Chandigarh" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Sunny Vaghela" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Tasso Jeffrey" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:South Asia Tribune" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Eric Hollreiser" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Surgerica" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Beatriz Faura Perez" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Electronic key management" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:2-Isopropyl-5-methyl-1-(2,6-dihydroxy-4-nonylphenyl)cyclohex-1-ene" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Zachary Kovalev" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Vsevolod Vladimirov" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Kempinski Hotel Moika 22" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Vignesh Rajkumar" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Miss Glamourfaces World" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Bertrand Levy" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Shivam Babbar" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Lady Squad" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Sunakhari English Academy Boarding School" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Gaan Friendz" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Daniel Nilsson (model)" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:TrayWitTheMac11" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Prijesh Kannan" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Kevin Figs" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:National Academy of Construction (USA)" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Gerard Groves" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Nexsan" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited] [Error: The subject page for "Talk:Farah Abushwesha" does not exist; this talk page will not be edited]
Making page(s) into redirect(s)... Done.
All other discussions were already closed and hidden, so not sure why the script went to them. It recreated deleted mainspace pages as redirects (to the target in the discussion I closed), redirected pages that had closed as keep, and modified the talk pages for all associated articles if a talk page existed. Let me know if there's any other error reporting I can provide. Reverting back to the old scripts for now. I'd also recommend some kind of safeguard against mass actions when it looks like more than three pages will be affected (e.g., "Are you sure you want to modify 50 pages?) czar 20:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I was wondering why you created/deleted a bunch of pages on my watchlist that had been deleted... Primefac (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Wow, that is "major"... I'm going to take a look now, by reproducing the situation in my sandbox pages. (On the plus side, it looks like the code I put in place for the "Re-creates deleted talk page" bug worked) - Evad37[talk] 00:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, so it looks like its because I didn't account for the {{subst:Afd top}} being place above section headings rather than below. This alters the HTML of the log page in such a way that the page detection part of the script will grab the nominated pages for all the following closed discussions, until the next open discussion. I'll start working on a fix for this, and a warning/confirmation system for when a large number of nominated pages is detected. - Evad37[talk] 00:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Should be fixed now, plus there's now a confirmation box shown if more than three nominated pages were detected. - Evad37[talk] 13:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
AfD talk page tagging
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
{{resolved}}
When setting {{old afd multi}}, I think the script needs to scrape off the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ (example) czar 17:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed this; and default "after"/"options" selections will now appear a close result is selected - Evad37[talk]
Quick closes now available!
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
{{resolved}}
You can now quick-close discussions as "keep" or "delete" (with no further rationale). The way I've got it set up at the moment is:
quickKeep (all):
Close as "keep", remove nomination templates, add old xfd templates to talk pages
quickDelete:
Admins: close as "delete", delete nominated pages & their talk pages & redirects
Non admins, not TFD: close as "delete", tag nominated pages & their talk pages for speedy deletion
Non admins, TFD: close as "delete", tag nominated pages for speedy deletion, add nominated pages to the holding cell as "ready for deletion"
To prevent accidental quick-closes, it's a two-step process (but still quick): an initial click on "quickClose" is required, which then shows the actual one-click links "qK" (quick keep) and "qD" (quick delete), along with an "x" to cancel (i.e. hide the qK and qD links again). - Evad37[talk] 02:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Is "Non admins, not TFD" for AfD and others? I know there's been some talk about letting discussions close this way in some forums (letting non-admins close for deletion & tag for someone to follow up) but as far as I'm aware, it doesn't apply across all deletion discussions, right? If the action should be restricted, best to not give the option to delete unless the user is an admin. I'd instead gray the option out and offer that little question mark tooltip letting users know they don't have the permission to close discussions this way and that they should be left for admins, etc. This said, it wouldn't be a bad idea to link the "non-admin closure" criteria in a reminder in the close dialogue as a safety precaution. czar 04:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
TFD does seem to be the only one that allows non-admin deletes (and the holding section for quick closes should probably be "orphan" rather than "ready for deletion"). Yes, it probably would be best not to give non-admins the option of a delete close at the venues. And the "non-admin closure" link is a good idea. - Evad37[talk] 09:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
TfD allows non-admin deletes because the templates are not deleted straightaway; they need to be orphaned first. No other venue does as far as I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed in latest update - Evad37[talk] 07:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
API error: query result included unexpected page title
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
{{resolved}}
Getting an error at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZK (framework): Error retreiving page information (reload the page to try again) Details: API error: query result included unexpected page title "ZK (framework)" Likely something wrong with the nom formatting, but thought you'd want to handle it anyway. On the daily AfD listing page, the tool hangs on this entry as [XFDcloser loading...]czar 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
The unexpected title error to safeguard against editing an unrelated page. It's probably happening here because there's an underscore used in the nomination, and "ZK (framework)" is not exactly the same string as "ZK_(framework)". Not sure why it hangs on the daily page though. - Evad37[talk] 03:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
@Czar:Fixed - Evad37[talk] 04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Alpha version released
Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
{{resolved}}
Hi all - @Primefac, Plastikspork, Omni Flames, Frietjes, Czar, DeltaQuad, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: (and anyone else who might be watching this page). I've got the bulk of the script done and it's performed okay in user-space tests, so I've now released version 2.0.alpha-1 for testing. I've marked it as alpha software because some major features are missing (not yet coded) – you can't yet relist discussion, nor are there links to quick-close as "keep" or "delete". These are what I'll be working on next, along with bugs reported from alpha testers. Also, the script may not work properly if there are more than 50 pages nominated in a single discussion. To anyone who does decide to test it out: Thank you (and please check your edits/actions carefully). Cheers, Evad37[talk] 07:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
