Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Unlinking DABs and See Also sections

{{resolved}}

Tanga is a DAB page. Should the entry for this deleted article be deleted altogether instead of simply being unlinked? DMacks (talk) 03:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking further, I think a bunch of the other links were in See also sections, which likewise should have been removed instead of unlinked. I wonder if these are two known limitations (or bugs) in User:Evad37/XFDcloser? DMacks (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the relevant entries before clicking through to this notification. It's not that hard to do manually, which I tend to do, because in some contexts removal isn't necessary (e.g. cast lists). But yeah, entries in DABs and See Also sections should be removed. @Evad37: Is there a way to do this automatically I know the script does this for links in templates already? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
I had a feeling this would come up eventually. Evad added the unlinker as a favor to save editors from another step of unlinking. (The old AfD tool didn't unlink, so most closers didn't even attempt to unlink with another tool and as such, left a lot of junk behind each deletion). It would be nice to automatically remove the rest of the line when unlinking in See also sections and Dab pages, but I can imagine the snafus that could arise from edge cases. I don't think it's a big deal to leave the tool as it is, but it would be a nice fix czar 17:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Patar knight, DMacks, and Czar: Having given this some thought, I might be able to do a full line removal where the list item is just the single link or unlinked text plus a single link. This would be the majority of cases I imagine. The problem I can see, however, is that it could turn a list like this 

==See also==
*[[Foo]]
*[[Bar]] – AfD'd article
**[[Bar sub-item 1]]
**[[Bar sub-item 2]]

into 

==See also==
*[[Foo]]
**[[Bar sub-item 1]]
**[[Bar sub-item 2]]
more problem bulletting examples

– or 

==See also==
*[[Foo]]
**[[Bar]] – AfD'd article
***[[Bar sub-item 1]]
***[[Bar sub-item 2]]

into 

==See also==
*[[Foo]]
***[[Bar sub-item 1]]
***[[Bar sub-item 2]]

– or 

==See also==
*[[Bar]] – AfD'd article
**[[Bar sub-item 1]]
**[[Bar sub-item 2]]

into 

==See also==
**[[Bar sub-item 1]]
**[[Bar sub-item 2]]

– which isn't desirable. - Evad37 [talk] 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Not ideal, but I imagine there are bigger problems if an article was non-notable enough for deletion but used prominently enough in a See also section to leave behind bulleting issues. I'm fine with the tool running as proposed, but an alternative would be to drop any "sub-items" down to a single bullet (as customary for See also sections anyway). The idea is to minimize cleanup without creating new issues, and running as proposed is already markedly better than the current method of unlinking and leaving text in the See also section. Once again, thanks for your work on this. Best gadget on WP this side of Twinkle czar 06:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done as proposed above. Any cleanup issues with bulleting would be fewer than if everything is simply unlinked (as the script previously did). - Evad37 [talk] 00:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good—was just a thought I had today. I knew navboxes were unlinked but didn't know the text was removed too, so haven't seen any issues but I'll keep an eye out now. Thanks! czar 05:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Should name dab pages (example) handle unlinking similarly? czar 16:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
    • That's actually a set index, not a dab, which means WP:SIA is the relevant guideline. I don't think it can be generalised that backlinks on SIAs should be removed, since SIAs are allowed to have references and unlinked items and anything else a regular list article can have. - Evad37 [talk] 02:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm fine with whatever you choose, but I looked at a dozen of these at random and it looks like the line/item should almost always be removed if there are no other links on the line, which is usually the case. czar 16:13, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
For instance, name/surname set indices in particular (such as this, as well as the Aladdin example above) would be better off with the lines deleted (and they usually use this simple bullet list format) czar 18:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
So articles containing {{Given name}}, {{Surname}}, {{Nickname}}, or their redirects (First name, Forename, Surnames, DisambigName, DisambigNm, DisambigN) should be treated like dab pages? I should be able to do that - Evad37 [talk] 00:29, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Czar:  Done - Evad37 [talk] 01:03, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Lovely czar 21:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Had an idea. Would it be possible to access the unlinker via the AfD discussion page even after it has closed? E.g., if the closer chooses not to unlink or if the closer wants to come back and unlink later? czar 16:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Czar, Twinkle allows for unlinking of pages, even if the page is deleted, so there's probably not much point in adding a "come back later" functionality to the closer. Primefac (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Except that this script's unlinker is more robust and Twinkle hasn't added new functionality in a while. Just a thought czar 19:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll be honest in that I don't really use either unlinker all that often, so if this has better functionality I suppose it would make sense to keep improving it. Primefac (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this would be better off as a stand-alone script, rather than making XFDcloser more complicated. - Evad37 [talk] 18:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
@Czar: Try User:Evad37/Xunlink.js - Evad37 [talk] 06:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

User talk pages of userpage redirects

{{resolved}}

Hi! I noticed that you deleted User talk:Stephadams07 while clearing up the redirects to Steph Adams. I think the user talk page had a couple of ordinary messages on it, and shouldn't have been deleted. Could you check, please? -- John of Reading (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the script caught that. I've restored it. @Evad37:: Would it be possible to not delete user talk pages via G8 if the userpage redirects to the deleted page? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Patar knight: Just to clarify, you want the script to ignore all pages in User_talk: namespace (when deleting talk pages of redirects)? - Evad37 [talk] 18:16, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, user talk pages shouldn't be deleted in that context, since user talk pages generally shouldn't be deleted without good reason. In this case, it deleted a perfectly valid user talk page, which shouldn't happen. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:25, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 Done, User_talk: pages will now be ignored - Evad37 [talk] 00:13, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Relisting errors

