Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 50

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

Yobot 50[edit]

Operator: Magioladitis (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 09:40, Friday, February 3, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): WPCleaner

Source code available:

Function overview: Convert internal link written as an external link

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 30 pages per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: CHECKWIKI error 90. WPCleaner description: The script finds an external link that should be replaced with a wikilink. An example would be on enwiki [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Wall Larry Wall] should be written as [[Larry Wall]]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Exclusion compliance? Function details? It's not immediately clear from the brief description what this does and how it checks to ensure it's only altering appropriate links. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you intend to locate articles needing this edit? Is this something that's built into AWB, or custom code, or a regex replacement, or something else? Anomie ⚔ 13:33, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anomie I ll use lists generated by CHECKWIKI daily scans, CHECKWIKI montly scans and WPClenaer bi-weekly scans. All implemented by others. AWB does not have the ability to generate this kind of lists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object in any way to using the daily lists, but I wonder if historical problems may have been avoided if you controlled the lists yourself via database scans (using dumps). That way you're aware of any change to the list methodology and can ensure the lists don't contain pages that don't need a particular fix. Is that feasible? AWB can do database dump scans, although I imagine there'd be more of a delay, and I don't know if the bandwidth required to download dumps regularly would be an issue for you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 I assume good faith and a large part of the idea is collaboration between people. I am not the main programmer of AWB neither. Moreover, due to limited internet access I can't download the dumps by myself. I can't afford buying a more expensive internet connection. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not added function details. There need to be examples of what you are doing (with/without text, direct/index/php link, etc.). Does this only convert article links? Does this touch the references (e.g. here)? Do you check that the target article exists? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz It changes only links. Fr a list of ages check Wikipedia:CHECKWIKI/090_dump. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The very first page there isn't a link, but an image ([1]). So does that mean the bot also changes non-links, like image links? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz links to images to are equal to the image name will be removed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The function details are not specific enough to tell what this bot task would include. The instructions say "List full and complete function details here.". There is another BRFA with exactly the same description, and also without any info in the function details. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more detailed description. Detection is done by WPCleaner. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Similar as #51 and what I already mentioned above) What about https? What about links via index.php? What if there are additional url parameters? What about non-articles (you mention images above, but not in function details)? What if piped text is the same/different? Are only external links in [] modified? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz the task was done for more than 2 years. I will use WPCleaner. I don't know the exact mechanism. AWB does not fix any of these. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not as familiar with WPCleaner as with AWB. Is it the case that, when the bot makes this edit, no other changes to the page will be made at the same time? In other words, does WPCleaner have a function like AWB's general fixes? — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CBM No general fixes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Examples: [2], [3]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} This is standard WPCleaner procedure. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please post results below when done. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux Example diffs: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. diff of 46 edits. Today's list had another 366 pages that remained unfixed and need to be fixed manually. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trial looks fine (although it is 46 edits, not the authorized 30 edits). Approval looks fine here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Task approved. ~~Please adjust edit summaries for this task to link to your task description/approval (can be on a user page or this BRFA)~~ (Not currently available with this utility). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.