"Close" portlet/tab isn't showing in AfD discussions (also it'd be nice to have those close options in-line with the heading, like the other XfD scripts did). Can't get the in-line close options to show at FfD/TfD either. If it helps, I'm in Monobook. czar 09:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Feature request: Include User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js to hide closed discussions. Might be better as a toggle tag at the bottom of the page, similar to Cat-a-lot on Commons, instead of a portlet. czar 09:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
XFDcloser on an AFD log page It should look like the screenshot on the right (with Vector) – inline links, not a portlet. I've tried changing my skin to monobook and it still loaded for me, so I don't know why it wouldn't be loading for you. Can you see if there are any error messages in your browser's Javascript console? ([1])
Do you mean like "[Keep] [Redirect] [No consensus] [Merge] [Delete] [Custom]" opening up to that view of the input form? I just figured it would make the pages a bit less crowded to have a single "[Close]" link
Should still be there in the actions menu (Vector) or wherever Move is on other skins , like with TFDcloser/FFDcloser/CFDcloser (this might be related to #1). It should be possible for me to make a Cat-a-lot-style toggle tag. - Evad37[talk] 10:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The error is "[XFDcloser] User is not extendedconfirmed"—I imagine it'll be fixed if "sysop" was a test condition too. It's possible that you're right on #2, or at least that some might not want it (optional?), but I'd wager that the vast majority of closes are common closes (keep/delete) so the dialogue isn't necessary for those cases and the ease of access would outweigh the clutter, at least in my estimation. I like the Cat-a-lot tag just because the portlet tends to get lost among all of Twinkle's portlets, though it might be cleaner just to keep the portlet. I think the Cat-a-lot tag is discrete and easy enough to handle (otherwise the feature could even get lost in the interface) czar 18:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@Czar:: I've changed the test to be either extendedconfirmed or sysop, so it should now work for you. I am still planning to have quickKeep and quickDelete links like F/T/C-FDcloser do (per proposed features above), just haven't got around to implementing it in this alpha version. And I think the Cat-a-lot-like tag is a good idea, I just need to get around to actually coding it. - Evad37[talk] 00:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Good stuff. I'd recommend setting the default action for the AfD close's "After closing" (e.g., for "delete" closes, most will want to delete the article page). Same for "Also delete redirects". I'd also like to default "unlink backlinks" by default—that might be more up for debate, but I think it's a reasonable default, as we would want closers to clean up the red links for topics found to be non-notable, especially if automated. As of now, none of the radio buttons and checkboxes are auto-filled. Also the default "unlink backlinks" text is currently just "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example" when it should be "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Example closed as delete". The unlink didn't work for me: The tool correctly listed the backlinks to be removed but when executed, each one error'd as "Didn't find any backlinks on the page." I was able to run "unlink backlinks" from the deleted articles and it worked fine there... Will continue to test. Thanks for your work on this—looks great! czar 05:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
AfD close tag should go above the heading, also creates an extra line break? See this exampleczar 05:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The close tag will now go above the heading, and the whitespace problem should be fixed. And you can now hide/show closed discussions from a tag in the bottom-right of scrren. I can look into providing default options for the radio buttons in the form; will have to investigate the unlink backlinks issue. - Evad37[talk] 06:48, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I've only used this on TFD, but I'm quite pleased so far. I can take or leave the auto-check on "delete", I'm mostly just happy it auto-deletes the talk page! Will let you know if I find any major glitches. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Bug report - Delete with no additional rationale (AR) seems to be the only thing working correctly at TFD. The other methods of closure that I have tried do not put a hard return before the * of the nomination.
I'll hold off playing around for the moment, since one fix might fix everything. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
That bug came in when I had to adjust that part of the code for AFD (which has it's close-top template above heading), should be fixed now. Plus the script should now be compatible with Modern and Cologne Blue skins (if anybody actually likes those skins) - Evad37[talk] 00:40, 9 February 2017 (UTC). ping @Primefac: - Evad37[talk] 02:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Relist functionality now available!
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
{{resolved}}
@Czar and Primefac:Let me know if there are any problems. - Evad37[talk] 02:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Doesn't appear to work at AfD (with or without added comment). Error is: index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:2803 Uncaught TypeError: RegExp.quote is not a function czar 06:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Error at FfD. Tried to update current log (but it isn't it supposed to collapse the contents?) and never relisted on today's log. Text: "Removing from old log page... Done. [Error: Could not edit old FFD log page Details: API error: nosuchsection] Adding to today's log page... Updating link in nominations template(s)... Done." czar 06:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The removal of content instead of collapsing content came from TFD (see User_talk:Evad37/TFDcloser.js#Found_a_glitch), but I can set FFDs to collapse instead of remove. Will have to look into the errors - particularly why there was a "could not edit old FFD log" error when an edit was made (weird) - Evad37[talk] 07:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I made a slight change to the AfD relist code, should hopefully fix that issue. Still have to investigate the FfD error. - Evad37[talk] 08:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: FFD relists should now work. For now the script's still set to remove rather than collapse content, but I'll keep an eye on WT:FFD#Relist_procedure - Evad37[talk] 15:13, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Relist might be broken at TFD. Tried adding a comment to a relist, and it resulted in the number "2" being placed in the comments section. Primefac (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a pest, honestly just not sure if you noticed this, Evad37. Primefac (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I missed this. Sorry, will look into it. - Evad37[talk] 03:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac:Fixed, the problem was that I hadn't accounted for equal signs or pipes (other than those in piped links or templates) in the relist comment - Evad37[talk] 04:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Rmv circular redirects
Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion
{{resolved}}
When an AfD closes as "redirect", it would be helpful to automatically unlink any instances of the discussed article on the new target's page (to avoid circular redirects). This would be the same as automatically running "unlink backlinks" on solely the redirect target's page, though the edit summary would need to be different from the default czar 06:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this is a good idea. I'll take it into consideration while I work on getting 'unlink backlinks' fixed. - Evad37[talk] 07:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: I'm planning to do my own version of the "unlink backlinks" code, instead of trying to manipulate Twinkle into unlinking pages that aren't the current page (which it isn't really designed for). I have some questions regarding how it should work in the context of XfD's:
In what namespaces should backlinks be unlinked? Should it be the Twinkle defaults (mainspace, Template:, Portal:, Draft:) or something else? Should the same namespaces be used for image/file usage?
