Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval: Difference between revisions
- العربية
- Arpetan
- Asturianu
- Avañe'ẽ
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Corsu
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Euskara
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 한국어
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Igbo
- Bahasa Indonesia
- Interlingua
- Íslenska
- Italiano
- עברית
- ಕನ್ನಡ
- ქართული
- Қазақша
- Кыргызча
- Ladino
- ລາວ
- Latviešu
- Lombard
- Magyar
- मैथिली
- Македонски
- Malagasy
- മലയാളം
- Malti
- मराठी
- مصرى
- Bahasa Melayu
- ꯃꯤꯇꯩ ꯂꯣꯟ
- Minangkabau
- မြန်မာဘာသာ
- Nederlands
- नेपाली
- 日本語
- Нохчийн
- Norsk bokmål
- Occitan
- Oʻzbekcha / ўзбекча
- پنجابی
- ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ
- پښتو
- Piemontèis
- Plattdüütsch
- Polski
- Português
- Qırımtatarca
- Română
- Romani čhib
- Русский
- Sicilianu
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- SiSwati
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Suomi
- Svenska
- தமிழ்
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- Walon
- ייִדיש
- 粵語
- 中文
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
=Bots that have completed the trial period= |
=Bots that have completed the trial period= |
||
<!-- Add New entries at the TOP of this section, when the trial is done, for further community comment on the trial. --> |
<!-- Add New entries at the TOP of this section, when the trial is done, for further community comment on the trial. --> |
||
{{BRFA|K.Kapil77 Bot|25|Trial}} |
|||
{{BRFA|EarwigBot|21|Trial}} |
{{BRFA|EarwigBot|21|Trial}} |
||
{{BRFA|SDZeroBot|10|Trial}} |
{{BRFA|SDZeroBot|10|Trial}} |
Revision as of 10:49, 8 June 2021
All editors are encouraged to participate in the requests below – your comments are appreciated more than you may think! |
New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!
- Approval process – How these discussions work
- Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
- Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon
To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.
Instructions for bot operators | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bot-related archives (v·t·e) |
---|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 |
|
Bot Name | Status | Created | Last editor | Date/Time | Last BAG editor | Date/Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leaderbot (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-08-10, 12:32:53 | Xaosflux | 2024-08-15, 16:25:42 | Xaosflux | 2024-08-15, 16:25:42 |
PonoRoboT 2 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-07-20, 23:38:17 | Primefac | 2024-08-04, 23:49:03 | Primefac | 2024-08-04, 23:49:03 |
Platybot (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2024-07-08, 08:52:05 | Voorts | 2024-08-17, 19:04:13 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
BattyBot 81 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-02-07, 14:12:49 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-02-15, 12:09:35 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-02-15, 12:09:35 |
KiranBOT 9 (T|C|B|F) | Extended trial | 2024-07-15, 23:48:57 | Primefac | 2024-08-10, 13:11:17 | Primefac | 2024-08-10, 13:11:17 |
SodiumBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-07-16, 20:03:26 | Novem Linguae | 2024-08-08, 07:10:31 | Primefac | 2024-08-04, 23:51:27 |
Protection Helper Bot (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-07-30, 22:10:05 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-08-15, 02:32:36 | ProcrastinatingReader | 2024-08-15, 02:32:36 |
DannyS712 bot III 74 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-05-09, 00:02:12 | DannyS712 | 2024-07-21, 02:39:35 | TheSandDoctor | 2024-07-13, 22:20:18 |
StradBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-02-17, 03:20:39 | SD0001 | 2024-02-17, 05:58:51 | SD0001 | 2024-02-17, 05:58:51 |
CapsuleBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | Extended trial | 2023-06-14, 00:14:29 | Capsulecap | 2024-01-20, 02:36:30 | Primefac | 2024-01-15, 07:40:39 |
AussieBot 1 (T|C|B|F) | Extended trial: User response needed! | 2023-03-22, 01:57:36 | Hawkeye7 | 2024-02-18, 23:33:13 | Primefac | 2024-02-18, 20:10:45 |
DoggoBot 10 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2023-03-02, 02:55:00 | Usernamekiran | 2024-07-18, 16:59:45 | Primefac | 2024-01-15, 07:40:49 |
PrimeBOT 39 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2023-05-11, 12:48:50 | Primefac | 2024-08-16, 10:37:20 | Headbomb | 2023-07-02, 17:38:58 |
Current requests for approval
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Primefac (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:03, Thursday, June 3, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Replace invalid year values in articles
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: WP:AWB
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): BOTREQ (permalink)
Edit period(s): OTR
Estimated number of pages affected: 1,211
Namespace(s): Main
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Replace 265–420
(and other variations of the dash) with 266–420
. Generally speaking these will be in redirect links to Jin dynasty (265–420) or non-linked times given in prose.
Discussion
Is there a substantive reason to retarget these redirects without making other changes to the page? Some people object to cosmetic edits by bots. It looks like at least some of the articles, like Murong Wei, have the affected text only in a wikilink with a label. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess redirects came in because I did an insource: search. Even without changing those redirects, there are over 600 pages that specifically list the incorrect information, which is more than I'd like to do manually. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh bother. Most of those uses are from categories. ExperiencedArticleFixer, you might need to run some CFDs to get those changed first. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BotOnHold}} until the above gets sorted - if the cats drop it below a couple hundred, I'll do it manually, otherwise I'll un-hold and proceed. Primefac (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can’t we move the categories too without further discussion? I don’t even know how to run a CFD. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest going the WP:C2D route, which is "speedy renaming to match the article name"; no discussion needed (hopefully). Primefac (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t think I’ll do all that, but thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by operator. With the cat issue sorted, there are only about a dozen places where the text even occurs, and most of them are piped links to the redirect. Primefac (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t think I’ll do all that, but thanks. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 18:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest going the WP:C2D route, which is "speedy renaming to match the article name"; no discussion needed (hopefully). Primefac (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Can’t we move the categories too without further discussion? I don’t even know how to run a CFD. --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: William Avery (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 08:11, Wednesday, June 2, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Remove dead URL's and associated {{Dead link}} tagging from CS1 templates if there is a free alternative available via an identifier.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot and mwparserfromhell)
Source code available: unneededDeadlinksBot.py unneededDeadlinks_medicine.sh unneededDeadlinks.sh wikipythonics_util.py
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#Remove dead links from book and journal citation templates with identifiers - It was agreed to proceed only where there is free access indicated. There may be further discussions to be had regarding other access levels and situations. These would have to be the subject of a further BRFA.
Edit period(s): one time run, with possible ad hoc repeats
Estimated number of pages affected: 111 pages for WikiProject Medicine, c. 1000 pages overall
Namespace(s): Mainspace/Articles
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
- Query the database for pages in Category:Articles with permanently dead external links (See SQL query in unneededDeadlinks.sh). I expect initial runs to be confined to WikiProject Medicine articles. (See unneededDeadlinks_medicine.sh)
- Each {{Deadlink}} present will be processed, and processing only proceeds if there is a value of 'yes' in the fix-attempted parameter.
- Using mwparserfromhell the deadlink template's ancestor elements are examined to find a tag or other element likely to contain the affected citation.
- The affected citation is the sibling template element that precedes the deadlink tag within the identified ancestor. This and the preceding step have details that depend closely on the mwparserfromhell parse tree, and have been refined by scanning large samples of pages. e.g. if there is a plain external link after the preceding template, then the dead link being tagged is that external link, and not a link to any preceding template, so no fix is possible.
- The candidate template is checked for a value in the url parameter. Processing only proceeds if there is a url. Editors sometimes mark a broken doi etc with {{Deadlink}}, rather than using the doi-broken-date parameter.
- The candidate template is checked for a value in the archive-url parameter. Processing only proceeds if there is not an archive-url. Presence of an archive-url should indicate that the link is fixed.
- A check is made to see if there are identifier parameters present that indicate free access. For details see WP:CS1#Access indicator for named identifiers. Under the scope of this request, processing will only proceed if free access is indicated and the access is unaffected by presence of a doi-broken-date or a pmc-embargo-date.
- If all the conditions are fulfilled, the url parameter is removed from the template along with any access-date parameter, and the {{Deadlink}} tagging is removed.
- Apply a general fix to remove template redirects using the rules at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects. (I thought I could apply this fix prior to the above processing to simplify it, but some of the fixed templates were then removed, making the edit summary misleading.)
Test outputs:
- User:William Avery Bot/testsample medicine - list of all 111 citations under WikiProject Medicine identified as fixable.
- User:William Avery Bot/testsample all e - Sample list of 29 fixable citations from general articles beginning with letter 'E'
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AWilliam_Avery_Bot%2Fdeadlinkstest&type=revision&diff=1026339187&oldid=1026333752 - Test edit in userspace. Once a suitable case has been identified, the actual fix is rather simple.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 23:13, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trial complete. I have checked the edits made, and the free sources indicated by the reference template parameters are indeed available in all fifty cases, which was my main worry. Edits here.