{{Resolved|1=Measures implemented appear to be working, another discussion can be started if problems reemerge. - Evad37 [talk] 01:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)}} Not really sure whether this is a problem with the script or people using it but I have seen multiple cases now with editors relisting discussions but the script not removing them from all old logs. For example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambassador of Iceland to East Germany was in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 13 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 June 11 because Cyberbot I thought it was not correctly transcluded the first time (it was). Could XFDC be updated to check for all transclusions and remove all of them before adding the AFD to the new log? Also, is there a way to trigger a browser "do you really want to leave this page?" message when relisting is still underway (to avoid people closing the window too fast and thus breaking the relist)? Regards SoWhy 07:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can look into checking for other log page transclusions, and warning users if they try to leave the page while the script is still running. But having multiple log page transclusions will still cause the same problem for anyone still using the original closeafd script, and probably also for manual relistings- so hopefully the bot issue can be fixed, and perhaps the bot (or another one) should check for and fix afds which are transcluded to multiple log pages. - Evad37 [talk] 01:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I left cyberpower a message about this as well. Regards SoWhy 06:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done – the script will now warn users if they try to leave the page while it still processing closes/relists - Evad37 [talk] 03:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Checking for and dealing with multiple log page transclusions is turning out to be more complicated than I first thought. And it is apparently just a fluke, presumably unlikely to happen again – or are there any other examples of transclusion to multiple log pages which don't involve the bot? - Evad37 [talk] 03:36, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell. The others were problems with relists not being removed from the old log. Will notify when I notice any other. Regards SoWhy 06:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Relisting errors again

Hi there. Still problems with relistings, I just had to manually remove a bunch of AFDs relisted with XFDCloser from the old log. Looking through that log, it seems that the script sometimes removes the comment tags from an old AFD when relisting another for no apparent reason, e.g. [1] [2]. But those I manually commented out just now include also ones that were never removed first. Maybe you can take another look? Regards SoWhy 16:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Based on the timestamps, I'd wager that this has more to do with editors relisting discussions before the previous relist finishes, so both edits go through but the second undoes the first? czar 16:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
I think Czar's right... if users relist too quickly they may, in effect, edit-conflict with themselves. - Evad37 [talk] 17:56, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy and Czar: The script will now wait for any previous AfD relistings to finish before starting to process another relist. Hopefully this should sort out the problem. - Evad37 [talk] 03:33, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Removing Category:Relisted AfD debates when closing

{{Resolved}}

Hi there. Currently a bot is removing this category from closed AfDs (cf. [3]) but I don't see a reason why the script can't do it directly. Regards SoWhy 14:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy:  Done - Evad37 [talk] 06:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlinking deleted redirects

Should deleted redirects be unlinked too? Say A redirects to B and both are deleted at AfD. B is unlinked from articles, but A links remain? czar 16:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that makes sense - Evad37 [talk] 02:06, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Added to 'Possible future features' box - Evad37 [talk] 03:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

XFD Script errors

{{Resolved}}

Moved from User talk:Evad37 § XFD Script..

Any idea about why using your script at TFDs (specifically) sometimes displays:--[Error retrieving page information (reload the page to try again) Details: HTTP error: error].Acc. in these times, it fails to recognize the nominated articles(works in basic mode) and is unable to relist/close.(The display window opens but pressing the submit button leads to nothing!)Winged Blades Godric 16:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: The error is going to be a HTTP 4xx or 5xx error – perhaps a connection timeout issue, if it happens only some of the time. I've made the error message a bit more specific, so we can see what actual error code is being returned. I'm not sure why basic mode wouldn't be working though. Another workaround might be to go to the specific day's log page rather than the main WP:TFD page. - Evad37 [talk] 03:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Evad37:--Thanks! Accessing from the daily log solves my problem.Winged Blades Godric 13:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

CFD closer not working...

{{Resolved}}

Any idea about why the CFD closer fails to pick up the article(s) nominated and is always running in basic mode in every discussion?Winged Blades Godric 13:12, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

CFDs are more complicated than the others, both in terms of detecting nominated pages, and then determining what to do with them afterwards for non-keep results. And multiple-category nominations quite often need different actions for each category. Plus there wasn't much enthusiasm for more than basic closes last time I looked into it – Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 16#Closure_script. - Evad37 [talk] 02:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

{{Resolved}}

Just wondering, is it deliberate that the "unlink pages" option appears as checked by default when making a "delete" close? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, to save other editors the work of cleaning up the redlinks one by one, especially if it's painlessly scripted. As for the default, it's rare that an AfD deletion doesn't warrant unlinking czar 17:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD blanked when relisting

Resolved

Hi, did you really mean to blank the AfD when relisting it? Maybe a script error?  Sandstein  16:51, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sandstein:--To the best of my knowledge and belief, my sanity was allright at the time and as a rule, could not but put the blame on a script-error!!Maybe Evad37 will be able to share some more details!Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:--This was par-excellence!Huh?!Winged Blades Godric 15:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
If by 'par-excellence' you mean a right total balls-up that made me look arsehat of the decade, you're dead right! :o — fortunavelut luna 16:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I've got no idea what happened here, especially since SoWhy relisted it very soon after [4] with no problem, and all these other relists you did from around that time [5] seem to have been completed properly. - Evad37 [talk] 04:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I was able to reproduce the bug by throttling my connection speed and relisting multiple discussions as quickly as possible. I've adjusted the code the handles edit-conflict avoidance (by deferring relists if previous ones haven't finished editing), which seems to fix the problem. - Evad37 [talk] 03:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the solution.:)Winged Blades Godric 04:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Add category Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times automatically

Resolved

Can XFDC be modified to analyze the amount of prior relists and add Category:AfD debates relisted 3 or more times when relisting a third time? Regards SoWhy 06:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed - I did have this in there, but the code that counted the number of prior relists wasn't working. - Evad37 [talk] 07:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Newlines

Resolved
 – with respect to XFDcloser

Would it be possible to have the closer

  1. Check to see if the page starts with a Wikitable or list item and (if so) add a newline between the TfD notice and the Wikitable or list item? Currently, I have to go back and clean up after the tagging.
  2. Check to see if there is a newline after the TfD notice, and if so, remove it along with the TfD notice when closing? Currently, I have to go back and clean up after closing (see here for example).

Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:20, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Plastikspork: Can you clarify #1? Do you mean when adding the noincluded {{being deleted}} notice for a holding cell listing, or something else? - Evad37 [talk] 00:03, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Evad37, I realized that #1 is actually a twinkle problem, or whatever automated tools people used to tag templates for deletion. I'm not sure if it's also a problem when the "being deleted" is added. Basically, it's the reverse of #2. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 18:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
@Plastikspork:  Fixed #2. Twinkle problems really need to go to WT:TW or their GitHub. Or perhaps #1 should be a bot task, since you what to catch it no matter which tool was used, or if it was done manually. - Evad37 [talk] 00:32, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't close already closed AFDs

I had a log page for AFD open that did not correctly reflect that an AFD was already closed, so I tried to close it and the script did not notice that. Maybe a conflict check can be added (such as when trying to relist a closed AFD) that aborts a close if the archive template is found on the page? Regards SoWhy 15:25, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I've had that happen a couple of times as well. I originally though "well just refresh the page first!" but then I wrote out a rather long closing statement only to be ec'd by someone else who didn't leave one. So... this might actually be helpful. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy and Primefac:  Done, closing will now be aborted if the discussion is already closed, assuming the standard closing templates were used. I'm also thinking a check could be done when the dialog window is opened, which could save writing out a closing statement (unless it happens to get closed after you open the dialogue box) – but I haven't yet coded it. - Evad37 [talk] 03:18, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Feature request: Multi-relist when viewing AFD log

I don't know if it's possible since the script seems to load for every AFD separately but here goes: Oftentimes you want to relist quite a few AFDs for lack of participation, so it would be cool if you could check them on the log page and click relist once, with the script only having to edit the old and new log page once, thus reducing strain on the server. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to worry about in terms of performance per WP:PERF. And it would only be possible by rewriting or just about duplicating quite a bit of code. Still, perhaps something I could consider in the future. - Evad37 [talk] 05:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

RFD: Remove transclusion if no more discussions are open

I was just reminded, that with RFD, one is expected to remove the log page's transclusion from the main RFD page if no more discussions are open, so I wondered, couldn't XFDCloser do that? Since unlike AFD, RFD has all discussions on a single page, the script is already editing said page to close discussions, so it would just also have to check if any discussion is still open and if not, remove the transclusion (the "still open" check already exists in the code for hiding closed discussions, does it not?). Regards SoWhy 06:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It might be possible, but its not quite that simple – while RFD does have all discussions for a day on a single page, the script only looks at and edits single sections while closing discussions, and the hiding of closed discussions is based on the rendered html in the browser rather than the wikitext. - Evad37 [talk] 05:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on this message on my talk page, I think XFDC could be made able to identify entries in lists and remove them completely, couldn't it? Regards SoWhy 16:49, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Based on the previous discussion, the main hang-up might be in determining when a page is a list. The title beginning with "List of" could be an indication. czar 16:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
The main concern I have is around false positives, because there are going to be some contexts where deleting list items mucks up the list structure – e.g. if there are sub-items, those will become attached to the previous list item; or if the selection criteria is "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria" or "short, complete list of every item that is verifiably a member of the group", then not having an article doesn't necessarily mean there shouldn't be a list entry. - Evad37 [talk] 04:33, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
What if the script prompted those ambiguous cases for the closer to handle manually? Is that more feasible? czar 05:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
That would be a good compromise, Czar, I'd be happy with that. Regards SoWhy 06:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy and Czar: I don't know if prompting would be practical, since "ambiguous cases" would likely have to be every case of the link being a list item, as I don't think there's a easy/reliable way to tell if a list should be 'all-notable' or 'not-all-notable'.
But thinking more about this, I can probably get around the subitems issue by assuming most lists don't go beyond 3 (***) or 4 (****) levels. And I wonder if I'm being too cautious regarding not-all-notable lists... would it be reasonable to assume that for most cases where the item should be retained, the AfD would end in redirection rather than deletion (e.g. from some minor character to a list of characters)? - Evad37 [talk] 02:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Ya, it's safe to say that we only unlink when the discussion recommends deletion over redirection (as in don't keep any links to this topic). I'll collect the next batches I unlink and see if there are any lists that would pose an issue. Offhand and having checked many of my unlinks over the years, I've rarely found a list where the topic occupied its own line and was worth keeping even after being unlinked. Tables might be a bit harder to parse. czar 06:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:ATD is oftentimes ignored by both !voters and closers alike, so I don't think it's safe to assume that just because the discussion ended in deletion, redirecting was considered but decided against. Just take these examples of my !votes within the last two weeks: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. All of them without anyone previously considering a redirect and some of them were still closed as delete despite redirecting being the policy-based alternative. Regarsd SoWhy 06:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yep, but it's still the closer's choice to unlink. To Evad's question, if the closer chose to unlink in any of your cited discussions, we'd want its single-link entries removed from relevant lists so as to prevent the circumstance mentioned on your talk page. I'm struggling to think of an edge case where the unlinked item's bulleted line shouldn't be removed. At the very least, I'd default to removing "* Example" entries and I'd conservatively classify "* Example, a description of example" or a following entry with greater indent as situations that might warrant prompting & manual processing. czar 07:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done in version 3 - Evad37 [talk] 09:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Feature idea: Automatic WikiProject tagging when closing as redirect

