This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I'm writing a userscript that assists in closing XfD's: User:Evad37/XFDcloser. One of the feature requests is to have an option to unlink backlinks after a deletion result – similar to Twinkle's Unlink module ( discussion). This could potentially result in a large number of pages being edited by the script (after showing the user a list of pages to be edited and asking for confirmation). Would I need to file a BRFA once the code is written? - Evad37 [ talk 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
do you plan on being the only person that will run this?No. This isn't for myself (except for testing in sandboxes/uspersapce), I'm just the coder trying to make it easier for other editors (mostly admins) to close XfD discussions – like how many editors use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, but with more features and working in more XfD venues.
Do you plan on using it for retroactive closures?No, the actions would occur just after the script makes the close. - Evad37 [ talk 01:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that Xaosflux and Headbomb seem to think that AnomieBOT isn't archiving the approved, expired/withdrawn, and denied BRFAs fast enough. The current parameters the bot uses (per AnomieBOT 54) are:
<noinclude>
such that transclusion will display the greater of 30 BRFAs or all BRFAs approved in the past 7 days. It will also archive any BRFAs after the <noinclude>
older than 1 year.Should these parameters be changed? Anomie ⚔ 15:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
$y-2004
.
Anomie
⚔ 14:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)I propose to add a Namespace(s): field to the BRFA form. This will help BAG and other reviewers to determine the scope of the bot, especially when ambiguous. This should also avoid potential issues of the kind "I thought I can run this in userspace". The namespaces are often implied by the task details, but I think it is best to avoid assumptions. In few BRFAs I have seen, BAG actually ask for the affected namespaces, even when relevant – this should help clarify this detail. As with other fields, this would be task-dependent and may have any number of values, like "talk pages", "portal", "all", "all except articles", "n/a", etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 15:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Template | Old | New |
---|---|---|
{{ BotTrial}} | ||
{{ BotExtendedTrial}} | ||
{{ BotTrialComplete}} | ||
{{ BotSpeedy}} | ||
{{ BotApproved}} | ||
{{ BotExpired}} | ||
{{ BotWithdrawn}} | ||
{{ BotDenied}} | ||
{{ BotRevoked}} | ||
{{ OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} | ||
{{ BAGAssistanceNeeded}} |
The old templates pissed me off as making little sense and having bad design, so I took it upon myself to implement a better-looking scheme that makes more sense. The general idea is
In the trials, a check mark is to indicate it's been approved for trial, and the + for an extended trial. The eye is to indicate that the trial edits now need review. Approved/Speedy Approved should be self-explanatory, as should the others.
Should we make {{ BotTrialComplete}} blackframe/yellow background instead (like {{ BAGAssistanceNeeded}}) so it catches the attention more? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
What we'll need now is a bot/AWB run to cleanup "hardcoded" like this. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. After seeing the above discussion I've decided to be bold and rotate the extended trial icon. I'm hope I'm not stepping on any toes! I've got to go change the templates now. — ♫CheChe♫ talk 15:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this {{
BRFA|TrustMeImAIRobot||Open}}
to the page
TrustMeImAIRobot (
talk) 15:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Per User_talk:BU_Rob13#Bot_autoassess_error the bot causes errors and the bot owner is aware of them. Instead of topping his bot and fix the error. The allow to bot to run and then fix manually. (It reminds me of Yobot in some cases). I think the bot should stop and resume only when the error is fixed otherwise search for a different approach for this minor task. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Article assessment is not a low priority task. It has been requested by the WikiProjects being tagged with knowledge of how the implementation works. There are consensus discussions to back up each project's opt-in. My bot doesn't run more than once per page in any given run (of course, if new project templates are added that need assessment between runs, a second edit is possible). That is simply false, as-is the claim that my bot removes duplicate parameters (it does not). I do welcome discussion of any bot task on my talk page, and I'm always happy to improve if one can suggest a better implementation. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis ( talk · contribs), stop WP:REICHSTAGing in apparent retaliation for BU Rob's request concerning DexBot, and drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. If you have an issue with User:BU RoBOT, then I suggest you follow the directions outlined in WP:BOTISSUE, which I will quote here for both of you's convenience
