Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval
- العربية
- Arpetan
- Asturianu
- Avañe'ẽ
- تۆرکجه
- বাংলা
- Башҡортса
- Беларуская
- भोजपुरी
- Български
- Bosanski
- Català
- Čeština
- Corsu
- Dansk
- الدارجة
- Deutsch
- ދިވެހިބަސް
- Español
- Esperanto
- Estremeñu
- Euskara
- فارسی
- Føroyskt
- Français
- Galego
- ГӀалгӀай
- 贛語
- ગુજરાતી
- 한국어
- Հայերեն
- हिन्दी
- Hrvatski
- Ido
- 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
- Shqip
- Sicilianu
- Simple English
- سنڌي
- SiSwati
- Slovenčina
- Slovenščina
- Soomaaliga
- Српски / srpski
- Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
- Suomi
- Svenska
- தமிழ்
- ၽႃႇသႃႇတႆး
- తెలుగు
- ไทย
- Tsetsêhestâhese
- Türkçe
- Українська
- اردو
- Vèneto
- Tiếng Việt
- Walon
- ייִדיש
- 粵語
- 粵語
- 中文
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MDP23 (talk | contribs) at 16:00, 23 July 2011 (→Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
![]() |
![]() | 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 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
KiranBOT 10 (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2024-09-07, 13:04:48 | Usernamekiran | 2024-09-08, 16:19:37 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
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 | Primefac | 2024-08-25, 20:09:43 | Primefac | 2024-08-25, 20:09:43 |
Leaderbot (T|C|B|F) | Extended trial | 2024-08-10, 12:32:53 | Leaderboard | 2024-09-08, 11:47:11 | SD0001 | 2024-09-08, 10:35:46 |
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 |
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 | Ammarpad | 2024-09-09, 12:57:47 | 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 WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 02:37, Monday July 18, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Java
Source code available: Not currently, although I'll probably post a copy in my userspace soon.
Function overview: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 3-4k at most
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: Same as above: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.
Discussion
The bot should have some kind of exclusion list (or even just follow {{bots}}), just in case there is a legitimate reason for a template to be transcluded (maybe its on a page showing examples or something). --Chris 11:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm, that sounds reasonable. {{bots}} it is. I've adjusted the run details above accordingly. -FASTILY (TALK) 06:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at User_talk, File_talk, and Talk for just one template - it appears that this template is occasionally transcluded as part of regular discussion. Would it make sense to exclude all talk pages (perhaps even 'just for now')? SQLQuery me! 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, but these templates were not intended for use in discussions. Image license tags inappropriately categorize non-file pages (i.e. category pollution) into categories intended for files. The bot will untransclude file license tags so that non-file description pages are not inappropriately categorized. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't you just make categorisation namespace-dependent? Or is avoiding transclusions on Special:WhatLinksHere also necessary? If so, why? Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the concept of making categorization namespace dependent, but IMHO, it lacks practicality. We have a large number of license tags which would require the addition of a new parserfunction to each and every template. Furthermore, employing such a protocol would make creating new license tags unnecessarily complicated for non-coders. While a side goal of this bot is to help clean up license tag tranclusions in Special:WhatLinksHere, the main purpose of the bot is to maintain and clean up categories pertaining to media file license tags. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, do they not have a meta-template that could be edited? I haven't looked. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know of. The vast majority of image license tags are constructed with templates such as {{imbox}} or just plain raw code. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be (possibly too?) blunt, I would greatly prefer to see the underlying templates corrected, over constantly having to maintain all the affected pages indefinitely. SQLQuery me! 08:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to second that. It may take a few days, but it'll solve the root of the problem, instead of chipping at the symptoms as they appear (if you pardon the House-esque analogy). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine by me. Please consider this request withdrawn if a volunteer willing to maunally update all 200+ file licenses templates over the span of a few days can be found. Otherwise, I'd like to run this bot task. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the templates and made 3 changes. It looks like almost all the tags already employ {{file other}}. Do you by any chance have a list of templates that have caused mis-categorization? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have a list, but I'm sure one could easily be generated. I'd write the script to do that but I'm currently on vacation. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Since there doesn't appear to be consensus for this bot, I'd like to formally withdraw this request. Thanks, FASTILY (TALK) 04:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not have a list, but I'm sure one could easily be generated. I'd write the script to do that but I'm currently on vacation. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I went through the templates and made 3 changes. It looks like almost all the tags already employ {{file other}}. Do you by any chance have a list of templates that have caused mis-categorization? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine by me. Please consider this request withdrawn if a volunteer willing to maunally update all 200+ file licenses templates over the span of a few days can be found. Otherwise, I'd like to run this bot task. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to second that. It may take a few days, but it'll solve the root of the problem, instead of chipping at the symptoms as they appear (if you pardon the House-esque analogy). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be (possibly too?) blunt, I would greatly prefer to see the underlying templates corrected, over constantly having to maintain all the affected pages indefinitely. SQLQuery me! 08:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that I know of. The vast majority of image license tags are constructed with templates such as {{imbox}} or just plain raw code. -FASTILY (TALK) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, do they not have a meta-template that could be edited? I haven't looked. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like the concept of making categorization namespace dependent, but IMHO, it lacks practicality. We have a large number of license tags which would require the addition of a new parserfunction to each and every template. Furthermore, employing such a protocol would make creating new license tags unnecessarily complicated for non-coders. While a side goal of this bot is to help clean up license tag tranclusions in Special:WhatLinksHere, the main purpose of the bot is to maintain and clean up categories pertaining to media file license tags. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Couldn't you just make categorisation namespace-dependent? Or is avoiding transclusions on Special:WhatLinksHere also necessary? If so, why? Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. per operator SQLQuery me! 08:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trolling, not relivant to this request for approval |
---|
|
- 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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 02:30, Monday July 18, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Java
Source code available: Not currently, although I'll probably post a copy in my userspace soon.
Function overview: This is a re-request for the task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot. I withdrew the first request due to RL business, but I have more time on my hands presently, and have finally got around to coding this script.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 20k
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot
Discussion
Other than the change from Python to Java as the base language for the bot, are there any other changes you plan to make from the original filing? Are you using a established framework, or something of your own design? SQLQuery me! 12:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No changes from the original specification. I'll be using MER-C's bot framework. -FASTILY (TALK) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No comments on this page with concerns, looks like a sound idea,
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQLQuery me! 20:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I still have a few bugs to resolve, but I should be done and have the trial complete before the weekend comes around. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Take your time! If you need an extended trial or additional edits, just let us know. SQLQuery me! 08:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excellent, I still have a few bugs to resolve, but I should be done and have the trial complete before the weekend comes around. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No comments on this page with concerns, looks like a sound idea,
I have a great deal of respect for Fastily, but I think this is a very bad idea, because I think it's going to make a number of current problems (listed below) worse.
- A) The number of people that use "self" licenses incorrectly is staggering, meaning that the number of files that incorrectly are claimed as own work is even more staggering.
- B) Many users don't know how (or worse, don't care) to make sure that Move to Commons tagged files are actually eligible for moving before they preform the moves.
- C) There are already 20,000 files waiting to be moved over.
- D) Of those 20,000, I'm guessing upwards of 500-1000 shouldn't be moved.
As an alternative, I would suggest that the bot checks for a "self" tag, and checks that there is metadata from a camera (or perhaps from a camera and also not from Photoshop or Paint.NET) and then if the file meets both requirements, dumps them on a pre-screened list (but does not tag them for moving) so that humans can make the call as to moving them.
A second (less desirable but easier to pull off) alternative, would be that Fastily's bot does not tag the files with the regular Move to Commons tag, but a special tag that clearly and specifically states that the file was screened by a bot, and that the file should only be moved over by a human after double checking the approval. Said tag would dump into a second list or sublist, separate from the current list of waiting files.
I'm sorry if this all seems paranoid, but the last thing I want is for a bunch of otherwise usable files to get deleted from commons because of bad "self" tagging. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In accordance with the original suggested specification details at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot, I have added a |bots= parameter to Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. When used, the template will output an obvious warning to users transferring files to Commons. In response to Sven's concerns above, the main issue seems to be with metadata. It is not logical to deny a move to commons based on concerns relating to missing metadata; users frequently upload perfectly valid images without metadata, created with a device other than a camera. Additionally, metadata from a camera does not automatically qualify an image for transfer to Commons; there may still be underlying copyright issues (e.g. FOP, DW, DM). That aside, I see nothing else that should be changed with the current approach. Presently, my code is mostly complete and fully functional. If there are no other objections, I shall proceed with a trial run within 24h. -FASTILY (TALK) 08:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons|bot=yes}} solution works for me. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider tweaking {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} so that bot-tagged files are categorized into a category like Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged). That way Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons would still be primarily human-tagged images, which should be given higher priority than auto-tagged images. Otherwise, I'd love to see something like this. Maybe also add {{PD-ineligible}} and its kin to the whitelist? –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good to me. The bot parameter could be set to output Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged) (though personally I would like "(bot-assessed)", rolls off the tongue you know). Drilnoth, would you like to do the honors? -FASTILY (TALK) 16:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done, using
(bot-assessed)
. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update Apologies for the delays. I'm currently on vacation and still working on a few efficiency issues. The whitelist and blacklist are basically complete. I should have the trial run in the next few days. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. No problems during run, all edits checked. I believe we're good to go. -FASTILY (TALK) 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed) still empty then? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Drilnoth... -FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... did they get sent to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged)? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, there was a bug in my code. It is putting them in the bot-assessed category. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Err... did they get sent to Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-tagged)? Sven Manguard Wha? 21:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Drilnoth... -FASTILY (TALK) 19:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (bot-assessed) still empty then? Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Everything looks good; nice work. — The Earwig (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Lavallen (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 13:59, Sunday July 10, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic, every edit will be checked afterword until I feel 99.99% safe with the code.
Programming language(s): DotNetWikiBot Framework, C#
Source code available: Not yet. DNWB includes functions that are very straightforward for this kind of tasks. That will make the code extremly simple.
Function overview: Remove dead iw-links to Swedish Wikipedia (maybe a few other projects later).
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): ~Once a day
Estimated number of pages affected: The log/delete on svwp today counts ~50 pages/day. Most of them will not contain iw-links.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: An adminbot on svwp will collect the content of deleted pages on Swedish Wikipedia. In those pages, I will search for iw-links, and look inside the corresponding pages on other projects, that those pages does not have a dead iw-link to the deleted page. Pywikipedia-bots seems just discovering these broken links by accident. This will, I hope, identify them faster. The adminbot is now requesting adminflag on svwp. -- Lavallen (talk) 13:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Why no exclusion compliance? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is {{bots}} so frequent that it will be a big problem to avoid such articles? This action will mainly be done on pages were the swedish article has been deleted because it is out of project scope or lack notability. -- Lavallen (talk) 15:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or am I interpreting the Q wrong? DNWB avoids pages with {{Bots}} as default. That can be changed by removing a few lines in the code, but I do not see the point. Anal sex and User talk:Anybody is most likely, pages that never will be edited. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it in, it is useful if the bot is breaking on a specific page (there could be numerous reasons, and there is no way to account for them all). I don't suppose this is possible to test until you get the sysop flag at the Swedish Wikipedia? - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok.
- No, it's to early for testing. The RfA was opened July 8, and a RfA takes, at least, 7 days.
- Regarding "Interwiki sorting order". See how Innocent datumbot (also mine) handle it. 'Innocent datumbot' is not a iw-bot, but clean up the sorting order, when editing for other purpose. (The sorting order was recently changed on svwp.) The sorting order is today the same on svwp and enwp. I follow the updates on meta, since DotNetWikiBot isn't updated very often. -- Lavallen (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave it in, it is useful if the bot is breaking on a specific page (there could be numerous reasons, and there is no way to account for them all). I don't suppose this is possible to test until you get the sysop flag at the Swedish Wikipedia? - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or am I interpreting the Q wrong? DNWB avoids pages with {{Bots}} as default. That can be changed by removing a few lines in the code, but I do not see the point. Anal sex and User talk:Anybody is most likely, pages that never will be edited. -- Lavallen (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The adminbot has been approved on svwiki and the first scan resulted in three actions here on enwiki. - The source code has been published. Also the DotNetWikiBot-code has been changed in some minor parts, but I cannot publish it because of the license. I have updated the iw-sorting order and made the code "Exclusion compliant".
- The botflag is not essential for this bot. The activity-level will, most likely, not motivate it. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edits look pretty good (technically you shouldn't be running it yet, but no worries). I just have one other question. Have you got any controls on how quickly the bot removes the links after deletion? I'm thinking in terms of not wanting to remove too quickly, in case the page was just deleted temporarily (e.g. as part of a history merge) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- History-merges are extremly rare on svwp. I can easily count the numbers I have seen at svwp the last three years. Pages are normally simply redirected and the users involved are mentioned in the editsummary or on the talk-page. The edit-history of merged pages is considered as to hard to navigate. By the same reason is not transwiki-import activated on svwp. On sv.wikisource I am merging and splitting edit-history on pages sometimes, but I almost never see that on sv.wikipedia.
- The bot is checking if the page has been restored or a new page with the same name has been created. If so, no information is collected from the deleted versions. -- Lavallen (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, that sounds okay.
Approved. Basically just a more efficient version of something that pywikipedia interwiki bots are already doing - Kingpin13 (talk) 15:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Great, that sounds okay.
- 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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Emijrp (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 16:33, Thursday April 21, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Yes, it is free software (GPL3), available at Google Code
Function overview: archive ref links, see examples in the conversion table below
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WebCiteBOT
- Wikipedia:WikiProject External links/Webcitebot2
- Wikipedia talk:Link rot#Proposal for new WikiProject to repair dead links
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Dead Link Repair
- http://www.webcitation.org/doc/WebCiteBestPracticesGuide.pdf
Edit period(s): continuous
Estimated number of pages affected:
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details:
- Bot checks all the articles (not only new ones), searching for <ref> links introduced in the last X days
- Which age limit? 7 days? 30 days? 365 days?
- If there is an archived copy of the website less than 30 days old at WebCite
- bot links to this available archived copy
- else
- if website is online (no error 404, 403, etc)
- bot archives it at WebCite and...
- ...links to this last archived copy
- else
- : ( website was lost forever (?), do nothing
- if website is online (no error 404, 403, etc)
- Submit changes to article using the conversion table below
Features to discuss:
- #Conversion table below
- Auto-generated titles using the <title> html tag?
Discussion
Citation templates should not be introduced in the references given as plain text (WP:CITEVAR), instead you can use {{WebCite}}. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:41, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{WebCite}} it is easier, but {{cite web}} offers more information (WP:CITEVAR says so: Generally considered to be helpful improvements Replacing bare URLs with full bibliographic citations: an improvement because it provides more information to the reader and fights linkrot). So, more opinions? Regards. emijrp (talk) 17:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "To be avoided unless there is consensus: Switching between major citation styles". Introducing {{cite web}} in an article that exclusively uses plain-text referencing is considered a reference style alteration. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you help me to build a table like this one? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 18:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose automatic generation of titles. While something sensible may happen in a large proportion of cases, this has been done before and it led to countless inappropiate examples and quite a few complaints. Web page titles are often full of spammy key words, are sometimes identical across the whole site, and sometimes contain bafflingly irrelevant information. I would be fine with bot assisted human so that the obviously rubbish , but not fully automatic. Better to leave a bare url than risk nonsense titles. SpinningSpark 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We have 12M links (although not all are refs), so this bot can't be manually assisted. If auto-generated titles are not desired, I can leave empty that value or fill it with the same URL ([1] or http://google.com). emijrp (talk) 18:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case I think you should leave the ref as a bare url, at least that tells the reader for certain where they are being taken. Autogeneration will produce too many spurious results. I also agree that {{cite web}} should not be introduced into articles where it is not already the preferred style. I would, however, support changing links that have no text into a bare url as it is a disservice to readers not to make clear where they are being taken to. SpinningSpark 14:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question from SpinningSpark if an editor informs you that they think your bot has made a mistake, what action will you take? SpinningSpark 17:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is obvious he is wrong, I will leave a link to this RFA (where the issue was discussed before) in his talkpage. If it is not sure, I stop the bot and discuss. emijrp (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you talked to the WebCite people about this, so you can conform to any restrictions they may have? Will you be adding |deadurl=no
along with |archiveurl=
, in case anyone ever gets around to adding that to {{cite web}}? Anomie⚔ 10:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no talked to WebCite people yet, because I prefer to approve this bot in Wikipedia, and later, ask them to add my IP (or Toolserver IP) into the white list. Today, an IP is banned when it has archived 100 URLs, and you have to wait some hours to start archiving new URLs again.
