Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

[UX] AfD relist 7 day warning

{{resolved}}

I just came back to AfD after some time away and ran into this warning while closing a few unnecessarily relisted AfDs (still a problem, ugh). I honestly don't think that the popup is a good idea, since there's no need to wait the full 7 days. Having this warning reinforces that misconception and interrupts the workflow for literally no gain. ansh666 08:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Ansh666, When closing AfD's that have had Thier pages deleted via speedy and admin forgot to close the AfD, Its also an issue. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 13:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Ansh666:  Fixed, the popup warning will now only show if it's been less than 7 days since the initial listing - Evad37 [talk] 01:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

CfD Relisting - discussions should be closed as relisted

{{resbox}}

Hi. WP:RELIST says that When relisting a discussion, it should be removed from the log for its original date (this does not apply at Categories for discussion) and moved to the current date's log where the discussion will continue. However, currently relisting CfDs does result in removing it from the log. As BU Rob13 nicely explained to me (User talk:DannyS712#Relisting CfDs), When you relist a CfD, the appropriate way to do so is to leave the original discussion where it was, closing it as normal with "relisted at X" as the rationale, with X being a link to the new discussion. You can then copy over the discussion to the new location with {{relist}}. Your script is way to complex for me to even try to find where this is coded, but I ~think~ line 353 (relistReplace: " full|day=__DAY__|month=__MONTH__|year=__YEAR__",) might have something to do with it. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this may need to be sorted out at WT:CFD, since that contradicts the instructions at Template:Cfd relisted. All that the CFD admin instructions says for relisting is "See Template:Cfd relisted". - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

[UX] Default TFD options

{{resolved}}

Hi Evad. Sorry to not use the subpage setup for this, but I figured it was a really simple request, and maybe a higher priority one. I made a major fuck up tonight by not listing some TfD nominations for holding cell. @JJMC89: was nice enough to clean up my mess. I feel like especially for admins who are unfamiliar like me, that should be the default option. Is this something you could action on? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: (talk page stalker) if you're talking about the templates I removed in this edit, I just removed all the transclusions. --DannyS712 (talk) 08:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I forced deleted a whole bunch on a TFD nom page instead of listing them there. JJMC also removed a fair amount of transclusions for me. I just don't want a fuck up this big to be possible again. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Will take a look, but the way I've done the interface is somewhat complicated (and one of the parts of the script I'm intending to substantially rewrite, eventually). - Evad37 [talk] 09:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Evad37 § TfD closer

 – - Evad37 [talk] 16:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad:  Done - Evad37 [talk] 16:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Multiple nomination templates

{{Resolved}}

TFD relisting error

Seems there has been a recent trend of nominators placing multiple TFD templates on templates to merge, meaning that one template is subject to multiple individual discussions. In effect, when I attempted to relist one of multiple discussions using XFDcloser, this error happened: Rather than just updating the template of the page I relisted, XFDcloser updated both templates on that page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I'm still thinking about how to deal with this. I guess the script could simply bail out of editing the page (and report an error) if it encounters more than one nomination template. - Evad37 [talk] 00:42, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

That may work. Steel1943 (talk) 05:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943, Pppery, and E to the Pi times i:  Done - when multiple nomination templates are found the script will report an error instead of editing the page. - Evad37 [talk] 05:24, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Error with multiple TfDs for same template

Duplicate : This is basically the same problem as § TFD relisting error, but with a close instead of a relist. - Evad37 [talk] 23:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/883377227. XFDCloser removed all three TFD tags when only one was closed. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Interesting behavior when faced with multiple TfD links

Duplicate : @E to the Pi times i: This is § TFD relisting error - Evad37 [talk] 03:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if this is a bug, but it does seem like interesting behavior to me: User talk:Gonnym#Where did TfD linking go wrong? e^πi (talk | contribs) 01:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Marking backlink list removals as minor

{{Resolved}}

I am concerned backlink removals from lists that remove content are being marked as WP:MINOR. If it was a straight unlink leaving content then absolutely fine. The example I came across was this [1] with this summary, marked as WP:MINOR, Removing link(s): .... which removed the complete line: Kst - a plotting and data viewing program ... which is more than a wikilink and does not qualify to be marked as minor per WP:MINOR. There is some question of WP:LISTCRITERIA on the list and perhaps if that demanded an article removal would be fine. But I would have generally thought for this example having an item (for many years backed by an article) removed was inappropriate; especially under a minor edit with the description given. Can I make the following suggestions for consideration where edits a made to remove items from list:

• The edit is not marked as minor as my view it is not or may be not within the scope of WP:MINOR and the failure mode for this should presume non-minor if in any doubt.
• The description should indicate removal from a list rather than simply removal from a link'
• Removal of an underlying article can increase the need the need for a citation. So an option to mark with Template:Cn might be reasonable. However any references will have just helpfully gone with article. In practice this may be way way too hard and messy to implement.
• Does special warning of caution need to be given when removing items from lists, perhaps especially when descriptions are present? (There is almost an indication of caution already but is it strong enough to avoid problems?).

Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Djm-leighpark. Unlinking should be marked as minor, but actually removing the list item should not (and should have a more specific edit comment). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Djm-leighpark and RoySmith:  Done. Edits with list item removals will not be marked as minor, and item removal(s) will be noted in the edit summary. I've also redone the dialog – see WP:XFDC#Unlinking backlinks – to provide more guidance to closers and allow the option of requesting a citation (adding {{citation needed}}) when keeping an item. - Evad37 [talk] 03:58, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Thankyou. As far as I can tell it looks a very neat piece of work and I can only hope the users of the tool find it so (That's pretty well the highest compliment anyone will ever get from me!). Slightly off topic I also note the work on Discussion age detection (and I do go into orbit on early relists) so I really appreciate that also. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Extra space after result

{{Resolved}}

The script seems to be erroneously adding a space after the bolded verdict, just before the period (.). See any recently closed xfd for example such as Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Mass-created_portals_based_on_a_single_navbox or Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Sex work. SD0001 (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This only seems to be happening at MfD, which is interesting... - Evad37 [talk] 04:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001:  Fixed. Turns out {{subst:mfd top}} inserts a space which I hadn't accounted for. - Evad37 [talk] 04:51, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Unused fair-use images

{{Resbox}}

Should XFDcloser be changed so that it deletes unused fair-use files and removes fair-use rationales of deleted articles? Really alleviates the stress of CAT:ORFU being bloated. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@FoxyGrampa75: I might be able to create a separate script for that... --DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

If you want me to, rather than asking Evad37 to incorporate it, I want to clarify. Looking an a file, you want to

• Select "delete as unused fair-use file"

and the script to do

• Delete the file with a pre filled summary
• Refresh the page to show that it has been deleted

Something like that, right? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

What is being asked for is this: when XfDcloser is used to delete an article, the non-free images on that article that aren't used anywhere else (which are hence eligible for deletion, per WP:CSD F5) should be deleted. @FoxyGrampa75: Are you sure this in line with policy? F5 says immediate deletion should occur (as opposed to waiting for 7 days) only "if the image's only use was on a deleted article and it is very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article." How's the script gonna make out whether the image is likely to be usable on another article? SD0001 (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a bot that notifies uploaders and tags unused FU files? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and that bot is B-bot. * Pppery * _{has returned} 11:15, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Like SD0001, I don't see how the "very unlikely to have any use on any other valid article" requirement can be assessed by script – better to let the bot tag the files for 7 days and notify uploaders. Plus from a random sampling I did of about 30 files from Category:All orphaned non-free use Wikipedia files, only one was orphaned as a result of an AfD (which was actually closed as merge), so it doesn't seem that a substantial difference would be made to CAT:ORFU anyway. - Evad37 [talk] 01:13, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove relisted category from AfDs

{{Resolved}}

Hi. I noticed this bot task removes closed AfDs from Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times and Category:Relisted AfD debates. Currently, the script removes Category:Relisted AfD debates (line 3820) but it doesn't remove Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times. It should be a pretty easy change to also remove the other category. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:  Done - Evad37 [talk] 05:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 05:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Watch link?