It should be fairly obvious which bold passage applies to whom. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it's obvious that Rob has two criteria though. The one that apply to other bots and the one that apply to his bot. I know that the problem with Rob's bot is not that big but it's good to handle at some point because the replies in his talk page were most of the direction that he is actually aware of the problem but his way to fix the problem is manually fixing the edges cases. It reminds me of something. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Were was User:Ladsgroup pinged in the above discussion User talk:BU Rob13? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The point here is that BU RoBOT's minor edit required another editor to make a cosmetic edit to fix the issue that BU RoBOT introduced. Seems to me that M. has a valid point here. I don't see any misspelling, nor any unambiguous error; just a parameter that wasn't assigned a value. Don't edits of this nature to talk pages clog up the article-space watchlists, thus making it possibly harder to detect article-space vandalism? I'm not sure one can watch an article without simultaneously watching its talk as well. wbm1058 ( talk) 20:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like the community to re-examine Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6. This bot task was approved by a former BAG member who has publicly stated they do not understand WP:COSMETICBOT many times over the past year with no consensus discussion behind it and no input from anyone else. The task itself just replaces a normal external link to an official website with {{ Official website}}. The output of these two methods of using official website links is the same. The only difference is that the template may help Wikidata import official websites; something that could be just as easily done with a bot without the template using a database dump. Given the lack of consensus, it seems clear this request for approval should have been bumped back to a broad community venue at the time it was submitted, not quickly approved. Without specific consensus, this violates COSMETICBOT.
For background: In February, I requested the bot operator to provide an explanation of the value of these edits or a pointer in the direction of any consensus at User_talk:Ladsgroup#Query. He declined to respond with anything but an appeal to look in his archives (which I was unable to locate anything within). That's a separate issue ( WP:BOTCOMM), but not what this thread is about.
Should this approval be rescinded until consensus has been demonstrated? ~ Rob13 Talk 15:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The conversion changes a hidden tracking page which helps compare date between English Wikipedia and Wikidata. It also help populate Category:Official website not in Wikidata (created in May 2015). Moreover, this is open since 2013 T99568. This is a 100% useful task. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 in 2013 that also resulted in creating the tracking categories, modifying the template to support Wikidata fields, etc. There is an entire construction leading to the same direction. See also Template_talk:Official_website/Archive_2#Wikidata in 2014. Rob in fact opposes these changes and they do not tell publicly. They try with a piece-to-piece tactic to undo this construction. It's the same thing they do with the various bot tasks. What is the best place to report this behaviour of Rob? AN? Or should it be an ArbCom? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If I've read the comments correctly, I think the debate currently seems to be:
In favour of rescinding approval for, and re-examining Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6:
Against rescinding approval for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6:
Neutral:
Any further additions or corrections from other editors? Hchc2009 ( talk) 10:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This is satisfying for me because it shows that this is a procedure to re-examine consensus. This is totally OK. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, these are not cosmetic edits. Here's a recent edit. If you look at the post-bot version, it has a new tracking category, Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia. This means that it is by definition not cosmetic, i.e. the HTML output is changed. The discussion on the bot operator's talk page makes it clear that these edits are part of a project to improve multiple WPs and Wikidata. BU Rob13, can you please strike your objection to this bot task on COSMETICBOT grounds? That would leave only your question about whether this task really has consensus, which I also have no opinion on, being a human who does not yet grok Wikidata. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There is also Category:Official website not in Wikidata and Category:Official_website_missing_URL. This means the task populates 3 different tracking categories. the default is to keep the task ans Rob and his supporters to open a discussion to change the consensus if they like. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
In this case, I think everyone can probably agree that some more direct method is preferable. If we want semi-automated transfer to Wikidata with human oversight, we can build a tool that allows such transfer to occur with human oversight and without any edits needed to Wikipedia. It could use database dumps to populate items needing review. If we want automated transfer to Wikidata, that's also a possibility - basically build that same tool without a GUI and with a bot account approved on Wikidata. Neither requires cosmetic edits to the English Wikipedia, and so both are more efficient manners of carrying out the task. Which method we should go with is up to consensus, and I have no strong feelings on which way we should go. I just know we definitely should not go in a direction that has no consensus supporting it, makes trivial edits, and is demonstrably inefficient in accomplishing the task it's attempting to accomplish. ~ Rob13 Talk 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Headbomb, JJMC89, Legoktm, Jonesey95, Magioladitis, and Anomie: I think we're going around in circles with three-and-a-half BRFAs going on right now about exactly the same topics. All three (as near as I can tell) are using pretty much identical regex, and now it just seems like we're holding one discussion in three locations. So, I'm bringing us all together. I realize I'm not BAG, but here's what it looks like we need to get this ball rolling:
Feel free to add points to this list if necessary, and feel free to ping anyone I missed. Primefac ( talk) 03:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Has this discussion stalled yet? Can we just approve the bots already for PMID and ISBN? (cc: Legoktm) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
\[?\[?(digital object identifier\|doi|doi)\]?\]?(:|\s)+10\.\d+\/<foobar>
is a good starter. "Ends with \s
, ,
or \.\s
" should be the end. I just don't know how to regex that, because [^(\s|,|\.\s)]+
doesn't work. But that's a regex that shouldn't take long to develop and test. As for a "lack of ambition", I'm still waiting on
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CitationCleanerBot_2.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)I agree with the others here and elsewhere that including DOI among these magic link fixes is out of scope. We can have a separate discussion about DOI, gain consensus for changing it, and then make the edits as part of other bot requests. In this case, we're focused on PMID and ISBN (RFC should be done manually). In my opinion, we should unblock/un-stall these magic link deprecations by approving the tested bots, such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 13. Maxim, MaxSem, Addshore, JamesR, et al.: can one of you please take a look at these open bot requests and approve if everything looks okay? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 15 a request was made for the bot to "Change syntax usage of {{
Episode list/sublist}} to allow for greater compatibility". This was approved and
AlexTheWhovian has modified
Module:Episode list with
this edit. When asked Will the trial break pages if the module edit hasn't been made yet? If so, we should do a trial in userspace.
, AlexTheWhovian responded It will not break any pages, no. What will happen is that summaries from the transcluded tables will appear in the articles that the tables are being transcluded to (nothing serious, just out of the ordinary); implementing the module edits will then restore this to hiding the summaries. Test cases exist in the
module's sandbox, the
module's testcases and
my sandbox.
[3] This response understates the problem of "reversing" the way that transclusion happens (i.e. normally episode summaries appear in the season articles but not in the "List of episodes" pages. Alex modified the module after the test, but before the bot had run on all articles and, as a result, all episode summaries have disappeared from season articles and appeared in the "List of episodes" pages. This has created confusion,
[4] and resulted in editors changing articles in the belief that doing so will fix the problem.
[5] I have no idea how many articles were changed in the 18 hours between when Alex modified the module and when I reverted his change, but this disruption to the articles is unnaceptable. It could result in many articles containing errors even after the bot runs, especially if someone has deleted the code that the bot needs to change. If the bot can complete the changes almost instantly, it won't be a problem, but if the bot takes some time to change all 12,376 transclusions, we may be looking at significant article breakage. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Episode list sublist template. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Your math is backwards, it's 1 edit every 2 seconds. But yes, about 30epm. Given the relative disruption caused by this change, I don't think anyone is going to care much if I'm a little over the recommended 20epm.
Primefac (
talk) 19:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC) too fast...
Primefac (
talk) 19:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Aren't we guaranteed to have article breakage during this ~6 hour window? You change one without changing the other at the same time, and functionality is broken.-- Alex TW 22:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 12; see this bot edit, which is understandable but leaves the FUR statement in a nonsensical state. Suggest leaving the link text unchanged and piping to the non-redirect link, rather than just changing the link. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
I'm writing a userscript that assists in closing XfD's: User:Evad37/XFDcloser. One of the feature requests is to have an option to unlink backlinks after a deletion result – similar to Twinkle's Unlink module ( discussion). This could potentially result in a large number of pages being edited by the script (after showing the user a list of pages to be edited and asking for confirmation). Would I need to file a BRFA once the code is written? - Evad37 [ talk 04:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
do you plan on being the only person that will run this?No. This isn't for myself (except for testing in sandboxes/uspersapce), I'm just the coder trying to make it easier for other editors (mostly admins) to close XfD discussions – like how many editors use User:Mr.Z-man/closeAFD, but with more features and working in more XfD venues.
