If you want to run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. To do so, follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming it may be a good idea to ask someone else to run a bot for you, rather than running your own.
Instructions for bot operators | |
---|---|
Archives |
---|
Old Format |
Contents
- 1 Current requests for approval
- 2 Bots in a trial period
- 3 Bots that have completed the trial period
- 4 Approved requests
- 5 Denied requests
- 6 Expired/withdrawn requests
Current requests for approval
SportsStatsBot 2
Operator: DatGuy (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:49, Thursday, April 4, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: https://github.com/DatGuy1/footy/blob/master/playerstats.py
Function overview: Automatically update football (soccer) players' career statistics
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Every 15 minutes
Estimated number of pages affected: Unsure
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: I've been holding a few tests over at the testwiki. Runs a check every 15 minutes. Uses data from soccerway.com (provided from Opta Sports)
Discussion
DannyS712 bot 23
Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:13, Wednesday, March 20, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Extend task 22 to other templates from the same TfD
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 22 and the discussions linked there
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: Up to ~7000 (some may overlap) 2134 ([1])
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
Removesubstitute {{PBB_Summary}}. Only removed its html comment (and its inline html comment) - 3543 transclusions
- Substitute {{PBB Summary}}
- Remove the html comment associated with it
Discussion
- Zackmann08 is doing this using AWB already. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I can help, given the number - see User talk:DannyS712#Your BRFA (22) for the discussion causing me to file this --DannyS712 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I didn't notice task 22 et al until after posting that comment. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: I can help, given the number - see User talk:DannyS712#Your BRFA (22) for the discussion causing me to file this --DannyS712 (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- The content of {{PBB Summary}} is text that needs to be kept. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pinging @MarnetteD: to this as he was manually doing one of those templates, but was ok with a bot to take over. --Gonnym (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Actually I was doing "summary" and "further reading" at the same time on most of my edits. Remember that all of the items in further reading need to stay just like the summary does. I'm guessing you already know this but I mention it just in case. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @MarnetteD: Yes. Except, I just realized, while substituting further reading works great (Special:Diff/888699322), substituting the summary doesn't really (Special:Diff/888699171), so when I saw "substitute" the summary template, I mean replace it using a regex to achieve the intended display, not literally "substitute" the template, since that keeps the parser functions and everything. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. Actually I was doing "summary" and "further reading" at the same time on most of my edits. Remember that all of the items in further reading need to stay just like the summary does. I'm guessing you already know this but I mention it just in case. MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Galobtter: Wow, I just developed a regex to do it without substituting, but I guess its all useless now. Anyway, just subst the templates and remove the inline comments. If anyone cares, the regex was:
Extended content
|
---|
becomes
and
becomes
(first regex for not having a section title, second for having one). |
Anyway, I think this is good to go: substitute both templates, and remove the html comment. Thanks for the help, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712, get er doneeee!!! Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- One template done but the other still has over 2k uses. Is there any reason this has not gotten any response, even for a trial? --Gonnym (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
GreenC bot 13
Operator: GreenC (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 00:24, Wednesday, April 3, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): GNU Awk and BotWikiAwk framework
Source code available: TBU
Function overview: Convert instances of [[Batting average]]
to either [[Batting average (cricket)]]
or [[Batting average (baseball)]]
as appropriate to the topic of the article where the wikilink occurs.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Deal_with_links_to_split_article_(Batting_average)
Edit period(s): one time
Estimated number of pages affected: ~ 18,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Find all articles containing [[Batting average]]
(or with a pipe) and check page categories to determine if it should link to [[Batting average (cricket)]]
or [[Batting average (baseball)]]
. If the strings "baseball" and "cricket" both appear in an article skip and log. In terms of generating the target article list, for cricket check for: Category:Cricketers, Category:Seasons in cricket and Category:Years in cricket (about 3k links). For baseball: Category:Baseball players, Category:Seasons in baseball, Category:Years in baseball (about 12k links).
Discussion
- @Spike 'em: -- GreenC 00:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @GreenC: you wrote that the bot does not have a bot flag, but it appears to have a bot flag (granted in 2016) - can you clarify? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Not sure if you've dealt with this already, but I think it should be replacing
[[batting average]]
with[[Batting average (cricket)|batting average]]
or[[Batting average (baseball)|batting average]]
Mmitchell10 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC) - Also, we don't want to upset the capitalisation, so need to replace Batting with Batting, and batting with batting. Mmitchell10 (talk) 09:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
qbugbot 3
Operator: Edibobb (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 05:01, Friday, March 29, 2019 (UTC)
This will edit pages created by qbugbot 2, updating references, photos, common names, and a few minor edits. Not all changes will be made to all pages, and some pages will not be changed.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): vb.net
Source code available: Yes. I will update User:Qbugbot/source before the first test.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): There have been some comments, requests, and edits over the past year that have motivated to do this, but I have not requested a consensus on ToL. I think it will be non-controversial.
Edit period(s): 8-24 hours per day.
Estimated number of pages affected: 17,000
Mainspace
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
Qbugbot2 created around 18,000 pages about a year ago. I'd like to make corrections and updates to these pages. These changes are a result of comments and page edits. Edits made to these pages since they were created will be preserved. The first 100+ edits by this bot will be reviewed manually.
1. "Further reading" and "External link" references will be updated, and in most cases cut back or eliminated. Any references in Further reading and External links that were created with the page will be removed and replaced with the new references from the current qbugbot database. This will provide fewer and more specific references in these areas. Any reference added by other editors will be retained as is. References are matched by title, or by authors and year. This item will affect most pages, and has been the source of most negative comments about qbugbot articles.
2. If the prose, infobox, and inline refererences have not been edited since an article was created, it will be updated with the following changes:
- Wording in the prose may be updated, usually for the distribution range or common names, sometimes to correct errors.
- Inline references will be updated. Sometimes more specific references will be added, and sometimes non-specific references may be removed (such as EOL, some redundant database references, and some database references without specific data on the article.)
- The database sources for lists of taxonomic children (species list, etc.) will be removed. While this information might be handy, it makes it difficult for people to update the list. When list is edited, the source database information tends to be omitted.
- Occassionally, the taxonomic information and children will updated.
3. Photos will be added if they are available and not already on the page. This will affect a minority of pages. The Photos have been manually reviewed.
4. Unnecessary orphan and underlinked tags will be removed.
5. External link to Wikimedia commons will be updated to handle disambig links properly, without displaying the "(beetle)" in something like "Adelina (beetle)"
6. The formatting of many references has been improved, correcting errors, adding doi's, etc. These will be updated in most cases. If the references has been edited since creation, it will not be changed.
Here is an example of a page editing manually using bugbot 3 content: Muellerianella
Discussion
- You say that this will edit around "17,000" pages, despite creating ~18,000 - why not edit the other 1,000? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some pages have been changed so much that the bot can't successfully revise them without altering other people's edits, something I'd rather not do automatically and something that's probably not necessary in pages with significant additions. Some other pages won't need any of these changes, either because the changes have already been made through manual edits, or because the original pages happened not to need them. I am just estimating the 1,000 pages. It could be more or less than that. Bob Webster (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Will you also be categorizing articles? Looking briefly at the pages the bot created [2] where the bot's edit is not the current version, a theme I see is that the pages have been categorized by the year the species was described. (eg Special:Diff/840205159, Special:Diff/840205191, Special:Diff/840205216) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also pinging @William Avery who seems to have done most of that categorization --DannyS712 (talk) 06:11, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- I looked at this and decided to postpone it for another update. The main problem is that I could see no easy way to determine what was described in 1956 (or any year) -- insects? moths? spiders? animals? beetles? North American millipedes? I was also considering narrowing down some of the categories (bees to sweat-bees, etc.) as some editors have been doing, but I haven't found a reliable list of categories to use. The same thing applies the -stub templates. I would prefer to do these three tasks in another bot session. Bob Webster (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Having done some of this categorisation [caveat: not so much recently], I have to agree that this problem exists, and there are various schemes of parent categories that are in use if the category you are assigning needs to be created. One could put everything into a higher level category, to await sorting, but I see no great advantage. I would accept it as WP:WORKINPROGRESS. William Avery (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I looked at this and decided to postpone it for another update. The main problem is that I could see no easy way to determine what was described in 1956 (or any year) -- insects? moths? spiders? animals? beetles? North American millipedes? I was also considering narrowing down some of the categories (bees to sweat-bees, etc.) as some editors have been doing, but I haven't found a reliable list of categories to use. The same thing applies the -stub templates. I would prefer to do these three tasks in another bot session. Bob Webster (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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
{{tl|BAG assistance needed}}
. Bob Webster (talk) 04:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 bot 21
Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 08:38, Tuesday, March 19, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Auto-classify stubs as stub-class
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 28#Automatically mark all stubs as stub-class
Edit period(s): As needed, large run at first
Estimated number of pages affected: Lots (631744 total unassessed pages, so I'd guess a ballpark around ~100,000?)
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Automatically assess articles as stub-class if they are tagged as stubs.
Discussion
- @DannyS712: I'm confused about the task. Does the bot task attempt to determine which articles are stubs itself, or does it rely on a stub template being placed in the article. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: it only clasifies pages that are already tagged as stubs with stub templates in the article itself. The bot would make to determinations itself --DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, (1) AnomieBOT is already approved for a superset of this task (ping: Anomie), and (2) I agree with Czar in the linked discussion that this is better suited for coding added to the individual assessment templates (or Template:WPBannerMeta) than a bot task. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: the superset AnomieBOT is approved for is for tagging at the request of a wiki project, and only edits that wikiproject’s template (Anomie please correct me if I’m wrong) - this would tag ‘’all’’ unaddressed stubs as stub-class. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712 and Czar: I've coded a (somewhat crude) template that detects whether a page is a stub at User:Pppery/is page a stub. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: such an approach would mean that wikiprojects can't opt out of the auto-categorization, and editors can't see that there is an assessment when looking in edit mode. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Proper coding of the template would remedy the first stated downside (it would be fairly easy to add a
|AUTODETECT_STUB=
, for instance). To me, the ability to see a stub assessment in edit mode is not a virtue worth expending tens of thousands of bot edits to produce. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)- @Pppery: toollabs:pageviews displays an article's class. It would be trivial to display an icon representing the article's rating in edit mode using a module – no bot edits required. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom and Pppery: okay. Is there consensus to do both of these though? {{WPBannerMeta}} is rarely edited. If not, then a bot would be a less contentious route... --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: One edit, even to a highly used template, seems less contentious than ~100,000 bot edits. I think that, given that at least two users (me and Czar on the idea lab page) have said that it is preferable to code this in the template than use a bot, this bot request needs broader discussion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: then where should the discussion be held? WikiProject Council? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712 and Pppery: WT:COUNCIL is a good place. I'll also suggest VPPRO. Would it be redundant to also make it an RfC? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 02:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: I don't know - I filed this per a bot request, and don't mind if it takes a while to go through a bunch of discussions. Feel free to do whatever discussion you feel is necessary for ~100,000 edits --DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: I think an RfC is the best way to attract as many editors as possible. I spent a lot of effort tagging all those WikiProject talk pages and only a few people commented. By contrast, an RfC would be noticed almost immediately. With an RfC, it also doesn't matter as much where it is posted. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 03:08, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: I don't know - I filed this per a bot request, and don't mind if it takes a while to go through a bunch of discussions. Feel free to do whatever discussion you feel is necessary for ~100,000 edits --DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712 and Pppery: WT:COUNCIL is a good place. I'll also suggest VPPRO. Would it be redundant to also make it an RfC? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 02:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: then where should the discussion be held? WikiProject Council? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: One edit, even to a highly used template, seems less contentious than ~100,000 bot edits. I think that, given that at least two users (me and Czar on the idea lab page) have said that it is preferable to code this in the template than use a bot, this bot request needs broader discussion. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: I believe that data that toollabs:pageviews shows comes from assessment tags on the talk page, so is irrelevant here. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom and Pppery: okay. Is there consensus to do both of these though? {{WPBannerMeta}} is rarely edited. If not, then a bot would be a less contentious route... --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: toollabs:pageviews displays an article's class. It would be trivial to display an icon representing the article's rating in edit mode using a module – no bot edits required. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 00:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Proper coding of the template would remedy the first stated downside (it would be fairly easy to add a
- @Pppery: such an approach would mean that wikiprojects can't opt out of the auto-categorization, and editors can't see that there is an assessment when looking in edit mode. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- In that case, (1) AnomieBOT is already approved for a superset of this task (ping: Anomie), and (2) I agree with Czar in the linked discussion that this is better suited for coding added to the individual assessment templates (or Template:WPBannerMeta) than a bot task. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: it only clasifies pages that are already tagged as stubs with stub templates in the article itself. The bot would make to determinations itself --DannyS712 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712, Pppery, and Czar: Please review the draft RfC at User:Qzekrom/sandbox/rfc, and feel free to edit it if you think the technical details need to be clarified or corrected. I'll subst it to WP:VPPRO when we all think it's ready. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: Note that the 100,000 is a complete guess - we should actually run the numbers first. I'll try to find a way, but we should actually have a ballpark number before opening the rfc. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery, is it possible to autodetect stub based on prose length (and not just having a stub template) too? If so, would want to add that to the RfC. (not watching, please
{{ping}}
) czar 11:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- @Czar: Yes, that would be technically possible, but quite a bit more work (what counts as "prose" exactly from the point of view of a computer), and I'm not sure whether it is a good idea anyway, because "having < x characters of prose" does not necessarily equal "being a stub". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery, from my experience, any article with less than 1,500 characters in User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js is universally considered a stub, fwiw czar 15:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Czar: Yes, that would be technically possible, but quite a bit more work (what counts as "prose" exactly from the point of view of a computer), and I'm not sure whether it is a good idea anyway, because "having < x characters of prose" does not necessarily equal "being a stub". {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 14:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery, is it possible to autodetect stub based on prose length (and not just having a stub template) too? If so, would want to add that to the RfC. (not watching, please
- @Qzekrom: Note that the 100,000 is a complete guess - we should actually run the numbers first. I'll try to find a way, but we should actually have a ballpark number before opening the rfc. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- As I indicated in the earlier discussion: Anything that Danny can do to get stubs out of Category:Unassessed medicine articles is a positive contribution, and I very much hope that he will be able to do that. On a related point, I've done assessment work for more than a decade, and I suspect that the overall lack of responses is because nobody actually objects to this. If you wanted to rate B-class, it'd be much more fraught, but everyone uses the same basic definitions of stubs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- So as far as assess as stub-class if there is a stub-template goes - should these be getting assessed to see if they are actually stubs anymore? The article certainly could have out grown the stub template. — xaosflux Talk 20:43, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Adding the stub-class assessment would, among other things, alert the wikiprojects that they have stubs, which could encourage them to reassess and improve the pages. I'll note, however, that tagging a talk page as stub-class is far less noticeable to the reader than the stub template on the page itself, so such tags would have very little viewer-facing downsides, while providing the potential benefit of getting the pages reassessed and the stub tag removed. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: aren't these already alerting the project they have unaddressed pages that need to be reviewed? — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: yes, but if this task were run and wikiprojects were notified of it, it would provide a clear source of pages that specifically should be reassessed, since the bot is tagging pages without doing its own assessments (by design). I could specifically mark them as bot-assessed (|auto=stub, see Template:WPBannerMeta/doc), which would further help wikiprojects by telling them what pages had been unassessed but were tagged as stubs, since it would / could prompt the wikiproject to review the assessment. Does this explanation answer your questions? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712 and Xaosflux: A future project might involve training an ML algorithm to determine whether an article is likely to have improved beyond stub quality (using removal of the stub tag as proxy for improvement), and then alerting WikiProjects when an article is ripe for reassessment. Do we have anything that does that? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 01:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: a bot isn't needed (I think) - can you give me a wikiproject, and I can give you a list of "stub-class" articles without stub templates (see Category:Stub-Class articles) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: WP:COMP ...wait, was that rhetorical? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 02:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: Not at all. There were some false positives, but see User:DannyS712/sandbox5 for the list of 5081 pages that the wikiproject tagged as stubs but that currently don't have stub templates. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Should we add stub templates, though? We ought to be careful to add the most specific ones. For example, the ones about TLDs, such as .gr, should be tagged with {{Compu-domain-stub}} whereas A+ (programming language) should be tagged with {{Prog-lang-stub}}. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: Um, what? You posted that
A future project might involve training an ML algorithm to determine whether an article is likely to have improved beyond stub quality (using removal of the stub tag as proxy for improvement), and then alerting WikiProjects when an article is ripe for reassessment.