- @Velayinosu, Ajpolino, and GreenC: Courtesy ping to original requesters and GreenC, who gave helpful advice. William Avery (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This bot is very helpful since tracking down these articles and making these edits manually would be quite time consuming. It's more limited in scope than I personally prefer but that's understandable since it's new. Maybe its scope can be broadened over time. In any case, thank you for making this bot. Velayinosu (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Primefac (talk) 21:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: Kanashimi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:43, Saturday, May 8, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Maintain challenge templates at corresponding page.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): wikiapi on GitHub
Source code available: 20210902.maintain challenge templates.js on GitHub
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 82#Bot for Challenges projects
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 10K+
Namespace(s): talk pages
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: This task will take over work of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 15.
Discussion
In this TfD the community overwhelmingly decided to merge the banners into the WikiProject banner stuff. Although that was only to apply to the {{WPUS50}} template, I think the sentiment in that discussion was against having it in a separate banner. Example new usage. In line with that, I'm wondering how your task would add these templates? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment. I think we may insert the templates into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Maybe BabbaQ have good idea? By the way, I think using the expression
|WPUS50=
will cause difficulties of related templates if we want to add/remove them later. The problem triggered when I run the task Normalize Multiple issues in zhwiki or jawiki, they allow both{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
and{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
. So I need to check them both. If the challenge templates are merged to different meta-templates as parameters, the situation will be more complicated. In my opinion,{{Multiple issues|{{BLP sources}}}}
is better than{{Multiple issues|BLP sources=true}}
, for it is easy to search for both humans and bots. Kanashimi (talk) 00:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]- The other templates in that category have been nominated for deletion/merging with their parent WikiProject banners. I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion first. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BotOnHold}} Sure. I will wait for the discussion Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Wikipedia article challenge templates ending. Kanashimi (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The other templates in that category have been nominated for deletion/merging with their parent WikiProject banners. I think it would be best to wait for the outcome of that discussion first. Primefac (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac and BabbaQ: It seems Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 10#Wikipedia article challenge templates gets no consensus. How about continues this task? --Kanashimi (talk) 01:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Given my involvement in the TFD (which I believe is sufficient enough to make me involved in this situation) I will refrain from commenting on this from a BAG perspective, but if the TFD closed with no action taken then I see no reason why the templates shouldn't be used in the appropriate locations. Primefac (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment. @BabbaQ I will continue the task. {{BAG assistance needed}} May I do some test edits? I will insert challenge templates into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Kanashimi (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! BabbaQ (talk) 10:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If allowing testing, please give a {{BotTrial}}, thank you! Kanashimi (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the comment. @BabbaQ I will continue the task. {{BAG assistance needed}} May I do some test edits? I will insert challenge templates into {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Kanashimi (talk) 06:26, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (70 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. There are 7 templates in the category, so please do 10 edits per template (if possible). Primefac (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 6 templates that may insert to talk pages. I will try for these templates. Kanashimi (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trial complete. Please see here. There was an issue when inserting as a hatnote, and the bug was fixed. It seems OK now. Kanashimi (talk) 06:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Kanashimi, would you mind posting a direct link to the diffs in question? The RC link you've posted doesn't show anything. Cheers. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see here. Kanashimi (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see here. Kanashimi (talk) 07:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey Kanashimi, would you mind posting a direct link to the diffs in question? The RC link you've posted doesn't show anything. Cheers. (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Request Expired.
Operator: Elliot321 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 14:46, Saturday, January 23, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Source code available:
Function overview: Automatically apply {{redirect category shell}} templates to redirects with Wikidata, and remove redundant {{Wikidata redirect}} templates.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 50,000-100,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: I recently modified {{Redirect category shell}} to automatically detect Wikidata links and apply the template {{Wikidata redirect}} if they exist. This was previously already done with protection levels, and there is no reason that {{Wikidata redirect}} should not also be applied.
There are currently 100,000 redirects in the category Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item, which is applied by the software. There are currently 30,000 redirects in the category Category:Wikidata redirects. Nearly all of these were put into that category by applying {{Wikidata redirect}} manually, meaning they will need the tag removed (as it will be a duplicate).
Many of the remaining 70,000 pages will need the template {{rcat shell}} added. As the change to {{Redirect category shell}} was recent, many redirects connected to Wikidata items, without {{Wikidata redirect}}, but with {{Redirect category shell}}, have not been added to Category:Wikidata redirects. The difference in count between Category:Wikidata redirects and Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item is the number of pages that will be modified.
The edits will be carried out with AWB running as an automated bot. There is very low risk of disruption in this task, though the number of edits is significant. Using AWB, this bot can also carry out other generic fixes to redirects, though this is not a significant part of its functions.
A somewhat similar failed request was Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TomBot, but that that request was for a bot that would edit ~30-60x more pages, with less benefit overall. This is a much more narrow and useful request.
Discussion
- Any prior discussions on doing this that you're aware of, which establish broader consensus for this task?
- Will this BRFA cause Template:Wikidata redirect to become redundant? If I understand correctly, this task will orphan all of its transclusions? If so, and especially if there's no prior discussion, I suggest sending that template to TfD (and then this bot task can be technically implementing that TfD). That would be one way to test the wider consensus for this task, too.
ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no discussions I know of establishing consensus around this particular task. {{Wikidata redirect}} will not become redundant for two reasons. {{redirect category shell}} transcludes it. However, this usage could be subst, of course. The other usage is in cross-Wiki (such as to Wiktionary) and category redirects, the "soft" usage. The "hard" usage could be deprecated from the template, however (they are implemented slightly differently, with an automatic switch). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To begin with, I'd say stylistically this presentation is inferior. See eg here. The one on the top (caused by the edit) doesn't look as good as the manual one & looks slightly out of place with the plaintext.
- If the rcat shell has to be manually added by bot, is there really a point to this? Why not have a bot add {{Wikidata redirect}} to pages in Category:Redirects connected to a Wikidata item? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry - that was due to my changes being misunderstood and reverted. If you check now, you can see the way they were intended to look.
- The reason for adding {{redirect category shell}} over {{wikidata redirect}} is for automatic detection. If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, makes sense. I'd suggest dropping a link to this BRFA from the template talk pages for the two templates, to allow some time for comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 10:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, makes sense. I'd suggest dropping a link to this BRFA from the template talk pages for the two templates, to allow some time for comments. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So the idea is that {{RCAT shell}} should add the Wikidata box by checking for the connected item. Manually adding the template wouldn't be necessary then because the software can already detect if a page is connected to a Wikidata item. Is that correct? --PhiH (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @PhiH: pretty much. The shell will automatically detect a link to Wikidata, and if found, transclude the template. Therefore, this bot will remove the redundant manual transclusions of the template, and add the shell to automatically transclude on any redirect linked to Wikidata. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand what changed with {{wikidata redirect}} and {{redirect category shell}} correctly, redirects that only have {{wikidata redirect}} will be changed to an empty {{redirect category shell}}, which then results in an error. This means that manual inspection is needed to determine another redirect category to apply, which obviously this Bot task cannot do. —seav (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, an empty Rcat shell results in sorting the redirect to the Miscellaneous redirects category, which is monitored by editors who will then tag the redirect with appropriate categories. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 03:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that be a problem then, Paine Ellsworth? Filling the cat up with some tens of thousands of pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An empty RCAT shell with a Wikidata item doesn't need to be categorised in Category:Miscellaneous redirects because it generates the Template:Wikidata redirect. I didn't check if that is implemented yet. A page with that template and no Wikidata item is a problem as well. They just move from one tracking category to another. --PhiH (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why doesn't it need to be categorised into misc redirects? Having a Wikidata item connected/existing isn't really an explanation of why there's a redirect on enwiki. Surely the redirect still needs to be categorised? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @PhiH: @ProcrastinatingReader: the {{redirect category shell}} template should not be applied without any categories by a bot as the Category:Miscellaneous redirects should be filled manually. Consequently, I don't plan to do that with this bot. I can manually categorize the redirects that do not have any categories.
- (though, a tracking category for uncategorized redirects that can be applied by a bot would probably be useful. I don't feel like gaining consensus for that, though, as that would likely be much more contentious than this proposal) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 11:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my point is easier to demonstrate with an example, or I’m mistaken about exactly what is proposed here. Can you make 5 edits as a demonstration, either with the bot or by hand if you don’t have the bot coded yet? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a page demonstrating what changes would be made would be more useful, since there are a few differing cases here? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An actual edit or two of each case would be preferable, as that's the least confusing way to see what is actually proposed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a page demonstrating what changes would be made would be more useful, since there are a few differing cases here? Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But you want to add an empty RCAT shell to pages that currently only use {{Wikidata redirect}}, don't you? Should they be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects if they are connected to a Wikidata item or not? --PhiH (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can manually categorize the pages currently in that situation. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not about manual categorisation. We are discussing whether the category should be added by the RCAT shell when the redirect is connected to a Wikidata item. --PhiH (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can manually categorize the pages currently in that situation. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 03:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my point is easier to demonstrate with an example, or I’m mistaken about exactly what is proposed here. Can you make 5 edits as a demonstration, either with the bot or by hand if you don’t have the bot coded yet? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- To editor ProcrastinatingReader: as long as there is at least one rcat template within the Rcat shell, such as the "Wikidata redirect" template, then the redirect would not be sorted to Category:Miscellaneous redirects. As the proposer suggests, that would not be a problem. The proposer appears to know that a bot should not add an empty Rcat shell to redirects, which would bloat the Misc. redirects category. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 15:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- An empty RCAT shell with a Wikidata item doesn't need to be categorised in Category:Miscellaneous redirects because it generates the Template:Wikidata redirect. I didn't check if that is implemented yet. A page with that template and no Wikidata item is a problem as well. They just move from one tracking category to another. --PhiH (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Would that be a problem then, Paine Ellsworth? Filling the cat up with some tens of thousands of pages? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are multiple cases we have to discuss, feel free to comment below.