Can we skip the checkbox list Twinkle generates and just assume all backlinks should be unlinked? Would you ever select only some of the backlinks for unlinking?
Thanks, - Evad37[talk] 09:03, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The only place I could see backlinks being useful would be talk page discussions (especially in archives). While thinks like "we should create a page [[X]]" are less important, templates like {{copied}} or {{split article}} need to have those links in place for attribution purposes. So I would say the Twinkle defaults are a good set to have in place. Primefac (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. Hopefully you can reuse some of Twinkle's code. I'd follow whatever Twinkle's unlinker does, but we're really discussing two cases w.r.t. AfD: (1) when an article is deleted, the only redlinks that need to be deleted are those in mainspaced (& maybe draft?) articles and in navbox templates—I wouldn't touch the other instances, and (2) when an article is redirected, I'd only remove the circular redirects within the new target of the redirect (single page). So in both cases you wouldn't need checkboxes. I'd list the pages that will be affected, and warn the closer that if they'd like to be more selective, they can cancel and use Twinkle's unlinker (though that would rarely, if ever, be necessary). czar 21:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about the unlinker and wanted to add a few thoughts that might be helpful. First, last time I checked, few AfD closers remove the redlinks in their wake (out of laziness, I'd imagine), so any automated unlinking is an improvement. Second, the Twinkle unlinker would often fail—not altogether but in part. For instance, when an article was listed in a navbox, as it often is, the title would show as linked in dozens of articles and all of those removals would fail until the script made its way to the navbox template and removed its link. Perhaps there might be a creative way to handle that in specific? The problem with unlinking navboxes is that it leaves the black text for someone else to remove. It would be better to remove the text altogether if there's some way of detecting the template as a navbox, though that will still leave ugly bullets behind. (Same deal for links in "See also" sections.) Not sure how far out of scope we're getting, but it's an important issue and I'm not sure how to conceptualize the solution. Unlinking is certainly better handled in this script than in having individuals run around behind them. Hopefully there's some way to do at least most of this automatically. czar 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Incidentally, this is the original reason why non-admins were allowed to close TFDs as delete, since it still involved removing all instances of the template (if necessary). The number of templates to delete outright and/or orphan are relatively minor, and they're all listed at the Holding Cell, so at the moment I don't think there is a terrible need to have an automatic "remove all transclusions" as part of this script. Never mind, of course, that this sort of edit could possibly be construed as a BOT edit and would need approval. Primefac (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking specific to AfD, though I can see how it extrapolates out to other uses. (Evad, are there plans to use the unlinker outside of AfD?) The proposed unlinking for AfD would be the exact same mechanism as the one used in Twinkle (user prompt and all)—would that still require bot approval? Even if so, I think it's worth it, but I don't want to stretch the scope uncomfortably far. czar 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, totally misread the original statement (saw the "navbox" bit and blanked the rest). I think plain text in a navbox is better than trying to shoehorn in the complete removal into this script. Primefac (talk) 16:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Twinkle unlinker would often fail – This is because the list is essentially generated by looking at "what links here", but the replacement is done by looking for links in the source wikitext. If all the links are from transcluded templates (no way to see ahead of time that this is the case), then there's no changes to be made for that particular page – which Twinkle shows as an error.
unlinking navboxes – Should be possible to detect navboxes, given that most are based on {{navbox}}. Getting rid of the bullets wouldn't be an issue. There might be some groups with empty lists left behind, but {{navbox}} is smart enough that it doesn't show them.
are there plans to use the unlinker outside of AfD? At this stage, just AfD and FfD. CfD has it's own bot/procedure, TfD uses the holding cell, MfD'd pages are unlikely to be linked from the namespaces to be unlinked. Not sure about RfD, but imagine that there would either be few/no backlinks (e.g. implausible typo, or recently created), or that human decision would be needed to check if the red link should be kept per WP:REDYES.
this sort of edit could possibly be construed as a BOT edit – Twinkle does actually attempt to mark these edits as bot edits – the comment in the code is "unlink considered a floody operation" – but it doesn't seem to work, the software probably only allows bot accounts to mark edits as bot edits.
...and would need approval – Hmmm... possibly.