- here is a list of articles that have been improved beyond stub quality and should be reassessed, not a list of untagged stubs. We should not ad stub templates, since these are generally no longer stubs. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- @DannyS712: Oh, when you said "'stub-class' articles without stub templates" I assumed that you weren't specifically discussing ones with their tags removed. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: I'm not specifically discussing ones with their tags removed. These are pages where the wikiproject says they are stubs, but they are not tagged as stubs. Either one could be correct, but it would take a WP:CONTEXTBOT to figure that out automatically --DannyS712 (talk) 05:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Oh, when you said "'stub-class' articles without stub templates" I assumed that you weren't specifically discussing ones with their tags removed. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: Um, what? You posted that
- @DannyS712: Should we add stub templates, though? We ought to be careful to add the most specific ones. For example, the ones about TLDs, such as .gr, should be tagged with {{Compu-domain-stub}} whereas A+ (programming language) should be tagged with {{Prog-lang-stub}}. Qzekrom 💬 theythem 05:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: Not at all. There were some false positives, but see User:DannyS712/sandbox5 for the list of 5081 pages that the wikiproject tagged as stubs but that currently don't have stub templates. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: WP:COMP ...wait, was that rhetorical? Qzekrom 💬 theythem 02:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Qzekrom: a bot isn't needed (I think) - can you give me a wikiproject, and I can give you a list of "stub-class" articles without stub templates (see Category:Stub-Class articles) Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: aren't these already alerting the project they have unaddressed pages that need to be reviewed? — xaosflux Talk 21:22, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Adding the stub-class assessment would, among other things, alert the wikiprojects that they have stubs, which could encourage them to reassess and improve the pages. I'll note, however, that tagging a talk page as stub-class is far less noticeable to the reader than the stub template on the page itself, so such tags would have very little viewer-facing downsides, while providing the potential benefit of getting the pages reassessed and the stub tag removed. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- I alluded to this in the linked conversation but I think the point of tooling here is moot when we should be looking instead to develop consensus on Phase 2 of meta:Community Tech/PageAssessments, which would pull banner assessments offsite and thus be easier to manipulate and less obtrusive to editors. (not watching, please
{{ping}}
) czar 11:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- @Czar: Phase 2 is labelled
Not done. Dropped from roadmap.
, so that may not be an option. Furthermore, that would require a lot bigger consensus, because it would fundamentally change the way wikiprojects assess quality and importance, while this task works within the current framework. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 23 March 2019 (UTC)- The talk page has more info on that, but yes, it would change how we log assessment data if we as a community were to have that discussion. By detaching assessments from on-wiki edits, it should become much easier to auto-assess articles, as proposed, and manipulate assessment data. It's a different project but one that positions us better for the long run. (not watching, please
{{ping}}
) czar 23:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- The talk page has more info on that, but yes, it would change how we log assessment data if we as a community were to have that discussion. By detaching assessments from on-wiki edits, it should become much easier to auto-assess articles, as proposed, and manipulate assessment data. It's a different project but one that positions us better for the long run. (not watching, please
- @Czar: Phase 2 is labelled
- 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
{{tl|BAG assistance needed}}
. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
JATMBot
Operator: Tymon.r (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 00:16, Friday, March 15, 2019 (UTC)
Function overview: Maintenance – automatic (procedural) closure of WP:AfD discussions when nominated pages do not exist
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: standard pywikipedia
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a
Edit period(s): continuous, being run every 3 minutes
Estimated number of pages affected: up to a few a day
Namespace(s): Wikipedia
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Function details: Closing per WP:PCLOSE AfD discussions when nominated pages do not exist, e.g. when they've been already speedy deleted or their title is mistyped. Informing a nominator about a closure on his user's talk page. In every run bot will go through AfD log pages for last 7 days and check for existence of nominated pages. If a nominated page doesn't exist, it will close (edit) page's AfD discussion in accordance with WP:AFD/AI and then inform a nominator about closure performed, stating possible reasons of the closure (title mistyped, article speedy deleted, etc.). The bot shall not perform any actions/closures when a decision oughts to be made. In future bot's functionality could be extended to other XfDs, but if so, it'd requested in separate BRFA. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
I note User:AnomieBOT does something similar for WP:TFD and WP:FFD (and some related tasks at WP:CFD, but currently detecting the nominated categories there seems too prone to errors), although that doesn't preclude your bot doing this task for WP:AFD.
I see your BRFA says the source code is "standard pywikipedia", but I don't see any script included with Pywikibot for doing this task. Useful additional features compared to your manual diff include relaying the deleting admin and deletion reason from the log (after verifying it's not a deletion log entry previous to the AFD itself), detecting "moved without redirect" as being distinct from "nominated title does not exist", and allowing the deleting admin a chance to manually close before the bot does it for them. Anomie⚔ 13:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Anomie, thanks for your input and your work with User:AnomieBOT! Agreed – my description of the programming technique used to create a bot is imprecise. The bot'd based on pywikipedia, but, as you mentioned, it'd need to use some additional self-written scripts to handle non-standard operations, e.g. checking a log of a deleted page. For the time period in which an admin could close AfD himself – I'd propose 10 minutes of delay before performing an automated closure. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 13:24, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Tymon.r: I have two questions:
- I note that AnomieBOT's tasks specific who deleted the relevant page (FFD, TFD) - do you intend to do the same?
- Would there be a way for admins to opt-out of having their deletions closed for them?
- Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712, thanks for your input.
- Ad 1 – I believe it'd worth to have an unified message form used by bots (procedurally) closing XfDs. Therefore I'd probably retrieve this particular information from the page's log for each closure. I don't see it as something necessary, though. Getting to know this is as easy as pressing the red link.
- Ad 2 – I don't see it necessary. First and foremost, because of a delay before which the bot won't be automatically closing discussions, leaving an adequate timeframe for a closer to do it at his own. It's in the best interest of a smoothness of a deletion process and no one will ever forbid a closing administrator from editing an AfD discussion, e.g. by adding some comments regarding deletion, even after it is closed by the bot.
- Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712, thanks for your input.
- You are planning on "a few" edits per day, but need to run this 480 times a day? Are you going to be hosting this somewhere for continuous operations? — xaosflux Talk 02:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux, Yes, to catch all potentially interesting changes for the bot and to ensure that no discussions on an already removed article remains open for too long. Well, this script wouldn't need many servers' resources – running it, even more often, would be still cheap. I've been considering hosting it on WP:TOOLFORGE or my own VPS. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I share the concerns of DannyS712 above. Additionally, if this is going to be posting to user talk pages it should really be exclusion compliment (especially as posting to User Talk isn't AFAIK standard practice when closing an AfD)
- I would also question the benifit of running this over all 7 days worth of logs rather than just recent nominations - how common are pages being deleted for unrelated reasons after being at AfD for more than 24 hours or so?
- Finally, like Xaosflux above, I'd question why this needs to run every 3 minutes; I'd suggest every 15 minutes at most if you are going to scan all AfDs is likely more appropriate. Mdann52 (talk) 07:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mdann52, thanks for your input. I hope you'll consider my replies to Xaosflux and DannyS712 above. Regarding exclusion compliment – definitely agreed. Posting to users' talk pages should be definitely facultative. Best, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 14:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} It's been over a week already and no decision regarding the trial's been made. Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 10:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I know I'm coming a little late to the party, but do you have any specific stats for how frequently this problem arises? I ask mainly because of the previous questions about how often this will run; if (for an extreme example) there is one "event" per day, it doesn't make much sense to have a bot do this task as there will undoubtedly be plenty of editors who will catch the mistake themselves. Primefac (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 bot 13
Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 10:01, Sunday, March 10, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: User:DannyS712 test/GTK.js
Function overview: Easy tag all of a category's subcategories with notices that they are being discussed at CfD
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 17#Tagging bot
Edit period(s): As needed
Estimated number of pages affected: Varies, I'd guess ~50 per run
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Traverse through the subcategories within a category and add tags to them. Examples of when this would be really useful are listed in that discussion, but in general it would be for mass-cfds ("Rename XYZ and all of its subcategories", etc)
Discussion
- How would you ever know it is time to run this task? — xaosflux Talk 03:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: It would run as-needed (I'd leave a note at CfD saying that if people wanted to nominate an entire category tree, or a list of categories that's really long, and don't want to tag them manually, I could do it for them). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: this almost feels like it would be better as a user script (e.g. 'xfd-batch' for twinkle, with a 'recurse' option), any thoughts?
- @Xaosflux: It would run as-needed (I'd leave a note at CfD saying that if people wanted to nominate an entire category tree, or a list of categories that's really long, and don't want to tag them manually, I could do it for them). --DannyS712 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you plan on any sort of max-tag-per-request limits here? — xaosflux Talk 03:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: this would be a user-script, and I would be willing to run it from my account rather than the bot. I don't know what xfd-batch is (admin only?) but since WP:BOTDICT defines automated editing as
Refers to editing that is done automatically, without human review, i.e. editing done by bots.
, I thought I should err on the safe side and file a BRFA, because I do not intend to review each edit --DannyS712 (talk) 03:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: this would be a user-script, and I would be willing to run it from my account rather than the bot. I don't know what xfd-batch is (admin only?) but since WP:BOTDICT defines automated editing as
- 'xfd-batch' doesn't exist in twinkle, I was comparing it to some options like delete-batch, protect-batch. — xaosflux Talk 03:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, this is not a bot request. It's a user script, which may or may not be shared to users beyond its creator.
- From what I can see, the script above is way too simplistic, and is suitable on for some very simple cases at CFDS. I a concerned that realsing it for wider use will lead to it being used in the many more complex cases where it will produce inaccurate output.
- The task which it performs is one which I encounter several times a month, for full CFD discussions, CFDS nominations, and WP:RM nominations. I do it by using of a set of AWB custom modules which I hack on a per-case basis. My experience is that
- In a bit less than half the cases, the tagging can be achieved by a plaintext replace function
- In the rest, one or more regexes are needed
- In all cases, some care is needed to ensure that all 3 tasks are performed accurately:
- tag so the the tag includes the name of the target category. e.g.
{{cfr}}
→ a tag saying "rename to some other title"
.. but{{cfr|MyNewTitle}}
→ a tag saying "rename to Category:MyNewTitle" - tag so that the name of the discussion section is included, otherwise the links will point to the wrong place. e.g.
Wrong: {{cfr|MyNewTitle}}
Right: {{cfr|MyNewTitle|DiscussionSectionHeading}} - a meaningful edit summary. The edit summary should both describe the proposed action, and the location of the discussion
- tag so the the tag includes the name of the target category. e.g.
- Some examples:
- CFDS plus subcats:
- Full CFR discussion of by-year cats for British Empire / British Overseas territories
- CFD discussion: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019_March_1#British_Empire
- tagging example: [5]
- code needed: two different plaintext replaces, depending on whether the nominated category was being renamed "British Empire → British Overseas territories" or "British Overseas territories → British Empire"
- Full CFR ~650 "Republic of Macedonia" categories:
- CFD discussion: WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 16#North_Macedonia
- tagging examples: [6], [7]
- code needed: a single regex, to accommodate the fact that some old the old titles were of the form "Republic of Macedonia foo" and some of the form "Foo in the Republic of Macedonia". The word "the" needed to be removed if present, so the regex was
s/(([tT]he +)?Republic +of +Macedonia/North Macedonia/
- Code such as this can probably do a good job in some simple cases. Unfortunately, there are any other cases where it risks mistagging dozens of categories.
- I also think that javascript is not a good tool for these uses, because it does not allow a test of the first edit before proceeding, manual intervention for edge cases, etc. When I use AWB, I do the first edit, then stop and check its effects: is that tag correct? Is it linking to the right discussion section on the right page? Is the edit summary accurate, and doe sit too link correctly?. I then check a few a more variants before whacking the save button repeatedly through the rest of the list
- AFAICS, a javascript tool will just proceed through the list in one go, with no possibility of intervention nif there is an unforeseen error (which in my experience there often is).
- I have huge regard for Danny's skills and conscentiousness both as an editor and as a programmer (he really should be an admin), but in this case I think he is using the wrong tool, and has not taken enough account of the many variations which arise in this sort of group nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: This task would extend to types 1 and 3 listed above, both of which are done using a single regex. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712, my concern is that any script will end up being used by other editors for tasks where it wouldn't do the job properly ... as indeed with your own proposal of it at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Category:American_female_rappers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: By
if @Xaosflux or another BAG member wants to trial
this task, I meant send it to trial for me to run. All of my tasks that are done in javascript are hosted on wiki, meaning that their source code is visible to users (I haven't figured out how to use toolforge yet) with the implicit understanding that using them without permission is just like using any other tool to bot-like edit without permission - against policy. I won't venture into BEANS territory, but any script I make will, as far as I am concerned, only be run by me - if another editor tries to use the script, they are responsible. As for doing the job properly, I would set the regex each time for each run, and would manually check (from the bot account) a few to see that it works before setting the bot loose on an entire category. The reason I didn't do it with AWB is because the regex relies on the name of the category itself, which as far as I am aware can't be accessed from the regex within AWB. I hope this explanation allays your concerns. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)- AWB can access the pagename through custom modules. I am using a simple one right now (with 2 alternative plaintext replaces) to tag >1000 categories for WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Places_of_worship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: in that case, would you mind sending me that custom module? I'll look into it, and maybe change this task to be AWB-based --DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Email sent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks, but how does one use a custom module in there first place? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Menu bar → Tools → Make module. Then paste in your module, enable module at top left, then "make module" on the right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: After 1 mistake, I managed to use the module to tag a number of categories for CfD (a nomination had been made without tags) - contribs: here. Given that this worked so easily, I'm changing this task to AWB. @Xaosflux does this satisfy your concerns? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712, I'm glad that worked. But it was a relatively simple case, without any need for multiple regexes. I'd happier to see you deploying an adapted version of the module on more complex cases before this gets the bot flag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Sure, let me know when you have another mass-nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, @DannyS712, I have a pile of tools already made, so whenever I have a mass nom, I find it quick and easy to just tag them myself. I usually AWB to create the lists for the nom, so it's a tiny extra bit of work to then chick in the appropriate module and tag; probably less effort that explaining it. But I'll try to remember to pass one your way so that you can test the bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, @DannyS712, I have a pile of tools already made, so whenever I have a mass nom, I find it quick and easy to just tag them myself. I usually AWB to create the lists for the nom, so it's a tiny extra bit of work to then chick in the appropriate module and tag; probably less effort that explaining it. But I'll try to remember to pass one your way so that you can test the bot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Sure, let me know when you have another mass-nomination. --DannyS712 (talk) DannyS712 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712, I'm glad that worked. But it was a relatively simple case, without any need for multiple regexes. I'd happier to see you deploying an adapted version of the module on more complex cases before this gets the bot flag. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: After 1 mistake, I managed to use the module to tag a number of categories for CfD (a nomination had been made without tags) - contribs: here. Given that this worked so easily, I'm changing this task to AWB. @Xaosflux does this satisfy your concerns? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Menu bar → Tools → Make module. Then paste in your module, enable module at top left, then "make module" on the right. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks, but how does one use a custom module in there first place? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: Email sent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: in that case, would you mind sending me that custom module? I'll look into it, and maybe change this task to be AWB-based --DannyS712 (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- AWB can access the pagename through custom modules. I am using a simple one right now (with 2 alternative plaintext replaces) to tag >1000 categories for WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 21#Places_of_worship. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: By
- @DannyS712, my concern is that any script will end up being used by other editors for tasks where it wouldn't do the job properly ... as indeed with your own proposal of it at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 13#Category:American_female_rappers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: This task would extend to types 1 and 3 listed above, both of which are done using a single regex. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Request, copied from wp:botreq: "There was a request to move categories with "eSports" to "esports" per WP:C2D at WT:VG, but that list is sizable. Is there someone here who can take care of the listing and tagging? (Avoid the WikiProject assessment categories.)" (made by @Izno:) - can I do this with my bot as a trial? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- also, tagging the category (and sub categories) discussed at: Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Anyone wants to standardize the naming in Category:Criminals by occupation? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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
{{tl|BAG assistance needed}}
. no BAG input since Xaosflux's questions on 11 March. I'd like to request a trial with one or both of the category sets I mention above. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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
Xinbenlv bot
Operator: Xinbenlv (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 06:29, Wednesday, February 20, 2019 (UTC)
Function overview: User:Xinbenlv_bot#Task 1: Notify (on Talk page) cross language inconsistency for birthdays.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Javascript
Source code available: [8]
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_166#Cross_Lang_Conflicts
Edit period(s): daily or twice a week
Estimated number of pages affected: 30 per day to begin with, can increase to 100 per day if community sees it helpful. Speed is completely controllable. Overall, there are a few thousands between major wikis like EN - JA(~3000), EN - DE(~5000).
Namespace(s): Talk
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Adminbot (Yes/No): No
Function details:
The bot will notify editors by writing a new section on Talk page of a subject, if that subject has inconsistent birthdays in this and another wikipedia languages.