- Redirects that already use the RCAT shell
- This should be uncontroversial: Where {{Wikidata redirect}} is used it gets removed and the template is transcluded by the RCAT shell.
- Redirects without the RCAT shell…
- …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
- The template gets removed and the RCAT shell is added. Should the RCAT shell be programmed to add these pages to Category:Miscellaneous redirects?
- …that don't use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
- The RCAT shell is added. Same question as above arises.
- …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are not connected to a Wikidata item
- The template gets removed. Adding the RCAT shell would cause them to be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects.
Currently these pages are tracked in Category:Unlinked Wikidata redirects. Before this bot task begins someone should work through this list and add the pages on Wikidata if necessary.
- The template gets removed. Adding the RCAT shell would cause them to be added to Category:Miscellaneous redirects.
- …that use {{Wikidata redirect}} and are connected to a Wikidata item
--PhiH (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, this bot will add the Rcat shell along with an internal {{Wikidata redirect}} tag when it senses any redirect that is already itemized on Wikidata. If that is what happens, then the redirect will not be sorted to the Misc. redirects category. I also sense a possible challenge where the {{NASTRO comment}} template is applied. One of many examples is at 3866 Langley. Would this bot do anything to those many redirects? I actually like the idea of more Rcat shell transclusions. I wonder if the bot will continue checking for new redirects that become connected to a Wikidata item? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot won't touch the {{NASTRO comment}} redirects, since it has no need to.
- I could run this after the main clean-up job (probably a weekly run would be sufficient). Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- NASTRO comment applies the Rcat shell and so would auto-apply the Wikidata redirect template. There will then be two renditions of Wikidata redirect. Won't one of them have to be removed? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 18:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the point of this bot is that these edits wouldn't be necessary anymore. Here you said If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary) --PhiH (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A weekly run would handle any new redirects that have been created. Editors LOVE to create new redirects; however, they generally leave it up to bots and Wikignomes to categorize their new redirects. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds reasonable. I hadn't thought about completely new pages. --PhiH (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A weekly run would handle any new redirects that have been created. Editors LOVE to create new redirects; however, they generally leave it up to bots and Wikignomes to categorize their new redirects. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought the point of this bot is that these edits wouldn't be necessary anymore. Here you said If the link on Wikidata is removed, no update on Wikipedia is necessary (likewise, if a link on Wikidata is added to one using the shell, no update is necessary) --PhiH (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @PhiH: "Redirects that already use the RCAT shell: This should be uncontroversial": Have you thought about the cases where the rcat shell only contains the Wikidata rcat? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also curious as to why AWB is used? Don't get me wrong; I love AWB. However it's not known for its speed or lack of clunkiness. According to the manual, ...any edit to the bot's talk page will halt the bot. Before restarting the bot, the bot operator must log in to the bot account and visit the bot's talk page, so that the "new messages" notification is cancelled.
So why not make a non-AWB bot to do the task? P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 22:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mainly because I know AWB and regex better than I know any other frameworks to interface with Wikipedia. I could write custom code, if that would be preferred. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:26, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just curious, so it would be up to you, of course. I just know how it drives me crazy sometimes when I have to stop in the middle of something, log out of AWB, log in to Wikipedia just to check notifications, log back out and into AWB to commence. That happens with non-bot-auto work as well. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... you don't have to log out of AWB to reset the counter. Also, technically you don't have to log out of Wikipedia either if you log in to the bot account in private mode. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I was just curious, so it would be up to you, of course. I just know how it drives me crazy sometimes when I have to stop in the middle of something, log out of AWB, log in to Wikipedia just to check notifications, log back out and into AWB to commence. That happens with non-bot-auto work as well. P.I. Ellsworth ed. put'r there 18:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So just to clarify what I'm waiting on: An actual edit or two of each case would be preferable, as that's the least confusing way to see what is actually proposed.
After that, it'll be more clear to have the discussion on which edits are good and which need further discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: the message above. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Primefac and ProcrastinatingReader: thanks for the ping. I've actually expanded the scope of what I'm intending to do here a bit (see User:Elli/rcat standardization) - and planning on getting consensus for the changes elsewhere first, before going through with this, so if I could put this request on hold or something that would be ideal (sorry, I'm not sure exactly how this type of situation works, but getting approval for the narrow task of shelling and removing one rcat doesn't really make sense given my goal to deal with ~20 of them). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On hold. Just comment out the template when you're ready to go (no harm in having it sit here for a while). Primefac (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This very productive discussion probably should have happened somewhere else prior to the BRFA being filed. Maybe this BRFA should be withdrawn pending a full discussion and manual demonstration of various test cases, and then resubmitted with a link to that discussion and a better explanation of the task. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- On hold. Just comment out the template when you're ready to go (no harm in having it sit here for a while). Primefac (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Primefac and ProcrastinatingReader: thanks for the ping. I've actually expanded the scope of what I'm intending to do here a bit (see User:Elli/rcat standardization) - and planning on getting consensus for the changes elsewhere first, before going through with this, so if I could put this request on hold or something that would be ideal (sorry, I'm not sure exactly how this type of situation works, but getting approval for the narrow task of shelling and removing one rcat doesn't really make sense given my goal to deal with ~20 of them). Elli (talk | contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Elli: Just to follow up here: do you still intend to go through with this BRFA? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProcrastinatingReader: yes, just been busy with other stuff and not completely sure of the technical details yet. I'll try to follow up on that soon-ish. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have another proposal: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Place or remove T:Wikidata redirect. Why my proposal is better:
- it keeps Qids ("Q" number), thus we can track if someone moves the redirect to another wikidata entry.
- it does not mess up with RCAT which is only for categories. Heanor (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. Marking as expired since it's been about 15 months, but feel free to reopen if you intend to continue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Bots in a trial period
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: Tol (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:52, Monday, May 31, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Updates Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Nearly the same as User:TolBot/Task 1#Source
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): BRFA TolBot 1
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Function details: Almost the exact same as described in BRFA TolBot 1, except it uses a whitelist of countries (only African countries) instead of a blacklist of non-countries (like continents and income groups).
Discussion
A test edit is here. This is a rather tiny change from the original task (but it still requires another BRFA). Tol | talk | contribs 17:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 11:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trial complete. Just see the history of Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa — there's not much else. Performs as expected. Tol | talk | contribs 04:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a BAG member, but I have been watching the diffs, and they look great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! Tol | talk | contribs 22:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAG assistance needed}} The trial completed more than two weeks ago; could someone please reply on this task's status? (On another note, I apparently forgot to disable its crontab entry, so its trial is longer than intended; I've turned it off now.) Thanks, Tol | talk | contribs 22:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not a BAG member, but I have been watching the diffs, and they look great. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trial complete. Just see the history of Template:COVID-19 vaccination data in Africa — there's not much else. Performs as expected. Tol | talk | contribs 04:14, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Countries with no data & sorting
This update removed countries from this list. Is there a reason to remove countries, even if there is no sourced data available? Also, it would be helpful to maintain the alphabetical order of countries so that it is easy to parse the diffs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot is removing countries from the list and re-sorting them out of alphabetical order, which makes the diffs very challenging to inspect. Please fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: It only outputs data for countries which have data from OWID. It cannot add countries for which no data is available. I can, however, get it to output the countries in alphabetical order. By the way, your reversion broke the bot (it relies on the HTML comments "
<!-- PASTE UPDATED DATA BELOW THIS LINE -->
" and "<!-- UPDATED DATA ABOVE THIS LINE -->
" to tell where the data starts and ends). Tol | talk | contribs 18:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry about breaking the bot. After the next update, I'll add a note about the missing countries. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: It's fine. I've just patched in an update to sorting so that it sorts alphabetically. I just manually ran it — how does it look? Tol | talk | contribs 18:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Better! It appears to be missing Gabon, even though there is data at the source (assuming you are using the OWID site) for that country. Burundi, Eritrea, and Tanzania are missing from the OWID site, so they can be omitted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: I'll add Gabon; it should be there with the next update. Tol | talk | contribs 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The last three or four daily updates have been great! The diffs are easy to read, and no countries have been removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: I'll add Gabon; it should be there with the next update. Tol | talk | contribs 19:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Better! It appears to be missing Gabon, even though there is data at the source (assuming you are using the OWID site) for that country. Burundi, Eritrea, and Tanzania are missing from the OWID site, so they can be omitted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: It's fine. I've just patched in an update to sorting so that it sorts alphabetically. I just manually ran it — how does it look? Tol | talk | contribs 18:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about breaking the bot. After the next update, I'll add a note about the missing countries. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: It only outputs data for countries which have data from OWID. It cannot add countries for which no data is available. I can, however, get it to output the countries in alphabetical order. By the way, your reversion broke the bot (it relies on the HTML comments "
Approved. As per usual, any minor changes due to missing or improper functionality can be made without further consensus, but any major changes need to be requested on the talk page. Primefac (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: EpicPupper (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:57, Wednesday, June 2, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser, RegEx replaces
Source code available: AWB. The regex is available at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/DoggoBot signature replacements.js, and the custom replace for PumpkinSky's signatures is at [1].