proposed unlinking for AfD would be the exact same mechanism as the one used in Twinkle (user prompt and all) – From the user point-of-view it would be much the same, but the actual code executing the find and replace would be different – doing multiple pages at once (for discussions with multiple pages nominated), and also removing navbox links (assuming I get that working). Probably best to check. - Evad37[talk] 03:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
So the answer is "If the users of the software will be using it in a high-speed, high-volume manner covered by Wikipedia:Bot_policy#Assisted_editing_guidelines they may need the BRFA's". In a lot of cases there won't be that many backlinks, and this won't be an issue. Where there are a significant number of edits to be done, maybe the script should add a warning referencing WP:ASSISTED, and limit the rate of editing? Which would be more of a warning than what Twinkle gives, without being overly burdensome. How does that sound, @Czar and Primefac? - Evad37[talk] 03:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that's fair. I'd just compare it against whatever Twinkle did. (Did they have a BRFA?) An alternative could be separating big batches into several, and reminding users to check their contribs in-between, perhaps? czar 03:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
BRFAs are only for bot/user accounts that want to use a script, not for the script itself. Twinkle basically takes a "use at your own risk" approach. It allows users to make WP:BOTASSISTed edits (high speed,volume) which should perhaps have a BRFA, without much warning – there'a a general note in the box at the top of WP:TW, and a small "use with caution" note in the unlink tool, and that's it.Using batches, and requiring confirmation before processing the next batch, is also a good idea. That might actually be easier to code. - Evad37[talk] 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Had another thought. Instead of building out this whole unlinker structure, would it be possible to just create a link in the closure script that goes to the deleted page and automatically opens the Twinkle unlinker window on page load? If so, that's the easiest/best interim fix. Only extra coding would be putting a default summary into the unlinker window. czar 06:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Probably not as easy as it sounds... the biggest headache being that javascript that's running in one window/tab can't easily "talk" to a different window/tab. It might be possible, but I don't think its really worth the effort. I think I'm pretty close to having the both regular backing unlinking and removal of circular links figured out. - Evad37[talk] 09:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Done in latest script update – both removing circular links from redirect targets, and unlinking backlinks for AfD/FfD. For unlinking backlinks, I ended up going with an initial warning re WP:ASSISTED and a slight delay between edits, as a confirmation box after n numbers of edits proved trickier than I thought, and is way beyond what Twinkle does, which the community seems to accept. - Evad37[talk] 01:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Nice! There isn't an option to unlink if quickdeleting at AfD—would it be possible to get a link to the unlinker in the green text log that appears? Also it would be nice if I could see which pages were addressed and which were skipped when the log shows "(2 page(s) with no direct backlinks skipped)" but not sure how best to swing that. Thanks for building this in! Much time will be saved czar 03:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I've made unlink backlinks on by default for both the form and for quick-delete, and the skipped pages will be logged to the browser's javascript console (not the "nicest" way of showing the skipped pages, but its probably good enough for now) - Evad37[talk] 04:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Talk pages of redirects
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
{{resolved}}
(See "Frederique Janssen" in Special:Log/Czar) The AfD script correctly deleted the article and its talk page, but when it went to delete redirects (in this case from draftspace), it only deleted the draftspace redirect and not its talk page. It should do both (or else someone would have to clean up) czar 16:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick note that I have seen this and am working on it - Evad37[talk] 07:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Done in latest script update - Evad37[talk] 01:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Script link cut off in edit summary
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
{{resolved}}
[2] Should the script detect when the link back to itself is going to be cut off and instead abbreviate? Might be best to abbreviate the link in general. For instance, Twinkle is just "(TW)" czar 16:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
For the moment I've just made the summary advert shorter. It's actually not so simple to try and work out if the summary will be too long – the available length is shorter if there are non-latin characters present (e.g. in a foreign place name) – see m:Community Tech/Edit summary length for non-Latin languages for more details. But I should be able to work out something for the majority cases which just have standard characters. - Evad37[talk] 02:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Non-standard pages
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Ah, trade-offs. It would be nice if it could detect which sections are AfD headers (via the regular AfD templated text inside) but all in all, I think it's better to have the option with the rough edges than to not, at least during beta. (I recall seeing the script hang to other section headers in other deletion venues—will make a note of it next time.) czar 15:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed, the script no longer offers to close non-transcluded sections on deletion sorting pages. Also removed from level-4 headers in WP:TFD#Completed_discussions and the main WP:CFD page. - Evad37[talk] 06:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Rather minor Holding Cell bug
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I noticed the other day that when a template is added to the "To Merge" section of WP:TFD/H the "None currently" isn't removed (unlike when a page is added to "To Orphan"). Not an earth-shattering bug, but I thought I'd mention it. Primefac (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've adjusted the regex, it should remove it properly next time - Evad37[talk] 03:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
D&R at AfD
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Delete and redirect" is a common outcome at AfD and should probably be included as an option somewhere (w/ no deletion of redirects or unlinking). Might be able to save space by moving the "soft" in soft redirect next to the "speedy" checkbox. (Does the option on the Redirect radio button (delete before redirecting) change the bolded text of the deletion decision? czar 21:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I've now made it so that when 'delete before redirecting' option is selected, the result is changed to "Delete and redirect" (in the interface, in the bolded text of the actual close, and in edit summaries) - Evad37[talk] 03:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Tags removed partially from broken syntax
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Here is a weird case that the closing editor didn't notice. Would it be worth it seeing if the page still has {{Article for deletion/dated}} after the XFDcloser does its thing? That way it could notify of such potential issues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
@Hellknowz: The script expected the template to be between the html comments, but this AWB edit moved the template above the comments. I've updated the regex so it will match even if an edit like that occurs, and I've added a warning if the nomination template is not found by the regex. - Evad37[talk] 03:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks! — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Unlinking at TFD?