 New proposal

Something that would be really nice is if XFDcloser added a link to watch the new page for those kinds of XFD which do not live on their own page (which IIRC is AFD/MFD). --Izno (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@Izno: Would you want to watch the new page every time, or most times? Because I could set it to watch the new logpages for you automatically (would be optional, based on adding a line to your common.js). Or the script could have a checkbox for watching the new logpage on the relist dialog (unchecked would default to whatever you have set in Special:Preference § Watchlist). - Evad37 [talk] 01:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Oof, definitely sure I did not make my intent clear :^). I meant in the edit history. This change for example, would have been enhanced (for me) if I could have watched the new page directly from the edit summary (or, rather, the edit summary as displayed on my watchlist). --Izno (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm thinking this is beyond the scope of XFDcloser itself, and would be better off as a separate script that adds watch/unwatch toggles to links in edit summaries - Evad37 [talk] 23:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Holding cell suggestion

 New proposal

Moved from User talk:Evad37 § Thank you!

So I actually do have a suggestion/request. One thing that would be great is to be able to use this in the Holding cell. What I mean by that is that when a template that is currently listed in one of the holding sections is ready to be deleted, it would be great to be able to just click a button and have the entry moved to the bottom and to have the template in question updated as ready for deletion. Food for thought... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Does that make any sense? Not sure if I did a great job explaining it... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, something like this should be possible. I'll move this thread to WT:XFDC so this suggestion doesn't get lost in my talk page archives. - Evad37 [talk] 02:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thinking about this further, it's probably better off as a separate script – I don't think being part of XFDcloser would save a significant amount of code - Evad37 [talk] 01:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests § TFD holding cell: button to mark template as ready for deletion

MfD relists

{{resolved}}

@Evad37: Great tool, really helps speed up the process of closing XfDs, thanks. I noticed that the tool doesn't seem to complete relists of MfDs. It adds the relisting template to the bottom of the page, but it doesn't move the MfD from the original log to today's log. That step needs to be done manually. Any idea why that might be happening? ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 22:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Scottywong: There's a bot that completes the process, see WP:MFDAI - Evad37 [talk] 23:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. That makes sense, thanks. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 23:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Relist aborted?

{{resolved}}

When I try to relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Boyd Roberts, I get:

Gary Boyd RobertsAborted relist: discussion has been relisted already
Preparing to relist: Aborted.Note: transcluded on additional log page: 2019 July 24Note: transcluded on additional log page: 2019 August 2

Updating discussion: Aborted.

Removing from old log page: Aborted.

Adding to today's log page: Aborted.

-- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) RoySmith, Not sure if you're aware but the AFD had already been relisted today which is probably why it wouldn't relist for you again :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, duh. I'm an idiot. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better I've once or twice made the same mistake, Happens to everyone lol. –Davey2010^Talk 20:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Script is now hiding closed discussions on WP:RFD ... please disable or make an option

{{resolved}}

Sometime during the past few days, I've noticed that this script has, at least on my device, started completely hiding closed discussions/sections on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion and its subpages. I find this troublesome, especially since no only is the hidden section still present in the table of contents on the subpages, but also, this prevents me from being able to look at and/or review the closed discussion, except using the "edit" function to see the "wiki" code instead of viewing the live page. Steel1943 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: This ins't a new feature. There should be a toggle in the bottom right corner of your browser window when you are on one of those pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Yep, sure enough, there it is. I wonder if I ever clicked it by accident... Steel1943 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Stopped working?

{{resolved}}

Did something change today? The script was working for me earlier, but now it seems to have stopped. Another admin complained of the same issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#XfD closer has disappeared. --RL0919 (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Just confirming the same issue for me, VPT has more specific thoughts Nosebagbear (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears that mediawiki.RegExp has been deprecated, and therefore this script (and any others that use it) will most likely not work properly anymore. More details at phab:T218339. Sure would be nice if they gave people some notice about massive changes like these... ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 21:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Amorymeltzer took the initiative and fixed this one. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

You can "close" sections of WP:CFD/S#Speedy criteria

{{resolved}}

They aren't discussions, so they probably shouldn't have links allowing one to "close" them. Invalid^OS (talk) 17:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

 Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 23:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:VPT#XFDcloser gadget?

{{resolved}}

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:VPT#XFDcloser gadget?. - Evad37 [talk] 04:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

3.13.6 request

{{resolved}}

@Evad37: in addition to whatever else you do in the next version, can you please consider the following replacement?

/* globals console, window, $, mw, importScript, importStylesheet, OO, extraJs,  Morebits */

should be changed to

/* globals console, window, $, mw, importScript, importStylesheet, OO, extraJs, Morebits */

(i.e. remove the double space before 'Morebits') - double spaces aren't collapsed when viewing Javascript. Thanks for considering it, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, will do with the next update - Evad37 [talk] 05:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Some observations

{{resolved}}

I looked over some of XFDcloser's code. Some notes:

• line 8: /* jshint esversion: 5, laxbreak: true, undef: true */

Add maxerr: 999 (or some other large number) so that CodeEditor's built-in linter doesn't time out and uselessly/incorrectly say "Warning: Too many errors. (x% scanned)."

Done - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 15: /* ========== Polyfills to support IE11 and Edge<14 ============================================= */

Isn't this better off in extra.js?

Moved - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 18: Array.prototype.includes = function(searchElement /*, fromIndex*/) {

Since IE11 and Edge12+ support Array.prototype.indexOf, you could implement this in one line as return this.indexOf(searchElement) !== -1;

Done (in extra.js) - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 76: 'oojs-ui-core', 'oojs-ui-widgets', 'oojs-ui-windows', 'jquery.ui.dialog'

jquery.ui.dialog has been merged into jquery.ui. It is now a deprecated alias. Please change this jquery.ui. This would generate 1 less deprecation warning. See phab:T219604#5374960 and https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/core/+/543736/

Done - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 109, 117, 123: console.log(' ... ');

Isn't this unnecessary console littering?

Yep, change to comment - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 131: config.mw.monthNames = config.mw.wgMonthNames.slice(1);

mw.config.get('wgMonthNames') will be removed in a future version of mediawiki. See phab:T219340.

Changed to hard-coded month names - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 186: '<a href="' + path + mw.util.wikiUrlencode('$1') + '" target="_blank">$2</a>'

Use mw.util.getUrl() to generate links. This is shorter to write, and also removes the need to use the path variable or wikiUrlencode.

Done - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 208: var makeErrorMsg = function(code, jqxhr) {

duplicate of extra.js#extraJs.makeErrorMsg

Removed; using extraJs version now - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 576: return $.map(response.query.pages, function(page) { return page; });

return Object.keys(response.query.pages); ?

No, I want the values as an array, no the keys - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 596–599: if ( !pattern.test(sigTimestamp) ) { return NaN; } var parts = pattern.exec(sigTimestamp);

var parts = pattern.exec(sigTimestamp); if ( parts === null ) { return NaN; } achieves the same thing without doing the doublework of both test and exec.