Function overview: Bot to fix various Lint errors, as well as replacing PumpkinSky's signatures including font tags with span tags.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): BOTREQ, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot
Edit period(s): One time run, unless more conclusive regexes are written
Estimated number of pages affected: 1,081 currently most likely much more with the new regexes, need to run a search to get the exact number
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Requesting bot flag as to not clutter RC. The bot account will need AWB access. All edits will be marked as "minor". Tested once with my own account here (with JWB, as I was on my Mac, but the bot will probably run AWB). "Unicodify" function will be enabled.
Discussion
I support this task, and request that you add more regexes so that pages do not have to be revisited by multiple bots. On the page linked above in the sample diff, there were multiple easily fixable font tags, along with missing italics at the end of Template:RM bottom, that could be fixed with simple regexes while the bot is visiting each page. There are many such regexes listed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MalnadachBot, although the operator reports that they resulted in some false positives. I have some more limited regexes at User:Jonesey95/AutoEd/doi.js, in the sections marked "font wrapping links - move inside link and convert to span tag", "replace font tag in user and user talk links with span tag", and "replace all deprecated font color tags enclosing untagged text". I have never seen a false positive with those regexes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: Thank you for mentioning these. I'll take a look at those pages (and the related discussions linked at the BRFA) and try to pick up all the regexes that seem to have no false positives. I prefer to stay on the safe side and only add the non-false positive regexes. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, looking at WP:HTML5, there seem to be many other easy replaces (eg strike tags with s tags), which hopefully can be incorporated into this request. Compiling a full list later. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: Please let me know when you are ready for a trial. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you TheSandDoctor. @Jonesey95: could you take a look at the regexes at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js? I am aware that the script is very erroneous and will most likely not work, I am just using it as a dumping ground for regexes (I'll input them raw in AWB). EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are planning to run this bot without supervision, I recommend removing the sections entitled "Links in links", "Fix linter problems", "Fix linter missing or extra end tags", "div-span-flip error", "small tag or template wrapping multiple lines", and "replace deprecated tt tags" (both sections). Certain regexes in those sections can create new errors or recommend inappropriate changes. I always use my script in a supervised mode, inspecting each preview before I save it, so that I can avoid those inappropriate changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed, please tell me if you have any other concerns. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor: I think I'm ready for a trial. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 04:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: Any objections? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jonesey95: Any objections? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor: I think I'm ready for a trial. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 04:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed, please tell me if you have any other concerns. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are planning to run this bot without supervision, I recommend removing the sections entitled "Links in links", "Fix linter problems", "Fix linter missing or extra end tags", "div-span-flip error", "small tag or template wrapping multiple lines", and "replace deprecated tt tags" (both sections). Certain regexes in those sections can create new errors or recommend inappropriate changes. I always use my script in a supervised mode, inspecting each preview before I save it, so that I can avoid those inappropriate changes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you TheSandDoctor. @Jonesey95: could you take a look at the regexes at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js? I am aware that the script is very erroneous and will most likely not work, I am just using it as a dumping ground for regexes (I'll input them raw in AWB). EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 16:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: Please let me know when you are ready for a trial. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As a note, looking at WP:HTML5, there seem to be many other easy replaces (eg strike tags with s tags), which hopefully can be incorporated into this request. Compiling a full list later. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 21:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. @EpicPupper: --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Fix various errors" is too broad. The specific scope of this bot should be documented here. Please note, I just denied BRFA Task#2. — xaosflux Talk 00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, they (regexes) are listed at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Xaosflux: Courtesy ping. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, they (regexes) are listed at User:EpicPupper/sandbox/4.js. EpicPupper (talk, contribs) 02:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted to note that I am Still doing..., I've had some trouble with making the search query for AWB but hopefully I've got it now. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 04:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- EpicPupper, the bot needs to be added to WP:AWB/CP in order to use AWB. You can use AWB's Wiki search (all NS) option and enter insource search string to get a list of pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ:, yes I am aware that an insource search is possible, however I am having a bit of trouble assembling the search with so many regexes. @TheSandDoctor: that reminds be, would my bot be able to added to the AWB CheckPage? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: Done for trial purposes. What's the status of this? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there and sorry for the extremely late reply. The regex search I put together timed out, so I'll need to split it into chunks of three. I'll finish this today. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor: hey there, it seems like the wikitext CheckPage is not working. Please add my bot to the JSON CheckPage, thanks. I get a permission error in AWB when trying to run the bot. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: I did? Not sure why you are getting any errors. What JSON page? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor: see here. The JSON CheckPage is located here. The newest version of AWB now requires users to be on the JSON one. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: I didn't know about the new one, oops. Thanks for the link and the FYI. Done with Special:Diff/1031660294. --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor: see here. The JSON CheckPage is located here. The newest version of AWB now requires users to be on the JSON one. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: I did? Not sure why you are getting any errors. What JSON page? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:20, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor: hey there, it seems like the wikitext CheckPage is not working. Please add my bot to the JSON CheckPage, thanks. I get a permission error in AWB when trying to run the bot. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 22:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there and sorry for the extremely late reply. The regex search I put together timed out, so I'll need to split it into chunks of three. I'll finish this today. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs | please use {{ping}} on reply) 20:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: Done for trial purposes. What's the status of this? --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ:, yes I am aware that an insource search is possible, however I am having a bit of trouble assembling the search with so many regexes. @TheSandDoctor: that reminds be, would my bot be able to added to the AWB CheckPage? Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk, FAQ, contribs) 16:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- EpicPupper, the bot needs to be added to WP:AWB/CP in order to use AWB. You can use AWB's Wiki search (all NS) option and enter insource search string to get a list of pages. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 04:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: Just to follow up here: do you still intend to go through with this BRFA? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Sorry, this went on the backburner for me after some very busy months. I'll try to get this done ASAP. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: Any updates or would you rather we put this one on hold? --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @TheSandDoctor please put this on hold until I can get things sorted out. Still trying to get my searches to work. Thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 19:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @EpicPupper: Any updates or would you rather we put this one on hold? --TheSandDoctor Talk 07:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProcrastinatingReader: Sorry, this went on the backburner for me after some very busy months. I'll try to get this done ASAP. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 02:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On hold.. Ping me when ready to continue. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, TheSandDoctor. Trial complete. 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 03:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one who posted the BOTREQ before I had a bot account more than a year ago. I have since got my own bot (MalnadachBot) to do this and gone through a dozen BRFAs to fix Lint errors. The scope of User:MalnadachBot/Task 12 covers every type of Lint error, so this task will be a duplicate. For the last 5 months MalnadachBot has been clearing 35-40k errors per day. Of course there is still a large backlog so another bot can work on this too.For the record, I oppose unicodifying non-mainspace pages like this. Unescaped
|
and some other symbols breaks templates, so editors deliberately choose hexadecimal characters in their signatures. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Thank you for the update, @ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ. I'm going to mark this request as Withdrawn by operator. I feel that your bot can tackle this task in the most efficent way possible :) I'd recommend taking a look at the replacements and adding any applicable to your workflow. Cheers, 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 16:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I was the one who posted the BOTREQ before I had a bot account more than a year ago. I have since got my own bot (MalnadachBot) to do this and gone through a dozen BRFAs to fix Lint errors. The scope of User:MalnadachBot/Task 12 covers every type of Lint error, so this task will be a duplicate. For the last 5 months MalnadachBot has been clearing 35-40k errors per day. Of course there is still a large backlog so another bot can work on this too.For the record, I oppose unicodifying non-mainspace pages like this. Unescaped
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 01:23, Tuesday, May 25, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): C#
Source code available: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/source/tool-milhistbot/browse/master/mono/PeerReviews.cs
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:FACBot#Updates to peer review
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 1,000
Namespace(s): Talk
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Run through articles with old peer review templates and merge them into the article history template where one exists.
Discussion
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 03:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the results of the run limited to 25 edits:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
All checked look fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:05, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2, the bot converted the original template's date
February 2008
to00:00:00 01 February 2008 (UTC)
. Could this be avoided? Maybe always put the date as the date of last edit rather than read from PR template?- Code added to detect this case and subsitute the date of the last edit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In 3, there's still a
{{Old peer review}}
left on the page (there were 2 initially).- This proved to be quite interesting, but Bot will handle it correctly now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In 4, the PR date added is 20 October 2015 but that was when the page was moved. PR is actually from 2013. Not sure if this is worth fixing.