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I don't think I've ever bothered unlinking at TFD - links to a template might be proper (or good, or necessary, take your pick). Does the quickdelete really have to automatically offer the unlink function? If it would be a pain to put in the exception just for TFD, I can live with it (it's only one extra click to cancel) but it wasn't there previously... Primefac (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't meant to be offered for TFD... let me check the code... - Evad37[talk] 02:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
On any AfD discussion, if I click on regular close and click the "Delete" radio button before switching to "Redirect" (I was looking for delete+redirect), the Rcats text field will not show the default text. If I close the box and go to regular close the discussion again, the Rcats default text will show if I click on "Redirect" the first time. (Maybe have D&R as an option under both "Delete" and "Redirect" options?) czar 02:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Am looking into this. Having the option under "Delete" also probably makes sense, if I can work out a way to do it that isn't overly complicated. - Evad37[talk] 03:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Done: bug fixed, and there's now an link in the options for "Delete" that will switch over to "Delete and redirect" - Evad37[talk] 02:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh my... entire section lost
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This close resulted in an entire subsection being removed. Very odd - perfect storm of location (bottom of the pile) and circumstances? I would think that it would either close above the lvl-5 header or at the bottom of the page. Primefac (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Almost certainly happened because of the level-5 header in the discussion. I'll have to find a more robust way of separating the heading from the section contents – because of the way the script currently does this, anything after an occurrence of four or more = signs isn't captured as part of the discussion when building up the new section wikitext of (heading)+(close top)+(discussion)+(close bottom). - Evad37[talk] 01:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Should be Fixed now - Evad37[talk] 02:15, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Proposed features
Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
It will be a single script, rather than separate scripts for each XfD venue (easier to maintain / fix bugs / add new features)
Enter result, rationale, options via a form (similar to User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD or Twinkle)
Preview button in the form (for the entered result & rationale)
Therefore, the inline closing links will be something like "[Close discussion] [qK] [qD] [Relist]", with [Close discussion] opening the aforementioned form
Why was I pinged here? I have never used TfdCloser, nor do I plan to. Pppery 02:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I got that from the User talk:Evad37/TFDcloser.js talk page (you left a message a while ago about collapased nominations not relisting properly... but now I see it was Omni Flames who did the relist) - Evad37[talk]
Sweet, sounds good. I've got this on my watch list now. Looking forward to it! Primefac (talk) 02:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlink backlinks ❤️ Add support for closing AFD discussions ❤️❤️ Thanks for your work on this. Looking forward to being your favorite tester. czar 04:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Might want to add a function to file an appropriate edit request if the script performs an edit on a page which is protected. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Another feature idea: When closing AfDs as "redirect", change remove parameters from the WikiProject talk page templates (so they can auto-categorize as "Redirect" or "N/A", as applicable) czar 09:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions, both of you. I'll look into them, but they might not be in the initial release of the script, depending on how complicated it all gets. - Evad37[talk] 12:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Re: that last one, there is a bot that automatically does that now (waits a week after AfD) so not urgent czar 03:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
RfD
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Any chance the script will extend quickdelete/quickkeep and relist to WP:RfD too? czar 18:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
I will be looking at supporting RfD later, but haven't yet given too much consideration. One thing a script won't be able to do is check if a redirect has relevant history, but perhaps just showing a warning/prompt box will be sufficient. - Evad37[talk] 20:58, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Hm. On that last point, do you think it would be worth requesting a bot to pre-process the edit history (such as noting if there is significant edit history by count or bits) and notify within the discussion? I remember there being bots like this for requesting name changes and at AIV. czar 03:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea, if you can find someone willing to code such a bot - Evad37[talk] 03:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Basic support for Rfd, as well as MfD, is now available. Closing the discussion section and relisting can be done by script, but edits/actions to actually implement the close need to be done manually for the moment (still working on providing full support). - Evad37[talk] 03:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Automated implementation of RFD closes is now available - Evad37[talk] 03:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
When the AfD target redirects
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Okay, so this one's a little tricky. Sometimes an article is nominated for AfD while sitting at the wrong location—for instance, Emerging Kerala (Magazine), which should be Emerging Kerala (magazine). So someone moved the page to the correct address without updating the AfD, which sits at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerging Kerala (Magazine). XFDC closed the discussion properly but only deleted the redirect—it did not follow the redirect to the new page location and delete that as well (had to be done manually). I imagine this might be tricky, but the closer should at least be notified if it can't be handled in the script. (Also I'm not sure if the script sometimes follows the redirect correctly—I remember it doing it in the past but I could be wrong.) czar 17:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Not following the redirect is actually by-design because of User_talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#Script_gone_wild.3F - the script can't know if an article had been redirected out-of-process rather than as a result of a page move. But I can look at adding a warning when a nominated page is a redirect. - Evad37[talk] 23:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
What about a prompt with the redirect's target asking for confirmation to delete? If I recall correctly, this was how the old script did it, and I never had an issue. (The "script gone wild" issue is an edge case.) czar 00:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Should be possible to do something like this – will look into it later, at the moment I'm kind of focused on getting MfD and RfD to work. - Evad37[talk] 04:43, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Done – if there are redirects, the script now shows a prompt box with the redirects and their targets before taking any actions, and asks whether to use the redirect targets instead. - Evad37[talk] 08:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
RfD relisting
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
I hope this doesn't seem like quibbling, but relisting an RfD with this script leaves more behind at the old page than usual. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 8#Martin Pagel for a standard RfD relist, and the two sections below it for what the script produces. It's not that the second version is worse, necessarily, but would it be practical to change it? --BDD (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see now that I misread what was written at WT:RFD#New_closure_script... it probably only makes sense to leave those links behind when multiple redirects are listed. - Evad37[talk] 02:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, will now only leave the nominations / pagelinks behind if there's multiple redirects - Evad37[talk] 02:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, following the purpose of this discussion, I think the relister applet should remove the list of redirects even when relisting a nomination with many of them...! Deryck C. 10:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
If it's just the WP:Template limits that are the concern, wouldn't putting the list inside <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags make more sense? - Evad37[talk] 21:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Changed the script to do this - Evad37[talk] 00:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Adding to today's log page... Done.