Done - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 892: Discussion.prototype.openDialog = function(relisting) {

UI bug: when one instance of XFDcloser is open, if the user clicks on the close/relist button of another discussion on the page, then everything breaks. To rectify this, this function should include some code to not open the dialog if $("#xfdc-dialog") is already there on the dom. Or another probable way to handle this would be to hide all other close/relist buttons on the page after the window has been opened, to be unhidden when the window is closed.

Fixed, will no longer open a second dialog if another one is open - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• line 1236: $('a.ui-dialog-titlebar-close.ui-corner-all').remove();

this will remove the close button of other Morebits simpleWindows if open, not a huge issue, but I'd suggest using $(this.interfaceWindow.content).parent().parent().find('a.ui-dialog-titlebar-close.ui-corner-all').close().

Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• line 1828: $('<label>').attr('for', 'closeXFD-result-custom-input').text('Custom result:'),

need a space after Custom result:

Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• line 1896: $('#closeXFD-result-target-label').text('Merge to:');

need a space after Merge to:

Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• line 3914 and others: var apiEditTalk = function (pageTitle, newWikitext, mode, redirect) {

this function is apparently not having any edit conflict handling (when used with mode=text). Any edit made to the page by someone between XFDC's load and save will be overwritten. Please consider using mw.Api()#edit which offers built-in edit conflict detection. You could also look into morebits.js#Morebits.wiki.page#this.save which not only detects edit conflicts but also automatically solves them - but it doesn't use promises, so not compatible for direct usage here.

This same issue seems to be there in most of the other Task.prototype.doTask functions. You may want to create a setup similar to Morebits.wiki.page for editing pages easily - enabling auto retry of edits if they fail due to edit conflict (in which case, the page is loaded again, and processed afresh), or due to another reason (in which case, just the save api request is resent).

Done. I ended up writing my own, more complicated version of mw.Api()#edit, so that I can still use a single query to get multiple pages, and to have automatic retries like morebits does. - Evad37 [talk]

From extra.js:

• line 66: 'href':'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'+mw.util.wikiUrlencode(linktarget),

use href : mw.util.getUrl(linktarget)

Done - Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• line 80: extraJs.makeTooltip = function(tipText) {

A lot of vital information appears to be hidden behind tooltips. At least in Chrome, accessing this is not very smooth as I see that putting the cursor only well within the circle causes the tooltip to appear, that too after considerable delay. I would suggest using jquery.ui.tooltip. This doesn't add an additional dependency (per the note on line 76 above) and can be implemented simply by adding .tooltip({show: { duration: 0} }) to the jquery span object. This makes the tooltip appear quickly and prominently.

I've changed to CSS-based tooltips. I didn't particularly want to use more jQueryUI since it is deprecated within MediaWiki, and it would just be one more headache when it is eventually removed. - Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• line 438: return a.filter(function(val, i, arr){ return arr.indexOf(val) === i; });

this is clearly O(n^2). A more efficient O(n) implementation would use a hash table. var table = {}; a.forEach(function(e) { table[e] = true; }); return Object.keys(table);

Done. It doesn't quite work the same since object keys are strings (e.g. [4, 4, 5] will turn into ["4", "5"]), but that doesn't really matter since I'm just using it for strings. - Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if some of this comes across as nitpicking, but it really isn't meant that way. And thanks for creating this amazing script! SD0001 (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've done some of the easier ones, more to come later. - Evad37 [talk] 04:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

All done now, thanks again SD0001 - Evad37 [talk] 10:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Files for discussion...

{{resolved}}

...it seems like the XFDCloser links do not show up unless you go directly to the daily file page i.e Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2019 October 27; is there a way to make them transclude? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

For some reason the WP:FFD#Old_discussions don't have edit links, which is causing the XFDcloser code to break... - Evad37 [talk] 15:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I've stopped the script from breaking by skipping these sections – so at least the ones from WP:FFD#Discussions approaching conclusion onward are now working. - Evad37 [talk] 15:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Module:XfD old is responsible for transcluding the sections. Apparently doing this in Lua rather than on the page itself results in the section edit links being lost. - Evad37 [talk] 16:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Or actually, because {{#section-h}} doesn't transclude the section's own heading. - Evad37 [talk] 16:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This should be fixable, see Module talk:XfD old#Section edit links - Evad37 [talk] 01:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:  Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 09:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

XFD closer breaks page on mobile

{{resolved}}

https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T237846 bug I filed pertains to XFD closer. Disabling that script fixes the bug. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Scripts now load on the mobile website? Good to know, I guess... - Evad37 [talk] 09:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tyw7:  Fixed. It's not going to be super-friendly to use on mobile, but at least it won't break the page. Or if you only want to use XFDcloser on desktop, you could move the importScript line from your common.js to your desktop skin's js (vector.js for Vector, monobook.js for Monobook, etc). - Evad37 [talk] 11:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That worked. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal for this script to become a gadget

For various reasons, I have started a discussion to see if this script is eligible to be "promoted" to a gadget. The discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Likelihood of User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js becoming a gadget?. Watchers, editors, and users of this script are encouraged to participate in the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Integration of XFDcloser to WP:DYK

I've started a discussion on whether or not to allow XFDcloser to close DYKs if it is voted to delete the nominated article, available at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#XFD. ミラP 21:45, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Add "Old AFD" template to talk page before deleting?

 Declined

 – Better done within the REFUND side of things, per SD0001 - Evad37 [talk] 02:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate the following are edge cases and that the answer to my question at the end of this message may be "no", but I thought it worth asking.

Sometimes, AfD articles get refunded. 1) The article is soft deleted; a user requests undeletion; and the article is undeleted in mainspace. 2) The content may be userfied providing it violates none of the general speedy deletion criteria or the speedy deletion criteria for user pages. In both cases, it would be informative if, upon undeletion, the article's talk page listed the previous deletion discussion.

Granted, it's not every day we restore an AfD deleted article but it does happen - I've just refunded such an article, and had to first find then copy and paste the relevant template into the talk page as XFDCloser didn't add it.

Would it be worthwhile having the script add or update the relevant template to the talk page before deletion? --kingboyk (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

+1 @Kingboyk, alternatively, maybe this should be built into the REFUND process because, for instance, PRODs won't be automatically tagged with the above solution. czar 13:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kingboyk: I don't think this should be a part of XFDcloser as it would result in thousands of useless edits. But if you wish I could modify my RFUD-helper script to look for old afds and if found add the old afd template to the talk page. @Czar: for PRODs, Twinkle pre-emptively adds the old prod template to the talk page during nomination (though the same can't said of the PageCuration tool, which is also being used nowadays for prodding). SD0001 (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: That would be a great solution. Would it be quick and easy for you to do or would it involve a lot of work? --kingboyk (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Backup editor to maintain this script?

Just wondering ... is there a "backup" editor who either maintains or could maintain this script in the event that Evad37 disappears for long periods of time? Just wondering since this is a frequently-used script, and this is the second time in a couple of months that Evad37 has not edited in almost two weeks. Steel1943 (talk) 22:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

• ...Just noting that Evad37 has not edited since 7 August 2019 ... still. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Gadget now available

XFDcloser is now available as a gadget! Visit Special:Preferences § Gadgets and scroll down to the "Maintenance and administration" section to find it. Just remember to remove the line importScript('User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js');, or importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');, from your common.js (or skin-specific js such as vector.js, monobook.js, etc), otherwise XFDcloser will load twice.