Do you plan on using it for retroactive closures?No, the actions would occur just after the script makes the close. - Evad37 [ talk 01:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that Xaosflux and Headbomb seem to think that AnomieBOT isn't archiving the approved, expired/withdrawn, and denied BRFAs fast enough. The current parameters the bot uses (per AnomieBOT 54) are:
<noinclude>
such that transclusion will display the greater of 30 BRFAs or all BRFAs approved in the past 7 days. It will also archive any BRFAs after the <noinclude>
older than 1 year.Should these parameters be changed? Anomie ⚔ 15:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
$y-2004
.
Anomie
⚔ 14:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)I propose to add a Namespace(s): field to the BRFA form. This will help BAG and other reviewers to determine the scope of the bot, especially when ambiguous. This should also avoid potential issues of the kind "I thought I can run this in userspace". The namespaces are often implied by the task details, but I think it is best to avoid assumptions. In few BRFAs I have seen, BAG actually ask for the affected namespaces, even when relevant – this should help clarify this detail. As with other fields, this would be task-dependent and may have any number of values, like "talk pages", "portal", "all", "all except articles", "n/a", etc. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 15:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Template | Old | New |
---|---|---|
{{ BotTrial}} | ||
{{ BotExtendedTrial}} | ||
{{ BotTrialComplete}} | ||
{{ BotSpeedy}} | ||
{{ BotApproved}} | ||
{{ BotExpired}} | ||
{{ BotWithdrawn}} | ||
{{ BotDenied}} | ||
{{ BotRevoked}} | ||
{{ OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} | ||
{{ BAGAssistanceNeeded}} |
The old templates pissed me off as making little sense and having bad design, so I took it upon myself to implement a better-looking scheme that makes more sense. The general idea is
In the trials, a check mark is to indicate it's been approved for trial, and the + for an extended trial. The eye is to indicate that the trial edits now need review. Approved/Speedy Approved should be self-explanatory, as should the others.
Should we make {{ BotTrialComplete}} blackframe/yellow background instead (like {{ BAGAssistanceNeeded}}) so it catches the attention more? Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:39, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
What we'll need now is a bot/AWB run to cleanup "hardcoded" like this. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, everyone. After seeing the above discussion I've decided to be bold and rotate the extended trial icon. I'm hope I'm not stepping on any toes! I've got to go change the templates now. — ♫CheChe♫ talk 15:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add this {{
BRFA|TrustMeImAIRobot||Open}}
to the page
TrustMeImAIRobot (
talk) 15:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Per User_talk:BU_Rob13#Bot_autoassess_error the bot causes errors and the bot owner is aware of them. Instead of topping his bot and fix the error. The allow to bot to run and then fix manually. (It reminds me of Yobot in some cases). I think the bot should stop and resume only when the error is fixed otherwise search for a different approach for this minor task. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Article assessment is not a low priority task. It has been requested by the WikiProjects being tagged with knowledge of how the implementation works. There are consensus discussions to back up each project's opt-in. My bot doesn't run more than once per page in any given run (of course, if new project templates are added that need assessment between runs, a second edit is possible). That is simply false, as-is the claim that my bot removes duplicate parameters (it does not). I do welcome discussion of any bot task on my talk page, and I'm always happy to improve if one can suggest a better implementation. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Magioladitis ( talk · contribs), stop WP:REICHSTAGing in apparent retaliation for BU Rob's request concerning DexBot, and drop the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. If you have an issue with User:BU RoBOT, then I suggest you follow the directions outlined in WP:BOTISSUE, which I will quote here for both of you's convenience
It should be fairly obvious which bold passage applies to whom. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think it's obvious that Rob has two criteria though. The one that apply to other bots and the one that apply to his bot. I know that the problem with Rob's bot is not that big but it's good to handle at some point because the replies in his talk page were most of the direction that he is actually aware of the problem but his way to fix the problem is manually fixing the edges cases. It reminds me of something. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 16:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Were was User:Ladsgroup pinged in the above discussion User talk:BU Rob13? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The point here is that BU RoBOT's minor edit required another editor to make a cosmetic edit to fix the issue that BU RoBOT introduced. Seems to me that M. has a valid point here. I don't see any misspelling, nor any unambiguous error; just a parameter that wasn't assigned a value. Don't edits of this nature to talk pages clog up the article-space watchlists, thus making it possibly harder to detect article-space vandalism? I'm not sure one can watch an article without simultaneously watching its talk as well. wbm1058 ( talk) 20:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'd like the community to re-examine Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6. This bot task was approved by a former BAG member who has publicly stated they do not understand WP:COSMETICBOT many times over the past year with no consensus discussion behind it and no input from anyone else. The task itself just replaces a normal external link to an official website with {{ Official website}}. The output of these two methods of using official website links is the same. The only difference is that the template may help Wikidata import official websites; something that could be just as easily done with a bot without the template using a database dump. Given the lack of consensus, it seems clear this request for approval should have been bumped back to a broad community venue at the time it was submitted, not quickly approved. Without specific consensus, this violates COSMETICBOT.
For background: In February, I requested the bot operator to provide an explanation of the value of these edits or a pointer in the direction of any consensus at User_talk:Ladsgroup#Query. He declined to respond with anything but an appeal to look in his archives (which I was unable to locate anything within). That's a separate issue ( WP:BOTCOMM), but not what this thread is about.
Should this approval be rescinded until consensus has been demonstrated? ~ Rob13 Talk 15:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The conversion changes a hidden tracking page which helps compare date between English Wikipedia and Wikidata. It also help populate Category:Official website not in Wikidata (created in May 2015). Moreover, this is open since 2013 T99568. This is a 100% useful task. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 17:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Don't forget Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 in 2013 that also resulted in creating the tracking categories, modifying the template to support Wikidata fields, etc. There is an entire construction leading to the same direction. See also Template_talk:Official_website/Archive_2#Wikidata in 2014. Rob in fact opposes these changes and they do not tell publicly. They try with a piece-to-piece tactic to undo this construction. It's the same thing they do with the various bot tasks. What is the best place to report this behaviour of Rob? AN? Or should it be an ArbCom? -- Magioladitis ( talk) 18:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
If I've read the comments correctly, I think the debate currently seems to be:
In favour of rescinding approval for, and re-examining Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6:
Against rescinding approval for Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 6:
Neutral:
Any further additions or corrections from other editors? Hchc2009 ( talk) 10:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
This is satisfying for me because it shows that this is a procedure to re-examine consensus. This is totally OK. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 11:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, these are not cosmetic edits. Here's a recent edit. If you look at the post-bot version, it has a new tracking category, Category:Official website different in Wikidata and Wikipedia. This means that it is by definition not cosmetic, i.e. the HTML output is changed. The discussion on the bot operator's talk page makes it clear that these edits are part of a project to improve multiple WPs and Wikidata. BU Rob13, can you please strike your objection to this bot task on COSMETICBOT grounds? That would leave only your question about whether this task really has consensus, which I also have no opinion on, being a human who does not yet grok Wikidata. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 04:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There is also Category:Official website not in Wikidata and Category:Official_website_missing_URL. This means the task populates 3 different tracking categories. the default is to keep the task ans Rob and his supporters to open a discussion to change the consensus if they like. -- Magioladitis ( talk) 07:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