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Would it be possible to link to today's log page when processing "Adding to today's log page... Done." (example from FfD), but in general would help to link similar statements when the closer doesn't have today's log handy but wants to check the results. czar 23:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Looking into this now. Besides log pages, I assume warning/error messages regarding specific pages should have those pages linked. Anything else you can think of? - Evad37[talk] 03:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Nope, mainly the log pages (as a courtesy). Thanks! czar 03:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
I imagine it might be tricky to regex, but shouldn't [3] remove the rest of the text alongside the images too? czar 05:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: The intent is to comment out file usage between <-- and -->, like the Twinkle tool does. What's happened here is that first the entire usage is commented out, and then (within the caption) the template parameter is commented out, which doesn't work properly because <----> comments can't be nested. However, then there's a second bug: [[File:MirandaCheyenne.jpg|right|thumb|Miranda with former "boyfriend" [[Cheyenne Jackson]], which would have already been commented out by the file usage regex, was then matched by the piped link regex, and so the [[, the pagename followed by |, and the ]] were removed. I'm not sure why this second bug only happened with the second file and not the first. I should be able to fix both these bugs by making each regex check that the usage is not already within a comment... or another solution would be to just completely remove file usages (including captions), rather then commenting them out, if you think that would be better? - Evad37[talk] 23:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
If there's no restriction against it, I'd sooner remove the whole file contents than comment it out. The latter sounds more appropriate when automated by a bot, such as when files are orphaned, but this is removing instances deleted via a deletion process, so I don't see why the file comment would need to stick around. czar 00:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Done, file usages will now be removed - Evad37[talk] 02:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
And the TFD exodus continues
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Frietjes found a new bug when closing TFDs, mostly brought out by (what I feel were) really stupid changes to the TFD templates. Primefac (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac:Fixed the regex, it will now match the whole template even if the {{#invoke:...}} isn't right at the end of the template. - Evad37[talk] 23:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Full MfD support
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Automated implementation of MfD closes is now available! Including adding {{old mfd}} to talk pages (non-delete closes), removing nomination templates (keep / no consensus closes), redirecting with option to add rcats (redirect closes), adding {{mfd-mergefrom}} / {{mfd-mergefrom}} (merge closes), and deleting nominated pages / talk pages / redirects (delete closes). Evad37[talk] 10:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Option to not end sentence after result
Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
This is obviously low priority, but I think it'd be nice to have an option to not end a sentence after the result. If checked, the period that's automatically inserted after the result and before the additional rationale won't be inserted. To give an example, sometimes I'll close an RfD with "delete without prejudice against recreation if [a certain condition is met]" and I can recall a couple other times where the additional rationale sounds awkward as a new sentence. Thanks again for all your hard work putting this incredible tool together! --Tavix(talk) 15:48, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The tool is still leaving too much behind when relisting at RfD. It seems the problem only occurs when there's multiple redirects nominated. --Tavix(talk) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
...is this actually a problem? Leaving the details of all the nominated redirects in a multiple redirect discussion is less confusing (e.g. for anyone coming to the listing from the template on one of those nominated redirects), and there is no impact with regards to the WP:Template limits on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion because the stuff left behind is within <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags (which is what I proposed at User_talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js/Archive_1#RfD_relisting) - Evad37[talk] 02:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Fundamentally, a relist is simply moving a discussion to a different log page, so the only thing that needs to be left behind is the message explaining where the discussion is moved (more on that point, I don't like the "close discussion as relist" edit summary since a relisted discussion really isn't being closed). I guess I just feel that it's unnecessary, and when there's nominations with hundreds of redirects (here's an open example), do we really want that whole list left behind? --Tavix(talk) 13:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I fixed the edit summary so it's described as relisting, not closing. With regards to pagelinks being left behind, I've opened a discussion at WT:RFD § Relisting multiple-redirect discussions - Evad37[talk] 03:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
That's a good way to do it. Many thanks for all you do, Evad37. This really is an incredible tool. --Tavix(talk) 18:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Per that discussion, now only non-visible anchors will be left behind - Evad37[talk] 01:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
if the template has been removed...
Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there. I like your XFDCloser script, been using it instead of closeAFD.js now and it's quite good. One thing though: When you close an AFD as speedy delete, it should give you an option to overwrite the default deletion reason, otherwise it will fill in the AfD's link, which is not really helpful to users (cf. [4]). Could you maybe change that? Regards SoWhy 20:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think it's better as currently implemented, which directs readers to the full discussion. Sounds like the issue is more that the article went to AfD rather than speedy, but we'd still want the discussion to be linked in that case, no matter how small czar 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I would tend to agree with Czar that if there has been an AFD discussion it should probably be linked, in most cases. But note that you can first speedy delete the page, perhaps using another tool like Twinkle, and then close the discussion using XFDcloser (which will then just give you a little notice saying the page has already been deleted, instead of performing the deletion). - Evad37[talk] 03:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thirded? The fact that it went to AFD is important, in my mind. I suppose we could get something to codify this, but if anything I think this is correcting a long-standing IAR with regard to closing AFD. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I'll try to remember to speedy delete first and then close the AfD. Regards SoWhy 13:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
FFD multis
Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
(1) I think File talk:Sjaa-cadet-prof-badge-animals.png should have had the rationale displayed in bold, right? And (2) sometimes large FFD noms (20+ items) will result in keeping a few and deleting the rest. This is easier to process when those few are imported to Commons and we can batch the lot on enwp, but when those few stay local, it means someone needs to delete the rest manually. If possible, this could be resolved by checkboxes on which items in the discussion to process (or which to delete and which to keep). Perhaps for the wishlist? czar 18:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, one for the wishlist. I would have to redo the way the nominated pages are handled in various parts of the script. Not sure why the rationale wasn't bolded, will have to investigate. - Evad37[talk] 03:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the bolding issue – turns out that the oldffdfull template requires bold markup to be specified in |result= - Evad37[talk] 02:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be better to just make the template match the others? czar 04:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Might be more trouble than its worth given that the existing usages of the template would have to be checked... plus the others aren't consistent anyway - MfD and RfD versions also require bold markup in the parameter. - Evad37[talk] 04:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I suppose the default to non-bold also gives editors more options for non-bolded text instead of needing to hack their way around it. Appreciate the fix! czar 05:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I've closed a TFD a couple times as "redirect" now, and once got the talk page edit reverted because it "broke" the redirect. I remembered that a few minutes ago when I closed another template as redirect, meaning my subsequent edit was to put the {{oldtfdfull}} under the #REDIRECT. Would it be possible to amend the "redirect" close to put the XFD notice below the #redir? Primefac (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Should be possible, I'll look into coding it - Evad37[talk] 03:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Done - for redirects, the template is now added at the end (on a new line) instead of at the top - Evad37[talk] 03:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
retarget issue for RfD
Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
The following nominated pages are redirects:
[The list of redirects go here]
Okay to use redirect targets instead of nominated pages?