Oftentimes articles are tagged with WikiProject banners which contain class=X parameters. I propose XFDC changes these to class=redirect when closing an AFD as redirect and tagging the talk page with the OldAFD template. Regards SoWhy 10:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There's a bot that fixes things after a week: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EnterpriseyBot 10. (Not saying that the script couldn't do t in the future, but its a low priority) - Evad37 [talk] 02:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I just closed a multi-template TFD, and after going through the process of selecting delete, etc etc, the "are you sure you want to take 6 actions" box popped up behind the main "XFDcloser" box. Had to shift the main box out of the way (which it almost couldn't do thanks to its size) in order to click "yes". Primefac (talk) 01:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 03:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Version 3

Hi all,
I've been working on a new major version of the script – a substantial rewrite to enable processing of multiple-result closes (e.g. "keep some, delete others"). Also:

  • Fancy Rcat selector – type in manually, or select from a dropdown, or start typing to and choose from matching options in the dropdown.
  • Improved handling of old xfd templates: collapse multiple banners into a single {{Old AfD multi}}.
  • When unlinking backlinks:
    • Also unlink redirects
    • Remove list items instead of unlinking for single link items (i.e. for *[[Example]], but not *[[Example]] – some text...)

There may be some new bugs (or the re-emergence of some old ones) due to the significant backend code changes. I'll post here again when it's ready. - Evad37 [talk] 00:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice. Would it make sense to offer a few Rcats as recommendations? (Perhaps those used most often if not something more intricate?) I like {{R from related topic}} because it fits in most cases and is ostensibly better than nothing but some closers might not know about {{r from book}}, {{r from song}}, for example. Also is there a benefit to using {{Old AfD multi}} over {{article history}}? Thanks again for your continued work on this. Approaching Twinkle-levels of greatness czar 03:02, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The Rcats in the dropdown are grouped in section, using the same groupings as Template:R template index. I could put some common ones at the top of the dropdown (perhaps {{R to related topic}}, {{R from subtopic}}, {{R to list entry}}, and {{R to section}}) followed by the "Related information" and "Fiction" groupings, before everything else.
{{Article history}} only supports AFD/MFD/TFD, only allows certain results, requires the end date instead of nomination date, and requires an oldid. It's much easier to consolidate existing 'old xfd' banners to {{Old AfD multi}}, which only requires result (without limitation on what it can be), nomination date, and link to the discussion. - Evad37 [talk] 03:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good, and your call on the Rcats. Looking forward to it czar 05:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

plus Updated to version 3.0.0! (The old version is still available at User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v2.js) - Evad37 [talk] 09:02, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Is there something special one has to do with the new version? Now it just says "Closing..." when I click "Close" but no window appears. Regards SoWhy 15:12, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Btw, this is the console output in both Firefox and Chrome for me:
  index.php?title=User:Evad37/extra.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:111 Uncaught TypeError: OO.ui.CapsuleMultiselectWidget is not a constructor
    at Object.extraJs.makeRcatCapsuleMultiselect (index.php?title=User:Evad37/extra.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:111)
    at Dialog.setup (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1967)
    at Discussion.openDialog (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:610)
    at HTMLSpanElement.<anonymous> (index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:708)
    at HTMLSpanElement.dispatch (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki|mediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:65)
    at HTMLSpanElement.elemData.handle (load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki|mediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:60)
Regards SoWhy 15:26, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I was missing a module dependency (which I didn't notice because another script loaded it) – should hopefully work now. - Evad37 [talk] 16:57, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Now the window appears but trying to use it leads to both Firefox and Chrome using 100% CPU and becoming unresponsive :-/ Regards SoWhy 17:16, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
eraser Undone, reverted back to old version. Will take another look tomorrow - Evad37 [talk] 17:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Can I get you to try the new version again by adding the line var xfdc_beta = true; to your common.js?
Anyone else who wants to test the new version can do the same (ping (@Czar and Primefac:) - Evad37 [talk] 07:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done First AFD closed successfully. Will use this beta from now on and report within the next days if I find any bugs. Regards SoWhy 08:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Closed the first multiple results AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agila Social and Economic Carnival (2nd nomination), worked like a charm. Great work! Regards SoWhy 08:53, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The new popup (such as the unlinker) doesn't link its internal text anymore, or at least I recall that it did. The AfD unlinker also appears to list redirects as unlink candidates (even though they're about to be deleted as redirects to a deleted article) czar 17:36, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

When viewing an AFD log page, "Hide closed discussions" is now the default setting, however, they are still shown when first loading and only removed when you click "Show closed discussions" and then "Hide closed discussions". Regards SoWhy 06:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed, and the previous state will now be remembered on future page loads (in the same browser) - Evad37 [talk] 07:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
  1. Just got "All 0 pages listed below may be edited (unless backlinks are only present due to transclusion of a template)." (no results but pop-up showed anyway) on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samir Alamad
  2. Also had a multi-close (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Matheson (musician)) wherein the other articles show in the Unlink dialog even though they were already deleted by the closure
  3. I love the toggle memory on show/hide discussions, but it works best when there is more than one discussion on a page. When visiting single discussion links, like in the previous two bullets, the page shows as empty unless I toggle it on (temporarily) czar 08:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Agree on the last part. Does it really make sense to have that feature on single AFD pages anyway? Why would you ever want them hidden? Regards SoWhy 09:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed #3, will have to look into #1 and #2 - Evad37 [talk] 01:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Should be fixed now - Evad37 [talk] 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
bug   New bug

Not sure why but the script hangs again when trying to close an AFD. Regards SoWhy 11:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Very odd, none of the changes since 29 August have been to that part of the code. Just to confirm, is this the dialog box opening and being unresponsive, or the script hanging after you click the "Close Discussion" button? (or something else?) Also...
  • Which AfD(s)?
  • Is there anything in the console?
  • If you leave it alone for a few minutes and come back, does anything happen?
  • Any difference between trying on the log page and the individual discussion subpage?
  • And does it happen at any of the other XfD venues? - Evad37 [talk] 02:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm....no longer happens now. Sorry, didn't remember which AFD it was but it happened on both the individual page and the log page. Will be on the lookout and report if it happens again. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, happened again:
12:30:22.601 Error: Script terminated by timeout at:
Dialog.prototype.makeRationaleBox/$rationale<@https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:Evad37/XFDcloser/v3.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:1396:9
dispatch@https://wiki.riteme.site/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%7Cmediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:65:913
add/elemData.handle@https://wiki.riteme.site/w/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%7Cmediawiki.legacy.wikibits&only=scripts&skin=monobook&version=0ynbgde:60:459
 1 index.php:1396:9