- From the FAQ: If you are a programmer or a student looking for a project, here are some ideas for programming projects. [...] develop a wikipedia bot which scans new wikipedia articles for cited URLs, submits an archiving request to WebCite®, and then adds a link to the archived URL behind the cited URL. So, I think there is no problem with white listing stuff.
- My idea is to add deadurl=no/yes and archiveurl= to every single {{cite web}} occurrence. Is that OK? Sorry, but I have not understood your question. emijrp (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few pitfalls that I have thought of;
- Will you be checking that the reference does not already include a link to WebCite? There is a danger that you might replace a link to a valid archive with a link to one that has entirely changed since the ref was created. If there is an earlier archive link, that one should be retained as it is closer to the actual page from which the information in the article was taken.
- I don't like your algorithm for using pre-existing WebCite archives (30 days). If this archive is different from the one looked at by the editor you will be archiving the wrong thing. You should only use the pre-existing archive if it is younger than the date the reference was inserted. You won't, in any case, end up with duplicated archives at WebCite. Their software will return the link to the pre-existing page if you attempt to archive a duplicate.
- Are you searching for references that are not between ref tags such as those in a Bibliography, References or Footnotes sections?
- Are you taking steps to exclude sites such as Google books, Amazon Search Inside and other sites that display previews of copyrighted print works?
- Are you checking that the ref is not to a site that is already an archive site such as The Internet Archive or the Wayback Machine?
SpinningSpark 14:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi:
- Yes. The bot only edits references without archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters. Furthermore, if the url= parameter contains archive.org or webcitation.org, it is skipped.
- OK, but I guess that younger pre-existing archives are not common. If a ref was added to an article in 2002, and there is no archive at WebCite before 2002, would I archive a copy today (2011) and add it to archiveurl= parameter? A lot of websites may be changed since the day the ref was added. By the way, the script adds archivedate= parameter, so, a reader can compare accessdate= (for example 2002-01-01) with archivedate= (for example 2010-12-31) and she will know that (probably) the archived copy is different to the original website (8 years).
- No. The script only edits references between <ref> tags. If you want to add more cases, go to the conversion table below.
- I don't exclude that domains, but I can black list them. By the way, almost all the Internet is copyrighted, not only Google Books or Amazon. It is not possible to archive only websites with free licenses. Read the What about copyright issues? section at WebCitation.
- Yes, I exclude archive.org and webcitation.org domains. That URLs are not archived.
Regards. emijrp (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BRION asked for a few minutes of help from all readers with this request list, and I decided to check it out. On WebCite I found this info: "WebCite allows on-demand prospective archiving. It is not crawler-based; pages are only archived if the citing author or publisher requests it." The bot is not the citing author, and not the publisher (of the cited work). –89.204.137.195 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The citing author is the Wikipedia community, this bot will only automatize this process. Read I am a programmer or student looking for a project and ideas - How can I help? section, they request a Wikipedia bot. --emijrp (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just add that Gunther Eysenbach of WebCitation.org was actively involved in our discussion about archiving external websites that Wikipedia uses for references and such. Mr. Eysenbach specifically stated that WebCite wants to work with Wikipedia to get websites archived and he has even offered a $500.00 bounty to encourage people to get this task accomplished. So the concern raised above is not an issue in this case. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO the "citing author" is listed in the edit history, and only unregistered users like me can be considered as some anonymous "community". I don't know Python, does the bot respect robots.txt? Does it use link rel="canonical" to find "canonical" content with a relevant robots.txt? Does it limit its accesses on a given web server somehow? When I tried to create a simple link checker (a kind of bot, unrelated to Wikipedia) some years ago I managed to flood some web servers with HEAD requests, the damage was fortunately limited by a slow modem connection. –89.204.153.138 (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll just add that Gunther Eysenbach of WebCitation.org was actively involved in our discussion about archiving external websites that Wikipedia uses for references and such. Mr. Eysenbach specifically stated that WebCite wants to work with Wikipedia to get websites archived and he has even offered a $500.00 bounty to encourage people to get this task accomplished. So the concern raised above is not an issue in this case. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 02:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conversion table
Suggest as many conversions as you want.
Original | Modified | Examples |
---|---|---|
<ref>http://google.com</ref> | <ref>http://google.com - {{WebCite|url=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR|date=archived_date}}</ref> | |
<ref>[http://google.com]</ref> | <ref>[http://google.com] - {{WebCite|url=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR|date=archived_date}}</ref> | |
<ref>[http://google.com Google]</ref> | <ref>[http://google.com Google] - {{WebCite|url=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR|date=archived_date}}</ref> | [2] |
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://google.com|title=Google|accessdate=2009-01-25|more parameters...}}</ref> | <ref>{{cite web|url=http://google.com|title=Google|accessdate=2009-01-25|more parameters...|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR|archivedate=archived_date}}</ref> | |
<ref>{{cite web|url=http://google.com|title=Google|more parameters...}}</ref> | <ref>{{cite web|url=http://google.com|title=Google|accessdate=date_url_was_addded|more parameters...|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/FOOBAR|archivedate=archived_date}}</ref> |
How will you make sure that the date format used for |archivedate=
matches the article format (e.g. {{use dmy dates}} or predominant use, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/H3llBot_4 for example)?
How do you re-verify dead links? Currently a week is the usual amount to re-check the site in case it had temporary maintenance/downtime.
Does the bot follow redirects from 404 pages to live pages?
A relevant Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dead url parameter for citations addresses marking urls with |deadurl=yes
or |deadurl=no
, which is relevant to this BRFA. I don't want to create fait acompli by asking you to do this, but then again I want to wait until the end of RfC. In any case, I think there should be some indication that the original links are not dead yet and the supplied Webcite url is pre-emptive archiving. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the above RfC has closed as successful and |deadurl=
will be implemented. Would you be able to add this your bot's logic? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Yes, no? SQLQuery me! 08:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No response from the operator in 8 days, operator has not edited this page since mid-july. Request Expired. without prejudice, please re-open this request whenever you would like. SQLQuery me! 05:16, 11 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Martinp23 (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 15:58, Saturday July 23, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Link replacement of MSDS on Chemical articles (a few hundred, likely):
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): NA
Edit period(s): One time
Estimated number of pages affected: few hundred
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N (unnecessary)
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: Replace http://www\.ilo\.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/icsc/dtasht/_icsc\d{2}/icsc(\d{4}).htm with http://www.inchem.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics$1.htm to repair broken link, eg this diff.
In future, would also seek approval (which could be granted at this time) for a task arising from any consensus which develops at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemicals#MSDS, which will be of similar scope.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Done. Reviewing as it went, all seems fine and links are being fixed. There are 187 further pages in the queue, which I would like to do at 15epm. Martinp23 16:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved including similar non-controversial URL replacement. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:35, 23 July 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Boghog (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 21:14, Friday July 22, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Manually assisted.
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Yes: link
Function overview: Populating new fields that have been recently added to the {{Drugbox}} template.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Adding clinical fields (and by extension external links) to the drugbox has been extensively discussed:
There is general consensus to populate the new fields. In contrast, there was some reservation about creating special purpose templates that would be transcluded back into the respective drug articles:
Hence the present request is only to populate the new fields and not to create special purpose templates.
Edit period(s): One time run for now.
Estimated number of pages affected: 4854 pages currently transclude the {{drugbox}} template
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: Populates the recently added fields to the drugbox. Some of these fields create links to external sites. Hence the bot checks to make sure each link is "live" before populating the field. In addition, the sections of the drugbox were also recently reordered, so the bot will sort the fields in the order they are currently rendered. See diff for an example bot edit for this requested task.
Discussion
This looks pretty good to me. I notice that this template is trans'd onto other namespaces such as User:. Would the proposed bot ignore these? SQLQuery me! 12:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have specified this above. The list of pages that the bot will be working from is generated by the script "python pagegenerators.py -namespace:0 -transcludes:Drugbox > drugbox_titles.txt". Hence, the bot will only work on templates in main and not user namespace. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Please consider putting some sort of link in the edit summary to this page.
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQLQuery me! 20:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. In the process, I have uncovered and fixed a number of bugs. In addition, I have also included a number of additional checks per this discussion. I think the script is now fairly robust, but I intended to ramp up slowly to make sure there are no additional surprises. Boghog (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed there is another bot editing drugboxes soon after BogBot does (e.g. [3] [4] [5]; there are dozens), but I'm assuming the tasks are sufficiently different that there's nothing we can do about this. I'm not an expert on the subject at all, so I can't gauge whether the changes are accurate, but everything seems to look good as far as I can tell. — The Earwig (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we seem to be getting there... No concerns with the CheMoBot at this point.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The subsequent edits by CheMoBot highlighted a small bug where BogBot forgot to propagate the DrugBank_Ref parameter. This bug has now been fixed. BogBot and CheMoBot are are complementary, the former is adding data while the later is verifying that changes to the template have not messed anything up. So CheMoBot did its job by catching an error by BogBot. I am also making a few additional small changes per this discussion. I will make an additional small test run to make sure everything is functioning correctly. Boghog (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I have implemented the changes mentioned above and run some additional tests. The percentage of follow-on edits by CheMoBot is reduced. The few that remain are justified (e.g., diff, BogBot added ChemSpiderID and CheMoBot then added the ChemSpiderID_Ref parameter indicating that the data has been verified). Both bots appear to be functioning correctly. Boghog (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we seem to be getting there... No concerns with the CheMoBot at this point.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed there is another bot editing drugboxes soon after BogBot does (e.g. [3] [4] [5]; there are dozens), but I'm assuming the tasks are sufficiently different that there's nothing we can do about this. I'm not an expert on the subject at all, so I can't gauge whether the changes are accurate, but everything seems to look good as far as I can tell. — The Earwig (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. Please consider putting some sort of link in the edit summary to this page.
Your bot seems to be editing outside of approved trial. While it's not that big a deal, you really shouldn't do that (WP:BOTPOL is very clear on this). A question for now, could your bot add the ChemSpiderID_Ref instead of CheMoBot and save the extra edit? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated these are just additional tests to determine how the new changes discussed here [6] are working. This overall is a tremendous improvement to articles on pharmaceuticals and hopefully this bot can soon be approved for a full run. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for exceeding the 100 edit approved trial, but I was trying to test some modifications to the script that were made in response to Earwig and Jmh649 comments. I also have been monitoring closely the edits the bot makes and manually fixing any mistakes. I could add the ChemSpiderID_Ref parameter but I would prefer that CheMoBot makes an independent check to make sure that the ChemSpiderID link is valid. Where do we go from here? Perhaps an extended trial of 100 additional edits? Boghog (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated these are just additional tests to determine how the new changes discussed here [6] are working. This overall is a tremendous improvement to articles on pharmaceuticals and hopefully this bot can soon be approved for a full run. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (≤100). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'm fine with an extended trial. I'd have suggested 50, but 100 is fine too. While the trial is going on, could you ask the Chem people what they think about the ChemSpiderID_ref thing? If they are fine with the dual edits, so am I. If they'd rather have BogBot do the update itself, then I'd prefer that. See also this suggestion for edit summaries. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a side-suggestion, would it be possible to fix those stupid first two fields. It's a pet-peeve of mine to see something like
{{Drugbox| Watchedfields = changed | Verifiedfields = changed
When they should/could be like
{{Drugbox | Watchedfields = changed | Verifiedfields = changed
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am here after a question from Boghog. The part of the verification needs more than only adding the parameters. Where new and correct parameters are added, also the index should be updated (Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index or Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index. Bogbot could pre-fill the _Ref parameters and also update the index if needed, but then still an extra edit is needed to get the correct value for the index ('verifiedrevid = ######') in the box. The only option I could think of to circumvent that, would be a change in the saving mechanism of the mediawiki software - if I were able to 'reserve' a revid, put that in the box, and filled-in the _Ref parameters, and then save the page giving it the revid that I reserved, plus putting the revid in the index, then CheMoBot would not need to update the page after an edit. Otherwise it is inevitable that there will be follow-up edits.
Regarding the verification Boghog, I work from several external lists, some of which privately mailed to me (CAS, UNII, ChEBI, ChEMBL), some of them readily available from internet (DrugBank, KEGG; the latter not too useful but it can be cross-checked against the other databases), some that I generate by eye (ChemSpider; I also got a list from them), and some that I source based on the others (StdInChI and StdInChIKey come from a ChemSpider search on the correct record. I am sure you could do it as well using BogBot, but since the code of CheMoBot seems pretty stable (though I removed a bug a couple of days ago) I think it is better to use that mechanism (CheMoBot also handles the more complex ChemBox). Note, CheMoBot is not capable (at the moment) to 'sort' fields in a box to a preferred order).
Second part, yesssss, pretty please. I will see if I can do that as well where possible. Also
{{Drugbox| Watchedfields = changed | Verifiedfields = changed |
is something that I sometimes see and which hurts my eyes. I know it is just edit-esthetics, but it has been bugging CheMoBot in the beginning as well (as well as many other missformats an crazy parameters. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the test edits now performed - it is not the only thing that needs to be done, it would also need a check whether all identifiers are correct (with respect to the index), and set the _Ref parameters accordingly, but that can be done (if you add e.g. a 'DrugBank = ####' and that is different from the value in the version which is indexed in the appropriate index (and you do not update the index), then the _Ref field should be set to '{{drugbankref|changed|DrugBank}}' - the bot will then not follow up if that is done consequently to all fields. If the index is updated, I don't think you can circumvent a follow up edit by CheMoBot, as it for sure will update 'verifiedrevid = ####' (except if you know beforehand what the revid will be when the page gets saved). I must say, this is something that has been bugging me for some time, especially when I update a lot of pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If CheMoBot does I good job of this having a second bot run after Bogbot is not too big of a deal. Bogbot is only going to be run once on all the pharmaceutical articles to add data. CheMoBot is run whenever article data is changed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks everyone, especially Dirk for your comments. As Dirk mentioned above, there is already a well functioning mechanism in place for verifying the data, namely CheMoBot. In addition, the process is significantly more complicated than adding a single parameter. Therefore I will not attempt to duplicate what CheMoBot is already doing well. As Doc James indicated, the update of the drugbox templates is a one run job, so there will be a limited number of follow-up edits. Concerning the second point, I completely agree. The previous version of the bot rebuilt the template from the first character after the first pipe so that if the first pipe was on the first line, it remained on the first line. This has now been changed so that the template is totally rebuilt from scratch from the opening curly bracket to closing bracket so that each parameter including the first is on its own line. Furthermore templates imbedded within the drugbox (e.g, citation templates) are collapsed so that all parameters within the imbedded template are on the same line. This should make parsing the template by bots in the future much easier. I will start the second trial run shortly. Boghog (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If CheMoBot does I good job of this having a second bot run after Bogbot is not too big of a deal. Bogbot is only going to be run once on all the pharmaceutical articles to add data. CheMoBot is run whenever article data is changed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well if Chem folks are alright with the dual edits, then I'm alright with it. Also, concerning the edit summary "per bot trial" would be better than "per bot approval", as the later implies it's already approved. You got up to one hundred edits in article space (and as many as you want in your own sandboxes). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, {{tl|foobar}} doesn't work in edit summaries. You can use the {{foobar}} directly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended
Trial complete. see last 50 contributons. Per the requests above, every parameter is on its own line and the edit summary has been tweaked. Everything seems to be functioning normally. Boghog (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Extended
Approved. MBisanz talk 22:20, 27 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
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 WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Jarry1250 (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 18:59, Friday July 8, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): PHP (Peachy)
Source code available: Haven't written it yet, will be (from my Toolserver SVN). Code used for trial
Function overview: Reconstruct Village Pump archives into searchable format.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Pre_2007 (note that I have change my idea of the correct numbering system since)
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 30 page creations
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: There was a period when the Village Pumps were archived solely as page histories (if that sounds confusing, see here). This makes them unsearchable and generally posterity unfriendly. I intend to rebuild them into standard format archives /Archive A, /Archive B, etc to complement the existing /Archive 1, /Archive 2, etc. The page creation edit summary will link back to the original page history for authors (though there are also in-text signatures).