In this case, I think everyone can probably agree that some more direct method is preferable. If we want semi-automated transfer to Wikidata with human oversight, we can build a tool that allows such transfer to occur with human oversight and without any edits needed to Wikipedia. It could use database dumps to populate items needing review. If we want automated transfer to Wikidata, that's also a possibility - basically build that same tool without a GUI and with a bot account approved on Wikidata. Neither requires cosmetic edits to the English Wikipedia, and so both are more efficient manners of carrying out the task. Which method we should go with is up to consensus, and I have no strong feelings on which way we should go. I just know we definitely should not go in a direction that has no consensus supporting it, makes trivial edits, and is demonstrably inefficient in accomplishing the task it's attempting to accomplish. ~ Rob13 Talk 19:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Headbomb, JJMC89, Legoktm, Jonesey95, Magioladitis, and Anomie: I think we're going around in circles with three-and-a-half BRFAs going on right now about exactly the same topics. All three (as near as I can tell) are using pretty much identical regex, and now it just seems like we're holding one discussion in three locations. So, I'm bringing us all together. I realize I'm not BAG, but here's what it looks like we need to get this ball rolling:
Feel free to add points to this list if necessary, and feel free to ping anyone I missed. Primefac ( talk) 03:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Has this discussion stalled yet? Can we just approve the bots already for PMID and ISBN? (cc: Legoktm) -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
\[?\[?(digital object identifier\|doi|doi)\]?\]?(:|\s)+10\.\d+\/<foobar>
is a good starter. "Ends with \s
, ,
or \.\s
" should be the end. I just don't know how to regex that, because [^(\s|,|\.\s)]+
doesn't work. But that's a regex that shouldn't take long to develop and test. As for a "lack of ambition", I'm still waiting on
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/CitationCleanerBot_2.
Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 14:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)I agree with the others here and elsewhere that including DOI among these magic link fixes is out of scope. We can have a separate discussion about DOI, gain consensus for changing it, and then make the edits as part of other bot requests. In this case, we're focused on PMID and ISBN (RFC should be done manually). In my opinion, we should unblock/un-stall these magic link deprecations by approving the tested bots, such as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 13. Maxim, MaxSem, Addshore, JamesR, et al.: can one of you please take a look at these open bot requests and approve if everything looks okay? -- MZMcBride ( talk) 01:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
At
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PrimeBOT 15 a request was made for the bot to "Change syntax usage of {{
Episode list/sublist}} to allow for greater compatibility". This was approved and
AlexTheWhovian has modified
Module:Episode list with
this edit. When asked Will the trial break pages if the module edit hasn't been made yet? If so, we should do a trial in userspace.
, AlexTheWhovian responded It will not break any pages, no. What will happen is that summaries from the transcluded tables will appear in the articles that the tables are being transcluded to (nothing serious, just out of the ordinary); implementing the module edits will then restore this to hiding the summaries. Test cases exist in the
module's sandbox, the
module's testcases and
my sandbox.
[3] This response understates the problem of "reversing" the way that transclusion happens (i.e. normally episode summaries appear in the season articles but not in the "List of episodes" pages. Alex modified the module after the test, but before the bot had run on all articles and, as a result, all episode summaries have disappeared from season articles and appeared in the "List of episodes" pages. This has created confusion,
[4] and resulted in editors changing articles in the belief that doing so will fix the problem.
[5] I have no idea how many articles were changed in the 18 hours between when Alex modified the module and when I reverted his change, but this disruption to the articles is unnaceptable. It could result in many articles containing errors even after the bot runs, especially if someone has deleted the code that the bot needs to change. If the bot can complete the changes almost instantly, it won't be a problem, but if the bot takes some time to change all 12,376 transclusions, we may be looking at significant article breakage. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 18:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Episode list sublist template. wbm1058 ( talk) 18:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Your math is backwards, it's 1 edit every 2 seconds. But yes, about 30epm. Given the relative disruption caused by this change, I don't think anyone is going to care much if I'm a little over the recommended 20epm.
Primefac (
talk) 19:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC) too fast...
Primefac (
talk) 19:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Aren't we guaranteed to have article breakage during this ~6 hour window? You change one without changing the other at the same time, and functionality is broken.-- Alex TW 22:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Re Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JJMC89 bot 12; see this bot edit, which is understandable but leaves the FUR statement in a nonsensical state. Suggest leaving the link text unchanged and piping to the non-redirect link, rather than just changing the link. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)