AFD affected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Indoor Football League season (both on log page and on AFD page), trying to close as keep with rationale. Waiting did not help. I wanted to try it with my alt account but the script is not loading for it (even after I added it to the extended confirmed group). I closed a couple of other AFDs in the mean time but this one still hangs... Regards SoWhy 10:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I've simplified the function that was causing a timeout, hopefully that will fix things. I put a copy of that AfD at User:Evad37/sandbox/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Indoor Football League season for you to test (but make sure you select 'No automated actions', otherwise it will affect the article/talkpage) - Evad37 [talk] 07:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
The test version works, thanks. I'll report back if the error happens again. Also figured out why the alt account didn't work, it loaded an old script that interfered. Regards SoWhy 07:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
  • In the new redirect template chooser, I'm unable to select text as I'm typing, say to clear written text. Also the search appears to require "{{R to" with the braces. Would it be possible/better to only have to type "section" to get {{R to section}}? czar 06:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
    • While you can't select with the mouse, you should still be able to select with the keyboard (Shift + arrow keys). Seems to be an upstream bug since its also like that on the OOjs UI demos.
    •  Done the search improvement: the dropdown menu will now filter based on any matching characters, not just the start of the string – so typing "section" will now bring up {{R to section}} - Evad37 [talk] 03:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

plus Updated everyone to version 3 - Evad37 [talk] 02:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC) {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Problem parsing all pages in AFD

{{resolved}}

Can you take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concision? It only showed the first page when closing despite both noms being linked to by the {{la}} template. Regards SoWhy 12:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The bold text before the {{la}} changed the resulting html enough to throw off the detection. I'll look at adjusting the script tomorrow. - Evad37 [talk] 14:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 02:45, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird G8 thing

{{resolved}}

I just closed a TFD as "delete" and listed at the Holding cell, but while it correctly changed the {{tfd}} to a {{being deleted}} it added a {{db-talk}} to the talk page. Is that normal? Primefac (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It should only be doing that for the "Ready for deletion" section, when the template is tagged with {{db-xfd}}. I'll take a look... - Evad37 [talk] 01:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Evad37, it did it again, and this time with a merge! Primefac (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Here's the on-page output for the process:

Closing discussion: Done!
Updating templates: Done!
Listing at holding cell: Done!
Tagging talk pages for speedy deletion: Done!

TFD glitch? Primefac (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It's a bug in the version 3 code, and I found the cause... but the when I tested the fix, I found it resulted in (or maybe just uncovered) other holding cell-related bugs (templates sometimes not being listed at the holding when they should have been). Might be another day or two before I can deploy a fix. - Evad37 [talk] 15:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac:  Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 03:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Sweet. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect section headers at RfD

{{resolved}}

Hey Tavix, I'm not sure how XFDcloser works since I do not use it. But ... just FYI, I had to add these anchors since the tool added an edit summary to the deletion that redirect to nonexistent sections. Steel1943 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

XFDcloser is a wonderful tool. I highly recommend it, even if it's just for relisting. Evad37 is usually really good about fixing bugs, so I'll ping them and see if they can work out a solution. -- Tavix (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix and Steel1943: Will look into it. Probably has to do with the script not expecting a link in the section header. - Evad37 [talk] 00:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix and Steel1943:  Already fixed with the upgrade to version 3 on 7 September 2017 - Evad37 [talk] 03:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Unlinker bug re: spaces

{{resolved}}

Unlinker skipped one instance because there were "no direct links". The article did have a link, but it had a superfluous space: [[ like so]]. Regex could filter out those spaces to unlink properly czar 16:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 23:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Exclude article alerts from unlinker

{{resolved}}

Might there be a way to automatically exclude unlinker instances that are based in "article alerts" transclusions? E.g., Template:Article alerts columns/doc, Template:Article alerts columns, and Template:WPUnited States Article alerts are listed (even though the links aren't removed, it's a formality to click through). czar 16:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done for those specific pages. Most other article alerts are in project/user space, and so will be ignored anyway. - Evad37 [talk] 09:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
eraser Undone temporarily as part of the revert above - Evad37 [talk] 00:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done again - Evad37 [talk] 03:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I closed this discussion as redirect, and when the closer did it's thing it removed an important link because it thought it was a circular redirect. Don't know if this is a template-specific issue or what, but it was brought to my attention (permalink) so I thought I should pass it along. Primefac (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Primehunter made the valid point that it was a WP:SELFLINK not a true circular redirect, which is something to consider. Primefac (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Not exclusively template-related, but more likely to occur in templates than other pages. The circular redirect removal works by checking the target page for links to the nominated pages. Since in the case the target page was one of the nominated pages, it incorrectly removed the selflink. Shouldn't be too hard to fix. - Evad37 [talk] 01:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Primefac:  Fixed, self-links are now left alone - Evad37 [talk] 03:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"API error: invalidsection"

{{resolved}}

When trying multiple AFDs today, I always go this error:

Closing discussion: Aborted.API error: invalidsection – Could not edit page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Petry; could not close discussion

I tried both on the list and on the nomination page itself. Relisting works but even after relisting closing does not. Happens with all results. AFDs I tried to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sariola (band), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Petry, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suga (entertainer). Regards SoWhy 09:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: That's really weird (invalidsection is the API:Edit error for the section parameter not being an integer or 'new'). Can you close anything on User:Evad37/sandbox/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 26? Have you recently installed any new scripts or gadgets? Can you close anything with your alt account? - Evad37 [talk] 00:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Weird, I tried it again now and now it worked just fine, see [12]. The only gadget I recently activated was the "New wikitext mode" beta feature but that shouldn't mess with API calls, should it? Regards SoWhy 06:50, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 Fixed now – that beta feature was causing the problem, as it was changing the section edit links in a way the script hadn't accounted for. - Evad37 [talk] 07:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Hidden tracking category for unlinked list items?