Discussion
Seems like a great task for a bot. How's the code coming along? Once you're ready I'd like to do a trial on one of the pumps (e.g. News), before approval for the rest. However, I also wanted to clarify a few things:
- You say 30 page creations, is that because you will be creating 5 archives for each pump? How will you determine how big each archive should be?
- Regarding the linking of the original page history. Will this be simply a link to the current history, or will you link to a specific portion of it (using offset and limit)? I'd also suggest that rather than just using the edit summary you use a box at the top of the page, which could also be used to declare the page an archive.
- To make sure I understand the titles you'll be using, can you confirm that Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive A would be one of the archives?
Thanks - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for the delay, was away.
- Approximately 5 for each pump. Archives will be "almost 200 kB", the modern standard for VP archives.
- Yeah, I could probably manage a link to a specific portion of the history. As for other attribution items and archive templates, I'll be copying whatever MiszaBot does at the moment.
- Yes, that is correct.
- Okay for a trial? Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:41, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good.
Approved for trial (approx. 5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Any one of the pumps. - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, looking at the data, it would seem, despite initial appearances, that (news) was used a lot more than the others. Hence, if we increase the limit from 200 to 210kB, it's the only one that doesn't fit in one archive.
- Hence,
Trial complete. on News A and News B (these would go down to "H" by my reckoning), but I would like to abandon this system for all the others, and instead instigate an "Archive 0" approach.
- In fact, as I have just realised, News doesn't have any existing archives, so we could create that as Archive 0, 1, 2, etc. If there's no opposition, I'm going to go ahead and move to that standard.
- Approval is therefore for creating the other news archives (I will manually add the Archive 0s where necessary ). Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 16:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As promised, I have just remembered to publish the source code I just used. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. The format of the archives is up to you really, as long as it's vaguely intuitive and you make sure to update Wikipedia:Village pump archive once you're done :). Other than that, all looks fine to me. - Kingpin13 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good.
- 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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Noommos (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 11:48, Saturday July 9, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Auto
Programming language(s): PHP
Source code available: On request
Function overview: Automate some steps of the WP:USCOTM process.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Archived request
Edit period(s): Planning to set it to run through the article nominations once per day.
Estimated number of pages affected: <20
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details:
Will tag articles that have been nominated with {{USnom}}
and notify associated WikiProjects that the article has been nominated. When an article is selected as the collaboration of the month, the bot will update it's message on the WikiProjects talk page (or create a new section if the nomination message was archived etc). It's exclusion compliant if it is explicitly listed as a deny bot.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 14:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked over the bot's edits so far - just wanted to chime in that it looks to be doing very well. Have you run into any problems so far? SQLQuery me! 13:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, wish to withdraw this [7]. Here's the undocumented PHP source which uses my wAPI class. Feel free to use it for this task and others. Noom talk stalk 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, there's issues regarding placing the message on the WikiProjects talk page and it won't detect messages it's placed there before. Noom talk stalk 18:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as Withdrawn by operator. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:00, 2 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Htonl (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 14:58, Sunday July 10, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Here - custom script requiring pywikipedia.
Function overview: Replace {{WikiProject Africa|South Africa=yes}}
with {{WikiProject South Africa}}
, where appropriate.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Talk page template; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#WikiProject South Africa banner template
Edit period(s): One-time run
Estimated number of pages affected: Around 10,000
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: In the past, WikiProject South Africa tagged its articles with the {{WikiProject Africa}}
banner with the parameter |South Africa=yes
. We have now introduced our own project banner, {{WikiProject South Africa}}
. This bot will traverse Category:WikiProject South Africa articles and, subject to certain conditions, replace {{WikiProject Africa}}
with {{WikiProject South Africa}}
.
It will only perform such a replacement on pages which:
- are in one of the Talk, Wikipedia talk, File talk, Template talk, Category talk, Portal talk or Book talk namespaces; and
- contain
{{WikiProject Africa}}
(either under that name or one of its redirects), and:- the
|South Africa=
parameter is set to a non-empty value other than "no"; and - no other parameter is set to indicate the article's association with another African national wikiproject; and
- no other task force parameter is set, except those for the protected areas and military history task forces.
- the
When performing the replacement, it will transfer parameter values from the old to the new template as follows:
- The
|class=
,|attention=
,|auto=
,|needs-infobox=
,|listas=
, and|small=
parameters, if they are set, will be transferred unchanged. - If
|South Africa-importance=
is set, its value will be transferred to|importance=
; otherwise the value of|importance=
will be transferred. - With regard to the protected areas and military history task force parameters, the values will be transferred to the corresponding but differently-named parameters. - htonl (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
- Couldn't you just use the existing parameter to trigger a transclusion of the new template? Then you wouldn't have to edit all this pages. I would like to see this question answered before a trial commences. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, because there are both articles on which only the {{WikiProject South Africa}} banner should appear (as in the vast majority of articles relating to purely South African topics), and articles on transnational topics on which it should appear alongside the {{WikiProject Africa}} template (for example Talk:Orange River, where the Lesotho and Namibia projects still use the Africa banner). It would also make the coding of the Africa banner considerably more complicated; as WP:RSA adds new task forces it would become, in my opinion, unacceptably so. We would be trying to glom two separate templates into one with a bit of ParserFunctions hackery. - htonl (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case, does WP:AFRICA know that it is about to be removed from 10,000 articles? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet; I'll inform it if you like, though I should point out that it is being removed for exactly the same reason that WP:EUROPE is not included on every article associated with WP:UK, WP:NORTHAMERICA is not included on every article associated with WP:USA, and so on. - htonl (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Notified. - htonl (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WikiProjects are allowed to associate themselves with whichever articles they like. WPBIO is intentionally broad, for example. Anyway, good call on the notification. Best to wait now for a bit. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 08:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Woops, I did not realize it would remove the original banner. That should be decided by the project if it is to be done. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, we've gone for a week and there've been no responses from WP:AFRICA (except for NJR and he was already involved). Can I run this for a 50-article trial now? - htonl (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Two weeks now and still no responses on WP:AFRICA. Please can htonl get approval for a 50-article trial. We would really like to start getting the South African articles in shape. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hm? I don't understand the hurry. You have your categories, this request is just to alter the visual display of the template.
- I'm still not completely happy about the need, but we can have a technical trial for now
Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. - htonl (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the contribs for this run, I am happy with how this went. I am of the opinion that this bot should be approved. Any other opinions? SQLQuery me! 05:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, well at least I can outline an alternative:
- All new instances use the new template
- The WP:AFRICA template is updated so that it actually displays as South Africa
- Over time, the number of articles reliant on the kludge is reduced gradually, e.g. by replacing when assessing as part of an assessment drive.
- This would increase the WP:AFRICA template burden, but drastically reduce the number of edits required.
- - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 09:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion - an implementation like that would just require a further fix down the road. I'd rather get it over with now, and fixed. That being said, are there any objections to approving this bot? SQLQuery me! 08:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To make {{AfricaProject}} do that - basically, to implement the logic that the bot follows, but in ParserFunctions - would be unpleasantly complicated. - htonl (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am with SQL on this one – a single (relatively) quick bot run and the problem is done, resolved, etc., and we won't have to deal with unnecessary template ugliness or a long-term process that can be resolved with a rather short-term fix. — The Earwig (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it's not a new project, User:NJR ZA has been doing a sort of one-man assessment drive. But he did a lot of that assessment using the old Africa template before the new template was introduced. I've also reduced the burden somewhat by changing redirects like {{WP South Africa}} to point at the new template; we're down to about 8000 potential bot edits now. - htonl (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, how many edits/second are we looking at for this task? SQLQuery me! 08:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BOTPOL prescribes a rate of one edit every ten seconds for non-urgent tasks, so I was planning to follow that. - htonl (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One edit every 10 seconds sounds perfectly reasonable for this one-time task.
Approved. SQLQuery me! 07:41, 6 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Gurch (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 08:52, Saturday June 18, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Manual
Programming language(s): .NET
Source code available: no, but you can ask if you really want it
Function overview: add {{WikiProject Biography}} to discussion pages
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): having {{WikiProject Biography}} on talk page of BLPs seems relatively uncontroversial, I can dig up some discussions if necessary
Edit period(s): batches if and when I notice it's necessary
Estimated number of pages affected: ~10,000 talk pages initially, subsequent runs dependent on wiki activity
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): yes
Function details:
I seem to remember there being a bot or autowikibrowser user or something that added {{WikiProject Biography}} to the talk pages of BLPs. However I checked and there's like a zillion of them without one so I guess it hasn't been done recently.
Essentially, any article in Category:Living people that doesn't already have a talk page in Category:Biography articles of living people gets {{WikiProject Biography}} placed on there.
If there's a {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} it has its blp parameter set to yes, and {{WikiProject Biography}} goes inside that, otherwise it goes at the top of the page.
{{WikiProject Biography}} gets living=yes set, class=stub and auto=yes if the article has a stub template, and listas set appropriately if the article sets a default sort key.
I will look at each article first, so I don't blindly tag things that shouldn't be in Category:Living people at all.
I figured a zillion edits from a non-bot account might annoy someone so I'm requesting approval here. The bot already has a bot flag from years ago so no need to worry about that.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the response, that was quick. I'll run the trial some time in the next 24 hours. Gurch (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} any progress? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:29, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a notice on the operator's talkpage, asking for an update on this request. SQLQuery me! 08:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. [8] SQLQuery me! 10:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a notice on the operator's talkpage, asking for an update on this request. SQLQuery me! 08:22, 29 July 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 09:09, Saturday March 26, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): c++
Source code available: no
Function overview: Updating stuff for huggle
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 20 - 40
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: Synchronize warning templates of huggle with templates project (it would create a copy of templates and change the syntax)
Discussion
It would copy the templates from Wiki project user templates to the Template:Huggle templates and changed its syntax to correct for huggle. Petrb (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does it get the source list of the templates (how would the bot know it has got the right templates)? By what rules does it rename the template? How does it alter the template markup -- i.e. what changes are made and which parts of the templates need to be converted for Huggle?
- Has there been a discussion for the need of Huggle-specific versions for each template? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List is stored in own task config, it only take content of one template and replace other template used by huggle with similar content. If template would contain certain mark it would skip it. Petrb (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changes will be made to part {{ID}} inside (replace 2 to 1, 1 to 2 and insert few more). Petrb (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you make the list of affected templates yourself? That's fine and means any templates incorrectly converted are human error, not bot's.
- Can you give an example of a template to-be-converted, I opened some from Wiki project user templates, but they had no such {{ID}}? What do there 1, 2 mean and what are the few others? I'm afraid BRFA needs explicit details, so that the BAG know exactly what they are approving. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes if you open Template:Huggle/warn-spam-2 and Template:Uw-spam2 in source code you would find the difference, templates created by the project are ok and community agree with them while templates of huggle are outdated some people were asking if we could update them so they would look like regular templates used by other tools Petrb (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning what those symbols are, its for instance article name. Petrb (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, you meant unnamed parameters {{{1}}}, {{{2}}}, etc. I got confused because you only used two {{ -- i.e. transclusion/parser functions.
- Does the bot create new templates too or only updates existing ones? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No it only changes all current Petrb (talk) 17:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning what those symbols are, its for instance article name. Petrb (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see what the edits entail. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Done Petrb (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The copied interwikis and {{Templatesnotice}} are not applicable to the Huggle templates. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please do the testing in userspace and not template space; your trial was for 5 edits and ended almost a week ago. Please also fix the incorrect interwiki links your bot edits introduced by copying the original templates. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fixed now Petrb (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Petrb (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. 5 unique edits to templates previously not edited by you or your bot, and without intermediate edits (this is specified as "unsupervised", after all). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No such templates exist Petrb (talk) 18:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need to create some testcases and then run the bot over them to show how it will work on its own. MBisanz talk 07:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any update? MBisanz talk 23:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. No problem restarting when operator is active. MBisanz talk 20:13, 24 July 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Steven Zhang (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 15:28, Saturday May 21, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Either Automatic Supervised or manually assisted with AWB. Automatic but supervised.
Programming language(s): AWB, pywikipedia
Source code available: Standard pywikipedia, using brokensectionanchors.py, and AWBredirect.py
Function overview: Fixing broken section anchors using brokensectionanchors.py, currently I have not tested this yet, alternatively I will use AWB. Fixing double redirects
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Unsure. The database report only lists the first 1000 pages.Run on a daily basis. There's normally 50 or so a day.
Already has a bot flag Y
Function details: I have not tested task 4, but I am hoping that with this task I can repair some of the broken section anchors that are found and updated daily here. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 15:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC) Simple task to fix redirects.[reply]
Discussion
"I have not tested task 4" -- what is task 4, do you mean Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/SteveBot_4 and how is it relevant to this BRFA? How does the bot determine the correct section name? Do you use the "Best guess" column from reports for the change? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, task 4 would be this task, I disregard that task that you linked to, as it was rejected. Tasks 1, 2, and 3 were approved, Task 4 was rejected, I suppose this is task 5 but it would be the fourth approved task, if that makes sense. For some, I will use best guess, however it will be a manually assisted task, so using AWB will just make the work a little bit quicker as opposed to manually doing the task by hand on my account. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:33, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any updates on the trial? MBisanz talk 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am going to work on some code to see if there's another way to do this task other than the hard manual way, which will have to be done pretty much by hand, but will need some time to work on it. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 01:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, take your time. No rush. MBisanz talk 03:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any progress on this task? SQLQuery me! 08:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark this one as {{BotWithdrawn}}, the code seems overly complex to write. I would request a separate task in place, the fixing of double redirects. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 10:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any progress on this task? SQLQuery me! 08:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, take your time. No rush. MBisanz talk 03:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you update all the relevant fields to match the specification of the new task? Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. - [9] though I went over 50, sorry. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}, trial is done, could someone review the results please. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Results look good, uncontroversial task, competent bot op. My only question is about whether we should be doing this task in the userspace. Sure, double redirects are double redirects, but is the appropriate behavior? Probably so – relatively minor concern – but I wanted to know what people thought about this. — The Earwig (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some users have redirect loops in their userspace, as for some reason they want double redirects in their userspace. This bot won't change that. Most other double redirects are caused by users moving drafts from their userspace into mainspace and then moving them again. I don't see an issue with fixing this up. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Works for me; you're good to go. — The Earwig (talk) 00:33, 11 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Puggan (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 10:00, Monday May 2, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Manual started, downling a list of current avaible task from http://toolserver.org/~sk/cw/enwiki/index.htm, try to do them and then stop.
Programming language(s): PHP whit CURL
Source code available: http://wikibot.puggan.se/wikibot/wiki.phps
Function overview: Fixing problems reported in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia, at the moment id (17,53,57) se details for more info.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): manualy run 1-3 times per day
Estimated number of pages affected: i guess it can be 10 per day, but have no clue, it takes what Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia reports
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, it checks for nobots-, bots- and inuse- templates, and skip thous pages.
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: The bot was build for the sv-wikipedia, and currently doing 3 task from the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Check_Wikipedia:
And my plan was to do the same for the en-wikipedia
Discussion
Please read WP:BOTPOL and make sure not to run the bot without trial/approval from BAG. Concerning the task, note that "Cosmetic changes should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time." Only the headlines one is a visually-altering change. The other ones should not be made on their own. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- about "make sure not to run the bot without trial", i thougt en and sv hade almost the same rules, so started a test whit about 50 edit as sv sugested, and manualy checking all diffs between each edit. i'm not leting it edit anything more on en until i get a trial status, and keep it on sv only if its funktion isn't wanted here.