- In 6, it duplicated the already existing PR in the AH template.
- Code added to detect this and not add a duplicate entry. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2, the bot converted the original template's date
- – SD0001 (talk) 13:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SD0001: Should I run off another batch? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved for extended trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 05:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SD0001: Should I run off another batch? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:13, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second run: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
- @Hawkeye7 Sorry I missed looking at the oldids earlier. Turns out the bot has added the current revid instead of the oldid in every edit.
Also, in the 2nd batch:
- In 2: duplication
- An action2 entry without an action1 entry. I have worked around this by deleting and rebuilding the entries but this may cause some minor re-ordering.
- In 9: it added oldid for GA; but it's not correct (GA nom was in 2014 but oldid is for a 2019 edit)
- It also means that in cases where there is a GA or some other entry missing fields like oldid for whatever reason, these will be added.
- In 11: One
{{Old peer review}}
was removed, the other remains- Similar problem. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In 2: duplication
- – SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have fixed the problem with the revid (caused by fiddling with the dates to fix a problem with the first set). have re-run against each of the problematic edits (offline, without updating). Will run off another batch. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hawkeye7 Is there any update on this? – SD0001 (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please withdraw this. I made the required changes, but have not been able to work on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by operator. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Please withdraw this. I made the required changes, but have not been able to work on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: Krd (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 07:41, Wednesday, May 12, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Replacement of outdated OTRS templates to generic templates per consensus of OTRS to Znuny LTS migration project team, see: phab:T280392, c:Commons:Bots/Requests/VRTS Migration Bot. Mentions of "OTRS" shall be replaced per advice from the WMF legal team per discretion of the migration team.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl
Source code available: No
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): phab:T280392
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: Not yet known, suspect around 1k or 10k.
Namespace(s): Mostly file and article talk, perhaps all namespaces in small amount.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Could be done if any need arises, but per nature of the task should likely be not done without special need.
Adminbot (Yes/No): Not from the start, but perhaps template editor or similar could be required later.
Function details: See c:Special:Contributions/VRTS Migration Bot. More details available on request, program code for enwiki is not complete and is to be continuously developed.
affected templates
- Template:OTRS permission -> Template:Permission ticket
- Template:OTRS confirmation -> Template:Ticket confirmation
(Additional templates may be affected later after separate discussion and approval.)
Discussion
A little background can found here here. I thought this request might be corporate legal gold-plating, but given the recent events it seems prudent. William Avery (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing the template as requested here is ok. But I note that replacing references in free text would likely be WP:CONTEXTBOT, and I would not include that in an approval here at this time. Anomie⚔ 11:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My assumption reading the request and skimming the contribs at Commons was that it just replaces templates. After I approved the trial the bot made this edit on Commons which also replaces "OTRS" in text. To be clear, whereas CONTEXTBOT might be a possible concern indeed, I also think bot replacement of OTRS or similar in actual text needs wider community consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:42, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Text content changes on Commons include removal of the wort OTRS only, which though sometime requires rewording of the surrounding sentence, like: c:Special:Diff/559798533 or c:Special:Diff/559786216. Such changes are not intended on enwiki, and are not part of this bot request. Should there arise any need for such edits, I think they will be of small amount and can be made manually. --Krd 13:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, could you please make a list of all template name replacements (before/after) this task will be doing, and drop a link to WP:VPM and Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done as requested. --Krd 10:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to be no objection after a week in the started discussions. I tried to make more test edits today but am now run stuck in the rate limit. --Krd 07:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It was already approved for trial above. With regards to rate limits, a bot flag shouldn't be necessary to edit at the speeds described in WP:BOTPERF (1 edit every 5-10 secs). I would also suggest moving the two pages to the new title (by RM or otherwise), because that'd be necessary anyway, and also would better serve as the consensus for the change. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There appears to be no objection after a week in the started discussions. I tried to make more test edits today but am now run stuck in the rate limit. --Krd 07:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are moved and test edit are made as requested, see: Special:Contributions/VRTS Migration Bot. --Krd 07:10, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProcrastinatingReader: if you get a moment to review, I think we're ready to complete this task. Keegan (talk) 18:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. All looks good. For clarity, this approval is for the scope of changing the name used to call the template in wikitext. I'd recommend linking to this BRFA as approval for the task in addition to the phab ticket. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 21:18, Sunday, May 2, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Ruby
Source code available:
Function overview: Update an edit filter automatically.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Edit filter mailing list
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 1
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will periodically update data of a specific edit filter. There's discussion on the edit filter mailing list if any BAG members have access, also happy to discuss on IRC.
The bot account will need to be flagged with EFM. I've done a test without submitting on my own account. Worth noting that since there are no API endpoints to update edit filters programmatically, the bot makes normal web requests for this purpose. It has checks for roughly expected data and saves a record of the request for safekeeping.
Discussion
- In principle, I think this is fine. I would prefer if it runs under an isolated account due to the inherit risk of the EFM role and to make auditing easier. I wish there was more we could say to explain to users about what it's trying to do, but I understand the BEANS risks. Suffusion of Yellow, I checked recent hits of the filter and while I see plenty of unconstructive edits being stopped (and some constructive ones as well), I don't see much of the actual thing it's trying to target. How often do you expect it to hit? Also, would it be at least OK to give the filter number, so users with EFH/EFM/sysop permissions can understand what's going on, without needing to dig through the mailing list? — The Earwig (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, once the bot's running, it will have to be public at Special:Log/abusefilter that it's editing 1122 (hist · log). And we can say that this is what the bot will be doing. Yes, the LTA(s) have "gone dark" right now. I was tempted to disable the filter, before I saw this request. But then we'd be back here in a few months when one of the LTAs returns. So, ProcrastinatingReader, will the bot leave the filter's actions unchanged? What I'd like to do is switch it to log-only (probably a good idea while bot's in testing anyway), but be able to switch it back to disallow again as soon the problem returns. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, it won't try to overwrite any of the other filter properties, or the rest of the filter (outside the relevant portions). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW (not much!), I also feel that bot tasks with 'advanced' rights should run under an isolated account. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 11:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly convinced it improves security, especially in the case of this task, but I also don't mind maintaining a second account. I created User:ProcBot II but it'll need to be temp flagged with bot as well if this goes to trial (due to same issue as ProcBot I; captchas and IP blocks). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This is on my watchlist now, so if it goes to trial I'll give all of the appropriate permissions. Primefac (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW agree that a second account doesn't really improve security as long as your other bot tasks are running out of a BotPassword configuration that doesn't have access to EFM rights. But since it's an advanced right, it might help to enable 2FA for its web-login. – SD0001 (talk) 05:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I don't view it as a security issue, I view it as more of a transparency/clarity issue. If MyBot1 is a "normal" bot and MyBot2 has TPE and MyBot3 is an adminbot, if I see them in the contribs I immediately (assuming I know the bot functions) have a better idea of what "type" of edits the bot is making (in other words, it's easier to quickly check if it is functioning properly). Primefac (talk) 11:58, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not particularly convinced it improves security, especially in the case of this task, but I also don't mind maintaining a second account. I created User:ProcBot II but it'll need to be temp flagged with bot as well if this goes to trial (due to same issue as ProcBot I; captchas and IP blocks). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, once the bot's running, it will have to be public at Special:Log/abusefilter that it's editing 1122 (hist · log). And we can say that this is what the bot will be doing. Yes, the LTA(s) have "gone dark" right now. I was tempted to disable the filter, before I saw this request. But then we'd be back here in a few months when one of the LTAs returns. So, ProcrastinatingReader, will the bot leave the filter's actions unchanged? What I'd like to do is switch it to log-only (probably a good idea while bot's in testing anyway), but be able to switch it back to disallow again as soon the problem returns. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved for trial (14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. The trial should be conducted with the filter in log-only mode, as SoY suggested above, unless the problem returns and we need to switch it to disallow. I will leave the flagging to Primefac. — The Earwig (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Flags granted. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BotOnHold}} Popping on hold for a while. Both scripts work (and a few bot edits were made), but I can't seem to get it to run in Toolforge cron. Something weird going on. Had one of the sysadmins take a look but will need to file a phab ticket I think, and can't get around to that for a few weeks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Primefac and The Earwig: can we restart the trial? Just going to self-host it, less trouble than figuring out what's wrong with Toolforge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProcrastinatingReader: OK, go for it. — The Earwig (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Can the rights be granted to the User:ProcBot II account again as well? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Primefac (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Can the rights be granted to the User:ProcBot II account again as well? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. Primefac (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @ProcrastinatingReader: OK, go for it. — The Earwig (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Primefac and The Earwig: can we restart the trial? Just going to self-host it, less trouble than figuring out what's wrong with Toolforge. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:51, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BotOnHold}} Popping on hold for a while. Both scripts work (and a few bot edits were made), but I can't seem to get it to run in Toolforge cron. Something weird going on. Had one of the sysadmins take a look but will need to file a phab ticket I think, and can't get around to that for a few weeks. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Flags granted. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Log. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. Everything seems to be working as intended. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Denied.