The data of inconsistency comes from a public available dataset Github, called Project WikiLoop. An example edit looks like this
- Notifying French Editors fr:Utilisateur:Xinbenlv/sandbox/Project_Wikiloop/unique_value/Discussion:Samuel_Gathimba - Notifying English Editors en:User:Xinbenlv/sandbox/Project_Wikiloop/unique_value/Talk:Samuel_Gathimba
Discussion
{{TakeNote}} This request specifies the bot account as the operator. A bot may not operate itself; please update the "Operator" field to indicate the account of the human running this bot.AnomieBOT⚡ 06:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed, changed to User:Xinbenlv. Xinbenlv (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
{{TakeNote}} This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial.AnomieBOT⚡ 06:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Anomie, @AnomieBOT, Sorry, I mistakenly used my bot account to create its BRFA, it was me manually. The only bot auto edits are those in its User page. Xinbenlv (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it Xinbenlv. I've struck it now as the notice isn't relevant. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, that makes sense. I also updated the Not for operator. Let me know if I've not done it right. @TheSandDoctor. Xinbenlv (talk) 07:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- This bot is helping on cross-language inconsistency therefore it shall be editing other languages, how should I apply for global bot permission? Xinbenlv (talk) 06:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv:, m::BP should be what you're looking for. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you RhinosF1 thank you!. it seems the m::BP requires the bot to obtain local community permission and keep it running locally for a while. Therefore, I think I shall apply for approvals from multiple local communities each individually for now. Do I understand it correctly? Xinbenlv (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Xinbenlv, That's how it read to me aswell. It's probably best to make them aware anyway before launching anything that will affect them in a big way (e.g. mass notifications being issued). You don't want to cause confusion. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 19:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you RhinosF1 thank you!. it seems the m::BP requires the bot to obtain local community permission and keep it running locally for a while. Therefore, I think I shall apply for approvals from multiple local communities each individually for now. Do I understand it correctly? Xinbenlv (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv:, m::BP should be what you're looking for. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 16:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone who are interested. Just so that you know, the bot has two trial edits on German wiki, as encouraged by the BRFA discussion. Feel free to take a look and advice is welcomed! Xinbenlv (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
- de:Diskussion:Mihaela_Cârstoi
- de:Diskussion:Ernst-Aleksander_Joll
- A few questions.
- Am I reading your datasets correctly that there are somewhere in the order of 5k pages that this applies to? Could you please add the approximate number to the BRFA documentation?
- How often is the dbase updated? Could this potentially result in one page receiving multiple notices simply because no one has either seen or cared enough to fix the missing information?
- This seems like a reasonable task to deal with cross-wiki data problems, just want to get a better feel for the size and scope of the task. Primefac (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks @Primefac: If I apply to change the bot scope to be "=<200 edits in total" for first phase, what do you think? Xinbenlv (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- The number of edits per day/week/month can be discussed, I'm just looking for more information at the moment. Primefac (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks @Primefac: If I apply to change the bot scope to be "=<200 edits in total" for first phase, what do you think? Xinbenlv (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
@Xover's suggestion regarding using maintenance template
Would adding a maintenance template (that adds a tracking category) be a viable alternative to talk page notices? It might be more effort due to the inherently cross-project nature of the task, but talk page notices are rarely acted on, is extra noise on busy talk pages, and may cause serious annoyance since the enwp date may be correct (it's, for example, the dewp article that's incorrect) and the local editors have no reasonable way to fix it. A tracking category can be attacked like any gnome task, and the use of a maint template provides the option of, for example, flagging a particular language wikipedia as having a verified date or specifying that the inconsistency comes from Wikidata. In any case, cross-project inconsistencies are an increasingly visible problem due to Wikidara, so kudos for taking on this issue! --Xover (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Xover: thank you. So far, I am applying to 5 different wikis for botflag in the same time. I received 3 suggestions:
- 1. use template and transclusion
- 2. add category
- 3. put it as a over article "cleanup" message box or Talk page message.
- For the #1 and #2, there is consensus amongst all responding communities (EN, DE, ZH, FR). So now the trial edits on these communities are using template and category, see ZH examples:
- * https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiProject_WikiLoop/Inconsistent_Birthday
- For #3, put it as an over article "cleanup" message box, the DE community some editors prefer a Talk page message, while some prefer over-article message box. My personal opinion is that we can start slow, do some Talk page message (like 200) for trial edits, and then when they looks good, we can start to approve for allowing the bot to write over article messages? The reason being, I hope it demonstrate more stability before writing on (article) namespace. Especially for such high impact wikis of English wikipedia.
- By the way, the format I prepare for English wikipedia is actually a maintenance template at User:Xinbenlv_bot/msg/inconsistent_birthday, could you take a look, @Xover:?
- Xinbenlv bot (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, assuming the technical operation of the bot is good (no bugs) maint. templates in article space are generally less "noisy" than talk page messages (well, except the big noisy banners that you say dewp want, but that's up to them). I suspect the enwp community will prefer the less noisy way, but I of course speak only for myself. In any case, I did a small bit of copyediting on the talk page message template. It changed the tone slightly, so you may not like it, and in any case you should feel free to revert it for whatever reason. Finally, you should probably use
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}
in the "Trial edits" section below. --Xover (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Well, assuming the technical operation of the bot is good (no bugs) maint. templates in article space are generally less "noisy" than talk page messages (well, except the big noisy banners that you say dewp want, but that's up to them). I suspect the enwp community will prefer the less noisy way, but I of course speak only for myself. In any case, I did a small bit of copyediting on the talk page message template. It changed the tone slightly, so you may not like it, and in any case you should feel free to revert it for whatever reason. Finally, you should probably use
- There was a consensus to stop InternetArchiveBot from adding talk page notices. I suspect that if this bot were to start running that there would be a similar consensus to stop adding the same. My suggestion is not to do #3. --Izno (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Trial Edits now available (in sandbox)
Dear all admins and editors,
I have generated 30 trial edits in sandbox, you can find them in en:Category:Wikipedia:WikiProject_WikiLoop/Inconsistent_Birthday. I also generated 3 trial edits in real Talk page namespace
Please take a look. Thank you!
Xinbenlv (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Update: [9] shows editor @LouisAlain: who happens to be the creator of en:Gaston_Blanquart, which is one of our 3 trial edits, update the birthday and death date on English Wikipeda. Xinbenlv (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
- Update : generated 10 more trial edits in Talk namespace, I will actively monitor them. Xinbenlv (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Confess - realized trial edits before trial approval
- Dear Admin, I just realize English Wikipedia requires trial edits approval before running trial edits, which I already did for 9 edits in (Article) namespace. Shall I revert the trial edits? I am sorry Xinbenlv (talk) 21:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv: don't revert if they were good edits. — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux:, OK, thank you! By the way, is there anything else I need to do other than just wait for people to comment? It seems the discussion has halted.
- How should I get trial approval?
- Xinbenlv (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Xinbenlv You just have to wait for a a member of the bot approvals group to come and approve a trial. Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xinbenlv: don't revert if they were good edits. — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion Redux
Could I just verify something? I notice that all of the sandbox trials are placing what appear to be talk page sections, while it sounds like the majority of participants (on multiple languages) feel either a maintenance template or category are more appropriate to fix this issue. In other words, the template you've made looks like it's a wall of text that (as mentioned previously) users aren't generally thrilled about dealing with. Is there another way to make this template look more like a "maintenance" template? Maybe just the intro line ("An automated process has determined...") and the table, with instructions to remove when checked? Something that can be placed at the top of a talk page? Primefac (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
PkbwcgsBot 7
Operator: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 20:27, Saturday, December 15, 2018 (UTC)
Function overview: This is an extension to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 5 and I will clean out Category:Pages using ISBN magic links and Category:Pages using PMID magic links.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This RfC
Edit period(s): ISBNs will be once a fortnight and PMIDs will be once a month.
Estimated number of pages affected: 300-500 pages per run (ISBNs) and 50-100 pages per run (PMIDs)
Namespace(s): Most namespaces (Mainspace, Article Talkspace, Filespace, Draftspace, Wikipedia namespace (most pages), Userspace and Portalspace)
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will replace ISBN magic links with templates. For example, ISBN 978-94-6167-229-2
will be replaced with {{ISBN|978-94-6167-229-2}}
. In task 5, it fixes incorrect ISBN syntax and replaces the magic link with the template after that. This task only replaces the ISBN magic link with the template using RegEx.
Discussion
Working in article space only? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: The problem is in multiple namespaces, not just the article namespace. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since Magic links bot is already handling article space, it looks like this bot's focus will be in other spaces. I think those spaces will require manual oversight in order to avoid turning deliberate magic links into templates. Happily, there are only 4,000 pages, down from 500,000+ before the first couple of bots did their work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I can distinguish deliberate magic links and not touch them. There are very few deliberate ones; an example is at Wikipedia:ISBN which shouldn't be changed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- "I can distinguish" -- how can you do this automatically? This is WP:CONTEXTBOT. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- I can distinguish deliberate magic links and not touch them. There are very few deliberate ones; an example is at Wikipedia:ISBN which shouldn't be changed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Since Magic links bot is already handling article space, it looks like this bot's focus will be in other spaces. I think those spaces will require manual oversight in order to avoid turning deliberate magic links into templates. Happily, there are only 4,000 pages, down from 500,000+ before the first couple of bots did their work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
We don't generally approve bots for non-mainspace unless there is a specific problem. Especially without a discussion or consensus. In short, the problem with non-mainspace namespaces is that there is no expectation that article policies or guidelines should apply or are even necessary. Userspace is definitely not a place for bots to run without opt-in. You also cannot automatically work on talk pages with a task like this -- users can easily be discussing syntax and no bot should be changing their comments. The discussion may very well be archived. Same goes with Wikipedia and there are many guideline and help and project pages where such a change may not be desired. Draft, File and Portal seem fine. To sum up, we either need community consensus for running tasks in other namespaces or bot operator assurance (proof) that there are minimal to none incorrect/undesirable edits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Hellknowz: I have struck the namespaces which I feel that will cause problems. I assure that there won't be no incorrect edits. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good then. Will wait for resolution at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 5. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Bots in a trial period
WikiCleanerBot 2
Operator: NicoV (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:25, Monday, February 25, 2019 (UTC)
Function overview: To fix ISSN with an incorrect syntax. As described in ISSN#Code format, the correct syntax for an ISSN is "an eight digit code, divided by a hyphen into two four-digit numbers"
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Java (Wikipedia:WPCleaner)
Source code available: On Github
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Maintenance task for CW Error #106
Edit period(s): At most, twice a month, following the dump analysis that I already perform, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WikiCleanerBot.
Estimated number of pages affected: Around a thousand At most a few hundred pages for the first complete run (pages with such problems are listed in Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 106 dump, which currently contains a list of 1315 420 pages), and probably no more than a few dozen after that on each run given the evolution of the number of pages in the list.
Namespace(s): Main namespace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No, because there's no reason to use an incorrect syntax for an ISSN instead of the correct one.
Function details: Based on the list generated on Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 106 dump, the bot will only fix trivial problems (like a missing hyphen in the ISSN number, extra whitespace characters...) and will leave the more complex ones to be fixed by a human. It will reduced a lot the list, so human editors can fix the remaining problems.
For the bot flag, I currently don't have it, and I would like to keep it that way (or if need be, only added temporarily for the first run).
Discussion
If you will be operating from the dump, could you not do a dry run outputting to Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 106 dump so its handling of the pathological cases there can be inspected? --Xover (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Xover. The dump analysis is performed independently and produces several analysis (Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC all), I would prefer to keep it separated from automatic fixing. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- But if you want to know which pages won't be fixed by the bot, I can do a dry run on my computer and give the list of fixed pages. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @NicoV: I was more interested in seeing the before→after list. Several of the instances listed in the WPC 106 dump looked like they would be hard to fix automatically, so if the output of a dry run could be inspected it might provide a priori confidence that the task won't mess anything up. A dry run might be more efficient / reduce the need for a trial period with live edits (but I speak only for myself: the BAG may see it differently). --Xover (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Xover: Ok, I understand. I will see if I can do something. The idea is to fix only trivial cases automatically, the hard ones will be left to human editors, and I will check what the results are before doing an actual run. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 09:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- @NicoV: I was more interested in seeing the before→after list. Several of the instances listed in the WPC 106 dump looked like they would be hard to fix automatically, so if the output of a dry run could be inspected it might provide a priori confidence that the task won't mess anything up. A dry run might be more efficient / reduce the need for a trial period with live edits (but I speak only for myself: the BAG may see it differently). --Xover (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- But if you want to know which pages won't be fixed by the bot, I can do a dry run on my computer and give the list of fixed pages. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Comment: The dump list appears to have some false positives on it. I picked one page at random, Pocket Dwellers, and there is an ISSN of 00062510 listed within a citation template. This ISSN is valid within a CS1 template; articles with invalid ISSNs are placed in Category:CS1 errors: ISSN. The template handles this unhyphenated ISSN format with no trouble, displaying properly with a hyphen. It should not be "corrected"; the bot would be making a cosmetic edit, leaving the rendered page unchanged. Perhaps the dump analysis should be corrected before this bot attempts to modify articles based on the list. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Jonesey95. On other wikis like frwiki, the templates don't add the hyphen by themselves. If ISSN without the missing hyphen have to be considered correct on enwiki for some templates, then I will first need to add an option in WPCleaner for this (and then generate again the page Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 106 dump to check that false positives are removed) before implementing the automatic replacement. I will post here when this part is done. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 18:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks like {{ISSN}} does not add the hyphen, but the CS1 citation templates do so. Just to see if I had gotten unlucky, I picked four more articles at semi-random from the list, limiting my "random" choices to articles that were displaying eight digits as the erroneous string. All four articles: Acritogramma metaleuca, Capri (cigarette), David Mba, and Ensoniq VFX contain no ISSN errors. I believe that the dump analysis needs to be debugged before this task can be run. It is possibly telling that there are only 65 pages in the three ISSN error categories combined. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- Jonesey95. I've modified my code to allow telling WPCleaner that some templates automatically add the hyphen if it's missing, so the articles you mentionned won't be reported anymore. I'm currently running an update of Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 106 dump to see what will be left. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 09:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks like {{ISSN}} does not add the hyphen, but the CS1 citation templates do so. Just to see if I had gotten unlucky, I picked four more articles at semi-random from the list, limiting my "random" choices to articles that were displaying eight digits as the erroneous string. All four articles: Acritogramma metaleuca, Capri (cigarette), David Mba, and Ensoniq VFX contain no ISSN errors. I believe that the dump analysis needs to be debugged before this task can be run. It is possibly telling that there are only 65 pages in the three ISSN error categories combined. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Page Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/WPC 106 dump has been updated to avoid reporting missing dash when the template automatically adds it to the displayed result, there are only 420 pages remaining compared to the 1315 initially. I could probably also remove reports for internal links to pages like ISSN 1175-5326 which exist, but even if they are reported, the bot won't fix anything there. With the current algorithm, a dry run modifies 115 pages on the 420.
--NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 12:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- That list looks much more reasonable. There are still some weird ones in there, like You Are Happy, where
|issn=
was being used in a {{WorldCat}} template, which doesn't support that parameter. Also, it looks like dashes, as in Iran–Iraq War and The Mauritius Command and Resonant inductive coupling, are also silently converted to hyphens by CS1 templates, so those don't need to be fixed and should be removed from the WPCleaner report.- I can also add an option to ignore such cases where the dash is automatically replaced, like I did for the missing hyphen. But is it a good idea to keep incorrect syntax just because the template itself will fix it ?
- For the non-existing parameter in a {{Worldcat}}, I think I will leave it like that and a hyphen will be added, there are only a few pages like that. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 14:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- In a case like Tytthaspis sedecimpunctata, will the bot/script apply the ISSN template, making the ISSN actually useful, or will it just replace the dash with a hyphen? – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Currently, it will simply replace the dash with a hyphen, but I can add a feature to use a template instead. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 14:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think replacing a plain-text ISSN with a template is a good idea in nearly every case.
