Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Alternatively, you can talk at #wikipedia-BAG connect.

BRFA namespace field[edit]

I propose to add a Namespace(s): field to the BRFA form. This will help BAG and other reviewers to determine the scope of the bot, especially when ambiguous. This should also avoid potential issues of the kind "I thought I can run this in userspace". The namespaces are often implied by the task details, but I think it is best to avoid assumptions. In few BRFAs I have seen, BAG actually ask for the affected namespaces, even when relevant – this should help clarify this detail. As with other fields, this would be task-dependent and may have any number of values, like "talk pages", "portal", "all", "all except articles", "n/a", etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good, I ask sometimes. And also am more likely to start a trial quicker for non-articles impacting changes. — xaosflux Talk 18:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I support this addition. Some bots that are just fine to operate in article space should not operate in Template space, for example, and it would be good to make this clear in the BRFA. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Support on the condition that existing bots be interpreted as all namespaces unless explicitly clarified otherwise. I don't want to see existing bots need to seek new approval for a task they've run for years, etc. ~ Rob13Talk 21:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree with Rob on this one. Definitely needed in the BRFA process to understand the task - it will save the inevitable question. TheMagikCow (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I have to wonder if making the form longer with this field is worth it, since it should already be in the function details. Anomie 02:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
It almost never is in practice and that just causes needless ambiguity. I would rather have a longer form than potentially a much longer process (who knows when and how an issue might appear). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

New looks for BRFA icons[edit]

Template Old New
{{BotTrial}} Symbol support vote.svg Symbol keep vote.svg
{{BotExtendedTrial}} Symbol full support vote.svg Symbol tick plus blue.svg
{{BotTrialComplete}} Symbol information vote.svg Symbol watching blue lashes.svg
{{BotSpeedy}} Symbol keep vote.svgSymbol support vote.svg Symbol speedy keep green.svg
{{BotApproved}} Symbol keep vote.svg Symbol kept vote.svg
{{BotExpired}} Symbol neutral vote.svg Image-Symbol wait old.svg
{{BotWithdrawn}} Symbol oppose vote.svg Symbol abstain vote grey.svg
{{BotDenied}} Symbol delete vote.svg Symbol delete vote darkened.svg
{{BotRevoked}} Symbol no support vote.svg Symbol no support vote.svg
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Symbol note.svg Symbol point of order.svg
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Symbol note.svg Symbol point of order.svg

The old templates pissed me off as making little sense and having bad design, so I took it upon myself to implement a better-looking scheme that makes more sense. The general idea is

  1. Trial = Blue
  2. Approved = Green
  3. Withdrawn/Expired = Grey
  4. Denied/Revoked = Red
  5. Attention = Yellow

In the trials, a check mark is to indicate it's been approved for trial, and the + for an extended trial. The eye is to indicate that the trial edits now need review. Approved/Speedy Approved should be self-explanatory, as should the others.

Should we make {{BotTrialComplete}} blackframe/yellow background instead (like {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}) so it catches the attention more? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, a thanks to CheChe (talk · contribs) for doing some work on these icons. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
They all look good to me. — xaosflux Talk 01:20, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Can we change the trial to like yellow or orange or something (caution color)? The swapping of blue and green is going to be a bit confusing for me since I'm used to blue meaning approved. ~ Rob13Talk 01:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I like these. I much prefer green to be approval and blue being "in process". I like that attention needed ones have better contrast now. Withdrawn isn't as critical and denied isn't as orange. Honestly, I like them all color-wise. I don't think trial complete really needs extra changes -- it's not like any of them were ever that confusing to begin with. My only issue is with the extended trial one. It extends (har har) the line height and I've always disliked that. But it's a minor bike shed concern. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I don't really like that either. Could be made horizontal I suppose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What we'll need now is a bot/AWB run to cleanup "hardcoded" like this. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Really? The text should be clear as to what the archived decision is, I don't see why they need changing. — xaosflux Talk 16:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I would say the only reason is if we wanted some sort of BRFA bot that can go through all of them gathering info and stats and whatnot for some some sort statistic or overview report, and the bot was getting confused by these. Otherwise, it seems more or less WP:NOTBROKEN as far as that applies to WP space. Even the category is already there. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not to switch the text to the template, it's to put the new images instead of the old ones and have one uniform system that is easily maintainable. Otherwise you have discrepancies, even in the same BRFA (the bottom instance was templated, thus used the new icon, but the one in the closing rationale whas hardcoded, and used the old icon). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Hellknowz here, there seems little reason to edit years of BRFAs just to change images. Anomie 01:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at BRFA/WarddrBOT 2, or BRFA/TheJoshBot. Would you not find those a bit weird/confusing to use different icons for the same thing, or out of sync with the current icons (and in many case, fairly unclear/have really weird scheme)?
Sure it's "years of BRFAs" but it'd be a trivial thing to improve/fix with bots, and it would be a one time run to ensure the scheme is easily maintainable and retroactive. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
And we should update {{Bot Top}} to not subst the templates. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. After seeing the above discussion I've decided to be bold and rotate the extended trial icon. I'm hope I'm not stepping on any toes! I've got to go change the templates now. —♫CheChe♫ talk 15:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'm not the most confident with templates, but I think I've done it right. —♫CheChe♫ talk 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2017[edit]

Please add this {{BRFA|TrustMeImAIRobot||Open}} to the page TrustMeImAIRobot (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Added. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:29, 1 March 2017 (UTC)