Operator: BJackJS (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:32, Thursday, April 22, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised
Programming language(s): Node
Source code available: https://github.com/Oppurtun/AWMBot/blob/main/task1.js
Function overview: The bot scans broken review templates then scans previous names and places it under the peer review template.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_repair_broken_peer_review_links
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: Around 1000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: The bot scans pages under the category. It then scans previous names and places it under the peer review template.
Discussion
Have any changes been made to address the feedback/issues discussed in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AWMBot? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there has been a change that involves the replacement of the entire tag with a near 0 margin of error with editing. BJackJS talk
- I think part of the issue there was that it was adding page titles which just didn't exist. For example Special:Diff/989309968, even though Wikipedia:Peer review/Becky (model)/archive1 is a redlink. Is that resolved? If so, what's the behaviour of this bot if it runs on a page like that? Will it skip, remove the entire peer review tag, or is there a different parameter name/value it will add? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on a function that verifies if a tag replacement is a redlink and it will then skip over that so it can be done manually by people who may have a better idea of what to do than an automated system. BJackJS talk
- Okay. Send me a ping once that's done and I'll be happy to send this for trial :). I don't think it's worth cycling through trials without that function, like in the previous BRFA, as in this edge case making those edits doesn't really solve the problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- User:ProcrastinatingReader The function has been added along with a major bugfix. BJackJS talk 17:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Send me a ping once that's done and I'll be happy to send this for trial :). I don't think it's worth cycling through trials without that function, like in the previous BRFA, as in this edge case making those edits doesn't really solve the problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm working on a function that verifies if a tag replacement is a redlink and it will then skip over that so it can be done manually by people who may have a better idea of what to do than an automated system. BJackJS talk
- I think part of the issue there was that it was adding page titles which just didn't exist. For example Special:Diff/989309968, even though Wikipedia:Peer review/Becky (model)/archive1 is a redlink. Is that resolved? If so, what's the behaviour of this bot if it runs on a page like that? Will it skip, remove the entire peer review tag, or is there a different parameter name/value it will add? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @BJackJS: Gently following up on the status of the trial? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Denied. as inactive for months and operator posted a retired banner on their userpage earlier this month. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: Trialpears (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 21:34, Monday, April 19, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB (or possibly JWB)
Source code available:
Function overview: General TfD implementation through removal or simple replacements
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): As needed
Estimated number of pages affected: Dozens to thousands depending on template
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: It is often enough that I want to perform TfD implementation using a bot that I think this is warranted. There is no acute need for another bot of this nature with PrimeBOT 24 SporkBot and BsherrAWBBOT 2, but it would reduce the wait time for these projects at times. The template that prompted this request was {{R from historic name}} where {{R printworthy}} has to be added to the 5000ish uses which doesn't have it separately, but if I had the bot last month I would probably have done {{Friendly search suggestions}} as well and {{WPUS50}} looks like a likely future candidate for the task.
Discussion
So I think Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT was a TfD-related task, have you done any others? If this goes to trial, do you have any templates in holding in mind you'd like to work on? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ProcrastinatingReader I have one other TfD task now, PearBOT 4. If I ever want to do something even as close to the technical or implementation complexity of PearBOT 1 that will go through another BRFA since a lot of testing and a second pair of eyes will be needed. As I said in the function details, the first usage would be {{R from historic name}} with {{WPUS50}} likely to follow. I've implemented tons of TfDs, often using AWB, over the past few years. --Trialpears (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think for the Rcat template it can just be replaced with a template call of the target template name, and use AnomieBot to subst it all. But the same can be said for many TfD merges. I suppose they're different tools, and depending on the case one approach can be slightly (or substantially) easier than the other.
- Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Approved for 3 templates, 25 diffs each. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with using AnomieBOT for {{R from historic name}} is that there is a significant number where {{R printworthy}} already is present which would result in duplicate templates. Anyway, I've done 25 edits with {{R from historic name}} (1, 2, 3-25). Everything went as expected, except me forgetting to turn of the other currently running task at first which would have made the edits interspersed with each other and put the bot over the recommended max edit rate. Would it be possibly to go ahead with the specific templates I've already had a trial for or do I have to complete all 3 templates first? I don't think there's a third appropriate template for a bot in the holding cell right now and it would be a shame to artificially delay the others. --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is {{R printworthy}} being added? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the relevant discussions the main difference between them is that historic name tags redirects as printworthy while former name does not. As stated in the latest TfD
"It's best to just tag relevant "historic" names as printworthy"
. --Trialpears (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Gotcha. Presumably it would omit adding printworthy if it's already added? If so, and given diffs look fine, you can complete the run for that template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the list excludes all pages with either {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}}. I've started the run and expect it to finish for tomorrow and I plan on doing {{WPUS50}} then. --Trialpears (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Gotcha. Presumably it would omit adding printworthy if it's already added? If so, and given diffs look fine, you can complete the run for that template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted in the relevant discussions the main difference between them is that historic name tags redirects as printworthy while former name does not. As stated in the latest TfD
- Why is {{R printworthy}} being added? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with using AnomieBOT for {{R from historic name}} is that there is a significant number where {{R printworthy}} already is present which would result in duplicate templates. Anyway, I've done 25 edits with {{R from historic name}} (1, 2, 3-25). Everything went as expected, except me forgetting to turn of the other currently running task at first which would have made the edits interspersed with each other and put the bot over the recommended max edit rate. Would it be possibly to go ahead with the specific templates I've already had a trial for or do I have to complete all 3 templates first? I don't think there's a third appropriate template for a bot in the holding cell right now and it would be a shame to artificially delay the others. --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Another template trial done for {{WPUS50}}: Contribs. First edit got the wrong edit summary because AWB was being weird and unselecting my custom summary. Other than that this was a very uneventful trial. --Trialpears (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those mostly seem fine but it might be a good idea to respect the spacing preferences that exist in the template. For example in Special:Diff/1020227303 or Special:Diff/1020227281. Don't AWB's AddParameter functions automatically account for this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I implemented a version to deal with block formatted templates (none of the ones that appeared in the trial were block formatted though), but didn't deal with the spacing. I could make a specific regex for it. I don't know about the AddParameter functions but if such things exist that would be awesome. I know there is the template parameter renamer and I suppose the template dater module has to have some sort of parameter adder. Could you give me a pointer to this thing? --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's [2] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I've implemented a module using this. It appears that it only deals with spacing around the equals sign though so I've added some regex to deal with whitespace around the pipe as well. I've done about 25 preview tests with this and it works well. Do you want another 25 edits or can I start the run? --Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I have no reason to think there will be any issues, another 25 seems preferable for trial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go! It makes the parameter spacing consistent with the first parameter. Some of the templates in the trial already had inconsistent spacing which it of course doesn't fix. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- LGTM. Feel free to complete the run. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Here you go! It makes the parameter spacing consistent with the first parameter. Some of the templates in the trial already had inconsistent spacing which it of course doesn't fix. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I have no reason to think there will be any issues, another 25 seems preferable for trial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! I've implemented a module using this. It appears that it only deals with spacing around the equals sign though so I've added some regex to deal with whitespace around the pipe as well. I've done about 25 preview tests with this and it works well. Do you want another 25 edits or can I start the run? --Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's [2] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I implemented a version to deal with block formatted templates (none of the ones that appeared in the trial were block formatted though), but didn't deal with the spacing. I could make a specific regex for it. I don't know about the AddParameter functions but if such things exist that would be awesome. I know there is the template parameter renamer and I suppose the template dater module has to have some sort of parameter adder. Could you give me a pointer to this thing? --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Those mostly seem fine but it might be a good idea to respect the spacing preferences that exist in the template. For example in Special:Diff/1020227303 or Special:Diff/1020227281. Don't AWB's AddParameter functions automatically account for this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ProcrastinatingReader Is the trivial case of orphaning {{Indic script needed}} fine as the third trial? --Trialpears (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's done now? The orphaning at TfD tends to be done quickly. ProcSock (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- ProcrastinatingReader Last trial done with {{Auto archiving notice}} and {{Archives}}, 25 edits. Two problems occurred. One was a minor whitespace issue at Talk:1888 Minneapolis General Conference and one was a GIGO issue at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential debates. First one is resolved and for the second I've made it a bit more garbage resistant which would lead to it skipping that page. --Trialpears (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. That's fine. With a task like this that requires operator adjustment for each run it's mostly a question of whether the operator is competent to realise and handle such issues as they arise. It's often a good idea to plan ahead for edge cases before runs (as much as possible), and test on a couple dozen edits before starting a full run to make sure all is going as expected. But I'm fairly happy with the above trial results and your history at TfD, so I foresee no issues here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: GreenC (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 03:12, Thursday, April 15, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): GNU Awk and BotWikiAwk
Source code available: User:GreenC_bot/Job_20
Function overview: peerr removes the template {{Peer review}}
from talk pages where no longer needed. ie. the template was added more than 7 days ago indicating the peer review processes has stalled or was not properly initiated.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:GreenC#Bot_functionality_request & Template_talk:Peer_review#Bot_task
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 0-5 per day month
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Long description: As part of the peer review process, {{Peer review}}
are added to article talk pages, but sometimes the process is not done correctly or stalls. A tracking cat was created to catch these (Category:Peer review requests not opened), but still requires manual removal of the template after waiting some time. It is safe to say if the template has been in place for more than 7 days without indication the rest of the processes has been done, the template can be removed. To automate: once a day, the bot retrieves the list of page names in the tracking category, along with today's date ("added date"), and adds it to a text file. If the page name is already in the text file don't add it again, rather check if it has been more than 7 days since the added date. If so, verify there is a corresponding peer review page called Wikipedia:Peer review/PAGENAME/archiveX and if not then remove the Peer review template, and remove the text file entry. Likewise if the page name is in the text file but not in the tracking category then remove the page name from the file.