{{resolved}}

@Czar and SoWhy: Would it be helpful to add a hidden tracking category for unlinked list items (those with more than just a single link), so they can be manually reviewed? – i.e. * [[Example]] description → * Example[[Category:Articles with unlinked list items for manual review|Example]] description - Evad37 [talk] 05:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly (better as a template, so they could all be altered/turned off at once, if necessary). The unlinker's regex has been sufficient for me thus far, but the entries I miss (where your solution would be applicable) are a known unknown czar 05:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure how it would work in practice. Wouldn't a page filled with diffs be easier? Or better yet, the script displaying the proposed removal while unlinking? For example, the script just did this and it wouldn't have been caught by your proposed category but I probably would have caught it if it had asked me if it should remove the whole entry from this list. Regards SoWhy 11:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to compile diffs for some of the edge cases here (you're welcome to join). Perhaps we can deduce some patterns. czar 16:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Extended content
  • schooling institution people lists (usu. alumni/faculty): [13][14]
  • alumni/faculty lists in section of institution's page: [15][16]
  • deaths in 200X: [17]
  • surname set index: [18]
  • sportspeople lists w/ flag and affiliation: [19]
  • section hatnotes: [20]
  • Would not remove the list's line:
    • [21] "Former coach" had the same name as the article deleted, fine with removing redlink, but wouldn't want to remove whole line automatically
I don't think it's likely that much more can be done without a whole bunch of coding for special case rules and exceptions. Prompting the closer before the script edits the page is probably the better option... though in some cases there could be a lot of popups to click through. - Evad37 [talk] 03:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 Done, the script will now ask whether to keep or remove list items which were previously just unlinked. Should it be expanded to also include list items which are just a single link (currently automatically removed)? Or is the false-positive rate of the current automatic removal low enough? - Evad37 [talk] 10:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Ping @Czar and SoWhy: - Evad37 [talk] 10:07, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Hmm...could you maybe add an option to enable such questions with any removal, including list items with only a link (like this)? At least for testing purposes it would be a good way to see how many false positives there actually are. Regards SoWhy 11:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I tried the new version at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elaine Bagshaw which contained a backlink that should trigger the new code at Bagshaw (surname). It caused the script to hang again Non-unlink closes work. Regards SoWhy 11:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Evad37, yep, the XFD unlinker froze the daily AFD page in Chrome for me too—probably want to revert for now so it doesn't affect others. (I'm still enrolled for xfdc_beta, if you want to go that route.) The unlink was simple (Xunlink handled it) so the issue is likely the new change. Re: the new feature, I didn't get any false positives worth noting before, so I'd keep those automatic. It'd be nice, if possible, to be prompted (remove, skip, skip all) with a diff for any edge cases as part of affirming the closer's intention to unlink. I'd only really need to see the surrounding lines and the section header it's under, but I don't know the difficulty of displaying the diff. czar 17:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

eraser Undone for now - Evad37 [talk] 00:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

By the way, this is what was meant to happen:
- Evad37 [talk] 00:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
That should work for just about all cases. Thanks! czar 01:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Beta version

@Czar and SoWhy: I've set up a beta version of the script, activated by having var xfdc_beta = true; in your common/skin js (like before). At the moment the only differences are "behind the scenes" stuff – assuming there's no problems there, I'll look at implementing the prompting for list item links. - Evad37 [talk] 04:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I still have the variable active from before but I'm not sure it works. See here for example, this seems like a candidate for removal from the list but instead it unlinked and I got no popup. Regards SoWhy 10:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
At the moment there's shouldn't be any effective difference in the unlinking – I just want to make sure that some of the related coding changes (which aren't end-user visible) don't make the script hang or cause other problems. I'll let you guys know when I re-implement the new handling for unlinking. - Evad37 [talk] 11:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Czar and SoWhy: You should now get the prompts. (I think I've figured out what the problem was last time: the regex was using was too complicated and was timing out). - Evad37 [talk] 01:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

plus Added to main version, since the beta version doesn't seem to have had any problems - Evad37 [talk] 04:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD

{{resolved}}

You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD#RFC: redirect to XFDcloser?. Evad37 [talk] 09:04, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

RfD: adding "disambiguate" option

{{resolved}}

Closing an RfD as "disambiguate" is a fairly typical result. When a disambiguation is proposed at RfD, it has become common for someone to draft a dab under the redirect. Therefore, I think the default behavior for closing an RfD as disambiguate would be to completely remove {{rfd}}, including the redirect content in the middle. If a disambiguation is already drafted below the redirect, it would then be good to go. If not, there would be a blank slate to create the disambiguation from. -- Tavix (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix:  Done. If the script doesn't find one of the disambiguation templates it will add {{Disambiguation cleanup}}. - Evad37 [talk] 07:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
That's a good idea, that hadn't crossed my mind. Thanks, Evad37. -- Tavix (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

RfD: Temporary maintenance holdings

{{resolved}}

Adding the RfD template to a redirect causes the redirect to be categorized as an article. Recently, {{Rfd}} was updated to add Category:Temporary maintenance holdings to fix this incorrect categorization. After I closed Augusta Ubiorum, I noticed that the category is still there even though XFDC has removed the Rfd template. Can XFDC be updated to remove the category after a close? Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 17:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Tavix:  Done - Evad37 [talk] 01:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Move during AfD discussion