-
- I don't want to rain on your parade, but at this point, it looks like a periodic supervised AWB run, combined with a bit more tweaking of the WPCleaner report, might be the best option. The risk of cosmetic edits by the bot (and AWB, unless it is watched carefully) is high. With considerably fewer than 100 pages fixable by the proposed bot, a script may be better. If you still want to get this task bot-flagged in order to avoid cluttering people's watchlists, of course, I would support that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I will try several modifications to limit the number of false positives in the generated list (which is good in itself), and we'll see then what is the best course of action. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 16:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- I don't want to rain on your parade, but at this point, it looks like a periodic supervised AWB run, combined with a bit more tweaking of the WPCleaner report, might be the best option. The risk of cosmetic edits by the bot (and AWB, unless it is watched carefully) is high. With considerably fewer than 100 pages fixable by the proposed bot, a script may be better. If you still want to get this task bot-flagged in order to avoid cluttering people's watchlists, of course, I would support that. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Currently, it will simply replace the dash with a hyphen, but I can add a feature to use a template instead. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 14:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
- Even if it means only fixing less than a 100 pages at the end, I'm still interested in running at least a test run. For the test run, if it's accepted, I will proceed one page at a time (after each modification, WPCleaner will ask me if it should proceed, so I will be able to check thoroughly before going to the next article). Running a script would be a good idea, but as no one is proposing to create it and run it (the list has been available for years), I think it's interesting to run WPCleaner on this. After the test run, we can still decide if it's interesting running it periodically or not. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 11:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} : can I do a test run? As explained, after each modification, WPCleaner will ask me if it should proceed, so I will check each edit before letting it do the next one. If it's ok, tell me how many modifications I can make. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 13:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
WikiCleanerBot 3
Operator: NicoV (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 09:40, Tuesday, April 2, 2019 (UTC)
Function overview: To fix some simple cases of square brackets without correct beginning.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Java (Wikipedia:WPCleaner)
Source code available: On Github (and especially algorithm 46)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Maintenance task for CW Error #46
Edit period(s): Twice a month, preceding the dump analysis that I already perform, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WikiCleanerBot.
Estimated number of pages affected: Probably a few hundreds (estimation, as only simple cases will be fixed in the list) for the first complete run (pages with such problems are listed in Check Wiki #46, which currently contains a list of 2420 pages), and probably no more than a few dozen after that on each run given the evolution of the number of pages in the list.
Namespace(s): Main namespace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No, cases that will be fixed are simple enough to fix them in each article.
Function details: The function will fix simple cases of problems detected by Check Wiki #46 (Square brackets without correct beginning). The cases identified so far are the following situations:
- an external link ending with 2 square brackets (
[https://... ...]]
), provided that it doesn't fall in the one of the following situations: remove the extra square bracket- it starts by 2 square brackets (
[[https://... ...]]
) - it contains another square bracket (
[https://... ...[...]]
) - there's a stray opening square bracket before in the line (
[...[https://... ...]]
)
- it starts by 2 square brackets (
- an internal link or a category ending with 4 square brackets (
[[...]]]]
): remove the extra 2 square brackets
You can tell me if it would be ok to add other fixes for #46 later if I find other cases where I'm sure of the fix.
I already ran this fix on frwiki (with eventually additional modifications), results can be seen in WikiCleanerBot's contributions ("Lien interne mal ouvert" is the French translation for this problem). For enwiki, I don't plan to have additional modifications (unless you think it's better to also fix some additional CW errors in the process).
For the test run, I can stop WPCleaner after a few modifications to let you check what the results are.
For the first articles in the list provided by Check Wiki #46, WPCleaner should do the following:
- 1 John 5: nothing, not a simple case (
[[First Epistle of John]] 4:11–12, 14–17]]
) - 10 nanometer: removing the extra square bracket by replacing
<ref>[http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~byu/papers/N01-SPIE-TPL.pdf triple patterning for 10nm metal]]</ref>
by<ref>[http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~byu/papers/N01-SPIE-TPL.pdf triple patterning for 10nm metal]</ref>
- 11AM (TV program): nothing, not a simple case (
[Vincent Smith (television presenter)|Vincent Smith]]
), but it may be a candidate for more ways of fixing ([XXX (YYY)|[XXX]]
replaced by[[XXX (YYY)|XXX]]
) in a later version - 12 Scorpii: nothing, not a simple case (
{{odlist | B=c<sup>1</sup>]]
) - 16-cell: nothing, not a simple case (
[<nowiki/>[4,2<sup>+</sup>,4]]
), and it would be a cosmetic fix only to remove a false positive - 1746 English cricket season: nothing, not a simple case (
*14 July - Addington & Bromley]]
) - 185th Air Refueling Wing: nothing, not a simple case (
the group received General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon]]s
) - ...
- 1970 Law on dangerousness and social rehabilitation: removing the extra square bracket by replacing twice
<ref name="BOE">[http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1970-854 Ley 16/1970, de 4 de agosto, sobre peligrosidad y rehabilitación social]]. Boletín oficial del estado español (B.O.E) nº187 de 6/8/1970. Incluye un PDF con el texto de la ley y su análisis jurídico]</ref>
by<ref name="BOE">[http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1970-854 Ley 16/1970, de 4 de agosto, sobre peligrosidad y rehabilitación social]. Boletín oficial del estado español (B.O.E) nº187 de 6/8/1970. Incluye un PDF con el texto de la ley y su análisis jurídico]</ref>
- 1970–71 Iraqi Central Premier League: removing the extra square bracket by replacing twice
<ref>[http://forum.kooora.com/f.aspx?t=3591389 Iraq 1970/71]]</ref>
by<ref>[http://forum.kooora.com/f.aspx?t=3591389 Iraq 1970/71]</ref>
Discussion
What happens in a case like
- J. Smith (2010) "Comment on "Do Shitzus have feelings", [J. Poodles, v. 4, iss. 4, pp. 4-8]" J. Poodles v. 19, iss. 3, pp. 134-134.
? Could it handle conversions to [ / ] Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Headbomb. With the current code, nothing happens as it doesn't respect the check that it doesn't contain another square bracket. So for a first run, it would simply be ignored. It may fall in the other fixes I could add for #46, but I would first have to try it to see if there are no situations where this replacement shouldn't be used. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 16:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @NicoV: Alright, then that case can always be handled separately. Approved for trial (50 edits).. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I run WPCleaner on a few pages, one at a time, and everything was good. I let it run on an extra dozen, and I found several articles with
Source: [Source: [https://int.soccerway.com/teams/romania/fc-dinamo-1948-sa-bucuresti/1775/ Soccerway]]
which was replaced bySource: [Source: [https://int.soccerway.com/teams/romania/fc-dinamo-1948-sa-bucuresti/1775/ Soccerway]
as specified, where the correct human fix would beSource: [https://int.soccerway.com/teams/romania/fc-dinamo-1948-sa-bucuresti/1775/ Soccerway]
. I wonder if I should make this an exception also (a stray [ before the external link, in the same line). What do you think? --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 07:36, 4 April 2019 (UTC)- I think those would be malfunctions, and that they need to be addressed, either by skipping those cases, or handling them correctly. But it is not at all clear to me that [Source: link] is something that needs to be 'fixed' in the first place, so unless a clear and compelling argument can be made, I say skip it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. I will modify WPCleaner to skip such cases, and I will run it on a few pages. I'll keep you posted. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 14:17, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think those would be malfunctions, and that they need to be addressed, either by skipping those cases, or handling them correctly. But it is not at all clear to me that [Source: link] is something that needs to be 'fixed' in the first place, so unless a clear and compelling argument can be made, I say skip it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I run WPCleaner on a few pages, one at a time, and everything was good. I let it run on an extra dozen, and I found several articles with
- @NicoV: Alright, then that case can always be handled separately. Approved for trial (50 edits).. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@NicoV: remember that you need to post the trial results here once they are completed. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb:, I ran WPCleaner for 49 edits (miscounted, stopped 1 too early), here are the results (comment of the edits is "v2.01b - Task 3 - WP:WCW project (Square brackets without correct beginning)"):
- First part mentioned above with 17 edits, where I detected the case with stray opening square bracket before the external link: I modified WPCleaner to apply no automatic fixing in such case, and updated the description above accordingly. I also fixed manually the few pages where the automatic fix wasn't the best one to do by removing the extra "Source: [".
- Second part with the extra 32 edits, which seems ok to me.
- The trial edits seem to confirm the estimated number of pages that will be modified if run on the entire list, a few hundreds. --NicoV (Talk on frwiki) 10:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
FastilyBot 14
Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:07, Wednesday, March 20, 2019 (UTC)
Function overview: Leave courtesy notifications for PROD'd files if the tagger has not done so.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Java
Source code available: after I write it
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 0-10 daily
Namespace(s): User talk
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Leaves courtesy notifications for PROD'd files if the tagger has not done so. This task is an extension to Task 6 and Task 12. -FASTILY 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
- Approved for trial (50 edits or 21 days). go ahead and trial and let us know how it goes. — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Shouldn't the bot follow redirects when leaving notifications? See User talk:The Singing Badger for example. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. This should be fixed now -FASTILY 08:04, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Fastily: Shouldn't the bot follow redirects when leaving notifications? See User talk:The Singing Badger for example. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
PkbwcgsBot 23
Operator: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:18, Monday, January 28, 2019 (UTC)
Function overview: The bot will fix pages with Template:RomanianSoccer with deprecated parameters. The pages with deprecated parameters are located at Category:RomanianSoccer template with deprecated parameters.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): One-time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 739
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will fix deprecated parameters in Template:RomanianSoccer. An example edit is located here. The bot is going to change the old_id
parameter to id
if id
is not defined in the template. For example,
* {{RomanianSoccer|old_id=a/achim_sebastian}}
is wrong because old_id
has no accompanying id
parameter. This was change in my later edit to * {{RomanianSoccer|id=a/achim_sebastian}}
which is correct. It is quite clear at Template:RomanianSoccer's documentation "The "old_id" parameter may contain an ID such as a/augustin_ionel, which is the ID portion of http://www.romaniansoccer.ro/players/a/augustin_ionel.shtml or http://www.statisticsfootball.com/players/a/augustin_ionel.shtml. This parameter is optional if the "id" parameter (or unnamed parameter "1") is used." Update: The "a/" before the name of the player with change to "97/" in the template as stated at Template:RomanianSoccer#Examples and the name will be reversed so "achim_sebastian" will become "sebastian-achim" so this task will also update the links. However, there may need to be some regex to have those changes.
Discussion
I got the URL updates wrong so I will stick with fixing the deprecated parameters. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits).. Pkbwcgs, please link to this BRFA in the edit summaries. This was actually a task that I was thinking of taking on with DFB a couple months ago but ultimately did not have the time, so I thank you for taking this on. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) was the trial completed? — xaosflux Talk 18:50, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
HostBot 9
Operator: Maximilianklein (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:50, Monday, January 7, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: https://github.com/notconfusing/hostbot-ai
Function overview: User:Jtmorgan and User:Maximilianklein have planned, and received consent to run an A/B experiment between the current version of HostBot and a newly developed-AI version. The AI version uses a machine-learning classifier based on ORES to prioritize which users should be invited to the TeaHouse whereas the current version uses rules. The point is to see if we can improve user retention by turning our attention to the most promising users.
The two versions would operate simultaneously. Both versions would log-in as "User:HostBot" so that the end-users would be blinded as to what process they were interacting with.
The A/B experiment would run for 75 days (calculated by statistical power analysis).
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:Teahouse#Experiment_test_using_AI_to_invite_users_to_Teahouse
Edit period(s): Hourly (AI-version) and Daily (rules-version)
Estimated number of pages affected: ~11,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: All technical details on meta:Research:ORES-powered_TeaHouse_Invites.
Discussion
Just posting here to confirm that I am excited to collaborating with Maximilianklein on this experiment. I've been wanting to improve HostBot's sampling criteria for a while now, and other Teahouse hosts have asked for it. J-Mo 19:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Thought I'd drop by to voice my support, both for the experiment and for Maximilianklein. During the earlier discussion, I posted a couple of question on their talk page and got both a timely and thoughtful reply. I'm also interested in learning about the outcomes of this experiment, looking forward to them! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- So are you looking to be approved for a 75-day trial? Primefac (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Maximilianklein and Jtmorgan: ^^ --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor:, a 75-day trial would be excellent, thank you. Maximilianklein (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: ^^ Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 11:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- @TheSandDoctor:, a 75-day trial would be excellent, thank you. Maximilianklein (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Maximilianklein and Jtmorgan: ^^ --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (75 days).. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
PkbwcgsBot 5
Operator: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 09:15, Thursday, December 13, 2018 (UTC)
Function overview: The bot will fix ISBN syntax per CW Error #69 (ISBN with incorrect syntax) and PMID syntax per CW Error #102 (PMID with incorrect syntax).
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Once a week
Estimated number of pages affected: 150 to 300 a week
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot is going to fix incorrect ISBN syntax per WP:ISBN. So, if the syntax is ISBN: 819345670X
, it will take off the colon and make it ISBN 819345670X
. The other case of incorrect ISBN syntax this bot is going to fix is when the ISBN number is preceded by "ISBN-10" or "ISBN-13". For example, in ISBN-10: 995341775X
, it will take off "-10:" and that will make it ISBN 995341775X
. The bot will only fix those two cases of ISBN syntax. Any other cases of incorrect ISBN syntax will not be fixed by the bot. The bot will also fix incorrect PMID syntax. So, for example, if it is PMID: 27401752
, it will take off the colon and convert it to PMID 27401752
per WP:PMID. It will not make it PMID 27401752
because that format is deprecated.
Discussion
Please make sure to avoid ISBNs within |title=
parameters of citation templates. Also, is there a reason that you are not proposing to use the {{ISBN}} template? Magic links have been deprecated and are supposed to go away at some point, although the WMF seems to be dragging their feet for some reason. There is another bot that converts magic links to templates, but if you can do it in one step, that would probably be good. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: The bot will convert to the {{ISBN}} template and it will not touch ISBNs in the title parameters of citations. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
- What about the PMID's? Creating more deprecated magic words isn't ideal. — xaosflux Talk 19:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I did say that was going to happen in my description that they will be converted to templates. However, now I need to code in RegEx and I have been trying to code that but my RegEx skills are unfortunately not very good. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I have tried coding in RegEx but I have gave up soon after as it is too difficult. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Pkbwcgs: After removing the colon you can use Anomie's regex from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 13:
\bISBN(?:\t| |&\#0*160;|&\#[Xx]0*[Aa]0;|\p{Zs})++((?:97[89](?:-|(?:\t| |&\#0*160;|&\#[Xx]0*[Aa]0;|\p{Zs}))?)?(?:[0-9](?:-|(?:\t| |&\#0*160;|&\#[Xx]0*[Aa]0;|\p{Zs}))?){9}[0-9Xx])\b
and\b(?:RFC|PMID)(?:\t| |&\#0*160;|&\#[Xx]0*[Aa]0;|\p{Zs})++([0-9]+)\b
, or you can adjust them to account for the colon. Primefac could advise if he made any changes to them. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)- @JJMC89: Thanks for the RegEx. I will be able to remove the colon easily. It is the RegEx for the ISBN that I struggled with. Thanks for providing it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is saying "nested identifier" and it is not replacing when I tested the RegEx on my own AWB account without making any edits. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Pkbwcgs: The regex comes from PHP, but AWB (C#) doesn't support possessive quantifiers (e.g.
++
). Replacing++
with+
in the regex should work. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:57, 15 December 2018 (UTC)- @JJMC89: I have tested the find RegEx on my AWB account without making any edits and it works. I also worked out the replace RegEx and it is
{{ISBN|$1}}
. That works too. I think this is ready for a trial. I will also request a small extension for this task which is to clean out Category:Pages using ISBN magic links and Category:Pages using PMID magic links. That will be PkbwcgsBot 7. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)- I adjusted the RegEx to accommodate ISBNs with a colon. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- This diff from my account is good and perfectly justifies what this bot is going to do for this task. Is this good enough? Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is what it will look like if the bot handles an ISBN with the "ISBN-10" prefix. That diff is also from my account. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} There is a huge backlog at Wikipedia:WikiProject Check Wikipedia/ISBN errors at the moment. This task can cut down on that backlog through replacing the colon with the correct syntax. It has also been waiting for two weeks. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- This is what it will look like if the bot handles an ISBN with the "ISBN-10" prefix. That diff is also from my account. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- This diff from my account is good and perfectly justifies what this bot is going to do for this task. Is this good enough? Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- I adjusted the RegEx to accommodate ISBNs with a colon. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: I have tested the find RegEx on my AWB account without making any edits and it works. I also worked out the replace RegEx and it is
- @Pkbwcgs: The regex comes from PHP, but AWB (C#) doesn't support possessive quantifiers (e.g.
- It is saying "nested identifier" and it is not replacing when I tested the RegEx on my own AWB account without making any edits. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: Thanks for the RegEx. I will be able to remove the colon easily. It is the RegEx for the ISBN that I struggled with. Thanks for providing it. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Pkbwcgs: After removing the colon you can use Anomie's regex from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 13:
- I have tried coding in RegEx but I have gave up soon after as it is too difficult. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I did say that was going to happen in my description that they will be converted to templates. However, now I need to code in RegEx and I have been trying to code that but my RegEx skills are unfortunately not very good. Pkbwcgs (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Approved for trial (25 edits). --slakr\ talk / 20:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
- The first thirteen edits are here. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for extended trial (25 edits). OK try again. — xaosflux Talk 04:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- 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 on the trialing? — xaosflux Talk 18:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Bots that have completed the trial period
DannyS712 bot 16
Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 06:21, Tuesday, March 19, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: After a category is listified as the result of a CfD, add links to that list in the "see also" sections of the pages
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Archive 17#See also bot
Edit period(s): As needed
Estimated number of pages affected: Probably <50 per run
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Add links to the see also section of pages. If approved for trial, I would like to trial this with Category:Battles won by Indigenous peoples of the Americas, which originally prompted the idea.