Discussion
- Suggest dropping a link at Wikipedia talk:Peer review, as it has more talk page watchers than the template talk. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 05:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for helping us out at WP:PR with this bot. There are a few tasks at peer review that could be automated and this is one of them that I am thankful for.Tom (LT) (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. To make the edits more obvious please do not mark the edits as minor so that the change ends up on all watchlists. Primefac (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot is running. Nothing will happen for at least 7 days. The 25 edits might take weeks or months. Feel free to ping me anytime for a list of existing edits. -- GreenC 21:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a little confused as to why the bot op is edit warring with the bot at Talk:Nightingale College. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- These were test edits to ensure that when I am not looking (such as sleeping or working) when it begins editing automatically 7+ days from now it doesn't destroy a page. And Nightengale College the template qualifies to be removed, if you want to revert the page to this edit as the first trial edit, though it is kind of cheating; better to wait 7 days when it will do it again automatically which is what the trial is testing. -- GreenC 03:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd just prefer that you not make six edits on a live talk page of an article for testing purposes, or at least that you make it clear that you are running a test on that talk page. I very nearly just shut off the bot because you were just repeatedly reverting it without explaining why, even by edit summary. So, consider this a gentle reminder that bots are here to help the rest of us, and mucking around article talk pages without explaining yourself isn't helpful. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} It's been 7 weeks since the trial started. The bot edited 8 pages. Of these, three were a mistake due to the wrong namespace Example. That is fixed, it now only runs if a Talk page (regex "^Talk:"). So 5 legit edits in 7 weeks, which it does correctly. At this pace, it could take another 8 months to get to 25. Would it make sense to lower the trial target? -- GreenC 04:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess the question becomes this: if there are so few, is there a need for a bot to do this? This is a legit question, for what it's worth, as "making one edit per week" is something that a human can do just as easily as a bot. Primefac (talk) 22:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There might be dozens in the tracking cat and you'll need to know which ones, and when, to remove it. Meaning you'll have to go through each one, rechecking them continually for a change in status, then deciding if enough time is gone by, then make the edit. A single edit might take 15 minutes or more (or 15 minutes and no edit). I didn't make up this bot idea, I was approached by Tom (LT) who does this work manually. -- GreenC 01:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping. Truth is, the bus factor at peer review is often one, so this kind of thing often lingers for months to years before it's fixed and what's more, is often forgotten about and has to be rediscovered as an error. It's true that this not a particularly critical error, but having a bot look after this sort of automated task frees up volunteer time and headspace to work on other goals. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the bot doesn't edit often doesn't seem like a problem to me if it's doing useful work. I'm inclined to approve now provided we haven't seen any issues in the existing behavior. — The Earwig (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There might be dozens in the tracking cat and you'll need to know which ones, and when, to remove it. Meaning you'll have to go through each one, rechecking them continually for a change in status, then deciding if enough time is gone by, then make the edit. A single edit might take 15 minutes or more (or 15 minutes and no edit). I didn't make up this bot idea, I was approached by Tom (LT) who does this work manually. -- GreenC 01:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits to Talk:Jitin Puthenchery are interesting. There are four instances of the peer review template, all duplicates. It thus takes 4 cycles to delete them - delete one, wait 7 days, delete the next, wait, etc.. it works, but takes multiple edits and about 30 days. Alternatively it could delete all instances when they are duplicates. -- GreenC 06:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @GreenC Is the trial still running? If so, can you verify if the latest edits are all as expected? – SD0001 (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @SD0001: The bot is still running. List.txt are the pages it is watching within the 7 day window, updated weekly. Loguploads.txt are the edits it has made. Everything as expected. -- GreenC 13:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. No issues. The volume of edits is very low, but clearly the bot task is worth having as it is very tedious for a human to keep track of when the template should be removed. – SD0001 (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Trialpears (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:48, Sunday, April 11, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available:
Function overview: Replaces the short descriptions "Wikimedia list article" and "Wikipedia list article" with none
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article"
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: Around 75,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: It's all discussed at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". TLDR: There's a consensus that "Wikimedia list article" and "Wikipedia list article" are undesirable short descriptions and that no short description is necessary for most lists and a bot is the way to implement it. This bot is about as simple as they get and a trial would be a bit silly, but I can do it if so desired.
Discussion
- @Trialpears: You are a trusted bot op, but let's have a brief trial to sanity check ourselves. Could you please confirm whether this bot has any impact on Wikidata entities relating to these articles? Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A list article affected by the trial is on my watchlist: I wouldn't mind this bot getting the prize of this year's most useless bot operation. For clarity oppose this bot. What would it do other than creating watchlist clutter? What would its actual benefit be? Edit-warring with bots or editors importing short descriptions from Wikidata? Really, this is the kind of bot operations we can miss big time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Francis Schonken I'm trying my best to get the underlying concern of removing tens of thousands of useless descriptions. I brought up the watchlist spam concern at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". It won't edit war with people since there will only be one run and it will use
{{short description|none}}
which prevents shortdesc helper from importing the description and hopefully it won't suggest it at all even when it isn't present soon. Could you go to the above discussion and express your opinion there? I will put the bot on hold for a bit. --Trialpears (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Expressed my opinion there. This bot should not, as in not ever be allowed, imho. Please think this through instead. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Example diff. How is "none" more useful than "Wikimedia list article"? You are replacing a relatively useless description by something that's absolutely useless. I oppose this task to make bad descriptions even worse. --mfb (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mfb "none" won't actually be displayed as the description but is rather a special word that makes the article have no description at all. For instance if you search for "list of a" on the mobile site (image included) you will see basically all entries having either of the descriptions under the article name contributing nothing and being useless clutter. This bot task or the template solution I proposed at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article" would both remove this and make it look like the entry for List of Arrow characters. If you want it would be appreciated if you share your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". Also, mostly due to curiosity, what would be the optimal short description for COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory in your opinion? --Trialpears (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's so critical to suppress two specific short descriptions then the template could do that, as proposed. The title of that article is a good description on its own I think, but not all list titles are that verbose. --mfb (talk) 09:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see a benefit if we can make sure no future import will give these two or similar general short descriptions, but that would need to be done first. --mfb (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mfb and Trialpears: how about this more meaningful short description? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Mfb "none" won't actually be displayed as the description but is rather a special word that makes the article have no description at all. For instance if you search for "list of a" on the mobile site (image included) you will see basically all entries having either of the descriptions under the article name contributing nothing and being useless clutter. This bot task or the template solution I proposed at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article" would both remove this and make it look like the entry for List of Arrow characters. If you want it would be appreciated if you share your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". Also, mostly due to curiosity, what would be the optimal short description for COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory in your opinion? --Trialpears (talk) 09:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity: the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article" shows no consensus whatsoever for the proposed bot operation (that is even before I added my opinion there). Can't you people read a discussion and see that it goes in all sorts of directions without the least bit of consensus? That is not a basis for a bot task as if there was some sort of approval for the idea behind the task; there is no such approval. The task should never have been proposed. Tx. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My read on that discussion is that is that first there's broad agreement that Wikimedia/Wikipedia list article doesn't contribute anything as a short description. I propose that we edit {{Short description}} to ignore the descriptions and threat them like none. When I implement this after waiting a reasonable time for objections or counter proposals to be raised some editors say that they would rather see a bot replace the descriptions. MichaelMaggs starts a subsection about how the description should be removed whether by bot or template edits is preferred. A few people, me included are neutral on how it's implemented since there are pros and cons with both and the rest prefer a bot. A week after the discussion started I decide to file this BRFA to move the project forward and since noone actually objected to a bot that was the favored outcome by the participants. Given that the talk page is quite highly trafficked for an implementation discussion (many template edits get no input at all) I considered that suitable and since the trial was approved the bot approval group agreed. It is however great to hear your opinions at this stage and not when we've had a bot doing thousands of edits, but rather just 10. We will just have to wait and see where the consensus takes us. Could also put an RfC tag on the WT:SHORTDESC discussion if you want to get a 30 day discussion and a proper close at the end. --Trialpears (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah... messy discussion... no consensus... anyone can read in it what they want... no actual conclusion. As a minimum (even if no formal RfC had been initiated) it should have been listed at WP:ANRFC, so that someone uninvolved could have assessed the discussion for what, if anything, could be concluded from it. Note also the new subsection which I initiated in that discussion: I think you all started more or less from the deluded assumption that meaningful short descriptions for list articles are out of reach. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- My read on that discussion is that is that first there's broad agreement that Wikimedia/Wikipedia list article doesn't contribute anything as a short description. I propose that we edit {{Short description}} to ignore the descriptions and threat them like none. When I implement this after waiting a reasonable time for objections or counter proposals to be raised some editors say that they would rather see a bot replace the descriptions. MichaelMaggs starts a subsection about how the description should be removed whether by bot or template edits is preferred. A few people, me included are neutral on how it's implemented since there are pros and cons with both and the rest prefer a bot. A week after the discussion started I decide to file this BRFA to move the project forward and since noone actually objected to a bot that was the favored outcome by the participants. Given that the talk page is quite highly trafficked for an implementation discussion (many template edits get no input at all) I considered that suitable and since the trial was approved the bot approval group agreed. It is however great to hear your opinions at this stage and not when we've had a bot doing thousands of edits, but rather just 10. We will just have to wait and see where the consensus takes us. Could also put an RfC tag on the WT:SHORTDESC discussion if you want to get a 30 day discussion and a proper close at the end. --Trialpears (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Francis Schonken I'm trying my best to get the underlying concern of removing tens of thousands of useless descriptions. I brought up the watchlist spam concern at Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article". It won't edit war with people since there will only be one run and it will use
- On hold. Until Wikipedia talk:Short description#"Wikimedia list article" is closed. --Trialpears (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trialpears: That discussion is now closed; how do you want to proceed with this BRFA? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I'm not done with this project of getting rid of useless descriptions, but I will probably not do so in the coming month. I'll just withdraw this and start a new one if and when this become relevant again. --Trialpears (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn by operator. (for the bot). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Good question. I'm not done with this project of getting rid of useless descriptions, but I will probably not do so in the coming month. I'll just withdraw this and start a new one if and when this become relevant again. --Trialpears (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Trialpears: That discussion is now closed; how do you want to proceed with this BRFA? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Bots that have completed the trial period
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/K.Kapil77 Bot 25
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: The Earwig (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 03:37, Monday, May 31, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Correct mismatched synonym authorities in taxon articles created by Qbugbot
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic, partial supervision
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: synonym_authorities.py
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Qbugbot#Wrongly matched authors for synonyms (permalink), Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Insects#Bot to fix mismatched synonym authorities
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 400–500
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
In 2018, Qbugbot created 18,000 taxa stubs on insects and other arthropods. 1234qwer1234qwer4 noticed a systemic error in the bot-generated lists of synonyms in the taxoboxes, which were based on data from ITIS. In many cases, the bot alphabetized the list of synonym names, but did not reorder the corresponding author names, leaving them mismatched. Here is an example of this being fixed. The correct authors can be checked against ITIS as well as other sources like GBIF which reference the original literature.
