≤Aug 27 all pages up to size 1000 have been reviewed and processed. Legacypac (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The report is now running daily. This will make it much easier to use. Thank-you so much MusikAnimal. Legacypac (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All pages to 2100 have been reviewed and processed (excluding new additions each day) Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todays report includes 34 AfC pages that were deleted mainly on May 4 or May 6 and a couple other days. At least some of the same redlinks have appeared on previous versions. Not sure what bug causes the report to keep picking these particular pages up. Draft:Sohail Khan for example Legacypac (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Ping User:MusikAnimal any idea how to fix this? Legacypac (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Replica drift. I ran a query and saw the deleted revisions are still in the revision table. So in other words, according to the replicas (not production), those pages are still live, when obviously they are not. This is rare but does happen every once in a while (see phab:T138967). One quick way to fix it is to restore the page and then delete it again, which I've done for Draft:Sohail Khan. It shouldn't show up on the next version. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Admin, so can I create a page at the title and Request immediate deletion? Would that have the same effect? Or make a list here from the next update and ask for restore and delete? Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating and tagging for deletion worked great. I've got a few more I missed. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac, recreate the pages, and then make a list. I'll nail 'em all at once, rather than playing whack-a-mole as you're doing them. Primefac (talk) 13:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure I got them all tagged as Housekeeping now. Will see if any come back tomorrow. Legacypac (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup that problem is solved. Next problem. I manually counted roughly 580 pages on the report but it reports 2,948 pages so something is screwy in the count or it's not listing all the pages. User:MusikAnimal Legacypac (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! The count was including AfC drafts, too. Surprised we've gone this long without anyone noticing, hehe — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:04, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who was going to count 6,000 lines? Was it counting but not reporting 6 month unedited G13able AfC drafts? Because there are many hundreds of those sitting in AfC declined categories but not showing up here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions Sometimes I go looking for them, if you mouse over with preview enabled you can see how many weeks since last edit User:MusikAnimal if this report pulled all the AfC drafts in properly that would be great because the category is very hit and miss. Pages dribble in and then hundreds one day, but you can always find more in the declined categories. Legacypac (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can use ⌘ Cmd+F (or Ctrl+F) to find "Draft:" and count them that way. Not that anyone would think to question the bot's count when there are thousands =P

Anyhoo, the bot is pulling only drafts that haven't been edited in 6 months. So if you want to list the AfC ones, I can definitely do that. Should it be on a separate page? — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only started to question when the list no longer felt like thousands of pages and I started to feel like I was getting near the bottom. All expanded G13 eligible on one list would be fine. How we review for G13 nomination is nearly the same. I'm really interested to see how many more that adds. There are the declined AfC ones plus the never submitted ones that are not categorized anywhere I'm aware of. Legacypac (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I spot checked dozens of pages on the 20:02 version. There seem to be very very few AfC pages on there (maybe they are there but seems not), but it nicely picked up several thousand?? AfC declines and never submitted but AfC tagged. The count went down by about the number of non-AfC drafts I CSD'd off the last list and did not increase by the new additions. It's progress :) Legacypac (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I'm not sure which version you're talking about, but there shouldn't be any AfC pages at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report. I have however coded it to post AfC pages at User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report/AfC, which amounts to 2,475 at the time of writing! Most look like they weren't submitted for review. In the past, did it have to be submitted to be G13 eligible? — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about this report attached to this talk: User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report is full of Submitted and unsubmitted afc drafts. I was not aware of the AfC report. I guesstimated there were several thousand such drafts. The old G13 covered anything with the AfC banner, submitted or not, in Draft or userspace. We expanded G13 to cover all Drafts in Drsft and any AfC in userspace not edited by bots or maintenance edits in 6 months. Legacypac (talk) 04:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

further spot checks of pages within different size ranges shows no difference between the Report and Report/AFC versions. I can't do a count like you suggested above on my phone but I did an account audit trick to check. Legacypac (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AWESOME. You fixed it :) Thank-you! Legacypac (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be a pest, but something still needs tweeking. Tonights report did not purge +/-192 deleted drafts

• Milestone: this report should hit approximately zero (except for drafts falling stale today). Legacypac (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• there were about 100 carryover but mostly from the 13th. I've processed all non-redlinks to delete or AfC them. There should be no carry over tomorrow... hopefully. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 5 groups of pages that are G13 eligable now when they fall 6 months stale:

1. AfC Declined Draftspace pages (in report, not in count, on /Report/AfC)
2. AfC tagged but not submitted Draftspace pages (in report, not in count, on /Report/AfC)
3. Draft space pages not tagged AfC (in report, counted as 18 today)
4. Userspace pages tagged AfC and declined (never in report)
5. Userspace pages tagged AfC but never submitted. (never in report)