Discussion
- Will you be creating see also sections just for this if they don't exist? — xaosflux Talk 13:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: process wise, how would you know it was time to do this task and what the inputs should be? — xaosflux Talk 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Would this only apply when the list is a newly created page? — xaosflux Talk 14:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: yes, I would do it only after a new list is created. Process: Create list (using User:DannyS712/Cat links), remove the category from the pages (using cat-a-lot), add the list to the see also section (bot run, manually activated) --DannyS712 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: How would you know that the trigger for this task (that A CfD was closed as listify) and the prerequisite (the new list was actually created) has occurred? — xaosflux Talk 14:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: CfDs closed as listified are listed at WP:CFD/W/M for the list to be created. I would check both the CfD and the list before running --DannyS712 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK so each run will be manually started only after validation, seems OK. If for some reason the CfD closes with a similar result to listify in to an existing list (merge into an existing list) this could still be useful, but you would need to ensure that there is not an existing link on the page (anywhere) to the list before adding it. — xaosflux Talk 14:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: CfDs closed as listified are listed at WP:CFD/W/M for the list to be created. I would check both the CfD and the list before running --DannyS712 (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: How would you know that the trigger for this task (that A CfD was closed as listify) and the prerequisite (the new list was actually created) has occurred? — xaosflux Talk 14:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: yes, I would do it only after a new list is created. Process: Create list (using User:DannyS712/Cat links), remove the category from the pages (using cat-a-lot), add the list to the see also section (bot run, manually activated) --DannyS712 (talk) 14:14, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (100 edits). (Please trial with 2 or 3 lists, not to exceed 100 edits in total). — xaosflux Talk 14:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial started - first 57 edits made to add List of Historic Hotels of America. I did it manually at first, to ensure that I caught all of the edge cases - if in doubt, skip. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: what kind of skips are you running in to, and how will this be accounted for in 'automatic' mode? — xaosflux Talk 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: For example I skipped The Broadmoor, because it didn't have a see also section. I'm also skipping anything where the see also section starts with a portal link. I'm doing this by just replacing the see also section heading with the same heading plus a line for the list, as long as the section doesn't start with a portal link. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: On several other pages you appear to have continued even if it didn't have a see also section, creating one. What is the expected behavior? — xaosflux Talk 15:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, it’s been a couple days since I ran the first part of the trial - I was going based on memory. Let me check the regex and get back to you. Sorry, —DannyS712 (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: It was: replace
== ?See also ?==
with==See also== * [[List of Historic Hotels of America]]
, and also, if the pages does not contain==See also==
, replace== ?References ?==
with==See also== * [[List of Historic Hotels of America]] ==References==
. Both also skip on the portal template. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: On several other pages you appear to have continued even if it didn't have a see also section, creating one. What is the expected behavior? — xaosflux Talk 15:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: For example I skipped The Broadmoor, because it didn't have a see also section. I'm also skipping anything where the see also section starts with a portal link. I'm doing this by just replacing the see also section heading with the same heading plus a line for the list, as long as the section doesn't start with a portal link. --DannyS712 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: what kind of skips are you running in to, and how will this be accounted for in 'automatic' mode? — xaosflux Talk 14:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Trial started - first 57 edits made to add List of Historic Hotels of America. I did it manually at first, to ensure that I caught all of the edge cases - if in doubt, skip. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
GreenC bot 11
Operator: GreenC (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 17:02, Sunday, March 3, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): GNU Awk
Source code available: TBU
Function overview: Add {{Unreferenced}}
template to target articles. {{Unreferenced}}
currently has about 220,000 instances the bot will add about 25,000 more or about a 10% increase.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot_to_add_Template:Unreferenced_and_Template:No_footnotes_to_pages_(single_run) (RFC)
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 25,000 (est)
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
- Implement the RFC
- How the bot works is described at User:GreenC bot/Job 11/How
- The bot previously processed 18,000 articles listing which articles it would tag. Available at User:GreenC/data/noref
- The bot previously made 20 trial edits [10] however the addition of
{{No footnotes}}
should be ignored as that was done before the results of the RFC changed the bot scope to{{Unreferenced}}
. - Per the RFC, discussion is open at Template_talk:Unreferenced#Adding_a_|source=_argument for adding
|bot=GreenC bot
argument to{{Unreferenced}}
Discussion
Informing previous BRFA participants of new BRFA: @Xaosflux, Headbomb, Ajpolino, MZMcBride, SD0001, Xover, DannyS712, and Wugapodes: -- GreenC 17:24, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- BAG notes, I encouraged GreenC to restart this BRFA. Avoiding FP's is important, and this is not an "easy" filter. The prior RfC is supportive in general of the tagging - but it has to be accurate. There could be a small margin of error, but we need to focus on reducing it. Feedback on FP avoidance and examples is extremely welcome below, thank you! — xaosflux Talk 17:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi GreenC, for Skip if section named "External links", "References", "Sources", "Further reading", "Bibliography", "Notes", "Footnotes"
if you have that as equals can you change it to contains? I've run across pages with sections such as "Literature and References". — xaosflux Talk 17:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I've had a look at a dozen or so of the articles identified at User:GreenC/data/noref. Here are a few articles that point to ways to potentially adjust the selection criteria:
- Vemuri – this is a surname article and it doesn't need sources as it's mostly serves as a disambiguation page
- Dom Aleixo Timorese – not unsourced. I guess it needs to be taken into account that the bibliography section might have a different title ("Literature" in this case). Also, if articles with external links are to be excluded, then articles with {{Authority control}} will need to be excluded as well.
- Callichirus – similarly, it has a {{Taxonbar}}.
- Fukushima's Theorem – it has hand-formatted citations in a section called "Journal articles"
- Cordichelys – weren't stubs meant to be excluded?
- There are quite a few articles on films, TV episodes, books or music albums (like Parade (Bottom) or The Platinum Collection (Blue album)) that indeed list no sources, but a fair amount of whose content – plot synopses, track listings and the like – are obviously sourced to the publication that is the subject of the article. I don't think tagging with {{unsourced}} is a good idea, but there certainly is an underlying issue and that's the fact that they don't use any secondary sources. A more appropriate tag would probably be {{Primary sources}}, though it use normally entails some form of editorial judgement. – Uanfala (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- It will now filter anything with "surname" in a category name. Normally it would have been filtered out by one of the index templates in Category:Set index article templates but the page has none which is in error.
- {{Authority control}} can be filtered. "Literature" can be added to the section title list.
- {{Taxonbar}}, {{Authority control}} and others are now removed via Category:External link templates to linked data sites with reciprocal links
- Section titles with "Articles" are now filtered (the section title words are case and plural sensitive)
- It does not tag articles marked as stubs in an abundance of caution but that doesn't preclude stubby articles without sources can't or shouldn't be tagged. The article is unsourced and should be tagged. It was actually tagged previously, but some sort of deletion-by-redirect reversal caused them to be lost. The bot uncovered this problem.
- There is no source, primary or otherwise. The presumption of a source is not the same as a literal source ie. what is the name of the source, where is it located, who is the author, what date was it accessed etc.. all that is missing. There is no verifiable source. That is why we have this tag, so the community can be made aware of articles like this that need a source. -- GreenC 18:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} - the bot is ready to begin trials. -- GreenC 14:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits or 14 days). Go ahead a run a trial with your adjusted parameters. — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. diffs. -- GreenC 18:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I skimmed these pretty quickly so I may have missed some. Thoughts:
- Sawsan, looks like the same problem as Vemuri discussed above. Can you also just skip articles with "Given name" categories? (same for Gaurav)
- Municipalities of Central Finland is basically a list article, but I can't think of a clever way to skip it. Maybe it's best articles like that have a reference anyway...
- Communes_of_the_Aisne_department is a bona fide list. Maybe you can skip articles with "List" in the category names? This one was in Category:Lists of communes of France. (Members of the 5th Dáil and Duchess of Brabant (by marriage) would also be skipped with this).
- Otherwise looks great! Ajpolino (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Given-name articles have sources (see the Category tree for example Abdul Hamid or William or Alexander). List-of articles also have sources eg. List of counties in New York. -- GreenC 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ajpolino: Courtesy ping ^ --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:58, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that any kind of article ought not have references, but we pitched this in the RfC as a conservative bot skipping stubs, lists, et al. So if it's not too much trouble (and maybe it is), I think it'd be best if we skipped lists even if they aren't titled "List of..."... Also someone added a source to one of the articles you tagged in your most recent test run. So that's somewhat validating. That was kind of the point of all this. Thanks for all your work! Ajpolino (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- There was no 'pitch' to skip lists nor can I think of any reason to they have sources just list any other article. -- GreenC 18:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also, the most recent run suggests there will be around 10,000 edits not the 25,000 as originally thought, due to the additions of filters suggested by Uanfala. Each filter causes a significant reduction. To put 10,000 in perspective that is 0.00175 of all articles (about one-fifth of one percent) or an increase of
{{unreferenced}}
by 5%. These to me are conservative numbers. -- GreenC 18:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)- Ah, sorry to be stuck on this point, but just to clarify does the bot in its current configuration skip articles that have titles "List of..."? I think that was in your original exclusion list (per the old BRFA) but perhaps you've decided against it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah indeed it is filtering 'list of' articles, sorry! Not sure what I was thinking, loosing track. OK, more filtering can be be done on the category layer as you suggested. My code notes say the reason for filtering 'list of' articles it was picking up too many false positives. Also rethinking Given-name articles, those also are already filtered by way of the Set Index templates and those showing up here are edge cases that are not properly templated, so they should also be filtered on the category level. Thanks for your better memory keeping this straight :) -- GreenC 22:19, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry to be stuck on this point, but just to clarify does the bot in its current configuration skip articles that have titles "List of..."? I think that was in your original exclusion list (per the old BRFA) but perhaps you've decided against it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- Given-name articles have sources (see the Category tree for example Abdul Hamid or William or Alexander). List-of articles also have sources eg. List of counties in New York. -- GreenC 21:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- I skimmed these pretty quickly so I may have missed some. Thoughts:
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} - above new filters added, ready for next trial, recommend another 50. -- GreenC 14:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for extended trial (300 edits). @GreenC: I'd like to see a bigger trial here, odd cases can be hard to find until this has more volume. — xaosflux Talk 17:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Ajpolino and anyone else: Trial complete. The bot's contrib history is mixed in with other tasks so I made User:GreenC/data/noref/trial March 28 for 300. Feel free to edit this page with notes and comments. I have not checked yet but appreciate help finding problems and possible solutions. It was about 100k articles. -- GreenC 15:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Made it through the first 50. In general looks great! There was one disambiguation page that has a category that's a sub-cat of Category:Disambiguation pages (I didn't know that category had sub-categories; learn something new every day). It doesn't need a ref, so maybe you could either skip all sub-cats of Category:Disambiguation pages, or if it's easier just skip categories with "Disambiguation" in the name? Annotated it on your list. Might get a chance to look through the rest of them in a bit. Ajpolino (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Trial complete. In the future, please remember to use the template (or others relevant) GreenC. Otherwise, this sort of thing can go unnoticed (even when directly viewing this BRFA) and lead to unnecessary waits. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if Line of succession to the Moroccan throne should have been tagged - it clearly says "According to..." before the info given. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:25, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- More analysis:
- San Roque Catholic School - it shouldn't have both "no references" and "citation needed" tags on the same page
- Neighborhoods in Key West, Florida - it starts with "The following is a list", which you can use to sort out such pages
- Same with Kart Racing Championships
- Georgian monarchs family tree of Bagrationi dynasty of Kakheti - not an article (no prose) so probably shouldn't be tagged
- Battle of Beijing - dab page (though not tagged as dab), is there any way to skip that?
- Zigor (opera) - Last sentence says "Information extracted from the libretto that accompanies the recording of Gernika, realised in November and December 2007. Symphonic Orchestra of Euskadi, Choir Society of Bilbao, Jose Ramon Encinar (musical director). DECCA, 2 CD (0028947667957)"
- Senegalese Popular Bloc - revision tagged was Special:Permalink/889949685, which said "Source: Zuccarelli, François. La vie politique sénégalaise (1940-1988). Paris: CHEAM, 1988."
- Englische Schulredensarten für den Sprachenunterricht - not under a proper section heading, but has a clear source ("Rückoldt, Armin: Englische Schulredensarten für den Sprachunterricht. 2. Edition. Leipzig, Roßberg'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1909. 80 Pgs.")
- Outline of statistics - outlines generally don't have sources themselves, since they are just guides to other pages
- 1985 Quebec school board elections - sourced; ends with "Source: Sandy Senyk, "School board elections drew low voter turnout," Montreal Gazette, 11 December 1985, A5."
- Lewkowicz - surname pages are another type of disambiguation pages
- Burials at the Novodevichy Cemetery - just a list of links to other articles, probably shouldn't be tagged
- Sherlock Yack - last section (Sherlock Yack#Datasheet) ends with "According to the "Sherlock Yack – Zoo Detective" collection Michel Amelin and Colonel Mustard, published by Editions Milan. © Milan – 2010"
- Marie Lesueur - multiple inline sources referenced ("Almanach des spectacles for 1820 stated", "1822 Revue des spectacles described")
- Bhagwat - family names are a type of dab pages
- Transports Montreux–Vevey–Riviera - sourced, ends with "Details of the report were published in "24 Heures", Riviera-Chablais edition dated 21–22 June 2008."
- Mount Langya - untagged dab page
- Deaths in October 1966 - such lists are usually not sourced
- I have looked through all 301 pages edited, and there are a number of false positives. I didn't list a few of them because they were the same issue (list, dab, etc) but a number had inlice sources or a note at the bottom explaining the source and were still tagged. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712, I have copied your comments as in-line annotations to the list. When I am done responding/fixing there will ping. -- GreenC 00:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @DannyS712: - inline response to above. Feel free to continue the inline discussions it helps me to keep it organized in one place/line. -- GreenC 02:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Because of the number of false positives discovered by DannyS712, and new filters added, I think it would be a good idea to next test with a dry run ie. post a list of 300 like before, but it won't make the final step of adding the tag, only listing which articles it would tag. I'll start this process now and post results when ready. -- GreenC 14:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ajpolino and DannyS712: Next round dry-run trial results to test the latest filters: User:GreenC/data/noref/trial April 3 for 300 -- GreenC 15:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I checked all 300, added inline comments, and added new filters. Two unable to resolve: 1920 Toronto municipal election and Gaius (biblical figure) (might be OK to tag). -- GreenC 16:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Started another 300. -- GreenC 16:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @GreenC: I didn't get to it between the "another 300" and the next dry-run trial, but I analyzed the trial April 3 for 300 link to added - see my notes there --DannyS712 (talk) 05:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
New trial results: User:GreenC/data/noref/trial April 4 for 300 -- GreenC 16:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
JJMC89 bot III
Operator: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 07:23, Sunday, February 24, 2019 (UTC)
Function overview: Process WP:CFD/W and its subpages excluding WP:CFD/W/M
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: cfd.py cfdw.py
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#Categories for Discussion bot (permalink)
Edit period(s): Hourly
Estimated number of pages affected: Millions
Namespace(s): Many
Exclusion compliant: delete/move: no; edit: yes
Adminbot: Yes
Function details: Process WP:CFD/W and its subpages excluding WP:CFD/W/M, moving and deleting categories and re-categorizing pages as specified
Notes
- This task takes over work being done by Cydebot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4), operated by Cyde (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search).
- Notices: WP:AN, WT:CFD, User talk:Cyde
Discussion
Since Cyde is inactive, I am requesting t:o take over the task so that bugs can be fixed and feature requests implemented. Additionally, Cydebot will stop functioning at the end of March due to the Toolforge Trusty deprecation unless it is migrated to Stretch. The code is the based on the code that Cydebot is running. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- You say it's "based on" Cydebot's code, presumably meaning that you made changes. Can you please summarize the effects of these changes? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Fluxbot is already approved for this task. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Pppery: As far as I can tell the last edit Fluxbot made under task1 (cfds) was in July 2017. Pinging @Xaosflux who may be able to fill us in --DannyS712 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- As an AWB bot, Fluxbot doesn't operate without operator intervention. It also isn't an adminbot. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, @JJMC89.
- In principle, I very much welcome idea of a new bot with extended functionality. (There are some major gaps in the current feature set).. However, I think that @Black Falcon was a bit hasty in posting the request at WP:BOTREQ when the discussion at WT:Categories_for_discussion/Working#Cydebot_replacement had few participants (I think only 4) and had not been widely notified; the suggested extra functionality needs more discussion.
- However, it now turns out that a replacement is needed soon, so thanks to JJMC89 for stepping up in the nick of time.