- Would you consider expanding the scope to fix the case where there are <ref> tags but no <references/> or {{reflist}} ? There used to be a bot to do this but it no longer runs. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As a comment, I wouldn't really object having a bot take care of category duplication. It's not like its an entirely trivial change like changing ==Bob== to == Bob == assuming the spaced version is dominant, and certainly isn't a cosmetic change. Categories should not be present more than once on any page, even if it doesn't really "break" anything. This would be similar to removing duplicate interwikis links. It's something that's hard to spot manually, and it should never be done, even though it doesn't break anything if it's done. Moving interwikis below categories however, is a cosmetic change. It can be done in parallel, but should not be done alone. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (≈15 edits for each task). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Only "Category duplication" and "Sections ending with a semicolon" tasks should be made on their own. You may do "Interwiki before last category" but only together with the main tasks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any progress on the trial? MBisanz talk 00:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm on a sailingboat at the moment, so I'll wait to reaktivate the english script until i get home from my vacation --Puggan (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any progress? If you're still on vacation, that's fine, but the last message from the user here was over 1 1/2 months ago, and they've edited on svwiki since then. Also, if you haven't modified the code since the accidental bot run earlier, can you possibly ensure that its edit summary is a bit more descriptive, perhaps providing a link back to WP:BOT noting it is a bot account, or providing a link back to this approval, or providing a link back to your talk page? Thanks. — The Earwig (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. No updates in over two months, despite attempts at contacting the user, so I'm going to expire this request. If you decide to return, I have nothing against you reopening it and completing the trial. — The Earwig (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Ohms law (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 02:23, Friday May 6, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): C#
Source code available: No
Function overview: Adjusts links within article content in accordance with WP:NOTBROKEN
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:NOTBROKEN
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: All(?)
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Sure
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: for this task Ohms Law Bot will examine links within article content. If a link is piped, and the display portion of the link is the title of an article that is a redirect, while the target portion of a link is the article containing the content, then Ohms Law Bot will change the link to target the redirect page. This functionality would be in compliance with Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken.
Discussion
Do you have a list of pages you wish to operate your bot on or are you just cycling allpages? Noom talk stalk 15:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I haven't decided yet. I was considering just using random pages.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Per WP:BOTPOL, if you're requesting a lot of page content, you would be better off using a database dump. Noom talk stalk 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I won't be requesting a lot of page content. It'll work on a single page at a time.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Are there many of these links that need to be fixed? Or you'll end up skipping through pages fairly quickly. Noom talk stalk 15:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience manually editing pages there seems to be a lot of them. However, I don't actually have any statistics... It'll likely skip through a number of pages fairly quickly. I don't think that there's any way to avoid that, though. Note that I'm using the API though, so the server load shouldn't be very significant.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - By the way, I anticipate adding other tasks eventually, so the whole "skipping though articles" issue shouldn't be much of a problem. This task likely won't run on every page, but it will be used.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my experience manually editing pages there seems to be a lot of them. However, I don't actually have any statistics... It'll likely skip through a number of pages fairly quickly. I don't think that there's any way to avoid that, though. Note that I'm using the API though, so the server load shouldn't be very significant.
- Are there many of these links that need to be fixed? Or you'll end up skipping through pages fairly quickly. Noom talk stalk 15:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but I won't be requesting a lot of page content. It'll work on a single page at a time.
- Per WP:BOTPOL, if you're requesting a lot of page content, you would be better off using a database dump. Noom talk stalk 15:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've reviewed this and I can't make any sense of what it is that the bot would actually do? Could you give a before/after example? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, It's simple really. Say, for example, that someone places a link to [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]] on a page. Since Asymmetric Algorithms exists as a redirect to Public-key cryptography, the link can (and should) point to the redirect page itself, not the target. So, the bot would change the link to [[Asymmetric Algorithms]], which is what WP:NOTBROKEN advises us to do (in the majority of cases).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I don't get it either. In your example you would change the displayed value of the link. How will the bot know if that fits the context/phrasing of the sentence, or if only the existing target value does? Rjwilmsi 15:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to echo the above in not quite understanding this. For instance, "Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]]." is the intended sentence. Changing this to "Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Asymmetric Algorithms]]." implies a different thing. If anything, you would want to change it to "Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Public-key cryptography]]."; but that is WP:NOTBROKEN. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw this coming, dammit. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for you guys other then "it won't be a problem". The reason is that... well, this isn't a single purpose bot program. There's a fairly significant back end to it, which performs some Natural language processing... AI is sorta what I do. Anyway, seeing as how I'm unwilling to share my code, and I anticipate that sharing some of the source would be an inevitable result of this line of questions, the only solution that I can think of is allowing a trial run (or outright denying the task... which I'll be fine with, but I hope doesn't happen.)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Here's something of an answer: The bot doesn't change the display text where there isn't a page matching the display text. For example, say that there's a sentence such as Smith worked on public-key systems and pioneered [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]]., and the pages "Public-key cryptography" exists, but the page for "Asymmetric Algorithms" doesn't (I realize that it does, but bear with me. This is an example, after all). If that's the case, the bot may change the target, but it will not change the display text. I've found out that, using this simple logic actually prevents the vast majority of the problems that you guys are bringing up here. I'd like to be clear: there will be occasionally "false positives" from this task. However, a handful of false positives (possibly) for every 100 changes that this task would create is an acceptable rate, to me.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw this coming, dammit. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer for you guys other then "it won't be a problem". The reason is that... well, this isn't a single purpose bot program. There's a fairly significant back end to it, which performs some Natural language processing... AI is sorta what I do. Anyway, seeing as how I'm unwilling to share my code, and I anticipate that sharing some of the source would be an inevitable result of this line of questions, the only solution that I can think of is allowing a trial run (or outright denying the task... which I'll be fine with, but I hope doesn't happen.)
- As much as I'd like Wikipedia to be run by bots writing up perfect FAs, that's not going to happen. I don't think you will gather consensus for changing links like that and we'll have to deny the BRFA per WP:CONTEXTBOT. Bots have little to no sense of context. I will be very surprised if your code manages to outsmart that. But, per your own estimate, a handful false positives per 100 edits is more than CluebotNG is allowed, which is extremely useful, and even then had users arguing about false positives. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL @ "Wikipedia to be run by bots writing up perfect FAs". :D
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 21:05, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL @ "Wikipedia to be run by bots writing up perfect FAs". :D
This is what Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. deprecates. Indeed, it has less point; it does not change the visible text (Assymmetric algorithms in the example); it does not change where the reader winds up (Public-key cryptography, at the top of the page). It might be useful to take that link and make it a section redirect, but that's more than a bot can do.
So why? What benefit does this have besides the trivial one of making the redirect faster, which is not enough to jusitify the time required to process another edit of the linking page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The example does change the visible text: [[Asymmetric Algorithms|Public-key cryptography]] to [[Asymmetric Algorithms]]; i.e. Public-key cryptography to Asymmetric Algorithms. That's the thing. A bot doing WP:NOTBROKEN would have been denied already. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, sorry for the confusion. Oppose until Rjwilmsi's question is answered; this is guessing that the link will be better than the actual words written. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's the sort of change that the BOT would make: Diff of Revision as of 22:23, April 28, 2011
- I made that change manually of course, but the logic is there for the bot to do exactly what I did myself. Actually, I could have the bot make the links go to page sections as well, using logic something along the lines of "if there's a section header on the target page matching the original target, point to that", but adding that to this task might be slightly controversial.
- Also, please note that I'm philosophically opposed to bots "protecting" their edits (at least, for bots such as mine). This bot will not, and indeed can not, revert edits by others (at least, not intentionally). I know that this comment isn't really related to anything that has been brought up, but I hope that it'll... inspire confidence, somewhat? Allay some fears that might exist, I guess.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]- If this is restricted to See also sections, it's not rewriting prose, which is something. Is it?
- That it cannot revert is positively useful; if you could send that code to some other editors on this page, they would become more useful contributors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (userspace only). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. A dry run trial for a concept proof. Make some link change reports with the surrounding prose included, so we can see how the bot would handle those cases and if the rewording is correct. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, working on getting this done now. I need to change a couple of things first, and I'm suddenly really busy off-wiki, but... it'll happen. Thanks! I have to admit that I didn't foresee getting any approval for this, so you've caught me a tad bit flat footed here. Sorry. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] - Any progress? MBisanz talk 23:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some. I had to take some time off from development for a while, but I'm back at it now. I screwed up my local database though, so I'm in the process of recreating it, which is going to take a little bit of time.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Ok, sounds good. No hurry, I just like to make sure I'm not neglecting older requests. MBisanz talk 23:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} How is this request coming along? SQLQuery me! 07:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, sounds good. No hurry, I just like to make sure I'm not neglecting older requests. MBisanz talk 23:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some. I had to take some time off from development for a while, but I'm back at it now. I screwed up my local database though, so I'm in the process of recreating it, which is going to take a little bit of time.
No response from the operator in 8 days, this subpage has not been edited by the operator in months. Request Expired. without prejudice. Please re-open this request whenever you would like. SQLQuery me! 05:13, 11 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: MC10 (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 22:17, Sunday April 24, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: pywikipedia
Function overview: Use clean_sandbox.py
andinterwiki.py
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Runs when I have the chance to do so
Estimated number of pages affected: clean_sandbox.py
: 1 page;interwiki.py
: around 10 pages a minute, at the quickest
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: If approved, this bot will run python clean_sandbox.py
andpython interwiki.py -cleanup -autonomous -namespace:0 -start:!
, exactly.
Discussion
It appears User:ChzzBot II already clears out WP:Sandbox on a regular basis (see the most recent one as of today). Why do we need a second bot to do the same thing? —SW— gossip 05:17, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed from the tasks. —mc10 (t/c) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 01:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's this edit all about? The bot says it removed a link to this page, which does not exist, so it was removed due to the cleanup option being on. However, the actual link that was removed pointed to this page, which does exist, and therefore should not have been removed. Also, it changed the hi link to point to a non existent page, here, whereas it previously pointed to an existing page (and presumable correct) here. Can you explain this please? - Kingpin13 (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling that this is related to this SourceForge issue, because I'm using a Python 2.7 version, after the warning showed up also while using a Python 2.6 version, so I gave up using Python 2.6.x. If I need to, I can switch back to a previous Python version, and try again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, um... is it fixed? What version were you using when you made the edit I linked to above? What version are you using now? What version of pywikipedia are you using? - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using the newest Python 2.7 version. I've been using the pywikipedia from svn trunk usually (I sometimes get a bit lazy and forget to update my version). I'm going to install Python 2.6 as well when I start my bot again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So is it fixed then? - Kingpin13 (talk) 11:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was using the newest Python 2.7 version. I've been using the pywikipedia from svn trunk usually (I sometimes get a bit lazy and forget to update my version). I'm going to install Python 2.6 as well when I start my bot again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, um... is it fixed? What version were you using when you made the edit I linked to above? What version are you using now? What version of pywikipedia are you using? - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a feeling that this is related to this SourceForge issue, because I'm using a Python 2.7 version, after the warning showed up also while using a Python 2.6 version, so I gave up using Python 2.6.x. If I need to, I can switch back to a previous Python version, and try again. —mc10 (t/c) 22:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any progress? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It has been fixed; I have switched to Python 2.6. —mc10 (t/c) 02:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} it's been a month since the trial extension - and almost 2 months since this bot has edited, is this request still active? SQLQuery me! 07:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get to it right now; I was out of town and unable to run pywikipedia. —mc10 (t/c) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. I have 51 edits, if I counted correctly. —mc10 (t/c) 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll get to it right now; I was out of town and unable to run pywikipedia. —mc10 (t/c) 18:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} it's been a month since the trial extension - and almost 2 months since this bot has edited, is this request still active? SQLQuery me! 07:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Edits look fine. Usual pywiki. Keep an eye occasionally for -cleanup to not mess up. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 06:45, 24 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Doncram (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 18:52, Wednesday December 22, 2010 (UTC)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Neither, this is about mass generation of article drafts which are placed in Talk-space subpages of NRHP list-articles. Editors can cut-and-paste these into new and old mainspace articles.
Programming language(s): I think not applicable.
Source code available: I think not applicable.
Function overview: I think not applicable.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#just do it by bot now
- User talk:Pubdog#Saratoga
- Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Scott County, Iowa#Development
Edit period(s): Each batch is a one time paste-in.
Estimated number of pages affected:
- 5 pasted-in batches so far, with material available for 500 or so wikipedia articles.
- Approximately 55,000 NRHP articles that are yet to be created (redlinks on the system of NRHP list-articles List of RHPs, could potentially be created by editors making individual edits drawing from many more of these batches of drafted articles.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): I have no idea
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No, and i think seems not applicable
Function details: I think not applicable.
Discussion
Per Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass article creation, I see that i am supposed to get Bot approval for a project i am doing for/within WikiProject NRHP. What i am doing is using my own database software on my own PC, outside of Wikipedia, to generate batches of draft articles for NRHP-listed places, for posting in Talk subpages. Editors can manually cut-and-paste from these to create new Wikipedia articles or to improve existing articles. I'm calling the current version "NRHP batch generator 3.0", relating to version number of my program. This is not a bot, but it has helped to generate 20-50 articles so far, so technically it may meet "Mass article creation" criteria and require approval here.
The initial proposal, begun by my vaguely asking for a real bot, was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#just do it by bot now. Vocal opposition to a real bot that would go out and start articles was heard, then there was some helpful discussion, then I proceeded with pilot testing of a couple batches, each having a "NRHP pretty-good request" banner making a request to editors not to abuse the privilege. There are now 5 batches of drafted articles, for 4 counties in 4 states, which may be found what-links-here-to-the-NRHP-pretty-good-request.
One commentator concerned about monitoring the editors using material from the batch generator pointed out the Recent Changes feature might be used. So I included a Recent Changes link from each of the batch pages, e.g. click on Recent Changes link from the top of Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut/drafts. I think this is a neat way to assist any group working on an article improvement drive.
I'd be happy to receive advice, and to address any questions. What more can I explain? --doncram (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me see if I understand this correctly: you have a database from which you are generating new article templates and then posting these templates to relevant talk pages so that someone may start an article off these templates?Smallman12q (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The database i'm drawing from is the public domain NRIS database of the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. This has been used for several years, for 25,000 or so articles, by Elkman's NRHP infobox/article generator (some info about it here) and it was used by an NRHPbot during 2006 or 2007. Elkman's system just serves up one draft article at a time, and never went through any central approval process AFAIK. But it has received lots of scrutiny in use. I'm doing it in a way that potentially could assist editors starting more articles faster though. There are about 55,000 potential articles to create. This batch approach could assist in creating them in small batches, but requires manual edits for editors to actually make the articles. --doncram (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you intending to use User:NRHP batch generator 3.0 account for this? If so, you need to register it and mark it as your bot account. Discussions seem to indicate that all these articles is something the community wants created (eventually at least). The method chosen seems to be non-intrusive and relies on human discretion. One concern though, should these be posted on talk pages? I rather see the batches organized in bot's userspace. This would make the approval much more lax. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not planning to create or use User:NRHP batch generator 3.0 account, but rather just my own account. This bot approval request system required me to give a name for a bot, while this is not actually a bot approval request, there is no real bot involved. I dunno, i could create an account if that would be helpful for holding the batches of generated articles.
- But, about where the batches of generated articles should be located, I was thinking that having them close to where they would be used is most natural. E.g., for a batch associated with one given architect say "Firstname Lastname (architect)", placing them all at "Talk:Firstname Lastname (architect)/drafts", or for an NRHP list-article named "National Register of Historic Places listings in COUNTY, STATE", placing them at talk subpage "Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in COUNTY, STATE/drafts".
- I didn't mention yet that there is an associated page, a corresponding /draftnames page, which provides a correspondence between NRIS "refnums" and the actual wikipedia article names (often not the same as an official NRHP name in NRIS database). I generate a first draft of this /draftnames file, paste it to mainspace, then use DabSolver tool and otherwise edit it, then bring a copy back to my personal computer, which i then use in generating the /drafts. This /draftnames is meant to be edited by multiple editors, and to serve another purpose, that of supporting the Recent Changes report which will be routinely provided at the main Talk page. I am thinking such a /draftnames file will be a natural complement to many, perhaps all NRHP county or city list-articles, to support a Recent Changes report accessible from each of their Talk pages, whether or not i have also created a /drafts batch of generated articles. I consider the /draftnames to be pretty closely tied to the list-article they are associated with, and would want editors from WikiProject STATE or WikiProject NRHP or unaffiliated to feel free to update it to keep it useful.
- Hence, i currently think these are best placed in Talk subspace. I am not aware of any wikipedia performance issues that might be relevant. If there are across-language-translation issues, i would think keeping the /draftnames close to the list-article would be better, but i dunno if this feature would be translated over. There are more NRHP list-articles translated to the German de.wikipedia than anywhere else so far, i think. But, are there other considerations for the Talk vs. WikiProject NRHP vs. user subspace locations of these /drafts and /draftnames ? I'll ask at the NRHP discussion for others to comment here. --doncram (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You should create an account just to avoid confusion and to have the edits separated from your main account. It shouldn't take too much effort. Someone should flag it as confirmed though to create pages. I am uncertain but this may also help ease attribution problems.