I see no useful reason to divide how we handle these 5 types of pages once they hit 6 months stale User:MusikAnimal The report gives really useful info for evaluating like existence of an identical mainspace title edit count etc. I'm very happy to combine these into one report for people to work. Legacypac (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I can work on getting #4 and 5 into the report. We could combine these all into one, but do you think it will then become too large to work with? It seems the AfC report by itself loads pretty slowly. I notice you generally only get to the top 50 or so per day. Maybe we could have three separate subpages -- /Non-AfC, /AfC, /Userspace -- and the top 100 of each will be shown on the main report under their own section. The full counts will be included there, too. Does that sound helpful? Or is the categorization useless? I could at the very least have a "type" column with "Non-AfC", "AfC" and "Userspace" — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized the AfC pages are also showing up in the main report now... which was not intentional. But so long as you're OK with it! That shows us those two combined can feasibly be on one page. I'll get a report going on the userspace drafts and we'll see how many show up. If there are too many maybe we should do a subpage — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes combined is good. 5 days ago I finished clearing the non-afc backlog so the numbers each day are just pages that went stale that day https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MusikBot/StaleDrafts/Report&action=history. I should be also be able to clear the AfC Draft backlog soon. Legacypac (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MusikAnimal, thanks for providing this report but if it is going to continue to include drafts that have been through AfC, the "non-AfC" should be removed from the heading. I also noticed that the count is incorrect: instead of 252 as shown today, the list in fact contains around 2,100 entries. Perhaps it is still counting non-AfC drafts only: Noyster (talk), 23:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The count is non-AfC drafts (200+) but the overall report includes AfC Draft Drafts (but not Userspace AfC drafts). Pulling them all together in one report called G13 Eligible pages would be ideal, with a correct count. Legacypac (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been meaning to get to this but haven't yet. Will do very soon, promise! :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the counts have been fixed, and I've added a column to distinguish AfC from non-AfC. @Legacypac: How should we identify the user drafts? I know we can go off of the AfC categories, but would pages in Category:Userspace drafts qualify? Anything else? — MusikAnimal ^talk 00:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages have to have a Userspace template inserted on them to land in Category:Userspace drafts. I presume there are 10's of thousands of userspace drafts that are not tagged - for example I have various sandboxes and user subpages and none have been so tagged. Anything 6 months unedited and not a redirect in Category:Declined_AfC_submissions should be included and of course Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions. Whatever process updates Category:G13_eligible_AfC_submissions is very hit and miss. Eligible pages can take months to get onto that list - for example it's at 142 pages right now and is mostly userspace drafts while this page is 2,057 without any userspace drafts. I don't know of any place that reliably lists all G13able userspace drafts. Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After a lot of hard work by various editors this list has been pushed down to 413 today. Legacypac (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zero drafts fell stale in the last three days - that can't be right. Legacypac (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only way of finding G13 drafts atm is this, but there are 3240 drafts there and they are not all G13.-- » Shadowowl | talk 11:50, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not broken. I've been going through drafts before the bot reports them. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You are finding them all after they expire but before the bot finds them? Great job but How? Legacypac (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been running quarry:query/25817. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet :) Legacypac (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, JJMC89, and Primefac: Pinging you three as I take it you are or were using this report... How do you feel about moving it to Wikipedia:Database reports? This would mean nothing more than it will be more discoverable. I'll of course leave a redirect so old links will still work. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal ^talk 04:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update my bookmark - I've left links to this all over the place. Legacypac (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a good idea. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is the idea that discovery would help get people to improve these drafts? If so, I would think it should be restructured somewhat, as right now it is largely G13-related, whether pro or against. I'd worry about people tagging every page in here to "clear" the report, as frequently happens at DBR. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amorymeltzer: I imagine some may try to improve, and indeed others enjoy tag bombing. Over the years the need for a report like this occasionally comes at VPT and elsewhere, and I kept saying I was going to move it to WP:DBR, and am finally getting around to it. The report is geared to find drafts eligible for deletion, but I think it works just as well for finding promising drafts (sort by length, incoming links, etc.). If you think it could be improved, by all means please share your ideas. I don't have an overwhelming urge to move it to DBR, I just thought as this is literally a "database report", it would benefit from living alongside the others — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed, I just know some folks don't want every draft indiscriminately G13d at 6 months. At any rate, I think it's fine — except, is there a difference between tagged and AfC? — but wanted to float the idea since, as noted, it'd be getting more exposure from non-AfC people. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes tagged are those with {{draft article}} (such as Draft:Manzoor Ahmed Mir), but I guess it was written so that AfC templates also count as a tag. Do you think we need broader input? I was just going to get a few OK's here then create a BRFA for record keeping. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I figured Legacypac would be the most likely to have an issue, so no, I think this is fine. AfC doesn't own draftspace or G13, so while I do think it's important that AfC/non-AfC pages be distinguished, it would be of use to the larger community. I suppose you could canvass WT:DBR, but it's a fairly freeform process; there's little traffic there and it's mostly just folks asking MZM to do things for them, so I'd hardly think it worthwhile. Besides, BernsteinBot could use a female companion! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issues with listing the report wherever. Both AfC tagged and non-AfC tagged drafts are subject to G13 deletion but HausterBot only tags AfC tagged pages (it needs the tag) and the Non-AfC pages need a human to G13 them, so the distiction on the report has some value. Legacypac (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks. I've created the BRFA. Again there will be redirect in place, so your links will still work (but obviously you'd need to watch the new page, if you're watching this one). BernsteinBot could use a female companion! haha! Diversity is important :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done! Thanks all, for your input and support — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac, JJMC89, and Primefac: looks like this only shows reports in the Draft: space; is there a similar report for the abandoned AfC submissions in the User: space? Thanks in advance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: There isn't one that I'm aware of. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:21, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@UnitedStatesian: yes - User:SDZeroBot/G13 eligible sorting includes userspace pages too. – SD0001 (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001 wow, you're the best. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SD0001 Yeah, this is really great, thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

😁 – SD0001 (talk) 13:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]