The gadget version should be faster, more bandwidth-efficient, and more maintainable (see the archived gadget proposal discussion). - Evad37 [talk] 00:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...Well, here goes nothing... :) Steel1943 (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
• Nice. What about beta users? Still recommend using the gadget? (Are you planning more beta features?) czar 03:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For the moment, yes I would recommend going to the gadget – you'll get better performance, and the gadget statistics will be more accurate. Eventually I might redo the dialog window along the lines of the new Rater, but I'll post a message here if/when that happens. - Evad37 [talk] 05:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I had some difficulty closing an AfD using XFDcloser

Hey. I just closed the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming using the XFDcloser. It was frankly a bit unnerving. I was repeatedly warned that it had not yet been seven days since the article was listed, though it had (admittedly not by much of a margin). In the end, I overrode the warning and went ahead and closed anyway, but it didn't do anything for my nerves. :-( Then there were a lot of redirects and backlinks to delete — really a lot — and I had to answer many many questions about them. I hope I did that all right. But the remaining problem is that XFDcloser couldn't or wouldn't delete the article's talkpage; I got the message "API error: bigdelete — could not delete page". Am I supposed to do something about that? Bishonen | talk 21:51, 19 November 2019 (UTC).

The talk page is 200k and has more than 5k revisions, which means a steward likely has to delete it. It will need to be manually deleted, but normally XFDC can handle it. The warnings are intentional, because when the template first came out there were a lot of misclicks and so we asked for more checks before "pulling the trigger". Primefac (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK — so who should ask a steward to delete the talkpage? Would that be me? Bishonen | talk 22:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC).

I'm chatting with some on IRC. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that's good. Somebody just tagged the talkpage for speedy. I was going to remove that, but if you've already hooked a steward, there's probably no need. Bishonen | talk 22:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Done by me, but there’s plenty of subpages left: Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming. Regards --Schniggendiller talk 22:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

D-batched. Thanks for taking care of the talk page, Schniggendiller. Primefac (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Multiple option" options - no "no consensus"?

{{Resolved}}

Ignoring the duplication of words in the title, is there a reason why "no consensus" isn't included in the "Multiple options" dropdown menus? There have been a few discussions with multiple templates recently where one template gets deleted but there is no consensus on the other, but I can either "keep" or "do nothing" with the latter template. It would be nice to have a "no consensus" option which would also update the pages like the "keep" choice does. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"No consensus" in multi-result closes

When closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Races and creatures in His Dark Materials I've noticed that there is no "no consensus" option when applying several different results to different articles in a bundled AFD nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac and Jo-Jo Eumerus:  Done, "No consensus" is now available in multimode - Evad37 [talk] 10:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

rcat options hidden when switching from custom

{{Resolved}}

  New bug

Just a minor bug: In the interface, when the "custom" close option is first selected, and then if it is changed to "redirect", the option for adding rcats doesn't appear! SD0001 (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: Not quite a bug, just non-intuitive behaviour. When "no automated actions" is selected, the various options are hidden (and can be shown by choosing different "after" action). However, this is unexpected if you're just switching to and then away from a Custom result, so I've changed the default action for Custom closes to "Update pages and talk pages" - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Exclude Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes

{{resolved}}

Showing [Close] [Relist] on an informational page's headings czar 17:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• ...An alternative option would be to move the page to Wikipedia:Common outcomes at Articles for deletion or Wikipedia:Common outcomes/Articles for deletion (and make Wikipedia:Common outcomes a landing page, like it is right now [wow, I did that in 2016 ... I completely forgot]), especially considering that no article named Common outcomes has either existed or has been nominated for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

  My understanding is that there is already a list of exceptions (hard-coded?) so this would just have to be added there. czar 22:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done. It's actually a regex rather than a list, but still relatively easy to add exceptions. Moving the Common outcomes pages to subpages of WP:Common outcomes is still an interesting idea, but should be discussed in a broader forum than this talk page. - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

FfD double relist error

{{resolved}}

[2] fyi @Jo-Jo Eumerus czar 08:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

And the matching diff from the old log page: [3]. Not too sure what caused this to happen yet. - Evad37 [talk] 09:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I was unable to reproduce using a sandbox copy of the November 21 log page [4][5] - Evad37 [talk] 10:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I admit that I am not sure what exactly went awry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

This was probably the result of the section edit links in WP:FFD#Discussions_approaching_conclusion having an off-by-one error when it was using {{#section-h}} transclusion. I changed it to use ordinary transclusion [6], which fixed that problem. - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

XFDcloser on Urdu WIki

{{resolved}}

Urdu wikipedia just installed XFDcloser, copying from en.wp. Now gadget works properly on XFD venues, but some features do not work. 1) It does not delete pages after closing discussion by admins. 2) Relisting feature does not work at all. 3) And after closing discussion, Gadget does not update article and talk pages (core gadget is here). Any help would be highly appreciated, Thanks. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 17:57, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Muhammad Shuaib: Do the task names you defined in the Task class constructor (lines 3665 to 3732) show up? And are there any errors shown, either on the screen or in the console (see item 6 of WP:JSERROR)? - Evad37 [talk] 01:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, they are shown up. I think relisting fails because log page does not exist. When I try to relist closed discussion it throws "discussion has been closed", and aborted.

And No, there are no errors on screen nor on console. Now I came to know that "Redirect" is also not working. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: Any assistance? It will not delete pages as well. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Muhammad Shuaib: I'm really not sure. Without any visible or console errors, its hard to determine why it isn't working. Does the userscript version at ur:User:محمد شعیب/XFDcloser.js work? - Evad37 [talk] 06:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

No this version also does not work. Could you please check using this link? Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

@Muhammad Shuaib: The status codes need to be translated in Task.prototype.getStatusText and Task.prototype.isFinished, like this - Evad37 [talk] 23:37, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have trasnlated, but still not deleting pages and relisting. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Muhammad Shuaib: A few more translations are needed per [7]. As for relisting, I'm not sure what you expect to happen. Here on English Wikipedia, discussions are transcluded on daily subpages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 December 2, and relist means to move a discussion (that is not yet closed) from an old log page to the current day's subpage, in order to get more comments. Whereas on Urdu Wikipedia, discussions seem to only be transcluded directly on ur:ویکیپیڈیا:مضامین برائے حذف, without subpages for each day. - Evad37 [talk] 13:34, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, now it deletes pages. :) Oh, I see. In Urdu wiki, relisting differs from English wiki. Thats why relisting does not work there. Thanks. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Failed removal of list entries

{{resolved}}

I've noticed a couple of cases where the delinking function prompted me about keeping or removing a list entry, I said to remove it, but it was not removed. The entry is delinked, but still on the list. I think this happened with List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air China Flight 818. Another editor subsequently removed the entry and pinged me about it, so I started paying closer attention. It definitely happened on List of rifle cartridges when I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.70-150 Winchester. There was no error message that I noticed in either case. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919:  Fixed. I made a typo a month ago while updating the code to prevent edit conflicts, and this resulted in links only being unlinked, and no item removals. Edits in which the closer intended to remove a list item (or items) can still be identified by having the edit summary "Removing link(s) / list item(s)" and not being a minor edit. - Evad37 [talk] 03:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Missing holding cell section

{{resolved}}

The script currently doesn't have options for listing templates in the transport section of the holding cell could this be fixed? I also noticed "trasnport" was missspelled in the script, but there seems to be some more code missing for it to work. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: Wow, that omission of the transport section option has to be the longest unnoticed bug in XFDcloser history, dating all the way back to the first alpha version!  Fixed now. - Evad37 [talk] 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Failure to delete?