{{resolved}}

Thought you might like to see this, Evad. I found Phra ram long song listed at WP:BADAFD. The article had been moved during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Praramlongsong. Should be fixed now, but better double check me. Courtesy ping (Ammarpad—Paul 012—Spartaz). Sam Sailor 12:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: The author created it in 3 different places;two in draft one in main space. They all now redirect to the article you also now redirected! To simply fix it here are permalinks of all creations, so now you have to redirect them all to where you redirected that one now. Article, Draft, Draft. I hope you get me, the thing is bit confusing. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
@Sam Sailor, Ammarpad, and Spartaz: AFDs where the nominated page becomes a redirect are tricky to handle, as the script can't tell why the page is a redirect. For simple page moves, such as correcting punctuation, the result (keep, delete, etc) should be applied to the redirect's target. But if it was an "out of process" redirection to another article, then applying the result to the target would be quite harmful, particularly if the result is delete and the wrong article gets deleted. I can't see any way to handle this situation other than what the script currently does, which is to ask the closer whether to apply the result to the redirect's target or to the redirect itself. - Evad37 [talk] 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, for clarifying. Evad37. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Keeping relisted RfDs results in "null" date

{{resolved}}

You can see an example here but it seems that when closing an RfD that has been relisted, the "date" parameter in the template is entered as null. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to fail for all RfDs. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Amorymeltzer: This is a very confusing bug, and not consistent. In trying to track down whether it started happening from a certain date, I doscovered it actually seems to depend on the user, e.g.
And I haven't been able to reproduce the bug in my own tests, which makes it hard to know what's going wrong. Maybe it depends on the browser. To those I've pinged above: Which web browser are you using? - Evad37 [talk] 03:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I would say probably 95-99% of my closes are done on Chrome with Windows 10. The rest would be on Safari with my iPhone, but I can't think of any from my phone off the top of my head. I just made a couple closes with Safari [34] [35], and both of them seem to be fine. -- Tavix (talk) 04:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm using chrome on kubuntu 16.04. Had a thought: could be whether hide closed discussions is done (I personally always do it) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:23, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Firefox, OSX. And to the above idea, I usually have them hid, but I just quick-kept one with "hide closed" off and it still did it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Chrome, OSX. Sorry for the late response! Killiondude (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I still don't get why some people are getting null instead of the date of the first comment in a discussion (the regex isn't that complicated, /(?:\d\d:\d\d, )(\d{1,2} \w+ \d{4})(?: \(UTC\))/ for those who understand regex). But I've now got a fallback, that if no date is found, it will use that date of the log page – which isn't technically correct for relisted discussions, but is way better than null (I actually had this fallback coded already, but the logic for activating wasn't quite right). So hopefully this will improve things. - Evad37 [talk] 09:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Your regex gave me an idea — could it be Wikipedia:Comments in Local Time? I have the gadget turned on, and while the edit box is the same for everyone, does XFDcloser process the raw text present in an edit box or the processed text as shown in the browser? The gadget means the "UTC" will have an offset (e.g. UTC-5). I turned the gadget off and kept a relisted RfD, and it worked. I turned it back on and tried a few non-relisted ones, and your fix worked. I can't close as keep/retarget any that are relisted at the moment, and I'd rather not screw around with future RfDs just for testing, so I can't confirm that the gadget is the issue, but I suspect it might be! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm now fairly certain this is why. Following your lead, I created a dummy page for testing. The first two were closed with the gadget on, and the next three with the gadget off. Seems to have made the difference! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll add that one of my successful ones was also on a page with a previous AfD, so, like the one Killiondude diff above that worked, it also worked. Not sure why it's different with {{oldafdmulti}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:47, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
This would make sense. I have that turned on. Killiondude (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Now that I know what's going on, I should be able to build a workaround - Evad37 [talk] 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done, comments in local time shouldn't cause problems any more - Evad37 [talk] 02:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Excellent! Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

I saw this on my watchlist this AM, and Steel1943 just brought it up on my talk page, but apparently when I've closing RfDs, the links in deletion rationales and the oldrfd template have a space after the octothorpe and before the section header. Not super tragic, but annoying. I haven't been able to find any examples of this happening in other closures, so no hints. Only help I can offer is that since it shows up in the keep edit summary, the oldrfd template paramter, and the deletion log, it must be when the link is defined. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed, I've set the script to trim any excess spaces when it grabs the section heading. - Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Kudos

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

I just discovered XFDcloser is smart enough to spot a closing template and delete it for you. Nice job! -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment moved from User:Evad37/XFDcloser ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Redirect and fully protect