- There are no significant relevant performance issues with Talk: vs. User: namespaces. I think you can safely post this as you suggest.
Approved for trial (10 /draft batches and associated /draftnames). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Although the current batches look good. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created account User:ThreeBot and will try to use that going forward, at least for big edits laying in the batch-generated type material. --Doncram (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any progress? Anomie⚔ 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I created account User:ThreeBot and will try to use that going forward, at least for big edits laying in the batch-generated type material. --Doncram (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for asking. As contributions for ThreeBot currently shows, ThreeBot has not yet made any edits. User:ThreeBot reports on past draft paste-in edits by User:doncram that would in future be made by ThreeBot, and itemizes improvements to be addressed gradually. Next batch of drafts under discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Albemarle County, Virginia (in new WikiProject Albemarle County) and will be done by ThreeBot. Not sure whether this will include the NRHP coordinates available from those KML pages that you helped me about, Anomie, or not, though I would like to include them. --doncram 17:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} It's been 2.5 weeks, and there seems to be no activity at the linked page. Is this still going anywhere? Anomie⚔ 03:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have new commitments in real life that have prevented me from making progress here, and there's been a problem with my outside software which I use to generate the /drafts (problem will be resolved by a reinstallation soon). I do intend to continue with this, as i see it as important and valuable, though I can't make specific commitments as to when i will lay in new batches which would reach a total of 10 cumulative trials. If there isn't any urgency, i would like for this to just be kept open. --doncram 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} It's been 2.5 weeks, and there seems to be no activity at the linked page. Is this still going anywhere? Anomie⚔ 03:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for asking. As contributions for ThreeBot currently shows, ThreeBot has not yet made any edits. User:ThreeBot reports on past draft paste-in edits by User:doncram that would in future be made by ThreeBot, and itemizes improvements to be addressed gradually. Next batch of drafts under discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Albemarle County, Virginia (in new WikiProject Albemarle County) and will be done by ThreeBot. Not sure whether this will include the NRHP coordinates available from those KML pages that you helped me about, Anomie, or not, though I would like to include them. --doncram 17:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any updates? No urgency, just checking in. MBisanz talk 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still plugging along on copy-pasting the bot-like /drafts into individual mainspace articles, and developing the articles somewhat, for the runs so far set up. Particularly am nearing completion of National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota, with some dull roar of comments about some of the starter articles. I plan to ask for general review of this county's work at wt:NRHP when i am complete.
- One update is that the trial is bust in terms of getting anyone else besides me to perform that copy-paste step to move a /draft into mainspace. Once an article is in mainspace, it attracts attention and is developed as intended. I requested User:Pubdog, an unusual editor who was creating many articles, to start by copy-pasting from /drafts instead for one New York county, and he tried it for a few, but preferred to go back to his other well-honed approach to generating many stub articles. New York is not the best-suited to the /drafts, because the NRHP documents for New York are provided at a non-standard site using different code numbers that I do not have available in any database form to use in composing /draft articles. So, for some future version of this bot, I will probably want to avoid the copy-paste step and just provide the /drafts to the mainspace articles directly.
- Question: MBisanz or other, is there any way I could provide /drafts to another bot operator who would do that application of pieces to the many separate mainspace articles within one county or other batch of NRHP articles-to-be-created? Or, is there some starter information for me to see about programming that myself? --doncram 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can find someone to handle the /drafts, then you can do it, just check around WP:BOTREQ for active people. As far as starter info, I don't know of any good manuals, but if you ask at BOTREQ, someone probably will link you. MBisanz talk 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any news? MBisanz talk 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram is not able to respond right now, because his account is currently blocked. --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that now. I'll wait for him to respond when it expires. MBisanz talk 23:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Operator has been unblocked for a few weeks. Are there any new developments with this request? SQLQuery me! 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a notice on the operator's talkpage asking for an update on this request. SQLQuery me! 08:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Thanks for your attention. Please consider this active, though a bit slow. There are some programming issues i want to address in new sets of /drafts relating to newer version of NRIS database being different, and there's feedback in some discussions, including one in which i promised to try, for one editor, a different approach for at least one batch of /drafts. I'll switch my programming over to a different computer that I have with me more often, so that i can make progress. Thanks. --doncram 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for getting back to me. Just wanted to make sure that this request is still active. SQLQuery me! 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram has been blocked again for three months. This bot is likely never to get up and running by him. I fear eventually he will be blocked indefinitely.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, thanks for getting back to me. Just wanted to make sure that this request is still active. SQLQuery me! 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Thanks for your attention. Please consider this active, though a bit slow. There are some programming issues i want to address in new sets of /drafts relating to newer version of NRIS database being different, and there's feedback in some discussions, including one in which i promised to try, for one editor, a different approach for at least one batch of /drafts. I'll switch my programming over to a different computer that I have with me more often, so that i can make progress. Thanks. --doncram 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a notice on the operator's talkpage asking for an update on this request. SQLQuery me! 08:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Operator has been unblocked for a few weeks. Are there any new developments with this request? SQLQuery me! 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see that now. I'll wait for him to respond when it expires. MBisanz talk 23:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doncram is not able to respond right now, because his account is currently blocked. --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing as expired for now, bot is yet to make a single edit. Even if the user gets unblocked sooner, 3 months is a bit too much for a stale BRFA filled in December. No prejudice to reopening. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:33, 3 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
Bots that have completed the 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 WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 10:46, Thursday June 9, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): C#
Source code available: No
Function overview: While doing task 4 remove invalid |publisher=
, |work=
, |format=
and partially fix |title=
referencing Wayback (and Webcite when implemented)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 4
Edit period(s): Manually run
Estimated number of pages affected: Unsure, not that many
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details:
Basically, I found that editors in addition to using archive.org for main |url=
, also sometimes treat other fields as if the citation is to Wayback. That is only fine for material made/published by Wayback (hence this is done only with task 4). But when an archive url is used and is then bot-moved to proper field, I found that I need to clean up too many pages.
So: When moving archive url from |url=
to |archiveurl=
, also:
- Remove
|publisher=
,|work=
or change|title=
field that contains a reference to Wayback archive in a form similar to "Wayback" "xxxx (Wayback)", "Wayback: xxxx" or "xxxx – Wayback", where "xxxx" is some text and "Wayback" matches a RegEx of reference to Wayback archive- For
|title=
field only do such edits if a partial title will remain
- For
- Remove
|format=
field that contains "archive" or "wayback"
Example cases. Will be expanded if/when I find new cases.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Task is both reasonable and desirable. A 50 edit trial should bring up any kinks in the code. Then we'll see if it's ready for glory. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Any diff with "Removed incorrect Wayback usage from citation field" is under this task. All bugs/parsing fails so far were reverted and fixed. I'm going to keep an eye on most of the edits, as I expect to run into some more cases I hadn't anticipated. But so far it looks good. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The edits done seem alright, but since there may be some strange cases the current code doesn't account for, would be better to do an extended trial first. So:
Approved for extended trial (5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - EdoDodo talk 20:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any updates? MBisanz talk 14:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I could say
Trial complete. All edits marked with "Removed incorrect Wayback usage from citation field". I've been checking each one and repairing false positives as I go. I've been out of the city though since then, so I haven't run the bot. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trusted botop, uncontroversial task Approved. --Chris 11:32, 24 July 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised
Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual
Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.
Function overview: Janitorial edits to selected units.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request contains similar functionality to:
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13 (Janitorial edits to units that contain at least one unit of length, area, or volume).
- Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 6 (Delink common units of measurement)
A relevant guideline is at:
- mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."
The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. Examples of such conversions exist in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.
Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.
Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No
Function details:
Units will contain at least one unit of:
- amount e.g. mole
- angle e.g. degree
- capacitance e.g. farad
- charge e.g. coulomb
- current e.g. amp
- energy e.g. joule
- force e.g. newton
- frequency e.g. hertz
- length, area, volume e.g. metre
- light e.g. candela, lumen, lux
- mass, weight e.g. kilogram
- pressure e.g. pascal
- potential e.g. volt
- power e.g. watt
- resistance e.g. ohm
- temperature e.g. degree Celsius
- time e.g. second
- torque e.g. N·m
- Edits may add conversions to units e.g. "The engine output was 160 hp" -> "The engine output was 160 hp (120 kW)"
- Edits may change text or template and change format or spelling e.g. "200,000 Kw" -> "200 MW"
- Edits may add or remove links e.g. "The supply was 230 volts" -> "The supply is 230 volts". This will be in accordance with Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked.
In many cases, the convert template will be used. In some cases plain text will be used.
Discussion
- This is a suitable expansion on Lightbot 5 (units), not Lightbot 3 (units and dates) or Lightbot 2 (units and dates).
- What exactly is there to convert with resistances/capacitance/frequency/etc... and many other such quantities? AFAIK, moles are unique, conversions between radians and degrees are undesirable, electrical units (amp, farad, ohm, volt, ...) are also unique (in as much as you don't want to convert between couloumb and statcoulombs, or similar), etc... Is this a request to perform janitorial edits on these units, or to do conversions? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy to combine or merge any existing or proposed applications. They're all beginning to look very similar. That's no surprise because the issues of conversion, format, spelling etc are similar.
- As the 'function details' section says, I'll be looking for scope to add conversions, change text/template and format/spelling plus link/delink. I gave each quantity an example SI unit because there's only one SI unit. But most of my time will be on non-SI units such as 'btu', 'ft.lb', 'psi' etc.
- I haven't based it on demand, I just copied a list of unit types. I'm worried that if I waited until I encountered a requirement, it would involve extra effort from BAG and me, plus weeks/months of time.
- Lightmouse (talk) 19:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wanted, we could replace all prior applications (approved or not) with this one. We'd only need to include length, area, volume, mass. Lightmouse (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose " we could replace all prior applications (approved or not) with this one." Yes, we could; that's precisely the problem. This is another "Lightbot can do whatever Lightmouse wants" application, on the basis of a MOSNUM provision maintained by revert-war.
- Headbomb, please stop "approving" these; it's a conflict of interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A COI? That's a new one. Anyway, per the ARBCOM restrictions, Lightmouse is permitted to run a bot for one single task [or one group of closely-related task, with BAG having the discretion on what exactly "closely-related tasks" mean]. Lightbot was approved to perform janitorial edits to units, and this falls exactly under that scope, and is as far removed from "doing whatever Lightmouse wants" as is imaginable. Each expansion on that task gets its BRFA, is trialled to review the bot's behaviour and ensure the MOS compliance of the edits as well as their appropriateness, problematic stuff is corrected, then re-trialled, and so the cycle goes until the bot is performing satisfactorily.
If there's an actual problem with Lightbot's edits, raise the issue. If not, then this discussion is rather moot and a waste of everyone's time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (25 per "type" of unit). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anyway, digressions aside, let's move to trial. I'm giving you 25 edits per "type" of unit so the code can be tested (aka, 25 for amount, 25 for angles, 25 for capacitance, 25 for charge, etc...). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete.
* amount e.g. mole
- angle e.g. degree Done
* capacitance e.g. farad
* charge e.g. coulomb
* current e.g. amp
- energy e.g. joule Done
- force e.g. Newton Done
- frequency e.g. Hz Done
- light e.g. candela, lumen, lux Done
- pressure e.g. pascal Done
- potential e.g. volt Done
- power e.g. watt Done
* resistance e.g. ohm
- time e.g. second Done
- torque e.g. N.m Done
I'll park the struck-out ones. Lightmouse (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For completeness, I've added length, area, volume, mass, weight. Lightmouse (talk) 09:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also units of temperature. Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the results of the trial? Jc3s5h (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the see trial results. The edit summary is prefixed by "L15. ". Regards Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
arbitrary break
Reports overview. In the reports below, I do not attempt to list every instance of an error; several of these kinds of errors occur in multiple edits. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Error report. In this edit the bot incorrectly changes volt to Volt. The capitalized version is correct because (a) it is the title of a Wikipedia article and even if there is an error in a title, it should probably be preserved, and (b) SI units names that are ordinarily lowercase become capitalized when used or placed in a way that any other common noun would be capitalized, including when it is the first word of a title. I suspect this could be a fundamental weakness in the bot, in failing to distinguish titles and first words of sentences from other uses and placements. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. The bot was looking for upper/lower case errors for volt. It detected '12345 Volt' and assumed it was a voltage value rather than a link. It shouldn't have been changed. Your assessment is correct. It needs to be addressed prior to a proper bot run. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Failure to completely fix. In this edit the bot changed kv-a to kV-a rather than the kV·A or kV A allowed by NIST Special Publication 811, or the kVA allowed by ISO 31-0. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot was looking for upper/lower case errors involving volt. The target 'kv' was correctly identified and replaced with 'kV'. I'm glad of the failure to fix feedback that the more complicated Volt-ampere errors are also in need of fixing. I'll add it to the wishlist and may do targetted runs build on experience and confidence with volt. I hope that's ok. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probable error report Failure to completely fix. In this edit the bot changes "30 degrees/second" to "30 degree/second". It is normal to use plurals of unit names when the units are spelled out, so this looks wrong to me. NIST Special Publication 811 page 32 indicates this should be degree per second. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually did that as a manual edit. MOS says:
- So it should have been ""30 degrees per second" or a fully symbolic form. So "30 degrees/second" and "30 degree/second" are both wrong. I don't care much right now about degrees of angle, but permission is necessary to correct some editor errors where degrees of temperature and degrees of angle are confused. Lightmouse (talk)
Error report. In this edit the bot changes the word degrees in a URL. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. I was struggling to find examples of 'degree' errors and I switched off the section of code that protects URLs. Thanks for letting me know.
Error report. In this edit the bot changes "candlepower" to "candela" but does not make the corresponding change to the abbreviation "cp" later. Since the audience for this article probably isn't very knowledgeable about light units, this change makes the article more confusing for readers. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good spot. I wasn't aware the abbreviation 'cp' was used on Wikipedia. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inability to deal with erroneous input. In this edit the input is "a 210 calorie cut" (referring to pizza). It should have been written "a 210-calorie cut". The bot changed it to "a 210 calories (880 kJ) cut." Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're saying failure to fix. Yes, I don't fix all types and permutations of errors that editors make. I'd like to and as I gain experience and confidence, I'll build out from basic fixes. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Error report. In this edit a conversion is provided for BTU but the abbreviation BTU is really HVAC industry jargon for BTU/h, so the conversion should have been to kW. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That one led to quite an extensive discussion. In some of the articles linked from that page, the solution is to eliminate the jargon and say BTU/h when that's what's meant. I think that's better solution for a non-specialist publication like WP. I did ask for community input as to whether the conversion template could be updated to cope with the jargon and convert BTU into kW. I think the conclusion was to use BTU/h instead. I don't know where people are with that one but it did generate interesting discussion well beyond my scope. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jargon might or might not be tolerated, but it is unacceptable to blindly suppose that because the US HVAC community uses "BTU" as jargon for BTU/h, that the HVAC community in other countries uses kJ as jargon for jJ/h. Thus if the bot can't distinguish the jargon BTU from the actual BTU, it should not attempt to convert BTU at all. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable edit. In this edit the bot changes "The amount of sustained power required of the pilot is around one horsepower" to "The amount of sustained power required of the pilot is around 1 horsepower (0.75 kW)." Deciding whether a single-digit number should be spelled out or a numeral is complex, as described at WP:ORDINAL. I doubt a bot can be programmed to deal with such complexity. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's easier to do that way. If the consensus is that "1 horsepower (0.75 kW)" isn't permitted as a solution, then I may have to stop doing such conversions. So be it but it'd be a shame. Tackling numbers-as-words involves huge amounts of code if I'm to avoid false positives. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Error in production version. In this edit the abbreviation "fps" is replaced with "frame/s". If one wants to consider "f" to be a valid abbreviation, it should be "f/s", otherwise, it should be "frame per second". This should be fixed in the new version. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. On Wikipedia we have multiple versions of 'fps': first person shooter; feet per second; frames per second. I've even seen articles use more than one meaning within the same article. It doesn't matter much for specialist magazines, but conflicting abbreviations is less desirable for Wikipedia. Some units have acceptance (to some percentage) within all communities that the full and abbreviated can be identical (e.g. 'bit'). That's particularly helpful when used within the context of potentially conflicting abbreviations. The form 'frame/s' is used just like 'bit/'s on occasion e.g. [10] and it seems to require no learning from non-specialists or specialists but if the form 'f/s' were deemed better, I can use that. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All this feedback is welcome. If need be, feel free to move forward with some unit types and strike others out. I'm keen to move on to operation or a more extensive trial if needed. Naturally, I'm seeking this as 'enabling permission' for as wide a scope as possible. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest, to the extent possible, leaning towards a more-extensive regular expression to confirm that the error is exactly what you expect in the way of erroneous input, and taking no action of the regular expression is not satisfied. For example, if looking for unconverted calorie(s), check there is white space before, and white space or sentence terminal punctuation after calorie(s). Then if you encounter "calorie/" or "-calorie" you will know it is something the bot doesn't know how to handle, and do nothing.