I hit okay and nothing happened. I'm pretty sure it's because the redirects aren't tagged with {{rfd}}. Usually I'd go in and add the tag and relist, but when we're dealing with so many redirects, it's more trouble than it's worth. Do you think a work-around could be coded or should I just go ahead and retarget them all without the tool? --Tavix(talk) 00:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: That prompt isn't meant for RfD - it was designed for redirects are among nominated pages at other venues, per User_talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js/Archive_1#When_the_AfD_target_redirects. I'll need to fix this (and perhaps use clearer wording for the prompt) but for the moment you should be able to close properly by pushing the Cancel button on that second prompt. It probably never came up before because usually the pages nominated at RfD aren't technically redirects while the {{rfd}} template is present. - Evad37[talk] 01:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was able to get it to work by hitting cancel. I figured cancel would abort it completely and didn't even think to try that. A clearer wording should help, but then again it's a rare enough situation as it is and I'll surely remember what to do if I come across it in the future. Thanks again for your help, --Tavix(talk) 02:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed now - shouldn't come up at RfD again, and for the others I've clarified the wording and added an option to abort closing - Evad37[talk] 03:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Links in RfD closure edit summaries
Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
Please could the edit summary for RfD closures be amended to link the title of the discussion to the relevant section of the page. e.g. for [5] change: "Closing discussion "Kiar" as disambiguate (XFDcloser)" → "Closing discussion "[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20#Kiar|Kiar]]" as disambiguate (XFDcloser)". If this would cause length issues we can discuss how to avoid it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Can cut out seven chars by using WP instead of Wikipedia. As a note, I added <nowiki>...</nowiki> tags to actually see the text. Primefac (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, what I'm after is a link to the relevant section directly from the edit summary. The method is not really important. Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Length is definitely an issue that needs to be considered, otherwise there'll be more issues like User_talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js/Archive_1#Script_link_cut_off_in_edit_summary. The formulation Closing discussion "[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 April 20#|]]" as disambiguate ([[WP:XFDC|XFDcloser]]) is already at 119 characters. The discussion title needs to be in there twice (to make it a piped section link), leaving a maximum of 68 characters – and that's without allowing for longer month names, or that a single non-latin letter can take up two or three characters, or that the result may be longer. - Evad37[talk] 03:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
The first think I can think of is to create redirects to the daily log pages on the form of WP:RFD/yyyymmdd e.g. [[WP:RFD/20170502#Section]], which adds only 20 characters (including brackets and #) plus the section title. Getting these created by the bot which creates the log pages would probably be trivial. I'll leave a note about this at WT:RFD as others may have alternative ideas. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I know redirects are cheap, but creating 365 redirects per year seems a bit excessive. I'm not necessarily opposed, just thinking out loud. Primefac (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a lot but I think they'd be beneficial. Obviously if there is an alternative way I'd perfer that but even after several hours more thinking I haven't come up with one. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
More like 1460 redirects, as CFD, FFD, and TFD also have discussions on daily log pages. But I've just had a thought of how to do it without redirects - if the section editing edit summary syntax is used (/* Section */ rest of summary), then its only 7 extra characters which can even be made up from changing the format to e.g. /* Kiar */ Closed as disambiguate ([[WP:XFDC|XFDcloser]]) which would render as (→Kiar: Closed as disambiguate (XFDcloser)) - Evad37[talk] 02:44, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
That's a much better idea than mine. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
When you are relisting an AfD nomination, please remember to comment out or remove the nomination from the original log per WP:RELIST. I've been fixing this for at least two days now. --Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
@Kurykh and Evad37: I've been using User:Evad37/XFDcloser for a long time now and it used to do it automatically. I don't know what the problem is. J947 00:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is... nor why only a few AfDs would be affected (Rapper Maddy, Like Me (musical), The Class of '58 is what I could find). The vast majority of relists have had no such problems, including all of J947's most recent relists. I've added a warning message if for some reason the regex doesn't find the transclusion on the old log page, but I doubt that's actually the problem, since The Class of '58 had no problem relisting the first time [6]. - Evad37[talk] 03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
When you are relisting an AfD nomination, please remember to remove the nomination from the original log per WP:RELIST.All the AFD-s you relisted today suffer from the same error.Cheers! Winged Blades Godric 16:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by J947 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
adding the poster and the author, plus quotes. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Once again most relists are okay[7], its only odd ones [8][9], which don't seem to have anything in common, where there was a problem. Maybe its something to do with the speed you are relisting at... Are you seeing any error/warning messages? Or is the "Removing from old log page" message ever not marked as "Done"? If not, I'll have to try to figure out why MediaWiki is reporting that failed edits have been successful. - Evad37[talk] 03:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
AfD log date
Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Evad37: XFDcloser is a nice tool, and smooth in operation, so thanks for creating it. I was wondering if it's possible to have the script update the AfD log date when relisting discussions. I had to update the log date manually after I used the script to relist an AfD discussion (diff). North America1000 02:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't be too hard, I'll look into coding it - Evad37[talk] 02:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
It works! I just so happen to be going through an AfD log page right now. Here's the diff of the success: [10]. Thanks very much for your work! North America1000 01:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Empty rcat shell added when retargeting redirects
Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
See this RfD I just closed for reference. When closed as retarget, XFDC adds {{Rcat shell}} to the redirect even when there's no Rcats being added to the redirects. Since Category:Miscellaneous redirects pretty much only has the redirects listed in that discussion, I'm almost positive that's a mistake and needs to be fixed to only add the Rcat shell when Rcats are being added. Thanks, --Tavix(talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
An empty Rcat shell will place redirects into Miscellaneous redirects, which is a maintenance category for when a redirect has not otherwise been categorised (or when some Rcats are specified but more might be needed) – see Template:Redirect_category_shell#When_used_alone. According to the documentation and the category description, editors who monitor the category will then help categorise those redirects. Since redirects should generally be categorised (per WP:RCAT guideline), this seems like the desirable outcome for the majority of cases where no Rcat was specified in the XFDcloser form. - Evad37[talk] 00:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Alright, then can there be an option to not leave an empty Rcat shell? I don't want to have to manually remove the shell when there's not an appropriate Rcat. --Tavix(talk) 01:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Tavix: Done, there's now an option "Do not add rcats" - Evad37[talk] 02:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The old AfD closer added some "needs redirect categorization" template. I'm not convinced that every redirect needs an Rcat, but if that's the guideline, then shouldn't the template add something akin to the previous script's template when no Rcat is specified? czar 05:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
The guideline isn't actually "every", but rather "most"/"whenever possible". So having the Rcat shell (or some sort of "needs redirect categorization" template) added by default, with an option not to add it, seems appropriate. - Evad37[talk] 02:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
afd merge-to tag undated
Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion
Hi there. When closing an AfD as "merge", the script will place {{Afd-merge to}} on the page in question [11] but without a date= parameter (which means AnomieBOT has to add it). Could you fix this? Regards SoWhy 11:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems a bit redundant to store the date in both the third unnamed parameter as well as a date= parameter – maybe the template can be improved so the bot doesn't have to do such edits? - Evad37[talk] 05:28, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I completely agree Evad. I've looked into the dating rules but I'm not seeing why a properly formatted merge-with-third-param would end up being dated. @Anomie: is this because the third parameter isn't specifically given as |3=? Primefac (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The rule for "{{afd-merge to}} keep |3=" tells AnomieBOT that it shouldn't remove |3= when adding |date=. The default behavior is to remove it (e.g. to change {{cn|7 June 2017}} to {{cn|date=June 2017}}) because most maintenance tags don't take a date as an unnamed parameter.