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Moved from User talk:Evad37 § XfD closer feature
 – - Evad37 [talk] 00:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure how easy this would be to implement, but as redirect and full protect is becoming a more common alternative to deletion these days, might it be possible to incorporate that as a closing option? Thanks. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, just out of curiosity (I don't do much in AFD space), is it a general trend amongst multiple closers, or just a small minority? I ask only because I know of two or three admins who refuse to delete pages if there is even a remote chance of a redirect.
Don't take this as me opposing the suggestion, mostly out of curiosity.
From a "feedback" perspective, I think merging in page protection into the script would make it unnecessarily complicated. I have a hard enough time dealing with Twinkle's half-dozen dropdown boxes when protecting a page (it's about the only thing I don't use it for). Also, it seems odd to pre-emptively protect a page just because it was deleted/redirected at AFD. Shouldn't we be waiting until someone throws a hissy fit and edit-wars to try and resurrect the article before protecting? Primefac (talk) 22:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Primefac, its becoming a trend among closers from what I've seen to the point where I went ahead and updated WP:SALT to include it. Its certainly not the most common close, but its used enough that I felt it should probably be documented rather than continue to be an IAR move.
To your latter question, no, it should only be used when disruption is clear (in line with the rest of the protection policy). This first time I came across it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick cheese (NSFW picture if you follow the redirect). It was basically a page that was constantly being vandalized, so full protecting the redirect to prevent it made sense. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SportsEngine was the one today that made me think of it: an example of page that was repeatedly redirected and unredirected before I sent it to AfD after FIM asked me about it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of the Catholic Church was a part of the longest running naming dispute on Wikipedia, where there are constantly attempts to change articles, etc. to one's preferred version, so protection being used was to prevent another fork in that dispute. I know I've seen more, but these are the ones that have popped into my head at first because I was involved with them.
Re, complicating the script, I'm not a tech person, but I was thinking something as simple as a checkbox at the bottom like we have for "delete and redirect". Just add's "full protect after redirect". TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to be rewriting Twinkle's PP module. But if its just indefinite full protection with a standard "per [link to AFD]" reason, then that should be feasible. On the other hand, its not exactly difficult to add the protection afterwards (either manually or using Twinkle). Pinging closing admins @Jo-Jo Eumerus and Sandstein for their thoughts. - Evad37 [talk] 00:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
No, nothing involving redoing the Twinkle module, just a checkbox that autoadds the link I think would be useful. I always personally forget to update the Twinkle protection log reason (in general, not here), and I think having it automated could be helpful in these cases. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
I have only sporadically done "redirect and protect" closes, but it could be useful. Not having "unlink" as the default option would be my biggest wish however. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Disabling categories in Draftspace

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

If the result of an AFD is to move it to draftspace, would it be possible for the script to automatically disable the categories with a colon to follow WP:DRAFTNOCAT? ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 16:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that "move" is not one of the options given by the code, how would it know that draftification is the required step? The closer will have to move the page manually anyway, so they might as well notcat the page as well.
I do see what you're getting at, though, as it would save a step (which is the whole point of the script). I guess it just depends on if Evad37 feels that another checkbox is necessary. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, didn't realize that draftifying wasn't an option. Doing searches for variations of 104 for "draftify" 89 for "move to draft", 42 for "move to draft space", 18 for "move to draftspace", 14 for "draftified" 8 for "draft", 2 for "drafted", gives an estimate of 277 times draftifying was the result. That means that since the RFC four years ago, which means that draftifying happens about 70 times a year. Moving as a result has happened 493 times, so assuming that the range begins in the 2004 with the move from VFD to AFD, and discounting the draftifying moves above, that's 344 over 13 years, or about 26.5 times a year. Combining the two would give roughly just under 100 move outcomes per year. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:31, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting stats (genuinely, I like such things). I suppose my point was that no AFD-close-script (that I know of) has ever moved the page automatically, and any "move" close would still have to be implemented manually. Primefac (talk) 18:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just figuring out how frequent this was and to see if it was worth adding a move function. I'm no programmer, but it seems like if the script can use the "Delete" function and fill in the rationale for the deletion log, it seems like it wouldn't be too hard to use the "Move" function and filling in the target field. I did a test with Draft:Draft test page, and one possible workaround, if needed would be just adding "Draft:" in front of the title and submitting the move request without changing the designated namespace.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Feature suggestion for RfD closures

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

Duplicate : Already listed in "Possible future features"

I suggest allowing the addition of redirect categories (rcats) for "keep" closures, similar to the functionality available with "retarget" closures. feminist (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Would love this as well; saves an edit and way better than Sagittarius. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Modules

{{resolved}}

XfD closer needs to be updated to handle modules for deletion; it converted my Module:ConvertTestcase nomination into one for Template:ConvertTestcase in the old log when it did a relisting. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Pppery I thought I deleted that one? Where was it relisted? But, I do agree that it would be great if it could handle modules. I added an option for modules {{being deleted}}. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:29, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong example. Fixed. I noticed the problem happened and confused two of the numerous modules I nominated for deletion. (I'm in the middle of doing a slow patrol of the entire module namspace) {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I fixed that particular log entry here, but, I agree it would be great to have the script changed. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 12:45, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

This is caused by the way the script removes the discussion from the old log page and rebuilds the {{tfd links}} templates. I should have it fixed soon. Evad37 [talk] 14:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done - Evad37 [talk] 14:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Conflict with Template:Deprecated template

{{resolved}}

I had to fix about 6 different closures because it mangled adding the {{being deleted}} tag when there was already a {{deprecated template}} tag. Could also have something to do with the fact that the TfD tag was already noincluded. See, for example, here where it caused the {{deprecated template}} tag to be transcluded in article space! I got a lot of angry messages :) Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The regex that matches the nomination template will also optionally match adjacent <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags if present, since sometimes the nomination template is noincluded. What happened here is that the regex matched the opening tag, and the nomination template, but didn't find the closing tag. I'll have to think about how to fix this. - Evad37 [talk] 15:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Plastikspork:  Fixed - Evad37 [talk] 02:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Possible glitch?

{{resolved}}

I've noticed this a time or two before, but only a week or so after the close - I just closed this TFD as no consensus, but as I watched it refresh I noticed that it gave me these notes about the deletion template not being found. However, all three templates have the XFD notice. Is it just a coincidence that it's the second, fourth, and sixth nominated template? Primefac (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac:  Fixed. The bug was introduced with my last fix in the above section. - Evad37 [talk] 05:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! Primefac (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Syntax highlighting breaks this?

{{resolved}}

It looks like the new syntax highlighting breaks this. I assume this is looking for some specific class pattern in the DOM and syntax highlighting changed what it's looking for. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's very odd. The syntax highlighting should only affect the pages which are being edited, in which case XFDcloser shouldn't be active anyway (the script checks the URL, and won't run if the page is in edit, history, diff, or oldid mode). Can you provide any more details @RoySmith? - Evad37 [talk] 15:42, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I'm an idiot. I meant User:Lifebaka/closedrv.js. Sorry about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:XFDcloser/Archive_2&oldid=1068581720"