In some categories of trial edits, there were more edits that failed to completely fix the problem than successful edits. A bot that converts one error to a different error once in a great while is OK, but when the number of error-to-error edits approaches something like 10%, I think we should decide the bot shouldn't attempt that task. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
General problem
We have something like 35 articles listed on Watt (surname). I daresay the surnames of other scientists who have units named after them are less common. Nevertheless, I think we are vulnerable to false positives of the form "in 1759 Watt formed a partnership with John Craig" being converted to "in 1,759 watts (2.359 hp) formed a partnership with John Craig".
- Initially I didn't think to check Watts (surname). That lists about 70 more Watts. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Process issues
There are process issues that could be improved here.
- Feature requests are being incorrectly described as errors.
- Most, if not all, editors develop code as non-bots prior to an application. The Lightmouse account isn't permitted to be used to develop code. Therefore BAG and Lightbot are spending extra effort assessing undeveloped code.
We've debated this issue for more than a year now. Can we try another tack? Lightmouse (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that feature requests are being incorrectly described as errors. I can think of at least two situations where the bot could make an error when it makes an edit to erroneous or sub-optimal text:
- The text immediately surrounding the edit and clearly related to the edited text is still wrong. For example, "meters/sec" --> "meter/s".
- Sub-optimal text is changed, but the rest of the article becomes harder to read, as when an old version of a spelled out unit is changed to the modern version, but the abbreviation is not changed.
- Case 2 is an outright error, so old versions of units should not be changed to new versions unless (a) the abbreviations or symbols are the same and (b) the definition of the old and new unit is close enough that there is virtually no chance a measurement would be stated to enough precision that it would matter.
- Case 1 is tolerable in small amounts, but if it happens frequently the bot should be fixed or should not attempt the particular error it is having trouble with. Bluntly, thinking of case 1 as a feature request suggests that all that matters is the bot operates as the bot author envisioned it would work, not thinking about whether it is satisfying the reader's need and the need for article stability. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sidenote I've been busy for the past month, but I should get time to review the edits sometimes during this week. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Headbomb, please consider how we should address overlapping scope. For example:
- Bot runs to handle defects with 'foot' (length) encounter defects with 'foot pounds' (torque or energy).
- Bot runs to handle defects with 'pounds' (weight) encounter defects with 'foot pounds' (torque or energy) and 'pounds' (force).
- Bot runs to handle defects with '°C' and '°F' (temperature) encounter defects with 'degrees' (angle) and 'calorie' (energy).
- Bot runs to handle defects with potential encounter defects with power.
- Bot runs to handle defects with force encounter defects with pressure.
- You can see that a simple scope targetting 'foot', 'lb' and degrees temperature will have considerable overlap. It's a *lot* easier to address overlapping units than to avoid them and leave defects in place. Multi-unit scope reduces input effort and increases benefit to articles. If you don't yet feel confident with one or more of the above units, please approve those that you can. You may wish to consider the benefits of moving to the more conventional approach encouraging BRFA requests *after* development in non-bot account (even if only as 'x automated edits per day'), rather than running BRFA trials live on undeveloped processes. Lightmouse (talk) 10:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know when the best point in the process would be to test for corrections of many different units, but certainly the bot should be trialed in it's "release candidate" configuration before going into production. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with
{{t|BAG assistance needed}}
. Lightmouse (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BAG Review/Approval
- Alright, reviewing this. Sorry it took longer than expected. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Horsepower → Watt
Approved. Calorie →kJ
Approved. Frequency
Denied. BTU/ BTU/h ← rarr; kJ / kJ/h, seems too controversial/unimplementable.
- ??? Candlepower → Candela, is there really consensus for this? Seems that the historical value of the candlepower differs from the candela. Or is the logic tweaked to ensure that improper conversions do not happen?
- I just swept up all the units I could think of. Can you give me an instance of a conversion that you think is improper? Otherwise, it's easier just to deny it for now. Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there are improper converstions. Which is why I'm asking if there really is consensus for this. WP:MEASURE could probably tell us.
- OK. Well, let's deny it for now so we can move on. Lightmouse (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there are improper converstions. Which is why I'm asking if there really is consensus for this. WP:MEASURE could probably tell us.
- I just swept up all the units I could think of. Can you give me an instance of a conversion that you think is improper? Otherwise, it's easier just to deny it for now. Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Force. Can you handle cases like this (lb.s.t = pounds of static trust)
- If the thrust is static, it applies to all units, it'll still be static. It's like 'above mean sea level'. It looks fine to me. What would you like to see in that instance? Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the result is "11,400 lbf (51 kN) s.t" which seems rather awkward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah. I could expand it to 'static thrust'. Alternatively, we could ask the community what they want done. Lightmouse (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the result is "11,400 lbf (51 kN) s.t" which seems rather awkward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the thrust is static, it applies to all units, it'll still be static. It's like 'above mean sea level'. It looks fine to me. What would you like to see in that instance? Lightmouse (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More to come
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb wrote:
- Horsepower → Watt
- Calorie →kJ,
I am seeking unit-independent approval of measurement quantities. Are those approvals are restricted to those particular units? Lightmouse (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some parts of this request have been approved. Yet, it's not visible in the approved list. Can it be added please? Lightmouse (talk) 16:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Error report
Lightbot edited a unit-related article. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised
Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual
Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.
Function overview: Janitorial edits to units that contain at least one unit of mass e.g. 30 stones, 50 lb/min.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.
A relevant guideline is at:
- mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."
The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. Examples of such conversions exist in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.
Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.
Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No
Function details:
For units that contain at least one unit of mass:
- Edits may add conversions to units e.g. "The engine weighs 160 pounds" -> "The engine weighs 160 pounds (73 kg)"
- Edits may edit the format or spelling e.g. "200 Tons (180 MT)" -> "200 short tons (160 t)"
- Edits may add or remove links e.g. "160 pounds (73 kg)" -> "160 pounds (73 kg)". This will be in accordance with Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked.
Discussion
Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions -
- How will you determine the precision of the conversion to use?
- Where the unit is ambiguous (e.g. "pounds" or "tons") how will you determine which is meant?
- Why would you change the format of units, and what would you do if there was an objection to a change you make?
- What will you do if you find an article that uses a mix of metric and imperial units (I've seen this, including ones that use the convert template with 'imperial (metric)' and 'metric (imperial)'? Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Precision: The 'convert template' will usually be used with default precision. If you want to know more details about how it works, feel free to ask at Template talk:Convert. In many cases, this is a match, or +/- 1 significant figures. With the template conversion in place, it's easy for an editor to adjust precision.
- Ambiguous units. In many cases of 'ambiguous units', there is no ambiguity in the context. For example, it's almost always easy to see when the author write 'gallon' but means the US gallon because it's in a US article about a US topic using US sources. Ambiguity will be avoided where the ambiguity is real.
- Reasons for format change. It's not possible to use the convert template *without* adopting a standard format in accordance with guidelines. Non-template and template conversions will be (as far as I know) consistent. If somebody disagrees with the format used by the convert template, then the convert template will have to come out. But the issues are usually trivial or esoteric for example the addition of 'US' to gallon and/or the use of upper and lower case. From time to time, new variations on these issues do crop up and I've started many discussions myself in the relevant guideline pages following feedback on a conversion.
- Mix of metric and non-metric. The bot isn't designed to resolve mixed units and has no provision for it in the code. Articles often contain primary metric alongside primary non-metric - sometimes it's for a good reason (such as mixing miles and metres on transport, as you suggest. I'm aware of this), sometimes it's not. Over the years using automation and seeing lots of articles pass in front of me, I have noticed suboptimal unit sequences and responded with human edits in either the Lightbot or Lightmouse accounts. So the option is useful, but is a low priority for Lightbot.
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recused MBisanz talk 01:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Waiting for clarifications on Lightbot 7 and 12. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. with the same terms as LightBot 12 (aka, edits which introduce conversions MUST be reviewed against WP:MOSCONVERSIONS to ensure they are not unwanted). Spelling/formatting/overlinking is uncontroversial copy-editing. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. See Trial edits. Edit summary is 'L14. Edits to terms that contain at least one unit of mass' Lightmouse (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- André the Giant
- Changing 119 12-ounce beers in 6 hours to 119 12-US-fluid-ounce (350 ml; 12 imp fl oz) beers in 6 hours is not my idea of a sane conversion
- I agree. I kept the code simple by using the default settings for the template. By default, it converts US fluid ounce to both ml and UK fluid ounce. That seems unnecessary to me for the following reasons:
- The ml value is sufficient, even in the UK.
- UK and US fluid ounce values are very close. They're identical in many instances, such as this.
- If you agree with me, I'll update the code so it drops the UK fluid ounce i.e. the outcome should be 119 12-US-fluid-ounce (350 ml) beers in 6 hours. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. I kept the code simple by using the default settings for the template. By default, it converts US fluid ounce to both ml and UK fluid ounce. That seems unnecessary to me for the following reasons:
- I know at this point this is only testing mass-related stuff, but ideally you'd change a height of 6'3" and weight of 240 pounds by age 12 to a height of 6'3" (1.91 m) and weight of 240 pounds (110 kg) by age 12.
- Yes. I'll have a generic piece of code that does many units in one pass and is safe for using on many articles with low rates of human intervention. The more challenging cases (e.g. ounce, gallon, barrel) are best done using specific code with a human focussed and sensitised to the specific anomalies associated with those units. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More feedback later. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding. Lightmouse (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing lots of pages with lengths but omitting weights. Please can we make progress on this to reduce the requirement for multiple passes? Lightmouse (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps we should drop the imperial measures in the {{convert}} defaults. The above made me think. Does the bot recognise " 6'3" "? JIMp talk·cont 23:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bot doesn't currently recognise 6'3" but it's in the plan. Instances like 6 feet 3 inches are much easier.
- It seems to me that we're in the desirable position of discussing tasks for the bot, rather than merely approval. If so, can we move to approval?Lightmouse (talk) 10:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I'd approve, but I want to see how the new code works before doing so. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Done. See contributions. Summary is L14. Contains at least one unit of mass. Avoiding 'foot pounds', 'pounds force', 'pounds per square inch' is almost the same effort as converting them properly. I'll create an application for 'units of torque, force, and pressure' unless you want to make them in scope of this one. What do you think? Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It works well on biographies etc..., but I was more worried about the science-type of articles. Any way you could get more sciency-type of articles for trial? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:38, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Concerning the force/torque/pressure units, I'd file a separate BRFA so the logic can be trialed and reviewed on its own page. If everything its just a little bit more bureaucratic, but if things go wrong it's easier to deal with it on its own page. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking the two feedback examples in turn:
- I agree. It's on my wishlist to eliminate the period but I don't think I'll ever work out how. A period may be an indication of the abbreviation or it may be punctuation. I can't distinguish the two without making false positives.
- Non-breaking spaces. It hasn't forgotten it. That example uses numbers-as-words and I don't use the template, I have to specify the text. I've just never programmed for nbsp. Along with a minority of users, I don't like them as a way to control wrapping. The template has them by default and when I had AWB general fixes switched on, it added them.
- I'll file another BRFA for other units. Lightmouse (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was responding to your interest in the combination of human height and weight by targetting the trial at human articles. I'd be happy to run another trial on 'science-type' articles. I've created Lightbot 15 to address a whole range of other units. Lightmouse (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete.Done. I've tried to make it add conversions where usage was 'sciency' but it wasn't always easy to confine it to just that. If you want me to have another go, I can. See contributions as of now. Edit summary is L14b. Contains at least one unit of mass. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 10:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Works well enough with pounds, but these were the simpler case. I was more curious about fluid ounces, tons, etc... i.e. things that could be ambiguous. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I share your caution about ounces and tons. That's why, over the years, I've not done much about those units. In the cases where I have touched them, it's only with major human intervention and/or dedicated process/code. I'll run 50 edits with some examples. Lightmouse (talk) 11:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Done. See contributions as of now. Edit summary is L14. ounce or L14. ton. As I expected, these involved almost a lot of time/effort to set up and involved a lot of human involvement during operation to capture the various versions of the units and avoid false positives. I'm hoping the trials have demonstrated the actual and potential capabilities. Lightmouse (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAG assistance needed}} Lightmouse (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. As always please be sure to take due care with the bot and be responsive to comments/feedback. --Chris 12:24, 6 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Withdrawn by operator.
Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised
Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual
Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.
Function overview: Janitorial edits to units
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.
Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.
Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No
Function details:
Edits will add conversions to the following metric or non-metric units: inch, foot, mile, mm, cm, m, km, plus their squares and cubes.
Discussion
So if the bot comes across "38 kilometres long", it will add "{{convert|38|km|mi}} long" or something similar, correct? —MJCdetroit (yak) 04:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a Lightbot edit shows that it changed:
- "25 miles long" to "{{convert|25|mi|km}} long"
As many people know, my primary focus is on improving accessibility for metric readers with a secondary focus on non-metric readers. Thus the editing scope includes all units. The example of "38 kilometres long", as in Altafjord, is theoretically in scope but is unlikely to be touched. I leave that to editors such as yourself who focus on non-metric units. You and I have cooperated and shared code in the past and I think our work is compatible. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I try to convert for everyone when I encounter something. I'd like to see the AWB code if you could post it somewhere. BAG folks: I don't have any objection to this bot. —MJCdetroit (yak) 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To move this BRFA forward, per WP:BOTPOL ("performs only tasks for which there is consensus"; "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"), please provide link(s) to the relevant policy/guideline/consensus that this task should be both performed and performed by an automated bot. The three BRFAs linked do not provide such links. Thank you. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A relevant guideline is at:
- mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."
- The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. The three previous successful approvals (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) have successfully done many thousands of edits along these lines. There is also the recent approval (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5) that converts feet but not inches, this request merely seeks to add inches to the scope. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. I'm sure I could find examples of inch conversions in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.
- Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I support approving this under the arbcom restriction that allows a "single task", since this merely expands the single, already approved, task very slightly. Gigs (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, how about a 20 edit trial then? Lightmouse (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Task is a suitable expansion of Lightbot 5. Note that a successful trial will not necessarily result in however, since I still have some reading to do with the ARBCOM mess, and I'm also wondering if Lightbot 5 should have been approved at all... But let's trial it for now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Acknowledging this now but it may be a few days before I run the trial. Lightmouse (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Lightmouse (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Links to trial result? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. See Trial edits. Edit summary is 'L10. inch, foot, mile, mm, cm, m, km, plus their squares and cubes' Lightmouse (talk) 09:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [11] Inches should be converted to cm, not mm. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a very easy rule to implement although it isn't mentioned in wp:mosnum. Is it for all articles or just sword articles? Lightmouse (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Usually one tries converts to the units closest to the original units. Kilometre/mile, metre/foot, inch/cm, etc... Some discretion is of course involved (yard to meter conversion is usually fine, but meter to yard usually isn't), but it's a good guideline in most cases. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:30, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'nearest-unit' rule means mm would never be used. With a difficult binary choice we need to be right more than 51% of the time. Where the choice was 'wrong' for the individual conversion, the reader is still much better off than without any conversion present. Amendment is much easier than making the initial conversion: you only need to change one or two characters. The convert template defaults to mm and I made the same judgement call, but if you want cm then I'll make it so. Lightmouse (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes well, it's pretty rare that someone converts from inch to mm in the world too. No idea why the templates automatically convert to mm, but that should probably be tweaked. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Headbomb, this appears to assume that people silently convert SI into imperial and back into SI. Sure, inches and cm are around the size of human fingernails, but the ISO won't even recognise cm as a legitimate unit (× 1,000 for each gradation, they say). I see no reason to be swaying towards cm by default. Tony (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I agree with you that the general rule "Inches should be converted into cm, not mm" is not true. However, your statement that cm is not an SI unit is not correct either, as centi is a SI_prefix. It is a matter of choice whether to use cm or mm, both are correct. However, I agree with your argument that gradation of 1'000 is preferable and therefore personally I would also use mm or m and not cm. I would definitely convert fractional inches (< 1 inch) to mm, larger distances (> 100 inch) into meters. Kehrli (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In technical documentation, measures (from a few mm up to a few metres) are usually in mm. In daily usage among people, cm or m are much more common. How to resolve this discrepancy here? A room's ceiling would be at 2400 mm in a building plan and at 2.40 m in a classified ad. A bolt would be 40 mm long the factory, but 4 cm in the shop. −Woodstone (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I agree with you that the general rule "Inches should be converted into cm, not mm" is not true. However, your statement that cm is not an SI unit is not correct either, as centi is a SI_prefix. It is a matter of choice whether to use cm or mm, both are correct. However, I agree with your argument that gradation of 1'000 is preferable and therefore personally I would also use mm or m and not cm. I would definitely convert fractional inches (< 1 inch) to mm, larger distances (> 100 inch) into meters. Kehrli (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Headbomb, this appears to assume that people silently convert SI into imperial and back into SI. Sure, inches and cm are around the size of human fingernails, but the ISO won't even recognise cm as a legitimate unit (× 1,000 for each gradation, they say). I see no reason to be swaying towards cm by default. Tony (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes well, it's pretty rare that someone converts from inch to mm in the world too. No idea why the templates automatically convert to mm, but that should probably be tweaked. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'nearest-unit' rule means mm would never be used. With a difficult binary choice we need to be right more than 51% of the time. Where the choice was 'wrong' for the individual conversion, the reader is still much better off than without any conversion present. Amendment is much easier than making the initial conversion: you only need to change one or two characters. The convert template defaults to mm and I made the same judgement call, but if you want cm then I'll make it so. Lightmouse (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Just come here following a notice at WP:MOSNUM.) Agree with Headbomb. In the real world centimetres are far more common than millimetres except in e.g. technical measurements. Also, I had no idea that ISO had deprecated centi-, and even if they did, the French cun^H^H^Hgentlemen also want e.g. a space before a per cent sign or kibibyte for 1024 bytes, and we (rightly) don't give a damn about that. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 17:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the template by default rounds the conversion of a whole number of inches to the nearest centimetre (and rightly so, IMO), so expressing the conversion in millimetres means there's be a non-significant potentially misleading zero at the end, as in 12 inches (300 mm) where the exact value is 304.8 mm. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 17:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Also come here following a MOSNUM notice) In technical usage, millimetres should be preferred. In Australia, there is a rule in the building trades that centimetres are not to be used. I can't vouch for other countries, so this appears to be a case where it is best to follow the sources. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is about what conversion to use when the source unit is the inch. (Anyway, the bot is just using the template's default, which for a non-intelligent being is probably the best thing to do. Discussions about whether the default should be millimetres or centimetres belong to Template talk:Convert, don't they?) ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The most recent one I can find is Template talk:Convert/Archive January 2010#Default for inches conversion changed?. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 10:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But this is about what conversion to use when the source unit is the inch. (Anyway, the bot is just using the template's default, which for a non-intelligent being is probably the best thing to do. Discussions about whether the default should be millimetres or centimetres belong to Template talk:Convert, don't they?) ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 10:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Also come here following a MOSNUM notice) In technical usage, millimetres should be preferred. In Australia, there is a rule in the building trades that centimetres are not to be used. I can't vouch for other countries, so this appears to be a case where it is best to follow the sources. Michael Glass (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(coming to this late) Guys, centimeters are certainly an SI unit. This is more than just a matter of style. But I agree with A. di M. that centimeters are generally more common.
However, the practice varies greatly by discipline. In technical matters, an iPhone, for instance, its dimensions would be given in inches and millimeters. I’m not so sure I can offer a simple solution. But an important consideration here is to ensure a conversion does not introduce the false precision that would be typically be introduced if inches were converted to millimeters. So for values that are more than one inch, conversion should be in centimeters.
I would further suggest that if it is possible, values less than one inch have conversions in millimeters. If the inch measurements are fractions, then to the nearest whole millimeter, e.g. 3⁄8 inch (10 mm). And if they are decimal inches, then to one decimal place less precision, e.g. 0.354 inch (9.0 mm). It is important to not be careless with precision so as to make a false statement. If an image sensor is said to be 0.354 inches wide, then to convert to three places of precision would result in 8.99 mm, which would in many cases be incorrect since the image sensor was likely metric in the first place at precisely 9 millimeters.
I would also suggest that consideration be made to converting decimal inches that are less than ten inches and are given to three places of precision or more that the conversion be to millimeters with an equivalent number of significant digits, e.g. (The original iPod was 4.02 inches tall (102 mm). This is a real-world example.
Sorry to be a pain and a stickler on this, but if we are going to have bots wading through thousands of articles, I am convinced the above will ensure that A) false precision (errors) are not introduced and B) information is presented most naturally. Greg L (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In most cases, the metric community reads, writes, and speaks as if mm and cm are interchangeable. For example, kitchen units are sometimes described as '600 mm' and as '60 cm', in the same text and by the same speaker within minutes. Metric people don't think in inches and you can see in two clicks that there is no '25 mm' boundary between cm and mm in the metric world. No problems with the precision issue that applies to all units, it's covered and can be discussed in detail at the template talk page, your good points are all well-known to all template users and we'd be happy to debate it in detail there. I think this bot can do better than tossing a coin by using the following working guidelines:
- mm up to 100 mm, fractional inches, rainfall, architecture, cameras, engineering and technical specifications, cars, trains, aircraft, modern ammunition and weapons, and instances where the article already contains mm
- cm for all other instances
This will require extra effort for coding, list management (e.g. use categories to get lists of target articles), and human oversight. I hope that's acceptable to allow us to start work. Lightmouse (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Without appearing to be burdensome, it would be interesting for those who operate auto-thingies and those who care about mm/cm to know your detailed thinking on this if BAG says yes to your starting work. Could you post a thread on your talk page before or during so others can benefit from knowing how to approach this? It would also be good for us to get a documentary grip on who/how/where cm and mm are an issue for editors in various fields. I regard trials and auto-running as a learning experience that should be made easily accessible to increase the community's skills and knowledge in this area. Tony (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear that Lightmouse is very familiar with many conversion intricacies—more than I was prepared to address here and more than I realized (optics came to mind but not munitions).
I would say that about the only “attitude” that needs to be maintained heading into this conversion endeavor with a bot is a willingness to initially—if that’s what it takes—to limit conversions to those circumstances where there will be a low possibility of errors such as false precision or unsuitable units (centimeters when measuring the size of artillery shells instead of the proper millimeters). The bot could start out with less sophisticated logic that limits itself to a narrow set of cases. With increasing sophistication to its ruleset and booleans, it can be tasked with a broader scope.
The only other “attitude” that bot operators must embrace is that it is often not possible to obtain perfect, cross-project uniformity; most-reliable RSs in certain fields like theater-area tactical missiles in naval settings might refer to …and the U.S. Navy stated that since the No‑wang missile has a range of 3500 nm, it could threaten Hawaii. This use of “nm” like this would be an abomination unto the eyes of the SI gods. That is just an example of the broad principal of exceptions to a rule and I understand this is just inches and centimeters and millimeters. My point is that any bot operator needs only to be sensitive to feedback from editors if their objections are predicated on the proper practices within that art as evidenced by most-reliable RSs. I have every confidence that Lightmouse understands this and embraces the principal.
So long as these sensitivities (false precision as well as practices within a given art that are an exception to the rule) are embraced going into this, then I see no reason not to allow bot activity to commence; complex bot activity is often an evolving thing. Greg L (talk) 17:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (OT) Well, using "nm" without either giving the spelled-out name on the first occurrence or a conversion to kilometres (and possibly to statutes miles too) is an abomination IMO, and not just because it happens to also be the symbol for the nanometre. :-) ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 19:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I agree 100%. Greg L (talk) 02:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is clear that Lightmouse is very familiar with many conversion intricacies—more than I was prepared to address here and more than I realized (optics came to mind but not munitions).
I've opened a new discussion about this at Template talk:Convert#Default target unit for inch conversions. ― A. di M.plédréachtaí 20:04, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The best is the enemy of the good". Voltaire. We now have a pragmatic approach that disconnects this bot application from the template default. I think it's a good idea to start with inches in the easier cases of engineering etc. With your further support, I'd be happy to start work, respond, make notes, and we all can see how good we are doing in real practical examples. Lightmouse (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I take it that speed will be limited and the moment an editor raised an issue, the operation in that area would stop until sorted? Tony (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless anyone has a better idea, I propose a rate ramp. Until Lightbot10's 500th edit, it can do 50 per day. Until it's 1000th edit, it can do 100 per day. Until it's 2000th, 200 per day. Until it's 4000th, 400 per day. Until it's 8000th, 800 per day. Etc. That's easier to implement/audit than it is to explain.
If an editor raises an issue, I'll stop and discuss. I've had many welcome points raised over the years which have led to improvements. Some issues merely need clarification of what/why/how. Unit edits are often nuanced binary choices (such as mm/cm), regional/domain preference, matters of opinion or judgement. Such issues may need to be referred for community input via another forum e.g. mosnum or the template talk page. Does anybody else wish to comment? Lightmouse (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope of this application is entirely contained within the scope of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13. If Lightbot13 is approved, this application will be withdrawn. Lightmouse (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Alright, everyone has a chance to say there piece about it. Seems that the mm/cm thing isn't yet resolved. However, since this is the only thing holding it back, I'll approve all other length/area/volume conversions mentionned in this BRFA (so you can merge them with the "main" Lightbot code), and have an extended trial at a rate of 25 inch-->cm/mm conversions per day for a week for the new rule set you've devised. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Note that Lightbot 5 and Lightbot10 (this one) are superceded by Lightbot13. It's a bit messy to have an caveat on this one but not mentioned on Lightbot13. Should we withdraw Lightbot5 and Lightbot10 and put the 'inch' caveat on Lightbot13? It's up to you. Lightmouse (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The caveat applies to the inch-->mm/cm conversion in general, regardless of what BRFA "technically" covers it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to workload, the trial is taking longer than a week. I've edited 75 articles. When I've edited 175 articles, I'll mark the trial as done. See: [12] The edit summary is L10. inches. Lightmouse (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Done. See contributions. Edit summary is L10. inches. Lightmouse (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, reviewing this. Sorry it took longer than expected. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The_Last_Command: As a class, multiple dimensions are more of a challenge than '<value> <unitname>'. The conversion "6.8 x 4.2 x 1.1 inches (28 mm)" isn't wrong. It's a correct conversion of only one of three dimensions. I agree with you it's definitely better to have all values within multiples converted. For some reason I spotted the first multiple but not the second.
- United_States_Bakery: As a class, combination units ('x feet, y inches') are more a challenge than '<value> <unitname>'. Yes, that's wrong. Of the three things you've spotted, that's the one that's worst. You'll see that I did fix it later. It's why I haven't done routine runs on inches. But with a bit more effort I think I can do some focussed work on them.
- Chimney_sweep: As in The_Last_Command, it's a multiple dimension. It may be possible, given more time and experience, to target common range formats.
- A great deal of my processing and code effort is spent addressing this issue. As I've suggested before, inch conversions usually involve more human processing and human oversight than most other units. That one slipped through. In my routine process and code, I don't do inches. If you permit me to to tackle inches, I can focus on these sort of issues and do dedicated well-overseen runs. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 18:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This BRFA has been superceded by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 13 and is no longer required. Withdrawn. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok.
Withdrawn by operator.. Anomie⚔ 15:15, 29 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
User:Petan-Bot task 9
Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 18:07, Tuesday June 28, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): c++
Source code available: yes
Function overview: Do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#moving_afc_pages
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_42#moving_afc_pages
Edit period(s): hourly
Estimated number of pages affected: 10-50 every day
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: Moves the pages which have the afc template and are in userspace to afc space Petrb (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see how this is going to work out. For now, it's up to you if you move reviewed requests or not. - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Petrb (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this only move pages from userspace (I see some incorrect moves of already existing AfC pages)? What happens if the candidate page is a sub-sub-page (for example, User:H3llkn0wz/drafts/My first article)? What happens if the draft has a talk page?
- Also, can you fix the wrong moves, such as this and others, please? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't move talk pages and now it only move the User: sub - pages, concerning / it moves everything behind User:Name so even if article is something like User:blah//dev/md it move /dev/md Petrb (talk) 05:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lets have another trial, make sure it is indeed working correctly now Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Also can you please post the source code somewhere so I can review it? --Chris 11:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Petan-Bot/source/9 Petrb (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The code is missing the removal of the (optional)
{{userspacedraft}}
template on the moved pages. mabdul 19:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The code is missing the removal of the (optional)
- Sure http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Petan-Bot/source/9 Petrb (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Don't see any more issues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:33, 4 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised
Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual
Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.
Function overview: Janitorial edits to units of temperature
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.
Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.
Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No
Function details:
- Edits may add conversions to units of temperature e.g. "64 degrees Fahrenheit" -> "64 °F (18 °C)"
- Edits may edit the format or spelling of units of temperature e.g. "18 celcius" -> "18 degrees Celsius"
- Edits may remove links to units of temperature in accordance with Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked e.g. "64 °F (18 °C)" -> "64 °F (18 °C)"
Discussion
To move this BRFA forward, per WP:BOTPOL ("performs only tasks for which there is consensus"; "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"), please provide link(s) to the relevant policy/guideline/consensus that this task should be both performed and performed by an automated bot. The three BRFAs linked do not provide such links.
Additionally, apologies for posting the same message for all your current BRFAs. I hope you understand the necessity for this from BRFA/BAG/comunity standpoint, given that there are few active BAG members and BAG is too often getting the stick for having approved non-consensus tasks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for responding. I don't mind the repetition, it's inevitable.
- A relevant guideline is at:
- mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."
- wp:link - What generally should not be linked "Units of measurement which are common only in some parts of the English-speaking world need not be linked if they are accompanied by a conversion to units common in the rest of it, as in 18 °C (64 °F), as almost all readers of the English Wikipedia would be able to understand at least one of the two measures."
- The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. The three previous successful approvals (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) have successfully done many thousands of edits along these lines. There is also the recent approval (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5) that converts feet, this request merely seeks to add temperature to the scope. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. I'm sure I could find examples of temperature conversions in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.
- Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Lightmouse above. I think it's time for a trial. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Style changes by bot are always dubious; in this case, when a temperature has already been converted once in a paragraph (this is particularly likely to happen with 100°C), it is pure cost to the reader's attention to interrupt again to inform him that that equals 212° F.
- Therefore, does this bot have a subroutine which prevents it revert-warring with a human editor who disagrees with its choice of conversions or the precision with which to convert?
A similar question applies to the other two proposals above; but if the answer is yes here, the question need not be repeated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the bot decide what is suitable for conversion and what isn't?
- How does it handle things found within quotations such as Bob said "John, that room is over 150 Celcius, don't go in."?
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question 1. Suitability for conversion. As the human supervisor, I make the decision within the constraints of mosnum. Temperature conversions can be seen in the Featured Article Kent,_Ohio. I'm fairly certain that I didn't convert them but I'd probably do it like that.
- Question 2. How to avoid quotes.
- This is a frequent question in bot applications. For some time now, AWB has been able to hide quotes, see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General_fixes#Text_hiding. It doesn't catch 100% but since it's been introduced I've only seen a handful of quotes that AWB can't cope with. As the human superviser, I've caught these quotes and formatted them correctly (thereby making an incidental improvement to the article for future readers and editors). I wish this feature of AWB were more widely known outside the AWB user community.
- I forgot to mention list management. This is also a major feature of AWB. You can't run AWB (as far as I know) without managing at least one article lists. Target lists and whitelists are all routine. Thus I may create a list of Californian city articles (e.g. from a category), purge the list based on a variety of measures, then run the code. Since the list is of similar articles, the peculiarities are all going to be similar. This makes it easier to make bespoke amendments to the code and to spot domain specific issues.
- Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, since these are semi-automated changes, here's the deal
- Fixing overlinking is fine
- Changing formatting/spelling (18 Celcius to 18 degrees Celcius, or similar) is fine
- Changing "64 °F" to "64 °F (18 °C)" is something that absolutely needs review per WP:MOSCONVERSIONS. Not everything needs to be converted, and especially not every at instance. Approval here would mean that you're cleared to do a great number of such edits, provided they are reviewed, not that you're cleared to do such edits whenever possible.
Keeping in mind that mistakes do happen, if this reviewing process is at any given time deficient or lacking, or that the bot keeps introducing conversions into articles which are agreed to not require conversions, the bot may be blocked per WP:BOTPOL or WP:DISRUPT respectively until the concerns have been addressed and resolved. With that being said, Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possible false positive: 4169 Celsius. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. See Trial edits. Edit summary is 'L12. Janitorial edits to units of temperature' Lightmouse (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the rational behind these edits http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adiabatic_flame_temperature&diff=prev&oldid=428813612 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive&diff=prev&oldid=428813643 and others like them ? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It adds a space before the temperature symbol. Lightmouse (talk)
- here, the bot should also have converted - (hyphen) to − (minus). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where I add the template, it'll do it by default. I'll update the code to target cases like that where the change is in text. I won't promise 100% hit rate on little short lines. Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- here, the bot should also have converted - (hyphen) to – (endash). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can foresee difficulties with delivering acceptable performance on that task. Can I leave it? Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although it would be nice if you included this along the rest. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It's on the list of things I'd like to do. Lightmouse (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, although it would be nice if you included this along the rest. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can foresee difficulties with delivering acceptable performance on that task. Can I leave it? Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- here minus 20 celsius should be converted to either −20 °C or minus 20 degrees Celcius. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. That's what it should have done. I'll investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I've got a fix for cases like that where editors have failed to say 'degree'. Please can I have another 50 edit trial to try it out? Lightmouse (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. That's what it should have done. I'll investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete.Done. See: [13]. Edit summary is L12. units of temperature. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [14] Could have picked up a minus here. (Just mentioning it as a POI 'cause it's a different case than above)
- Thanks. Dashes appear in negatives and in ranges. It's an increase in scope on the wishlist that I'm not ready for yet. After I'm let loose and have more experience with the process and code, I may do a dedicated run for these where the human can watch closely at just one issue. In order to keep things safe and simple for the generic multi-issue process/code, I try to avoid touching them unless adding a conversion or the human is intervening. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [15] Stick to articles.
- That was an error. Thanks for picking it up. The scope does need to go beyond articles (e.g. templates, captions in files, captions in categories) but I avoid talk and Wikipedia namespaces. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [16] º should be converted to °
- This is similar to the dash issue. It's an increase in scope on the wishlist that I'm not ready for yet. The future solution is likely to be a dedicated run. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [17] Consider inserting non-breaking spaces (example diff, there are obviously zillion cases like this). AWB would.
- You brought this up in another BRFA. It's an increase in scope that I'd rather not accept. I don't like nbsp as a method of controlling wrapping. Where the template is used, the wrapping is controlled without nbsp in the article. And, as you say, AWB does it in general fixes so other editors/bots will do it. I hope that's ok. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- [18]. Not that I care much about this, but any reason why the convert templates aren't used?
- The process and code are designed to avoid adding a conversion where one already exists. I do make frequent human interventions to replace conversions that have problems (e.g. accuracy, precision, format, verbose). Like you, I'm a fan of the template but it hadn't ever occured to me to set out to replace existing conversions with the template. It's not trivial, I'd have to capture two numerica values and compare with the template arithmetic. If there's a difference, I'd have to look up the template parameters to find a match. If there's no match, I'd have to assume the previous conversion was an error. It would require a lot of human oversight just to get started. It could be something for the future. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the responses above make sense. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Please be sure to keep the edits within the approval, and also be responsive to any concerns raised by members of the community. --Chris 10:17, 25 July 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 16:14, Wednesday April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): c++
Source code available: available
Function overview: Do http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Alteration_of_a_template_from_.22Wikisource1911Enc_Citation.22_to_.22Cite_EB1911.22
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cite_EB1911
Edit period(s): one time
Estimated number of pages affected: many as database scan found more than 4000 pages which use it
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: Replace tag with new version and copy the parameters if set if not set default
Discussion
Example: User:Petan-Bot/Sandbox01 (see diff)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 10:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Petrb (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kingpin13, on irc, wanted to know what is real reason for this task as it could be done by updating the template (maybe) so it would be good if User:PBS who requested this explained why it needs to be done this way. Petrb (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a template called {{Cite EB1911}} to which {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} is a redirect, but {{1911}} calls {{Cite EB1911}} as well. {{1911}} is found in over 10,000 articles. For historical reasons most instances of that template does not have any parameters what so ever. Without an article parameter, it is not of much use because what the article that use it are saying is "Some of the text in this Wikipedia article comes from a page somewhere in the 29 volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition". To meet WP:Plagarism and WP:CITE we need to add the article name to the 10,000 instances of {{1911}}. But at the moment {{Cite EB1911}} has some legacy code to deal with {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}}, but it does not deal correctly with {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} no parameter (which should use the name of the article) and although it deals with {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}}'s unnamed parameter correctly this is a problem because it unmannerly complicates the code in {{Cite EB1911}} and it also makes the assumption that the article exists in wikisource, and at the moment most articles are not on wikisource (the reason we have wstitle= for wiksource and title= url= for non wikisource articles).
- Once this change is made we will be able to add a visual prompt that will appear in each instance of the template asking for an article name to be added (see {{DGRG}} for an example of one way it could be displayed). This is not possible at the moment as the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} may legitimately have no title parameters. -- PBS (talk) 09:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Petrb I had a look at your sandbox and the results are not correct. What is needed is to covert {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} to {{Cite EB1911|wstitle=
for those entries with a parameter and {{Cite EB1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
for those instances of the template without a parameter. If you can handle the instances that include noicon= parameter so much the better, but if not then just exception them and I'll deal with them using AWB. I presume that your bot will make an archive of the pages it changes in its history a start time and end time would be very useful, so I can sample and check them. -- PBS (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty of editing your sandbox here is a diff of how the output should appear. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was the scan that was used to come to 4,000? Using "link" and also AWB there are "only" 1175 instances in article space and about another 30 in other spaces that need not/should not be altered. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
|
---|
I have been through the list of edits its not good news:
|
- Is it possible to undo all the incorrect edits?
- Is there anything in the description of what I wanted the bot to do that is not clear?
- Is it possible to repeat the test on say the sandbox and then the 10 most recent articles that the bot edited?
-- PBS (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok currently it's not clear if this task get approved if not I will revert it if yes I will have my bot fix it, we are now waiting for BAG to respond Petrb (talk) 17:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As they are article pages I think that all the incorrect edits should be reverted ASAP.
- Who decides if this task shoudl be approved (I am not familiar with this process and do not recognise terms like BAG and links to first use of such terms helps a beginner like me))? -- PBS (talk) 08:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Petrb, per WP:BOTPOL, you must repair all errors caused by the bot edits: "The contributions of a bot account remain the responsibility of its operator, who must be prominently identifiable on its user page. In particular, the bot operator is responsible for the repair of any damage caused by a bot which operates incorrectly." You do not need approval to manually revert/fix the edits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but I don't see what is wrong if you have a template which is redirect to another and my bot only change it to the one which it was redirected to it doesn't change anything, why I should revert it? Petrb (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not say what specific edits you have to revert, because I have not inspected them closely. I made the comment in light of user PBS saying "Is it possible to undo all the incorrect edits?" and "As they are article pages I think that all the incorrect edits should be reverted ASAP." strongly implying there are erroneous edits. You then replied "Ok currently it's not clear if this task get approved if not I will revert it if yes I will have my bot fix it" suggesting you are waiting for approval/decline before proceeding with "fixing". So I commented that BRFA status does not change the operator's responsibility of fixing the wrong edits (whether applicable or not in this case). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong edits were fixed cosmetic changes will be fixed by bot if the task get approved or reverted if requested. Petrb (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong edits have not been fixed. All of the ones I flagged with a Cross are wrong. Changing {{1911}} to {{Cite EB1911}} removes the attribution string and is a breach of WP:PLAGARISM. As you bot has not been requested to edit the pages that include {{Cite EB1911}} the ones you have converted without the wstitle= parameter are wrong and need converting back. It you will have to do these by hand then I will help you by converting them back. -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand it now that tag should be replaced for redirect and wstitle added if there is unnamed parameter or nothing? another template should only get parameter if missing? example: Wikisource1911Enc to Cite EB1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}}, Cite EB1911 to Cite EB1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}} and {{1911}} to 1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}} Petrb (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to create Petan-Bot / Sandbox08-20 pages and I will have my bot change them so that you can check it Petrb (talk) 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{1911}} is not a redirect! The use of that template on any page should not be touched. There is a history to these templates and whether they are a redirect or not is not particularly relevant. Only article space pages that include the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} template should be modified no others. What I asked for was quite specific (see above) and the previous discussion at (Bot_requests#Alteration of a template from "Wikisource1911Enc Citation" to "Cite EB1911" :
- What is needed is to covert {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} to
{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=
for those entries with a parameter and{{Cite EB1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}}}}
for those instances of the template without a parameter. If you can handle the instances that include noicon= parameter so much the better, but if not then just exception them and I'll deal with them using AWB.
- What is needed is to covert {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} to
- -- PBS (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{1911}} is not a redirect! The use of that template on any page should not be touched. There is a history to these templates and whether they are a redirect or not is not particularly relevant. Only article space pages that include the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} template should be modified no others. What I asked for was quite specific (see above) and the previous discussion at (Bot_requests#Alteration of a template from "Wikisource1911Enc Citation" to "Cite EB1911" :
- As suggested. I have created the text page User:Petan-Bot/Sandbox08-20 with some examples. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been through the test list above and I have repaired any that had not already been fixed -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested. I have created the text page User:Petan-Bot/Sandbox08-20 with some examples. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any updates? MBisanz talk 00:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am working on that, probably in 4 days. Petrb (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) No rush. Just checking in. MBisanz talk 23:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
void Init() { TLog(8, "Initialising task #8"); active = true; TLog(8, "OK"); } int Do() { String^ pt; System::IO::StreamReader^ sw = System::IO::File::OpenText("t8"); String^ page_name = ""; String^ ti = "Converting - {{{Wikisource1911Enc}} - ([[Wikipedia:Bots|bot]], [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Petan-Bot task8|task]])"; Page^ x; String^ t1; String^ t2; while ( page_name = sw->ReadLine() ) { t1 = ""; x = gcnew DotNetWikiBot::Page(enwiki, page_name); x->Load(); if (x->text->Contains("{{Wikisource1911Enc Citation") == true && (page_name != "")) { pt = x->text; pt = pt->Replace("{{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}}", "{{Cite EB1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}}}}"); if (System::Text::RegularExpressions::Regex::Match(pt, "\\{\\{Wikisource1911Enc\\sCitation")->Success) { t1 = System::Text::RegularExpressions::Regex::Match(pt, "\\{\\{Wikisource1911Enc\\sCitation.*\\}\\}")->Value; if (t1 == "") { break; } t2 = t1->Replace("Wikisource1911Enc Citation", "Cite EB1911"); if (t2->Contains("wstitle=") != true) { t2 = t2->Replace("Cite EB1911", "Cite EB1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}}"); } pt = pt->Replace(t1, t2); } try{ x->Save(pt, ti, false); Thread::Sleep(16000); } catch (Exception^ A) { Thread::Sleep(20000); try{ x->Save(pt, ti, false); } catch (Exception ^X1) { Log("T8 Failed: " + page_name); } } } if (x->text->Contains("{{1911") == true && false) { pt = x->text; pt = pt->Replace("{{1911}}", "{{Cite EB1911|wstitle={{subst:PAGENAME}}}}"); if (System::Text::RegularExpressions::Regex::Match(pt, "\\{\\{1911")->Success) { t1 = System::Text::RegularExpressions::Regex::Match(pt, "\\{\\{1911.*\\}\\}")->Value; t2 = t1->Replace("1911", "Cite EB1911"); if (t2->Contains("wstitle") != true) { t2->Replace("Cite EB1911", "Cite EB1911|wstitle{{subst:PAGENAME}}"); } pt = pt->Replace(t1, t2); } try{ x->Save(pt, ti, false); Thread::Sleep(16000); } catch (Exception^ A) { Thread::Sleep(20000); try{ x->Save(pt, ti, false); } catch (Exception ^X1) { Log("T8 Failed: " + page_name); } } } delete x; } delete sw; return 2; }
in case someone wanted to take over I leave sources of this task, I will fix it probably later if I had time, but anyway I am not sure if this task would get approved though since Kingpin said that it's probably wouldn't be even if it worked (that is main reason why I don't work on it atm) Petrb (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request Expired. Feel free to reopen when you are ready/have the time to finish the request. --Chris 11:20, 24 July 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was
Request Expired.
Operator: Petrb (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 09:09, Saturday March 26, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): c++
Source code available: no
Function overview: Updating stuff for huggle
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 1 + other projects where this would be enabled, for trial only on english wp
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details:
- Help with maintenance of whitelists across wikimedia projects (sorting, removing wrong entries) - there is a need to remove invalid entries, other way huggle is having a lot of troubles updating
Discussion
- Where are the whitelists stored on the projects?
- How are the "invalid entries" defined?
Can you elaborate on "Synchronize warning templates of huggle with templates project (it would create a copy of templates and change the syntax)"? What do you mean by "templates project"? Does this create huggle specific templates for all project's templates?— HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1: Wikipedia:Huggle/Whitelist
- 2: duplicate entries, unsorted data
- 3:It would copy the templates from Wiki project user templates to the Template:Huggle templates and changed its syntax to correct for huggle. Petrb (talk) 13:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (1 week). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. One page, WP namespace, needed maintenance for Huggle. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it wouldn't be approved I will have to stop it, thanks for review Petrb (talk) 07:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. so? Petrb (talk) 17:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you been actually checking the edits yourself? [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Wikipedia usernames are not case insensitive. How does the bot determine this is the same user? User:WhosAsking =/= User:Whosasking; User:Keithh =/= User:KeithH; etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- {{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 10:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to solve it Petrb (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Have you yet? It shouldn't be difficult to make it case sensitive surely? - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about changing a bot, we need to change way how names are stored in whitelist (for this I need to talk with other people who use our whitelist for own purposes, I think cluebot uses it too), bot can't check if two similar users are or not same user Petrb (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This request has not been edited in nearly a month - is there any recent progress to report? SQLQuery me! 12:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have left a message on the operator's talkpage, requesting an update on this request. SQLQuery me! 08:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This request has not been edited in nearly a month - is there any recent progress to report? SQLQuery me! 12:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been unable to get in touch with the operator of this bot for a week. For now,
Request Expired. - you may re-open this task whenever you like without prejudice. SQLQuery me! 07:52, 6 August 2011 (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 WT:BRFA.
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: 4) Approved 11:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 15:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Protection Helper Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Platybot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- 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)
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.
- christina.zheng.uploader (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 17:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- MauchoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 01:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
- SmackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 42) Bot denied 08:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- Snotbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Bot denied 07:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Lightbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Bot denied 13:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
- RichardcavellBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 13:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yobot B (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 13:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- shoutboundbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 06:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- PhearBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- I Doh Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- SCG01Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- SCGBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
- RichardcavellBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- SuriBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
- AngelBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- MOSNUM bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 09:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
- bonabot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 16:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
- AvicBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
- brest-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 04:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fti74Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 18:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
- GCIBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- KarlsenBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Bot denied 10:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- AK Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 01:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- bot_urcs (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 02:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- openZIM (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
- MscannjrBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- WillieBot 2 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ganeshbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 08:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Courcelles Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- BlackMarikBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 14:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
- Sahimrobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- SagaCookBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- CountBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 00:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
- TotalDramaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- ReplyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
- Infobox Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- TFAProtectorBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 21:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fixatypobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 10:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
- ValhallaBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- HBC AIV helperbot 10 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
- ChinaRailwayENGED (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Velociraptorbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
- Seobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- GeneGoBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 08:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
- Template Maintenance Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- IronBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
- Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Andrea105Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Bot denied 03:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- MisterWikiBot (2nd) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 20:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- MisterWikiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 16:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- EmBOTellado (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 03:48, 2 December 2009 (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 anytime. 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.
- AvicBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Withdrawn by operator 21:57, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- MdupontBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 12:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
- VeblenBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Expired 08:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA Template:BRFA