Ah, that makes sense. I've updated the template so that |3= is passed to the ambox date parameter if no |date= is explicitly defined. This should mean that the only time the bot will need to add a date parameter is if no date at all is given. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Does the date= parameter work if the date is given as "8 June 2017" and not "June 2017"? Regards SoWhy 14:34, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Crap, that's a good point. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Think I've fixed that bug, API is slow as molasses so testing is in the works. Primefac (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, yeah, it's set up so that the date is (properly) filled in with "Month Year" if |3= is filled. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Since Mr.Z-man has been gone for a while: when closing as "redirect" (and presumably "delete and redirect", which isn't available to me as a non-admin) for a page that's already a redirect, the script will apply the effect of the close to the redirect target - see this for example. I think it's because when the script was written, the URL you'd get when visiting a redirect was the title of the redirect, whereas now it's the title of the target article. I don't know Javascript, so I'm not sure why this is and how to fix it; could someone see what can be done? My thought is to check if the article on which the script is about to carry out the task is the same as the one it's meant to be for, but I'm not sure how delete-and-redirect would work after that. ansh666 04:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ansh666: You should try my new(-ish) script XFDcloser – as well as working at all XfD venues, it will let the user decide whether to apply actions to the redirect target or the redirect itself, if the nominated article is found to be a redirect. This sort of decision can't really be automated, because a script can't tell why an AFD-d article was redirected. It could be a page move e.g. to follow a naming convention, like "Foo (Bar)"→"Foo (bar)", or it could be an out-of-process redirection before the AFD was closed e.g. "Foo (bar)"→"List of bars". In the first case, actions like redirecting or deleting should be applied to the target article; but in the second case, they should be applied to the redirect, not the target. - Evad37[talk] 05:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try it out and see how it goes. I know that many admins still use Mr.Z-man's script though (which has other bugs as well), so hopefully it can be fixed eventually. ansh666 05:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
...
@Evad37: - I just had the opportunity to try your script for a procedural close, but it didn't seem to give me the choice of where to apply the actions - there was an option for whether to carry out the tasks or not (which I chose) and then when it detected the page was a redirect it offered me a choice of either proceeding or cancelling the entire process. I proceeded and it added the old-afd-multi to the target page. Never mind, looked through the code and I guess I read the prompt wrong - not proceeding will offer a choice between using the redirect or cancelling altogether. Thanks! ansh666 23:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I should really get around to coding a single confirmation prompt with three buttons - Evad37[talk] 02:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Done, there is now a single, three-button prompt with buttons "Cancel", "Use redirects", and "Use targets" - Evad37[talk] 03:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Just had another problem though - I'd closed an AfD for a page that had been moved to draft space, but the script refused to remove the {{afd}} template on the draft page. I don't think that there's any valid reason to not carry out that step depending on the namespace; if there's an AfD tag, it should be removed when the discussion is closed, no matter where it is. ansh666 19:23, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but the namespace checks of some sort are still important – they are intended to be quick 'sanity checks' to prevent obviously bad edits/deletions which would have to be undone – e.g. for a FfD, there shouldn't be any reason to delete a mainspace article. Perhaps I can make them warnings instead of errors, with options to cancel or continue. - Evad37[talk] 00:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Ansh666: Done, when namespaces are not as expected, the script gives a warning at the beginning of the process, with the option to cancel or continue. - Evad37[talk] 03:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! ansh666 05:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Section heading bug
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
What happened is that for some reason, the API query that was retrieving various page properties failed to retrieve the latest revision wikitext. I'm not really sure why this would happen... repeating the same query manually [13] returns the expected results - Evad37[talk] 02:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 04:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you (and please check your edits/actions carefully). Cheers, Evad37 [talk] 07:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
.png)
Done in latest script update – both removing circular links from redirect targets, and unlinking backlinks for AfD/FfD. For unlinking backlinks, I ended up going with an initial warning re WP:ASSISTED and a slight delay between edits, as a confirmation box after n numbers of edits proved trickier than I thought, and is way beyond what Twinkle does, which the community seems to accept. - Evad37 [talk] 01:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Done: bug fixed, and there's now an link in the options for "Delete" that will switch over to "Delete and redirect" - Evad37 [talk] 02:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Moved from User talk:Evad37 § XFDcloser
Resolved
Copied from WP:VPT