Greetings. I'm a non-admin who follows WP:BADAFD to keep an eye on AfD-related items which may need cleanup. Lately I've seen several cases where admins used XFDcloser to delete articles at AfD, but the articles did not in fact get deleted by the script. Recent examples include:

• List of fictional musical works
• List of devices using Mediatek SoCs
• Ideami
• Story of Evil

These closes were made by several different admins. In these cases they were only deleted after I db-xfd tagged them myself. In the cases where an associated talk page existed, the script successfully deleted the talk page but not the article itself.

Thank you for your time and programming efforts. --Finngall ^talk 15:48, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Adobe Photoshop version history to the list. Article talk page and several redirects were deleted by XfDcloser, but not the page itself. --Finngall ^talk 04:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also:

• Bangladesh (record producer) 13 September
• List of devices with Gorilla Glass 18 September
• Hashmi Syed 27 September
• Daemon (Warhammer) 4 October
• Nate Hartley 14 October
• Inquisition (Warhammer 40,000), plus found a case where the script failed to remove the tag from a kept article at Brookfield Properties Retail Group. 17 October
• Battlestar (reimagining) 22 October

If XFDcloser fails to delete a page, it should be reporting that error. Or if the page doesn't seem to exists, a warning: "skipped: does not exist (may have already been deleted by others)". Pinging closing admins @Jo-Jo Eumerus, RL0919, Swarm, Sandstein, and Yunshui for the most recent 7 to see if we can work out what's going on.
You guys are waiting for the tasks to be marked as "Done!", right? Or at least coming back to check if there were any errors/warnings?
- Evad37 [talk] 23:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I do watch for errors and occasionally have to delete manually. But I've deleted over 500 hundred pages since 18 September, which probably corresponds to a couple hundred closures (allowing that some closures result in multiple pages deleted, but others involve no deletion), so I'm not shocked if I have missed some. Maybe the script failed to flag them, but I wouldn't have any confidence in that theory. I'll try to watch more closely and alert you if there are any that fail without an error message. --RL0919 (talk) 03:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

New: Hound (Transformers) --Finngall ^talk 18:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I had at least two deletion failures since the 23rd, but the script presented the errors. If there were any without a visible error message, I haven't noticed it yet. --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Foundation universe planets. Should I continue listing these? --Finngall ^talk 17:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

With the latest update, the script now retries a second time if the initial delete attempt fails. I'm hoping that will make this issue occur less frequently. - Evad37 [talk] 06:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

At the risk of being annoying a new one: Pyras Technology. --Finngall ^talk 17:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Finngall: I've been watching for this for three weeks now (almost 700 page deletions). Although it does occasionally fail to delete a tagged page, I have not seen it do so without giving an error message. This doesn't happen often; I'd guess about 1% of the time. A 100% success rate at scripted deletion is too much to expect, so I'm happy with the tool as long as the rare failures produce a visible error that I can then act to correct. I can't be sure, but I continue to suspect you are finding occasional mistakes by admins who have not noticed the error message, rather than non-visible script failures. In terms of development suggestions, I will say that if a user chooses to remove backlinks, sometimes there are a very large number of messages related to those. This can distract from the far more important message about not deleting the nominated page. If there is a way to more clearly emphasize the deletion failure, that might help. --RL0919 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Marking this section for archiving since it seems to occur much less frequently now. I have noted the idea for emphasize the more important errors ain the "Possible future features" box at the top of the page. - Evad37 [talk] 02:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

"Soft delete" rationale at AfD

The default soft delete rationale in the tool's AfD closure should probably reference WP:SOFTDELETE. Instead of "WP:REFUND applies", thoughts on this alt default text?

Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). You can request the article's undeletion.

czar 08:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Referring to "you" in the closing rationale doesn't quite feel right to me... perhaps Undeletion may be requested at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. for the second sentence? - Evad37 [talk] 08:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

To avoid the passive voice and redundancy ("request" twice), how about Editors can request the article's undeletion. or alternatively, to show the link, but clunkier, Visit Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion to restore the article. I'm also realizing that we could potentially just link directly to the RFU preload and fill in the name/reason parameters... That's a better experience for someone requesting restoration but perhaps not enough friction if they should be reading about how the process works first? If we're serious about PROD being easy to reverse, I think it'd be a good move. Thoughts? czar 18:57, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Less redundancy is better. The preload idea is definitely feasible. And because of the way the preloading works, we can create and use versions of Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Intro and Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Example that are specific to soft deletion. - Evad37 [talk] 02:50, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: Created at Wikipedia:XFDcloser/Soft deletion refund intro and Wikipedia:XFDcloser/Soft deletion refund preload. Example link: request the article's undeletion. - Evad37 [talk] 03:31, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Love it czar 04:09, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Combined:

Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

czar 19:43, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

I've created a template at Wikipedia:XFDcloser/Soft deletion rationale ... but as-is, this is only going to work for single-page nominations, and the wording is only suitable for AfD - Evad37 [talk] 01:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Is "soft deletion" implemented anywhere else? I think it would be sufficient to have the link only pertain to the first listed article if it's part of a bundle. For what it's worth, I don't think I've ever seen a bundled nom soft deleted, since they tend to attract more attention and it'd sooner be relisted than controversially soft deleted. czar 03:41, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Well, the soft delete option was originally coded for TfD, per BU Rob13's request at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_16#Closure_script. There's about 300 search results for "soft delete" in WP:* for discussion subpages [8]. - Evad37 [talk] 04:00, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait soft delete is an option at TfD? Is it hidden from non-admins or something because I'm not seeing it. Soft deleting bundles is quite common at TfD though. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this is too in the weeds but how can a TfD be treated as an expired PROD ("soft deletion") if templates are ineligible for PROD? If that's just a technicality, then okay. czar 21:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Czar, I've been thinking about this quite a lot and have consciously been more careful when using soft deletion because of it. I often wait for a relist or two in most situations considering it more a WP:SILENT consensus rather than a expired prod. In some situations however, when there has been significant discussion for similar cases with a consistent outcome or if they would have fallen under WP:DOT and orphaned before and there is no reason to believe it would be controversial. I don't think it's particularly controversial especially when experienced closers such as Primefac does it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

@Trialpears, my question is which XFD venues support "soft delete" so Evad knows where to implement it. My understanding at AfD is that there was a recent change to push for more soft deletes over double relists just to keep the nominations flowing (i.e., there is some discussion somewhere). If TfD supports soft deletion without considering it an expired PROD, shouldn't that consensus be documented at WP:SOFTDELETE? Anyway, don't want the TfD questions to hold up the AfD implementation, where there are many qualifying nominations each day. czar 21:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Would it make sense to modify the text based on whether the nom is a bundle?

Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the nomination's undeletion.
Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request these items' undeletion. [alt: individually request the restoration of these items]

czar 21:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

@Czar:  Done, including handling of multi-page noms, and detection of nominated page type – see latest edits to Wikipedia:XFDcloser/Soft deletion rationale. For now soft deletion remains available same as before – this can be changed if there's consensus that soft deletion should or should not be used at certain XfD venues, and Wikipedia:Deletion process#No_quorum is appropriately clarified. - Evad37 [talk] 10:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Evad37, Thanks! Just a minor follow up thing. Could you make the soft delete option available for non-admins at TfD? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that since non-admins don't have the ability to restore—it creates an unfair burden on WP:REFUND. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Feature request: Highlight term in "Review unlinked list item"

Low priority but when unlinking (post-AfD) and reviewing whether to remove an item from the list, it would be helpful to highlight the applicable term/area. Sometimes I find myself hunting through a paragraph of text to determine what was actually linked. czar 18:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a stretch but also would be helpful to know the list's section title. I.e., if the section is "Cast" or "Notable alumni/residents", I won't need to click through to determine whether to keep the list item (always keep for "Cast" and always remove for "Notable alumni/residents"). czar 02:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Czar:  Done, the unlinked term will now be shown in bold text. With list titles, are you talking about pseudo headings? The closest real heading should already be shown as part of the page link - Evad37 [talk] 08:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! By list titles, I think I meant the subheading (or nearest level-two heading if the third/fourth-level is unhelpful), but I also could be misremembering. I'll try it out as is. czar 02:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Bug with relisting CfD discussions involving monthly maintenance category

{{resolved}}

When using XFDcloser to relist a discussion in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, if the discussion is relisted in a different month that when the discussion was originally started, such as in this edit, the tool also changes the monthly maintenance category the nominated page is in ... which should not happen. In the aforementioned example, the edit change the monthly maintenance category from Category:Categories for discussion from March 2019 to Category:Categories for discussion from June 2019 (March to June). This is problematic because it does not give administrators and discussion closers an accurate picture of how long this discussion has been posted for. I know that there have been issues in the past regarding the community's acceptance of using this tool to relist discussions on CFD; if this cannot be resolved, the functionality on CFD may just need to be disabled again. Steel1943 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

...bump... Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Steel1943: XFDcloser updates the {{Cfd full}} template so the link goes straight to the current discussion, rather than one or more instances of the {{subst:cfd relisted}} relist note. So {{Cfd full}} and Module:Cfd would need to be edited to allow parameters to specify the original listing date, not just the date of the page the discussion is currently on. (Or possibly the script could add the original monthly maintenance category to the page, but that seems messier, and would put the page in multiple monthly maintenance categories) - Evad37 [talk] 01:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

 Needs discussion at the template talk page (and/or WT:CFD), and edits to the template/module, per the above - Evad37 [talk] 23:19, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Evad37, I've quickly implemented new parameters startyear and startmonth which will be used for the category. This shouldn't require any changes to XFDcloser as long as it only changes the values when relisting and not the entire template. I've also started a thread at Template talk:Cfd#Proper category handling when relisting discussions. As a side note could anyone give me some context about the problems with XfDCloser and CfD? I've heard about them, but haven't really found the source of it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears: For CfD, XFDcloser only runs in basic mode (closes the discussion, but no other automated actions) – see Wikipedia_talk:XFDcloser/Archive_2#CFD_closer_not_working... Also, there isn't much consensus around relisting: Wikipedia_talk:XFDcloser/Archive_3#WP:CFD_relists?, Wikipedia_talk:XFDcloser/Archive_4#CfD_Relisting_-_discussions_should_be_closed_as_relisted, Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion/Archive_18#Relisting_procedure. - Evad37 [talk] 00:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Now fixed through template edits. Thanks for giving me some context as well, it was an interesting read. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Limits on closing bundled nominations with too many nominations?

{{Resolved}}

Just wondering ... what is the limit for how many entries in a discussion can be closed at once with XFDcloser, specifically for WP:RFD? Just wondering because I just attempted to close a discussion with 67 entries on WP:RFD, and it would not remove/close the tags on each individual redirect since apparently 67 was too many. Steel1943 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

50 is the limit, as that keeps the API queries relatively simple, and XfDs with that many pages aren't too common. - Evad37 [talk] 05:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass nomination quirks

I recently closed Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 December 7#Template:Adams operas, which had about 60 nominated pages. I got a warning that the script would only handle the first 50, but in fact it did not remove the TfD tags (the result was "keep") from any of the nominated pages. It also gave a bunch of warnings about not being able to place the TfD history templates because the talk pages did not exist, when in fact all but one of the them did exist. (None of the history templates were placed.) I'm not particularly concerned that it doesn't handle such a large nomination (although if it could, that would be nice), but I did want to call attention to the misleading warning messages.

On the other hand, I should say that having to manually update over 100 pages was a great reminder of what a wonderful tool XFDcloser is when it works! --RL0919 (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Evad37: why is the limit 50? Sysops have the apihighlimits user right which should enable them to query 500 pages in one go. But yeah, a concurrency limit should be applied for the write operations if there are too many pages. SD0001 (talk) 05:57, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Non-syspos do have the 50 page limit though. And the 90 edits per 60 seconds rate limit. The easy way to fix this would be to remove the 50-page limit for admins, and not allow non-admins to close such discussions. To do it properly, the queries and edits should be in batches, with the number of pages per batch determined from whether the user is an admin. - Evad37 [talk] 01:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919, SD0001, and Steel1943:  Done with the easy fix. Now admins can properly close/relist discussions with more than 50 pages, and non-admins will see a "Too many pages" warning instead of the close/relist links. - Evad37 [talk] 22:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Creating talk pages with only a CSD tag

{{Resolved}}

I've recently seen XfD closer creating talk pages with only a CSD tag when closing TfDs such as Template talk:Steam. I don't think it's always done this but it's kind of difficult to know when you can't see deleted contributions. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Trialpears:  Fixed. I must have at some stage broken the code that prevented this. - Evad37 [talk] 00:49, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Page not updated, with inaccurate message

{{Resolved}}

When closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masjid-an-Noor, Newfoundland, I got an error message saying "Nomination template not found on page". However, there was an AFD nomination template on the page, as seen in this revision. --RL0919 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

The page was nominated using the redirect {{AfDM}} instead of {{Article for deletion/dated}}. I had no idea that was even a thing. There's also another redirect {{Afd/dated}}. - Evad37 [talk] 01:47, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919:  Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 08:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Soft delete for non-admins at TfD

{{resolved}}

Evad37, Thanks! Just a minor follow up thing. Could you make the soft delete option available for non-admins at TfD? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that since non-admins don't have the ability to restore—it creates an unfair burden on WP:REFUND. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Above was unarchived from Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser/Archive 4#"Soft delete" rationale at AfD

Thanks for bringing up the impact on WP:REFUND]]! I didn't consider that aspect, but looking through the WP:REFUND archives only showed five successful undeletion requests following TfDs in the last year. This is with non-admins, including me, regularly closing as soft delete, just writing the message on their own. I highly doubt that this change would even be noticable at WP:REFUND; it would just be a small convenience for non-admin closers at TfD and hopefully give us better soft deletion messages. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

No, Non-admins should not be closing anything as "soft-delete", ever. It's one thing to close things in order to orphan them because of the effort that takes, but soft deletion gets even more in the realm of "this should really be left to admins" territory. It blurs the line of responsibility that I discuss at User:Tavix/non-admin closes. -- Tavix ^(talk) 12:09, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There are still some soft deleted templates with a few transclusions and think it should be fine for non-admins to close say a relisted discussion about a navbox with 2 links used on 2 pages as soft delete. I guess these are quite rare so a soft delete option wouldn't be of much benefit and could encourage excessive use of the option. Thanks for linking to your essay, while I don't agree with everything there it gave me a better appreciation of your point of view. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Gadget, pop-up