- So I hope that any new bot will run initially with the same functionality as CydeBot. Any enhancements need a clear consensus, which we don't yet have. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Deleting, merging, and renaming (i.e. moving) categories, as specified, with appropriate edit summaries.
- Deleting the old category with an appropriate deletion summary.
- In the case of renaming, removing the CfD notice from the renamed category.
Ideally, it would also do some or all of the following:
- Process the /Large and /Retain subpages.
- Accept manual input when a category redirect should be created—for example, by recognizing leading text when a redirect is wanted, such as * REDIRECT Category:Foo to Category:Bar.
- Recognize and update category code in transcluded templates. This would need to be discussed/tested to minimize errors and false positives.
- Recognize and update incoming links to the old category. This would need to be discussed/tested to minimize errors and false positives.
-- Black Falcon (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC), Wikipedia:Bot requests#Categories for Discussion bot
- @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for pinging me, and I don't disagree with you, fundamentally. More participation would undoubtedly have been better, and I probably should not have assumed many people watchlisted WP:CFD/W, but all the manual work required to close out Cydebot's processing was becoming quite tiresome after two months. In terms of the functionality I requested, only the last three items are enhancements compared to what Cydebot currently does or did when it was functioning properly, and I did note the last two needed more discussion/testing. As I mentioned at WP:BOTREQ, I would be happy if a bot did just the first three items properly. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Black Falcon.
- I haven't so far seen anything on the list of suggested improvements, which I would dislike, and I see much I am v keen on.
- In particular, the work required to close out CydeBot's efforts is v onerous, and I dearly wish that could be improved. I have been cleaning up after WP:CFD 2019 February 16#North_Macedonia, which renamed ~650 categories, and so far it has taken me about 8 hours to process about 400 of those. There has to be a better way somehow.
- I agree that the redirects thing should be simple. However, the precise details of what a bot would do in next two cases needs a lot of scrutiny. It would be easy for an ill-specified bot to wreak much havoc in templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- This BRFA is to take over Cydebot's current functionality. The enhancements, particularly the last two points, are out of scope. After this is up and running (with any bugs are worked out), I'll be happy to look at making enhancements that have consensus. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, @JJMC89. Sounds great. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Understood, and thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: Thanks for pinging me, and I don't disagree with you, fundamentally. More participation would undoubtedly have been better, and I probably should not have assumed many people watchlisted WP:CFD/W, but all the manual work required to close out Cydebot's processing was becoming quite tiresome after two months. In terms of the functionality I requested, only the last three items are enhancements compared to what Cydebot currently does or did when it was functioning properly, and I did note the last two needed more discussion/testing. As I mentioned at WP:BOTREQ, I would be happy if a bot did just the first three items properly. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
{{BAG assistance needed}} I would like to get this up and running before Cydebot stops functioning. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:32, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- Note: Cyde has migrated Cydebot to Stretch, so it is no longer in danger of dying at the end of the month. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: I suspect there could be issues with both of these bots trying to run the same page on top of each other - do you want to proceed as a backup plan, or do you want to try to work in tandem going forward? — xaosflux Talk 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I'm not sure, but there could be. It would probably be best to disable Cydebot since Cyde isn't fixing any of the bugs, which is the original reason it was requested for someone else to take over the task. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Cydebot stopped running more than 24h ago, and we are currently paralyzed with categories. It were great if this request could be approved.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with @Ymblanter. Please can we make the switchover ASAP? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. Cydebot stopped running more than 24h ago, and we are currently paralyzed with categories. It were great if this request could be approved.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I'm not sure, but there could be. It would probably be best to disable Cydebot since Cyde isn't fixing any of the bugs, which is the original reason it was requested for someone else to take over the task. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: I suspect there could be issues with both of these bots trying to run the same page on top of each other - do you want to proceed as a backup plan, or do you want to try to work in tandem going forward? — xaosflux Talk 19:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: do you have "human friendly" documentation (e.g. what you will do, when you will do it, and under what conditions) for this? Since this bot is going to almost entirely be edits and actions you are responsible for, but will be triggered by other admins - it should be clear to other admins what their requests will do. — xaosflux Talk 20:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: If the information at WP:CFD/AI and WP:CFD/W, including the HTML comment, aren't sufficient I can write something more detailed. The intent is to function as Cydebot is intended to function. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: did you have concerns that getting started under those "rules" would be an issues (would it be worse then just not running at all?) — xaosflux Talk 21:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- (ec) @Xaosflux: Cydebot has done its job almost unchanged for ~13 years. AFAIK, the only significant change was when category pages became movable in 2014. So the bot's functions are stable and well understood by the admins who instruct it. Since JJMC89's bot is designed to be a drop-in-replacement, I don't see any need for more docs as a precondition -- provided the new bot passes its test, without which this discussion is moot anyway.
- Of course, if more functions are added, then docs will be appropriate. But right now a backlog is building up, so we need a bot and need it urgently. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: If the information at WP:CFD/AI and WP:CFD/W, including the HTML comment, aren't sufficient I can write something more detailed. The intent is to function as Cydebot is intended to function. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (250 edits). (edits/action) OK, do a short trial for proof of concept. — xaosflux Talk 23:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. The trial was run on this version of WP:CFD/W. edits (deleted) logs Since the bot isn't an admin yet, categories were tagged for deletion instead of deleted. Some of them got tagged multiple times, but this is just an artifact of not being an admin and me stopping and starting the script to limit the trial edits. It has the same problem that Cydebot does where it doesn't delete (tag for deletion) the original category like it should. This should happen right after it finishes emptying the category. I think the issue is either caching or MediaWiki thinks the category still has members. (It checks that the category is empty before trying to delete.) You'll see for the categories being emptied, if the script is run again it will delete (tag for deletion) the second time around. This doesn't happen for moves/merges since there is a check that the destination category does not exist at the start of processing. (It will always exist a second time around.) This is something I can work on fixing. The fix could be 1) adding a delay before checking that the original category is empty, 2) moving categories without leaving a redirect, or 3) removing the check that the destination category must exist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Awesome! I have two thoughts, and hopefully they are both quick fixes. First, the summary should link only to the daily log page, not the section—partly, this would be to keep the summary shorter (which will be important when dealing with long category names), and partly because the section name is not always the same as the category name (e.g. group nominations). Second, and more importantly, moving categories should be done without leaving a redirect. Another bot automatically recategorizes any pages placed in a redirected category, and so auto-creating category redirects dramatically increases the likelihood for miscategorization—see WT:CFD/W#Cydebot replacement for just a few examples. This will take care of the issue in cases of renaming but not merging, where solutions 1 or 3 may be needed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon: Changing the edit summary is easy. Personally, I dislike having to find the correct section when a daily log is linked without a section. The code doesn't assume that the section is the name of the category. It looks for the category as a heading or a link to the category in nomination part of each discussion on the daily log page and links to that section. I don't think there is a danger of running out of space in the edit summary, but if it is the appearance, what about piping it like
[[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/log/<date>#Section|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/log/<date>]]
? In not, I'll just use the link directly from CFDW. Something like this should suppress redirects when moving. Since we're moving without leaving a redirect, I could just delete the category regardless of it it has members for merge/empty. Otherwise, I will have to do some live testing figure out a good delay before checking if it is empty. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)- @JJMC89: Many thanks for running the trial. That looks good.
- I presume that the inclusion of section links in the edit summaries is an artefact of me having left the section links in the WP:CFDW pages: here[11] and [12].
- I did so because I had noticed that CydeBot just used whatever was in that header, and it seemed to me that there is no advantage in omitting them now that the length of edit summaries is almost unconstrained. However, I had not foreseen that it would coincide with the bot trial, so sorry for any confusion.
- I don't see any benefit in piping the summaries to hide the section link. That just wastes space in the summary and misleads the readers.
- As to redirects, there are many situations where it is appropriate to have them, and it is much easier (and less error-prone) to delete the un-needed redirects than to create them when omitted. Personally, I would favour a flexible approach with some new language of bot instruction. So instead of an abrupt change from always-on to always-off, we need some discussion on how best to handle them.
- The big picture is that on both edit summaries and redirects, JJMC89's bot seems to be behaving exactly as CydeBot does. @Black Falcon, I thought we had had agreed to leave the possibility of changes to the bot's behaviour for a separate discussion? I agree that we need some changes, but I don't agree that the issues in either case are quite as you describe them, and I am disappointed to see them being raised here and now. They both need more discussion at WT:CFDW, with more people involved.
- So please can we keep this process focused on the v urgent task of getting a drop-in replacement for the now apparently-defunct Cydebot? That was the basis on which Xaosflux authorised this trial, so I am surprised to see proposed changes.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Section links do get carried over from CFDW; however, I did add a feature to try to add section links when not provided because I find them helpful. (See some details in my reply to Black Falcon above.) Based on Cydebot's code, Cydebot is supposed to be deleting the redirects, but it isn't. My bot inherited that issue since it uses the same code for that. What we do with the redirects right now isn't a big concern for me. A granular system can be worked out later. For now, I can either keep doing what Cydebot has been doing or fix the code to delete the redirects. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also do not think redirects should be indiscriminately deleted. We are checking the backlinks anyway, and deleting a redirect takes much less time than checking backlinks anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please can we just stick for now with what Cydebot was actually doing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is exactly what my remark was about.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, @Ymblanter. Indeed it was, and I meant to acknowledge that but didn't. (I'm a bit sleepy today). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is exactly what my remark was about.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please can we just stick for now with what Cydebot was actually doing? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I also do not think redirects should be indiscriminately deleted. We are checking the backlinks anyway, and deleting a redirect takes much less time than checking backlinks anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @BrownHairedGirl: As far as I can tell, auto-creating tens of thousands of cat-redirects was never an approved function for Cydebot, and a bot should not be mass-creating pages when there is such a high error rate. I agree that there some situations where a cat-redirect is appropriate but strongly disagree that it is
much easier (and less error-prone) to delete the un-needed redirects than to create them when omitted
. It is, in my experience (having spent countless hours deleting inappropriate cat-redirects), more time-consuming to properly delete a page than to undelete it or just type {{Category redirect|Foo}}, and the risk of error is inherently greater when an action is necessary to avoid errors (i.e. deleting an inappropriate cat-redirect) than when an action is optionally helpful (i.e. creating an appropriate cat-redirect). - @Ymblanter: Re: checking backlinks, unforrtunately, I think that will continue to have to be performed manually regardless of whether a cat-redirect is retained. A bot may be able to help, but I don't see a bot being able to account for and fix all possible scenarios of incoming links. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @JJMC89: I'm sorry, my intention was not to create more work for you. I will be appreciative of what you're doing however the code ends up, but I struggle with including a function that was never approved to begin with. In general, I've always struggled with the idea of bots auto-creating pages without narrow parameters and/or human input. As you pointed out, Cydebot was not supposed to be leaving redirects but started to do so at some point, and for very good reason in my view. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon, Leaving redirects is a normal function of page moves. It is appropriate in some cases, inappropriate in others, with lots of grey in between. I personally think you are being way too absolutist about this, and that there are better solutions than simply disabling all creation of redirects. That's why any change needs to be discussed.
- But this page is not the place to be having that discussion.
- And the effect of your insistence on using this discussion to change the behaviour of the bot is to delay the approval of the new bot at a point when the old bot is apparently gone.
- Please can you explain why you object to having a proper consensus-forming discussion on this, e.g. at WT:CFDW? And why instead you are trying to use BRFA to unilaterally force a change in the way that the bot had worked for nearly 5 years? This is not the way that consensus is built. } --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Categories are not the same as other pages when it comes to leaving redirects after moves, because bots patrol cat-redirects and move any contents into the target category. When inappropriate cat-redirects are created, this leads to pages being miscategorized.
- Please don't misunderstand me, I do agree that there is "lots of grey in between". Between the two extremes of clearly appropriate cat-redirects (e.g. hyphen-to-dash redirects) and clearly inappropriate cat-redirects (acronym-to-full name redirects), there are many others that are harder to categorize and even more that are better judged based on usefulness than appropriateness. This is precisely why, in my view, a bot should not be mass-creating cat-redirects without human intervention.
- I do not object to a consensus-forming discussion, and I am agree we should probably continue this discussion elsewhere. What I do object to is purposely retaining a bug that performs a function was never approved in the first place. When it comes to auto-creation of pages, consensus historically has been to take the more cautious approach that minimizes the likelihood of errors. And from a BRFA standpoint, it is simply not feasible to demonstrate that the bug results in an acceptably low error rate. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon, when the bot has been doing that for five years, it's a WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. A discussion may produce a different result, but it does need a discussion.
- Having the bot not create redirects would also create a high error rate. I am very well aware of what RussBot does, and why ambiguous redirects should not be retained, but simply switching from one binary option to another creates as many problems as it solves. Describing the current process as a bug with a simple fix misrepresents a complex reality.
- so ... please can you clarify whether you oppose or support JJMC89's bot going live to do exactly as Cydebot did? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I do not think there is a "simple fix", but I think not creating redirects is a better fix and disagree it would "create as many problems as it solves". I acknowledge that this will result in some appropriate redirects not being created, which inconveniences navigation. However, the alternative results in inappropriate redirects being created, which produces actual errors through miscategorization. I would rather take inconvenience over outright errors. And, yes, we can consider other (non-binary) options, but those have not been tried before and would need to be discussed and tested.
- Regarding consensus... a lack of any alternative is not indicative of consensus—implicit or otherwise. Quite simply, a malfunctioning bot was better than none at all. So, in response to your ultimate question, I will not oppose JJMC89's bot going live no matter what. My preference remains for the bot to do what Cydebot was approved to do, and not to continue mass page-creation on the basis of inertia stemming from an unfixed bug, but ultimately I will defer to BAG on the appropriate course of action. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- It's bit tedious that @Black Falcon persists in describing as a "bug" something for which there is no consensus on optimal behaviour. I have seen no evidence that CydeBot was approved either to create redirects or not to create redirects:WP:Bots/Requests for approval/Cydebot_4 does not mention the possibility of redirects, either in the proposal or in the discussion. CydeBot was approved long before category page became movable, and its actions since moving was enabled have conformed to the default process for moving pages, i.e. leave a redirect.
- This is simply an issue which has not been resolved since category pages became movable in 2014. It needs a consensus, but consensus-building is not helped by one editor trying to sway BAG by describing the bot's failure to conform to their personal preference as a "bug". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Section links do get carried over from CFDW; however, I did add a feature to try to add section links when not provided because I find them helpful. (See some details in my reply to Black Falcon above.) Based on Cydebot's code, Cydebot is supposed to be deleting the redirects, but it isn't. My bot inherited that issue since it uses the same code for that. What we do with the redirects right now isn't a big concern for me. A granular system can be worked out later. For now, I can either keep doing what Cydebot has been doing or fix the code to delete the redirects. — JJMC89 (T·C) 08:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Black Falcon: Changing the edit summary is easy. Personally, I dislike having to find the correct section when a daily log is linked without a section. The code doesn't assume that the section is the name of the category. It looks for the category as a heading or a link to the category in nomination part of each discussion on the daily log page and links to that section. I don't think there is a danger of running out of space in the edit summary, but if it is the appearance, what about piping it like
- Awesome! I have two thoughts, and hopefully they are both quick fixes. First, the summary should link only to the daily log page, not the section—partly, this would be to keep the summary shorter (which will be important when dealing with long category names), and partly because the section name is not always the same as the category name (e.g. group nominations). Second, and more importantly, moving categories should be done without leaving a redirect. Another bot automatically recategorizes any pages placed in a redirected category, and so auto-creating category redirects dramatically increases the likelihood for miscategorization—see WT:CFD/W#Cydebot replacement for just a few examples. This will take care of the issue in cases of renaming but not merging, where solutions 1 or 3 may be needed. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. The trial was run on this version of WP:CFD/W. edits (deleted) logs Since the bot isn't an admin yet, categories were tagged for deletion instead of deleted. Some of them got tagged multiple times, but this is just an artifact of not being an admin and me stopping and starting the script to limit the trial edits. It has the same problem that Cydebot does where it doesn't delete (tag for deletion) the original category like it should. This should happen right after it finishes emptying the category. I think the issue is either caching or MediaWiki thinks the category still has members. (It checks that the category is empty before trying to delete.) You'll see for the categories being emptied, if the script is run again it will delete (tag for deletion) the second time around. This doesn't happen for moves/merges since there is a check that the destination category does not exist at the start of processing. (It will always exist a second time around.) This is something I can work on fixing. The fix could be 1) adding a delay before checking that the original category is empty, 2) moving categories without leaving a redirect, or 3) removing the check that the destination category must exist. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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
{{tl|BAG assistance needed}}
. — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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
KadaneBot 3
Operator: Kadane (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 16:10, Tuesday, March 19, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Not published yet
Function overview: Tags redirects with {{R to disambiguation page}}, {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, and {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} if it meets criteria described in function details.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Tag_with_Template:R_from_unnecessary_disambiguation
Edit period(s): Monthly
Estimated number of pages affected: ~56,417 first run
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
Case 1:
If a redirect exists
Foo (bar) -> Foo
where bar does not equal disambiguation AND Foo is NOT a disambiguation page, then tag Foo (bar) with {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
Currently 39,963 articles fit this case
Case 2:
If a redirect exists
Foo (bar) -> Foo
where bar does not equal disambiguation AND Foo is IS a disambiguation page with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}.