This bot task operates as follows:
- Examine each page created by Qbugbot
- Parse the taxobox for the list of synonyms and authors
- Pull the correct synonym-to-author mapping from ITIS (obtained via database download)
- If the authors in the article do not match ITIS, but match after reordering in the same manner Qbugbot used to order the synonyms, fix the order and save the page
- Any exceptional cases (if the article contains synonyms not listed in ITIS, or the author names do not match ITIS after reordering) are left for manual review
Example edits the bot would make, saved manually: 1, 2, 3
Edits the bot would make are listed here: User:EarwigBot/Task 21/Edits
Of the 18,000 pages created by Qbugbot, about 500 have this synonym issue, and EarwigBot can fix about 425 of them using the logic above. For the other 50–100 pages, editors have made a partial attempt to fix this issue, changed authors to diverge from ITIS, or the data in ITIS has changed; these cases will be reviewed manually.
Discussion
Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Should be straight-forward, but let's make sure the wheels don't fall off. Primefac (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trial complete. Edits. No issues noticed. — The Earwig (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for taking on this task! Your rules for what cases to leave for manual review seem very rational to me (though allowing the reordered author list to be a subset of the ITIS one in rule #4 and adding the synonyms missing in the article as part of the bot task would have been okay as well IMO). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Hey 1234qwer1234qwer4, my description may have been a bit imprecise. The bot will still fix pages if ITIS contains additional synonyms that are not in the article, as long as every synonym in the article is in ITIS (i.e. article ⊆ ITIS is OK but not ITIS ⊆ article). For this bot I only want to correct existing data, so I wasn't planning to add new synonyms from ITIS. — The Earwig (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Do you log these somehow? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]- Sure, at the end of the run I'll make a list of all the pages that need manual review, including those with extra synonyms in ITIS. — The Earwig (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. That wasn't clear to me from point 6. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Cool. That wasn't clear to me from point 6. ~~~~
- Sure, at the end of the run I'll make a list of all the pages that need manual review, including those with extra synonyms in ITIS. — The Earwig (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Do you log these somehow? ~~~~
- Hey 1234qwer1234qwer4, my description may have been a bit imprecise. The bot will still fix pages if ITIS contains additional synonyms that are not in the article, as long as every synonym in the article is in ITIS (i.e. article ⊆ ITIS is OK but not ITIS ⊆ article). For this bot I only want to correct existing data, so I wasn't planning to add new synonyms from ITIS. — The Earwig (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Primefac (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Operator: SD0001 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:07, Monday, May 24, 2021 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): TypeScript on Node.js
Source code available: github
Function overview: Allows users to create wikified database reports and keeps them updated.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: -
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: This is basically the ListeriaBot for database replicas. Instructions for usage are at User:SDZeroBot/Database report. When that template is transcluded to a page (user/WP namespaces), SDZeroBot will run the provided SQL query and update the page (once immediately and then every 24h).
Why we want this in addition to Quarry? Wikilinks! Page titles & usernames can be made clickable, unlike in Quarry results. For articles and draft pages, the bot can include excerpts; also not possible in Quarry.
There are some sane checks to prevent abuse of resources (10 min enforced timeout implemented using MariaDB's max_statement_time
parameter, limited usage of concurrent db connections, and won’t save to mainspace if someone transcludes the template there).
Discussion
Example uses: see Category:SDZeroBot database report subscriptions (though these are all rather simple examples). – SD0001 (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Trial for 5 report updates. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Trial complete. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] -- picked up some random queries off recent Quarry runs for the trial. The 1st and 3rd edits are updates done immediately on page creation while the other 3 are the scheduled daily updates. – SD0001 (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader any concerns? – SD0001 (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: moved User:SDZeroBot/Database report and its end template to template namespace ({{database report}} & {{database report end}}), as it makes it easier to type. Hope this is alright. In theory, another bot could take over the task and reuse the same templates at some point. – SD0001 (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. Trial looks fine to me. I've only skimmed the code but that looks fine too. I'd note that it doesn't appear to be sanitising the user input, but SQL accounts are limited to select queries anyway. Probably best to keep pages of database reports managed by this bot under either bot userspace, subpages of Wikipedia:Database reports, or userspace in general. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Approved requests
Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 12:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- HooptyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 00:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) (bot to run unflagged)
- ChristieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 23:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- C1MM-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- HBC AIV helperbot14 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- The Sky Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 10:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- IznoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 12:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AdminStatsBot 2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 12:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Mdann52 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Approved 12:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- The Sky Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 16:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- RustyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Mdann52 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 30) Approved 18:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 45) Approved 13:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Numberguy6Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BsoykaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 13:18, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- SDZeroBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 13:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- CopyPatrolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 12:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 29) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- ButlerBlogBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 11:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 42) Approved 11:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 43b) Approved 20:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 44) Approved 20:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 12:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 28) Approved 07:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 25) Approved 12:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 81) Approved 21:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- FrostlySnowman (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 09:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnomieBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 82) Approved 19:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
Denied requests
Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.
- DoggoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 00:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- LemonadeBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- DannyS712 bot IV (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 73) Bot denied 09:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
- Usernamekiran BOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Bot denied 14:17, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
- Pi bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 03:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Roccerbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 23:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- DaedanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 14:05, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
- Area code bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:22, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- NotPlanter (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:11, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
- RedWarn (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 23:49, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Gedimon (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 14:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- PhuzBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Bot denied 06:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
- MDanielsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 19:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
- DaedanBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 1) Bot denied 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- PearBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Bot denied 16:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Expired/withdrawn requests
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 35) Withdrawn by operator 00:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- DeltaQuadBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Expired 14:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- TolBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 20:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- DaxServerBot I (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 19:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
- YTStatsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- MusikBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 16) Withdrawn by operator 17:32, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
- CommonsCategoryBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 20:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- AWMBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 16:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- DeprecatedFixerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Withdrawn by operator 21:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
- DomdomeggBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 14:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
- YoutubeSubscriberBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 01:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yapperbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Expired 21:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- SDZeroBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Withdrawn by operator 17:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
- MDanielsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Withdrawn by operator 17:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- DismanetBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 22:28, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Get personal technical help at the Teahouse, help desk, village pump (technical), talk pages or IRC. | |
General technical help | |
Special page-related | |
Wikitext | |
Links and diffs | |
Media files: images, videos and sounds | |
Other graphics | |
Templates and Lua modules | |
Data structure | |
HTML and CSS | |
Customisation and tools | |
Automated editing | |
|