{{Resolved}}

This boomer here doesn't really know what a gadget is and perceives no need for it. Can someone turn off that awful pop-up I keep getting? I've already made one useless edit this morning to turn something else off that I didn't understand. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Drmies: Your /vector.js and /monobook.js are importing the 'User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js' userscript, which is a redirect to the deprecated XFDcloser userscript. Removing those imports will get rid of the bubble notifications. Then — if you still want to use XFDcloser to close or relist xfd discussions – you'll need to go to Special:Preferences § Gadgets, tick XFDcloser, and save. Do you want me to remove those script imports for you? - Evad37 [talk] 01:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Evad, I appreciate your technical assistance. What is it that I am using now? Or, what's deprecated, the XFDcloser or the script that calls it up? (See, I'm so ignorant that I am probably asking very dumb questions.) I would like to do it in the same way I've been doing it, cause it makes life easier. You know what, I am just going to do what I think you are suggesting. If I disappear mysteriously, you can have my admin badge--oh, wait, you have one already. Drmies (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey that was pretty exciting--thanks again! Drmies (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Holding cell bugs

{{resolved}}

Major XfDCloser holding cell bug

I just closed this TfD as delete and asked XfDCloser to put it in the orphan section of the holding cell. However, XfDCloser decided to put it in the substitute section of the holding cell. Does anyone know why? Pinging Primefac and Evad37. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I do; XFDC is hardcoded to edit a specific section for the various options. A section was recently added to the Holding Cell, causing XFDC to have an "off by one" error (so to speak). I've removed the section in question (for now) and things should work as normal. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Editing a section editing does require the section number. Trying to add to a specific section by editing the whole page is a lot more convoluted. - Evad37 [talk] 03:40, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Could you increment all the section numbers by one then to accommodate for the new section? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

If/when that happens, this diff needs to be undone. Primefac (talk) 13:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done both - Evad37 [talk] 02:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

 Undone temporarily per below - Evad37 [talk] 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 7#Template:Long wikibreak

The closer is displaying a message Listing at holding cell: Skipped.Did not find any changes to make to the holding cell but I am pretty certain that I did specify in the close that a post in the Holding Cell's Meta section was appropriate. I did attempt to back out and redo the close but same message. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I also got an issue with the holding cell when closing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 February 5#Template:Iron Soldier. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Trialpears: This is probably something to do with the holding cell changes above. I'll revert the changes for the moment, and take another look tomorrow - Evad37 [talk] 16:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus and Trialpears: Should be fixed now - Evad37 [talk] 02:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

TfD categories

{{Resolved}}

Currently, seems like the TfD categories are hardcoded into the module. Right now, at WP:TFD/H we have over 20 medicine templates. we made a 'psuedoheading' to categorise them under "Other", but ideally it should be easier for us to add/remove TFD/H categories as required. I'm told that creating a normal heading will mess up this gadget, and it wouldn't be added into the menu even if it wasn't messing it up. Something that would help with this would be nifty? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Could perhaps be useful, but not really a high priority thing. It is really easy to change for interface admins as there is a nice list with the section numbers. I would mock it up and make an ER myself if I was at my computer. On a related note: I've long been thinking that separating mergers into template types (Infoboxes, navigational templates, link templates, meta, others) may be a better way to organize it. --Trialpears (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as splitting the "other", I disagree; we could have six dozen headers or six, and we'd always find some "extra" header that we would need to split things into. Just because we may temporarily have some pages that don't fit into the existing structure doesn't mean we need to change our structure every time the "other" ends up with more than five templates.

I'm interested in the "by type" splits, but I think that should be discussed elsewhere (probably WT:TFD) just to keep the discussion in a relevant location. Primefac (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Done at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Holding cell sections --Trialpears (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Version 4 in development

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Hi all, I've started working on version 4 of XFDcloser. The main changes from a user's perspective are going to be reworking the interface dialog and introducing preferences, for things like the default state of closing options and whether to watchlist pages that are edited. Both the new dialog and preferences will be somewhat similar to new version of WP:RATER from November last year. If you have any thoughts about either of these aspects, now would be a good time to say something. Thanks, - Evad37 [talk] 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I like the watchlisting idea; not sure why but it always adds pages to my watchlist at current even though I have the "add if edited" preference turned off. Helpful occasionally (especially for recreated templates) but not always. Thanks for working on this! Primefac (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Pop-up notice

{{resolved}}

Every single time I visit a deletion discussion page, I get an annoying pop-up message about this tool. Even though I installed it months ago. It's really irritating. It would be nice if I could have seen it once and no longer. I followed the instructions a long time ago and I still get a pop-up. I'm not visiting deletion discussions because it's so irritating. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Liz: It keeps coming up because you are still have the userscript version installed. You need to remove the line

importScript('User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js'); // [[User:Evad37/XFDcloser]]

from near the end of User:Liz/common.js.
And then make sure the XFDcloser gadget is selected in Special:Preferences § Gadgets ("Maintenance and administration" section). - Evad37 [talk] 03:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

So simple, Evad. Thanks for investigating. I wish I had come here months ago! Much appreciated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Evad37: I'm having the same problem. I removed User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js from my common.js page (diff) and installed it as a gadget in my preferences → gadgets, but on AfD pages, the reminder keeps constantly appearing. Am I missing something? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Northamerica1000: Your vector.js and monobook.js both contain importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD.js');, which is a redirect to the XFDcloser userscript. You can also remove importScript('User:Mr.Z-man/hideClosedAFD.js'); since XFDcloser can itself hide closed discussions. - Evad37 [talk] 00:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Evad37:  Fixed. Thanks very much for your assistance. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can't close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Students Learn

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

When I try to close it (as NC), I get:

Closing discussion: Aborted.API error: internal_api_error_DBQueryError – Could not edit page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How Students Learn; could not close discussion

Updating talk page: Aborted.

Updating page: Aborted.

I assume there's some broken wikitext somewhere, but I can't spot it. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

• Nevermind, this looks like a symptom of a much larger problem, see T249565. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"User:XFDcloser" listed at Redirects for discussion

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect User:XFDcloser. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 13#User:XFDcloser until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — J947 ^[cont] 03:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Soft deletion at TfD

{{resolved}}

The userscript enables deletion for all editors at TfD, although soft deletion is restricted. Can this option can be enabled at TfD as well? NACs do PROD-y closes anyway, just means currently they'd have to manually type it out rather than having the option.

If this is OK, it can be implemented by changing line 1867 to:

( (!config.user.isSysop && config.xfd.type !== 'tfd') || config.xfd.type === 'rfd' ) ? '' : $('<span>')

ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Too many double negatives - are you saying that "soft delete" as an option is not currently enabled for NAC at TFD, but it should be? Primefac (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, yup, exactly that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Evad37 directly (as I presume you're not watching IPERs) -- might you be able to implement this please? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've deactivated the request for now since it isn't clear that there is consensus based on Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser/Archive 4#Soft delete for non-admins at TfD where I proposed the same thing. Would still support it though. --Trialpears (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for bringing that up. imo I don't think the gadget making editors either type a less-helpful/shorter statement out manually, or just typing out {{subst:Wikipedia:XFDcloser/Soft deletion rationale}}, is an improvement. If the status quo is hazy, it can always be clarified, but I've seen quite a few NAC soft-delete closes.