Currently 16,427 articles fit this case
Case 3:
If a redirect exists
Foo (disambiguation) -> Foo
AND Foo is a disambiguation page AND Foo (disambiguation) is NOT malformed, then tag Foo (bar) with {{R to disambiguation page}}
Currently 27 articles fit this case
The following functionality/logic exists for all 3 cases:
- If the redirect page is already tagged with {{R to disambiguation page}}, {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}, or {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} skip
- If a redirect exists
Foo (disambiguation) -> Foo
and disambiguation is malformed log to User:KadaneBot/Task3/Malformed disambiguations - In any case that results in adding a redirect template to a page, if there will be 2 or more redirect templates nest tags in {{Redirect category shell}}.
Discussion
- A sample of 1000 edits the bot would make (under current functional details) along with the template it would add to the page is listed at User:KadaneBot/Sandbox Kadane (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment @Kadane: The following should be tagged as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} instead of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
Those can be identified by the landing page being a disambiguation page.
This one should be skipped, or tagged with something else (investigating)
These ones should be skipped as malformed DAB pages (missing space, capital D), but collecting them so they can be RFD's would be good.
- 212th Division(disambiguation) → 212th Division
- 2nd Avenue (Disambiguation) → 2nd Avenue
- A&B (Disambiguation) → A&B
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I have updated the functional details of the bot to fix the cases you brought up. I will update the table of edits when I make it home. Kadane (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I have uploaded new edits to User:KadaneBot/Sandbox. It contains 100 edits of each of the cases, with the exception of {{R to disambiguation page}} which only has 22 edits total. I have also included all of the malformed disambiguation pages (these will not be modified by the bot, just included in the log). Kadane (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Better, although
- 02 (album) → 02
- 03 (album) → 03
- 1. Liga (football) → 1. Liga
- 118th Regiment of Foot (1761) → 118th Regiment of Foot
Should be tagged with {{R from incomplete disambiguation}} instead of {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: - There was an error in my CSV parsing from the database dump. I forgot to set the parameter
quoting=csv.QUOTE_NONE
, which resulted in some lines being skipped when the database query was being scanned. Because of this some articles and disambiguation pages were being ignored. This is fixed now. I clicked through most of the cases and I can't find any errors. User:KadaneBot/Sandbox is updated. Kadane (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Of all cases, the following aren't really disambiguation pages.
- .hack//G.U. (Volume 1: Rebirth) → .hack//G.U.
- 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion (Airborne) → 112th Special Operations Signal Battalion
- 104th Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers) → 104th Regiment Royal Artillery
- 105th Regiment Royal Artillery (Volunteers) → 105th Regiment Royal Artillery
Maybe a full list should be created so we can purge all cases that shouldn't be tagged. Everything else look fine though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- To save time, that full list to review could exclude things that end in
\s\(.* (album|song|single|EP|soundtrack|network|channel|episode|series|film|journal|magazine|website|company|publisher|newspaper|company|station|decade|numeral|number|game|novel|book|gene)\)
since those are safe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- To save time, that full list to review could exclude things that end in
Alright all edits have been saved with the of the articles that end in what you listed above removed.
- See
User:KadaneBot/Task3/Case 1 for {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}
- See
User:KadaneBot/Task3/Case 2 for {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}
- See
User:KadaneBot/Task3/Case 3 for {{R to disambiguation}}
Kadane (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
So are
Extended content
|
---|
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ah I was under the impression that we only checked malformed disambig on case 3 (when name ends with (disambiguation)). Updated the logic to check for malformed disambigs for all cases. Kadane (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
There are actually a few more, which I've sent to RFD.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Kadane:, actually could you break User:KadaneBot/Task3/Case 1 in sections of 100 KB tops? Those pages are pretty slow to load/edit (I have scripts that classify type of links, which slow down these pages considerably). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:06, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- Done @Headbomb: Also I am catching disambiguation misspellings as well as other words appearing next to disambiguation between parenthesis. If there are any other misspellings they should probably be excluded manually unless there is a pattern. Kadane (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you also break down redirects into 'species', e.g. all those ending with \s\(*album\) into a subpage (or section), all those ending with \s(*song\) into another, and so on (and everything else considered "Other")? At least for endings in
- \d (i.e. ends with digits, like Typhoon Haikui (2012)); album; AM; band; book; channel; comics; company; company; cricketer; decade; district; EP; episode; film; FM; footballer; game; gene; Germany; German Empire; journal; magazine; name; network; newspaper; novel; number; numeral; politician; publisher; series; show; single; song; soundtrack; station; United States; video; website
All case insensitive. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kadane: and could you also put the target page in those lists? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay all edits have been sorted by 'species' and a list of all pages can be found here. @Headbomb: Kadane (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Approved for trial. - Let's start with everything in User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/other/Case_3. This is something that could safely be automated. Make sure to run on the most version of the pages, since things may be updated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Headbomb - Come to find out Task 3 is already taken care of by RussBot and it ran through and tagged every article in case 3 with {{R to disambiguation}}. I could run another database query to see if there are any cases that RussBot has missed, but a task for case 3 seems redundant. What do you think?
- Also I made 1 trial edit[13] which resulted in an error because of a misplaced quotation mark in my code. Going forward it will check (correctly) to see if the category has been added since the last database scan. Kadane (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- If Case 3 is taken care of by RussBot, then let's leave it to RussBot. We can revisit this if RussBot goes dead. Let's trial case 2 on everything in User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/newspaper/Case 2 then. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:23, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Okay @Headbomb:. I found another error in my code for case 2 that resulted in articles that were already tagged being reported in the edit cases. I have fixed that bug and it has resulted in a large reduction of edits case 2. This error only affected the database scan and was caught during editing when the algorithm double checks it should edit.
I have completed the trial edits [14] [15] [16]. The rest were false positives. I am hesitant to mark the trial as done with only 3 edits.
May I suggest trialing either User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/cricketer/Case 2 (135 edits), User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/footballer/Case 2 (60 edits), or User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/politician/Case 2 (40 edits)? Kadane (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- I picked that category on purpose to see how it would handle those cases and not blow everything up. Side note [17]/[18]/[19] this is a much much better format. And while you don't have to do this, when making edits, you might as well add [20] if you find a #Whatever in the redirect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:51, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- For a follow up trial, you can do 25 edits in User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/other/Case_2/1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. - All edits are here [21]. There was one error [22], which added {{R from section}} when it shouldn't have. I fixed this and subsequently tested it [23]. The whitespace looks off, but that is because the template {{Redirect category shell}} already exists and the white space was already malformed from my removal. The bot also edited from another 'species' [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]. This was operator error. My database isn't structured by species and the view and edit code are separate. I had to introduce new code to just edit the 'other' species since there is no specific regex for an article that fits into other. Kadane (talk) 03:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- You can do the rest of User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/other/Case_2/1/User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/other/Case_2/1 to see if all the kinks are worked out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:14, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Small whitespace issues: [29], [30]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dupe disambiguation category: [31], [32]. Also [33].Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- Okay I have implemented logic to fix everything you have put here so far except for the whitespace issue. I am not quite sure how to fix that using MWParserFromHell. It only affects a small number of pages, if this is something that needs to be fixed I will figure something out in the coming days. Kadane (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
For the whitespace issue, I think you can have something similar to \}\}\n+\{\{
→ }}\n{{
and \n\n+
→ \n\n
. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Kadane: if you're ready to continue trial, you can tackle User:KadaneBot/Task3/Edits/other/Case_2/3.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
DannyS712 bot 12
Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 07:55, Tuesday, March 5, 2019 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Solve CW Error #17 - Category duplication
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot
Edit period(s): One time run
Estimated number of pages affected: ~8000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Currently, PkbwcgsBot only fixes a maximum of 300 instances of this error per week. While this certainly helps with the backlog, I'd like to do a one-time run to clean it out. Using AWB, I would do find-and-replace on the regex (\[\[Category:.*\]\])((.|\n)*)\1\n
, replacing it with $1$2
. I did a few of these manually to perfect the regex (eg [39], [40], [41]). While gen-fixes would fix this issue, they would not be activated, so no other edits would be made.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Primefac (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Should I have AWB autosave, or hit save manually? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does it matter? The results are the same. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. - 50 edits made. [42] (search for "Category duplication"). 2 issues: marking the pages as fixed within the wikiproject (I posted on the discussion page to figure out if the list is regenerated, or how to mark the pages automatically from AWB); and the regex doesn't work if the categories have different sort keys. So, the current regex would work on ~2300 pages. Once I finish those, I can look into a different regex that removes the second instance of a category, even if it has a different sortkey, but that is a separate issue, and should probably be a separate task --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Update - marking as done taken care of - automatically updated at the end of the day, so issue 1 is unneeded. Isuse 2 doesn't prevent the bot from running, but rather just limits the scope, so as far as I can tell I should be able to run the bot overnight (once its approved). Forgot to @Primefac last time. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. - 50 edits made. [42] (search for "Category duplication"). 2 issues: marking the pages as fixed within the wikiproject (I posted on the discussion page to figure out if the list is regenerated, or how to mark the pages automatically from AWB); and the regex doesn't work if the categories have different sort keys. So, the current regex would work on ~2300 pages. Once I finish those, I can look into a different regex that removes the second instance of a category, even if it has a different sortkey, but that is a separate issue, and should probably be a separate task --DannyS712 (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does it matter? The results are the same. Primefac (talk) 19:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- This task smells pretty badly of WP:COSMETICBOT - arguable fixing sortkey collisions would be more reader-useful, but that isn't even happening here. The page output before and after this task gets done has no change for readers. I see a minor benefit for editors. Is there room to combine this with another task? — xaosflux Talk 13:31, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: WikiProject Check Wikipedia says that solving this error is
Technically cosmetic, however this is either deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT.
I'll try to create a regex for sort key collision, but for now I'd prefer to avoid combining my tasks, since I'm still only starting out as a bot-op. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC) - @Xaosflux: I think I have a working regex to fix duplicate categorization even if one or both of the categories have sort keys:
- @Xaosflux: WikiProject Check Wikipedia says that solving this error is
(\[\[Category:[^|\]]*)((?:\|[^\]]*)?\]\])((?:.|\n)*)\n\1(?:\|[^\]]*)?\]\]\n?
Which is replaced with $1$2$3
. This is, as you said, more reader-useful
. What do you think of an extended trial? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- As a comment, I'm the one that added "
Technically cosmetic, however this is either deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT.
" back then. And the reason is that I felt this is a future-proofing situation, because someone that wants to update a sort key might only do it in one place, and it won't kick in because there's a dual listing of the category. Or they might remove the category in one place, thinking they removed the category from the article, unaware there's a duplication of it. This wasn't RFC'd or BRFA'd before however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)- Also is there a particular reason why genfixes are disabled for this? They'd seem worth making on top of the main task, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I'd prefer not to automatically run genfixes, but if you'd like them enabled I can supervise an extended trial --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- In my experience genfixes have been pretty stable and well tested for a while now. But it's your bot, so it's your call ultimately about whether or not you want to enable them. It just seems to me that if you're going to make some genfix-like edits (duplicate category removal is covered by them after all), you might as well enable the full suite of genfixes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: in that case, sure. Would you be willing at approve an extended trial with both regexes (to also fix category duplication) and also genfixes? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for extended trial (50 edits). I'll approve for further trial, but since I'm the one that added "
Technically cosmetic, however this is either deemed too much of a bad practice, or prevents future issues deemed egregious enough to warrant a deviation from WP:COSMETICBOT.
" back then, I'll recuse myself from final approval. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:21, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Approved for extended trial (50 edits). I'll approve for further trial, but since I'm the one that added "
- @Headbomb: in that case, sure. Would you be willing at approve an extended trial with both regexes (to also fix category duplication) and also genfixes? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- In my experience genfixes have been pretty stable and well tested for a while now. But it's your bot, so it's your call ultimately about whether or not you want to enable them. It just seems to me that if you're going to make some genfix-like edits (duplicate category removal is covered by them after all), you might as well enable the full suite of genfixes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I'd prefer not to automatically run genfixes, but if you'd like them enabled I can supervise an extended trial --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also is there a particular reason why genfixes are disabled for this? They'd seem worth making on top of the main task, IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
How does the bot handle cases like this [44]? Should it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I don't really understand the first question - that case is a bot edit, and I think it should handle it exactly as it did. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are two clashing sortkeys. How does the bot decide which to remove? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: it always removes the second instance of a category. If one or both have sortkeys, it still just removes the second instance of the category, and keeps the first, regardless of if the second had a sort key and the first didn't, etc --DannyS712 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: does running it with genfixes and fixing sortkeys too allay your concern about cosmetic-bot? If so, would you be willing to approve this? DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Adding genfixes" is never a selling point for me, maybe one of the other BAGers. — xaosflux Talk 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the genfixes are not garanteed to be made, so it's rather moot. The real thing to look at is whether future-proofing is enough of a reason to make the edits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: I believe that it is, since it also enables users to set sortkeys that actually work (in addition to fixing the error itself, and any genfixes) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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
{{tl|BAG assistance needed}}
. the trial has been over for almost a week --DannyS712 (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- 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
- @Headbomb: I believe that it is, since it also enables users to set sortkeys that actually work (in addition to fixing the error itself, and any genfixes) --DannyS712 (talk) 03:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the genfixes are not garanteed to be made, so it's rather moot. The real thing to look at is whether future-proofing is enough of a reason to make the edits. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Adding genfixes" is never a selling point for me, maybe one of the other BAGers. — xaosflux Talk 02:44, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: does running it with genfixes and fixing sortkeys too allay your concern about cosmetic-bot? If so, would you be willing to approve this? DannyS712 (talk) 02:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Headbomb: it always removes the second instance of a category. If one or both have sortkeys, it still just removes the second instance of the category, and keeps the first, regardless of if the second had a sort key and the first didn't, etc --DannyS712 (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
- There are two clashing sortkeys. How does the bot decide which to remove? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
LkolblyBot
Operator: Lkolbly (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:57, Monday, December 24, 2018 (UTC)
Function overview: This bot automatically updates Alexa rankings in website infoboxes by querying the Alexa Web Information Service.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: https://github.com/lkolbly/alexawikibot (presently, the actual saving is commented out, for testing)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Previous bot that performed this task: OKBot_5
Edit period(s): Monthly or so
Estimated number of pages affected: 4,560 articles are in the current candidate list. A subset of these pages will be updated each month. Other pages could be pulled into the fray over time if someone adds alexa information to a page. Also, there will be a whitelist copied from User:OsamaK/AlexaBot.js of pages that will be edits (presently containing 1,412 pages).
Namespace(s): Articles
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (via whatever functionality is already in pywikipedia)
Function details: This bot will scan all pages (using a database dump as a first pass) to find pages which have the "Infobox website" template with both "url" and "alexa" fields.
It will parse the domain from the url field using a few heuristics, and query the domain with AWIS. Domains that have subdomains return incorrect results from AWIS (e.g. mathmatica.wolfram.com returns the result for just wolfram.com), so these domains are discarded (and the page not touched). It will then perform an AWIS query to determine the current website rank and trend over 3 months.
Websites will be classified into {{Increase}}, {{Decrease}}, and {{steady}} (, , and , respectively). A site increasing in popularity will gain it the tag, even though it is numerically decreasing (previously, many sites were also classified into IncreaseNegative and DecreasePositive that I didn't understand)
Then, in the text of the article, whatever the current alexa data is will be replaced by something like:
{{Increase}} 169,386 ({{as of|2018|12|24}})<ref name="alexa">{{cite web|url= http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/darwinawards.com | publisher= [[Alexa Internet]] |title=Darwinawards.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa |accessdate= 2018-12-24 }}</ref> <!-- Updated monthly by LkolblyBot -->
(e.g. 169,386 (As of 24 December 2018)[1] )
There are two as-yet untested test cases that I'll test (and fix if necessary) before any full-scale deployment:
- Apparently some infoboxes have multiple
|alexa=
parameters? I have to go find one and see what the bot does with it. (probably the right thing to do is to not touch the page at all in that situation) - Some pages have an empty
|alexa=
parameter, which should be fine, but worth testing anyway.
References
- ^ "Darwinawards.com Traffic, Demographics and Competitors - Alexa". Alexa Internet. Retrieved 2018-12-24.
Discussion
Please make the bot's talk page.
"whatever the current alexa data is will be replaced" - how do you know there isn't more than just the previous value? Or that there isn't a reference that is used elsewhere?
I imagine many pages that copy-paste the template code will have an empty |alexa=
parameter. This would not be any different to not having it at all.
Do you preserve template's formatting?
The particular citation style the bot uses may not match the article's, especially the date format. (I wonder why we don't have an Alexa citation template still.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- The format of the template code overall is preserved, the value is replaced by replacing the regex
r"\|\s*alexa\s*=\s*{}".format(re.escape(current_alexa))
, so the rest of the template is unaffected. (the number of spaces before the equal sign goes from "any number" to "exactly one", though)
- Yeah, I was debating having it skip empty alexa parameters. There's value in adding it (as much as updating it), though for very small sites the increase/decrease indicator may not be particularly useful.
- I didn't think to check whether there's more than the previous value, though I can't think of what else would be there. There's at least two common formats for this data, basically the OKBot format, and a similar format with parenthesized month/year instead of the asof (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnologue - note lack of a reference). I guess it would be safest to check that the value is in a whitelisted set of alexa formats to replace, I'll bet a small number of regexes could cover 90% of cases (and the remaining 10% could be changed to a conforming case by hand :D)
- The reference is interesting, because it's basically a lie. It's a link to the alexa page, but that isn't where the data was actually retrieved from, it was retrieved from their backend API. As for if someone's already using that reference, it shouldn't be too hard to check for that, I would think. I imagine (with only anecdotal evidence) that most of those cases will be phrases like "as of 2010, foobar.com had an alexa rank of 5". Updating that reference to the present value may not make sense in the context of the article (myspace isn't as big as it used to be, an article talking about how big it was in 2008 won't care how big it is now). But either way they should probably be citing a source that doesn't automatically change as soon as you read it.
- The ethnologue page already looks like it has diverging date formats? I don't know how common that is, I'll have to go dig up the style guide for citations (maybe we should have a bot to make that more uniform). What would it take to make a template? (also, would that solve the uniformity issue? I guess at least it'd be uniform across all alexa rankings)
- WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATEVAR is the relevant stuff on date and citation differences. On English wiki, changing or deviating from citation or date style without a good reason is very controversial. The short answer is "don't". Bots are generally expected to do the same, although minor deviations are somewhat tolerated. But bots are expected to follow templates, like {{use dmy dates}} or
|df=
parameters. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:36, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
- WP:CITEVAR and WP:DATEVAR is the relevant stuff on date and citation differences. On English wiki, changing or deviating from citation or date style without a good reason is very controversial. The short answer is "don't". Bots are generally expected to do the same, although minor deviations are somewhat tolerated. But bots are expected to follow templates, like {{use dmy dates}} or
- Okay, it looks like it should be pretty straightforward to just check for the two
Template:Use ... dates
tags and set the|df=
parameter. Lkolbly (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, it looks like it should be pretty straightforward to just check for the two
- Updated the bot so that it follows mdy/dmy dates, updating the accessed date and asof accordingly. Also constrained the pages that will be updated to a handful of matching regexes and also pulled a list from User:OsamaK/AlexaBot.js, which eventually I'll make a copy of. Lkolbly (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. Ran bot to edit 50 randomly selected pages. So far I've noticed two bugs that cropped up, one involving leading zeros in the access dates and another where the comment "Updated by LKolblyBot" got repeated. I'm going to go through and fix the issues by hand for now and apply fixes to the bot. Lkolbly (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also, looking closer, some pages got a "Retrieved" date format that doesn't match the rest of the page (e.g. Iraqi News), but I'm pretty sure it's because those pages aren't annotated with dmy or mdy. Lkolbly (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have questions.
- First, Special:Diff/880480890 - is there a reason it chooses http over https?
- Second, why do some diffs use ISO formatting for the date while others actually change it to dmy?
- Third, are OKBot and Acagastya still updating these pages, and would it make sense to remove those names from the comments?
- My fourth/fifth questions were going to be what you were going to do about duplicate names, but it looks like you noticed that and are taking care of it, along with a lack of leading zeros issue with the 2019-01-27.
- Also, as a minor point, even if you've only done 44 edits with the bot, please make sure when you finish with a trial that you link to the specific edits, since while "Contribs" might only show those 44 edits now, after you've made thousands they won't be the first thing to look at.
- Actually, I do have another thought - for brevity, it might be best to have a wikilink in the edit summary instead of a full URL. Primefac (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have questions.
- I have answers.
- There's no particular reason it uses http over https for the alexa.com link, I hadn't given it a second thought. I can change it to https.
- The variations in date formatting are an attempt to stick with the articles predominant style. The default style being ISO format, and if there's a use dmy or use mdy tag it uses the respective format.
- OKBot appears defuct, I wasn't aware of Acagastya, though from their user page it looks like they've left English Wikipedia at least. It does make sense to remove the (now duplicate) comments, that was ultimately the goal but it didn't work as planned.
- Good point on the making a list of the trial edits, conveniently it looks like I can search the contribs to make a view of just the trial edits.
- Yeah, the wikilink idea occurred to me a few minutes too late, it looks terrible in the commit message :/ Lkolbly (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- With the constant modification that Alexa goes through, it is not a good idea to put manual labour for updating the ranks.
acagastya 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
- I have answers.
- Regarding the 'Updated monthly by ...' lines - as is being demonstrated here there are stale entries - and it can be expected as no bot should ever be expected to operate in the future. To that end I don't think this should be added, and would support having the next update remove any existing such comment codes. — xaosflux Talk 15:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- was the trial completed? What are the results (please link to diffs as well). — xaosflux Talk 18:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry I've been dead in the water this last month, time hasn't been on my side (I figured I'd re-architect my server before I ran the trial, and have everything nice and containerized, but that didn't work out and then one thing led to another). I haven't done the trial yet, I plan to run it this coming weekend though. Lkolbly (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- Trial complete. Okay, ran the bot on these 50 pages. Some notes:
- r.e. the "Updated by" comments: So it turns out the framework I'm using (pywikibot) strips out the comments, which is why they were being duplicated. This run did not add "updated by" comments. Removing existing comments could be done but would have to be a separate script.
- I think I'll change the change comment to "Bot: Update Alexa ranking (link to a list of sites that the bot maintains)"
- Some sites (e.g. Gothamist) list a URL in the infobox that is not ostensibly the site's actual (or main) URL, which gives an inaccurate alexa ranking. I think this is beyond my control though.
- The original formatting of the infobox is unfortunately lost in pywikibot. The spacing varies - some (Adventure Gamers) use no spaces after the vertical bar, most one space, some align the equals signs, some don't (or do so inconsistently). Regardless, the information is gone at rewrite time.
- A large number of sites had an "April 2014" style alt text specified for the "as of" tag. This script eliminates those.
- One page (Shutterfly) had the "alexa" ref specified in a separate infobox references section at the bottom of the infobox, which led to a duplicate reference name error.
- Otherwise, everything seemed to run fairly smoothly. The last point I might be able to handle by searching for
name="alexa"
or something in the page text. I think it's a fairly rare occurrence though. - Lkolbly (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Lkolbly: regarding the increase vs increasenegative difference, my reading is that this is a Numerical/Desirable field (see Template:Infobox website and related talk pages). Moving a Ranking from 5th to 1st is a "decrease" in value, but an increase in desirability. Arguably "1st place" is an increase from "2nd place" though so normal increase could be fine here - this should be sorted out at Template talk:Infobox website, and that template documentation should be updated to match before this begins. You don't want your bot to be warring with human editors over the direction of a triangle. — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) please let us know any results from: Template_talk:Infobox_website#Bot_Job_and_arrows. — xaosflux Talk 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Alexa_rank_question asking about the utility of this data at all. — xaosflux Talk 14:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
PkbwcgsBot 12
Operator: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 13:10, Monday, December 24, 2018 (UTC)
Function overview: The bot will fix a range of unicode control characters in articles. This is CW Error #16.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Five times a week
Estimated number of pages affected: 100-250 at a time
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: This is an extension to Task 1 as I am already fixing Unicode Control Characters there. However, this task does more fixes to error 16 and fixes a range of Unicode control characters that WPCleaner can't fix. The following will be removed:
U+200E
- Left-to-right mark (the bot will be careful when it comes to Arabic text and other foreign text as this is a supervised task)U+FEFF
- Byte order mark (all instances of this can be safely removed)U+200B
- Zero-width space (the bot will be careful when it comes to Arabic text and other foreign text as this is a supervised task)U+2028
- Line separator (all instances of this can be safely removed)U+202A
- Left-to-right embedding (the bot will be careful when it comes to Arabic text and other foreign text as this is a supervised task)U+202C
- Pop-directional formatting (the bot will be careful when it comes to Arabic text and other foreign text as this is a supervised task)U+202D
- Left-to-right override (the bot will be careful when it comes to Arabic text and other foreign text as this is a supervised task)U+202E
- Right-to-left override (the bot will be careful when it comes to Arabic text and other foreign text as this is a supervised task)U+00AD
- Soft hyphen (all instances of this can be safely removed)
The following will be turned into a space:
U+2004
- Three-per-em spaceU+2005
- Four-per-em spaceU+2006
- Six-per-em spaceU+2007
- Figure spaceU+2008
- Punctuation spaceU+00A0
- No-breaking space (any cases of U+00A0 that are okay per MOS:NBSP will not be removed) (this is the most frequent unicode character in WP:WCW error 16)
The bot will use RegEx and general fixes will be switched on but typo fixing will be turned off as they are both not required for this task.
Discussion
I'm not sure about some of these. In particular, U+00AD may have been added by editors to specify the proper place for long words to be broken, and U+00A0 should more likely be turned into the
entity than changed into U+0020. The same might apply to the other space characters, editors may have specifically used these in preference to U+0020. Anomie⚔ 17:06, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Anomie: After going through the WP:WCW list, there are no instances of U+00AD anywhere. However, if it does come up, then I will replace it with a hyphen. U+00A0 takes up more bytes than a regular space (U+0020) so it is easier to leave a space. The other space characters can be safely replaced as they are unnecessary and they mostly come up in citations. See 1 which is taking out U+2005 which is four-per-em space, 2 which is taking out U+2008 which is punctuation space, 3 which is taking out U+2005 again, 4 which is taking out U+2008 again and 5 which is also taking out U+2008. All these occurred inside citations. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Replacing U+00AD with a hyphen would not be correct either. You'd want to replace it with {{shy}} or the like. For NBSP "takes up more bytes" is a very poor argument, and replacing it with a plain space could break situations described at MOS:NBSP. A figure space might be intentionally used to make columns of numbers line up properly where U+0020 would be a different width, and so on. I don't object to fixing things where specific fancy spaces don't make a difference, but you're arguing that they're never appropriate and that strikes me as unlikely. Anomie⚔ 17:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Anomie: There are no cases of U+00AD so the bot doesn't need to handle that. In terms of U+00A0, I will make sure my RegEx replaces the cases described at MOS:NBSP with   or otherwise skip them. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
If you're not intending to handle U+00AD after all, you should remove mention of U+00AD from the task entirely.(I see you struck it) As for "the cases described", good luck in managing to identify every variation of those cases. It would probably be better to just make that part of the task be manually evaluated rather than "always replace". Anomie⚔ 18:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)- @Anomie: The bot will still strip U+00A0 in wikilinks because replacing them with   is not going to work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Replacing the cases stated at MOS:NBSP is trickier than I thought so I am going to skip those cases manually. This task is supervised. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- {{BAG assistance needed}} I have made some amendments to this task including reducing down to five times a week and added general fixes so the removal of unicode control characters and general fixes can be combined together. I have also specified that non-breaking space will not be removed in cases described at MOS:NBSP and the bot will replace those cases with " " with the general fixes. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
- Replacing the cases stated at MOS:NBSP is trickier than I thought so I am going to skip those cases manually. This task is supervised. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Anomie: The bot will still strip U+00A0 in wikilinks because replacing them with   is not going to work. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Anomie: There are no cases of U+00AD so the bot doesn't need to handle that. In terms of U+00A0, I will make sure my RegEx replaces the cases described at MOS:NBSP with   or otherwise skip them. Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Replacing U+00AD with a hyphen would not be correct either. You'd want to replace it with {{shy}} or the like. For NBSP "takes up more bytes" is a very poor argument, and replacing it with a plain space could break situations described at MOS:NBSP. A figure space might be intentionally used to make columns of numbers line up properly where U+0020 would be a different width, and so on. I don't object to fixing things where specific fancy spaces don't make a difference, but you're arguing that they're never appropriate and that strikes me as unlikely. Anomie⚔ 17:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Primefac (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Trial complete. The edits are located here. WP:GenFixes were switched on as stated for this task. I will point out a couple of good edits. This edit removed unicode control character no-breaking space in the infobox. Because of that character, the "distributor" character disappeared from the infobox. Once the bot removed that character, it re-appeared which makes it a good edit. There were some good general fixes in this edit as well as the removal of a non-breaking space character. This edit is also a good edit because it changed the direction of text from being right-to-left to left-to-right. Before, the right-to-left text would have been confusing but now the direction is changed so it is not confusing anymore. That edit removed the
U+202E
character which is "Right-to-left override". Some edits were removing non-breaking space within citations,U+200E
was also removed in some edits in Arabic text and a few edits were removingU+2008
which is punctuation space. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)- It might take me a few days to be able to verify any of these (and I have zero issue if another BAG gets to it first), but as a note it's much more helpful to point us to the bad/incorrect edits. In other words, we know how the bot is supposed to run, and pointing us to runs where the bot did what it was supposed to is... kind of pointless. Primefac (talk) 20:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
- Anomie, I don't know if you wanted to go through these or not, given your previous interest/concerns. Primefac (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- For easier reference, and if multiple bag members want to split the work, all of the difs are listed at User:DannyS712/sandbox6 (I was bored and wanted to create a regex to convert the html of a contributions list to a wikitext-friendly list) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have little else to do, so I started looking through the trial edits - [45], [46], and [47] all remove control characters from languages which are written in the other direction - should they be? Also, you may want to deactivate the setting that adds to the edit summary what replacements where made, since they can't really be understood and it just looks like a bunch of blank space. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- For easier reference, and if multiple bag members want to split the work, all of the difs are listed at User:DannyS712/sandbox6 (I was bored and wanted to create a regex to convert the html of a contributions list to a wikitext-friendly list) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Trial complete. The edits are located here. WP:GenFixes were switched on as stated for this task. I will point out a couple of good edits. This edit removed unicode control character no-breaking space in the infobox. Because of that character, the "distributor" character disappeared from the infobox. Once the bot removed that character, it re-appeared which makes it a good edit. There were some good general fixes in this edit as well as the removal of a non-breaking space character. This edit is also a good edit because it changed the direction of text from being right-to-left to left-to-right. Before, the right-to-left text would have been confusing but now the direction is changed so it is not confusing anymore. That edit removed the
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 (), while old requests can be found in the archives.
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Approved 03:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 17) Approved 14:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 18) Approved 21:10, 29 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Ahechtbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 13:47, 28 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Approved 13:36, 28 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- GreenC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 15:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Galobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 12:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 19) Approved 10:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 20) Approved 03:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 22:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 22) Approved 14:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- AnomieBOT III (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 14:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Muhbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 03:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 03:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 17) Approved 18:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 13:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 09:25, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Approved 02:15, 11 March 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Dreamy Jazz Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 02:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 20:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MusikBot II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 20:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- GreenC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Approved 18:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Fz29bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 17:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Dreamy Jazz Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 05:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 18) Approved 18:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- OutreachDashboardBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 18:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 19:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 20) Approved 20:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 22) Approved 15:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- GreenC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 20:29, 22 January 2019 (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.
- DeprecatedFixerBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Bot denied 15:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- MetricSupporter89Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 02:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Bot denied 18:39, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 21) Bot denied 03:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 15) Bot denied 21:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Iamsouravranabot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 15:20, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 19) Bot denied 00:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Bot denied 17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
- PkbwcgsBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Bot denied 00:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- sys (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Pathbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 10:39, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
- EmptyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 14:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- SiddiqBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 11:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- qbugbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 01:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
- Usernamekiran BOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 22:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Expired/withdrawn requests
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Withdrawn by operator 20:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Adithyakbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 18:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- KadaneBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 06:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Withdrawn by operator 17:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- GreenC bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Withdrawn by operator 19:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
- Gaelan Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 01:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
- ProgrammingBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 16:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Lsmb-release-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 15:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Ahechtbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Withdrawn by operator 15:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
- DannyS712 bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 11:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
- Robbot (clone) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 18:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- SQLBot-AmazonAffiliateRemoval (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 20:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- Galobot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 17:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- ZackBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Withdrawn by operator 19:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- Joe's Null Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 14) Withdrawn by operator 01:05, 2 December 2018 (UTC)