Personally, I can't see the issue with it, but if it's forbidden I'll stop making them for those rare, appropriate occasions. The cited page is an 2018 essay - I don't think the concerns have materialised. The status quo / 'implicit consensus' seems to be that it's allowable, and templates only get REFUNDed rarely (and most are out-of-process requests for full deletion, not of soft-deletes). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Changes like this would require consensus, especially if previously discussed. I've left a note of this discussion, and the one below, at WT:TFD. - Evad37 [talk] 23:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We're having similar discussions all over the place right now - for example, there's a discussion about potentially making XFDC like AWB, where you have to be on a "trusted list", despite the fact that discussions can still be closed manually. Like with the others, this comes down to a question of how many issues will it solve to implement, vs the number of issues that it will cause.

In my opinion, any tool that saves an editor time is worthwhile - TfD has always been the exception when it comes to deletion and NACs, and the ridiculous amount of wikilawyering to reason that "allowed to close as orphan then delete" is different than "allowed to close as delete" is staggering. If NAC closers are having to write in "soft delete" and all that it entails, but there isn't any significant issue down the line, then I see no reason why we can't add it to the closing menu. That being said, I can understand the argument against it (i.e. "an admin didn't close this so they shouldn't have to REFUND"), but at TfD if a close is marked "soft delete" it's really immaterial whether it was an admin or not. Primefac (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

and the ridiculous amount of wikilawyering to reason that "allowed to close as orphan then delete" is different than "allowed to close as delete" is staggering -- I was reading the original RfC on this some time ago. The following comment from Nabla, in response to IV, made me giggle: And that is why this is the same proposal as above with a different name. Interesting (mostly off topic) fact about the power of words - "delete and orphan" vs. "orphan and delete" - is that one version gets a majority of opposes and the other a large majority of supports. Human mind is fascinating :-) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Evad37 after about 1.5 months my reading above is 3 leaning support and no opposes (& only one oppose in the past, it seems); would this be sufficient consensus to add? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: That should be sufficient. Sorry for the late reply, real life's been busy recently. Not sure when I'll get to testing and then implementing this, might take some days since I really want to get the next version of XFDcloser deployed for beta testing here (it's been ready for about a week, but I've just been too busy). - Evad37 [talk] 23:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader:  Done, sorry for the delay - Evad37 [talk] 01:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Test version of the next XFDcloser

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

A test version of the major version of XFDcloser (version 4) is now available on the test wikipedia. You can try it out without worrying about consequences, since all content on that wiki only exists for testing out new software. I still have more testing and probably bug fixes to make, but I thought I'd let anyone who is interested get a "sneak peek" of what's to come.

Instructions:

1. Go to testwiki:Special:Preferences
2. On the gadgets tab, enable XFDcloser.
3. Go to testwiki:Wikipedia:XFDcloser/beta and click the button to enable beta testing (this is to mirror what will happen here, beta testing of a new version while the existing version is the default)
4. Try it out!
   • You can nominate a page for deletion much like you would here (you can enable a test version of Twinkle on the testwiki).
   • Try closing with XFDcloser and see what happens.
   • Things may look a bit different over there since not all the templates/modules exist or have the same content as the enwiki version, but the raw wikitext should be the same.
   • Log pages for the current day may need to be set up manually if you want to test relistings.
5. If XFDcloser crashes, doesn't edit correctly, or has other errors or issues, let me know.
   • Just make sure you mention that its the testwiki version that has the problem, and if possible copy over any seemingly relevant errors from the browser console per WP:JSERROR

For those interested in the source code, its at [9]. - Evad37 [talk] 00:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Just want to check MFD

{{resolved}}

This discussion was closed with XFDC, but the inline MFD notice had to be removed manually. Was this a glitch in the close itself, or does XFDC not deal with this code type (specifically, the substing of {{Mfd-inline}})? Primefac (talk) 01:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

There was code, but this edit means that the existing regex pattern no longer matches the wikitext produced when Mfd-inline is subst'ed. - Evad37 [talk] 01:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Should be fixed now - Evad37 [talk] 01:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Potential bug

{{resolved}}

Hi there, I closed an MFD recently, and it resulted in the deletion of inappropriate pages of an MFD that was listed just below the one I was working on. See here, at the bottom of the page. I used the XFDCloser script to close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rajesh Kumar (youtuber). However, the script decided to also delete a bunch of pages related to the MFD just below that one: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday. I've restored the pages, but I think this warrants some investigation. The pages that were mistakenly deleted were:

• Template:User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator2
• Template talk:Admin hopeful 2
• Template:User wikipedia/Hope-Administrator
• Template:Admin hopeful 2
• User:Lawilkin/UBX/admin someday
• Template:User wikipedia/Administrator-Someday
• Template talk:User wikipedia/Administrator someday
• Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday

You can see from the log entries that they were all deleted in connection with the action taken at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Rajesh Kumar (youtuber). ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 21:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that definately shouldn't have happened. It looks like the collapsible class applied to tables which (on the main WP:MFD page) enclose closed discussions got changed to mw-collapsible, and therefore the script didn't know to ignore them when closing the discussion above. And with the "delete redirects" option set, all the redirects to Template:User wikipedia/Administrator someday were also deleted. Fixed now. - Evad37 [talk] 00:54, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [spill the beans] || 07:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Beta: Redirect/merge target, box opens top of page

{{resolved}}

Hi, I've been trialing XFDcloser beta, and I think it's really sleek and snazzy and cool, so thanks for all your work on it! Some minor points so far:

1. When closing something as 'Redirect' or 'merge', in the line to fill in where 'to:' the 'to' text never goes away, so the target article is over 'to' if that makes sense, and the text becomes jumbled
2. If I open XFD closer on a page like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 November 4, the box opens at the top of the page, not where the discussion is, which is a minor inconvenience.

Not sure if you're aware of these, and they are really minor so it's no big deal. Thanks again! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback Eddie891. I thought I'd fixed #1 previously... maybe something else I did broke it, or maybe I just put it on my mental list of things to do and never got back to it. Shouldn't be too hard to fix, anyway. #2 is a little tricker because the way dialogs open is controlled by OOUI code. It may be possible to override the current behaviour, but I'll have to look into it. - Evad37 [talk] 07:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree #2 is a bit of a biggie. It's especially annoying at TfD (where old discussions is right at the bottom, and the top is a long scroll away). I like to write the close whilst still being able to look at the discussion/comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to verify, you're referring to test wiki, yes? I don't think I've ever had the close box appear at the top of a TFD log page on enwiki. Primefac (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

This is with XFDcloser v4, it's available on enwiki now (can toggle it on here). The v3 (stable) one doesn't have this issue, but the v4 (beta) does. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed #1 - I forgot to specify that the beta-version gadget should use the beta-version's CSS styles, rather than the current version's styles. - Evad37 [talk] 07:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

@Eddie891 and ProcrastinatingReader:  Fixed #2, the scrolled position will now be retained when the dialog is opened. - Evad37 [talk] 01:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Still having an issue with 2 in beta. During the unlinking phase of AfD, individual prompts if unlinked bullets should be deleted, kept, or marked as needing citation all show in a box at the top of the page czar 01:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these reports Czar, will be looking into them - Evad37 [talk] 03:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

@Czar: Opening position of the unlink confirmation dialogs, and some others, should be fixed now - Evad37 [talk] 14:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Beta: TFD relist error

{{resolved}}

I think I encountered something while relisting on the beta. See these edits for Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_6#Template:Space_colonization. It errored trying to add the entry to the new log. Went back to non-beta version to relist. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Bug confirmed, investigating (sorry its taken so long to get back to you, I've been a bit busy IRL) - Evad37 [talk] 10:53, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@ProcrastinatingReader: Fixed now, sorry about the long delay - Evad37 [talk] 10:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)