Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BD2412bot

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.

BD2412bot[edit]

Operator: BD2412 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:15, Thursday, May 14, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised,

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser.

Source code available: AWB.

Function overview: I frequently clean up links left from disambiguation page moves. For example, the page Epping previously was an article on a town in England. This page was moved to Epping, Essex, and Epping became a disambiguation page with several hundred incoming links. As is commonly found in such cases, most of the links intended the town in England, and many were found in formulations like "[[Epping]], Essex", or "[[Epping]], [[Essex]]". A similar issue is the recurring creation of common patterns of disambiguation links to heavily linked articles; for example editors will often make edits creating disambiguation links like "[[heavy metal]] music" and "the [[French]] language", which can easily be resolved as "[[heavy metal music]]" and "the [[French language]]". Over time, large numbers of these links may build up. I would like permission to run AWB as a bot so that when page moves are made or common disambiguation targets become heavily linked, obvious formulations like these can be changed with less of a direct investment of my time.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links generally contains the protocol for repairing links to disambiguation pages.

Edit period(s): Intermittent; I intend to run this when a page move creates a large number of disambiguation links, for which obvious formulations for a large number of fixes can be seen.

Estimated number of pages affected: New disambiguation pages are created frequently. I would guess that between a few dozen pages and a few hundred pages might require this kind of attention on any given day, although there are likely to be days where no pages require such attention.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes, as AWB does this automatically.

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No):

Function details: When large numbers of links to new disambiguation pages are created from existing pages having been moved to disambiguated titles, or from the buildup of common patterns of editing behavior over time, I will determine if there are obvious patterns of links to be fixed, for example changing instances of "[[Epping]], Essex" or "[[Epping]], [[Essex]]" to "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], Essex", or "[[Epping, Essex|Epping]], [[Essex]]". I will then run AWB in bot mode to make these changes, and review the changes once made.

Discussion[edit]

BD2412 I like the idea of this bot but I think similar proposals have been rejected in the past as WP:CONTEXTBOT. Could you please raise a discussion at WP:VILLAGEPUMP so that we check whether there is consensus for these changes or not? There might be traps I can't think of right now. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which Village Pump page would that go to? bd2412 T 15:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 Let's start from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Bot_request_for_disambiguation_link_fixing_issue. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I was afraid... Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_49#Bot_request_for_disambiguation_link_fixing_issue. I see no actual consensus there. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 can you provide me a list of 50 manual edits doing this task? I would like to judge reactions. I do not guarantee approval. In fact, while I like this task a lot, I think it will get a lot of reactions. Still I think you can try to make 50 edits so we can really see reactions. Take it an unofficial bot trial. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recently did a run of about 10,000 fixes to links to Striker (which is soon to be turned unto a disambiguation page). Not all of these fall into the pattern that I have discussed here, but those that changed [[Midfielder]]/[[Striker]] to [[Midfielder]]/[[Striker (association football)|Striker]] would. There were probably a few hundred of those in the mix. This run of my contributions was in the thick of this run. bd2412 T 23:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 My experience show that there will be a lot of reaction. I'll reject the bot request and I encourage you that you keep doing this kind of changes supervised by your normal account using AWB. Unless, of course, there is at some point clear consensus that I do that do this kind of stuff. Some editors in the past even complaint for orphaning a link before xfD closes. Just a general remark for oter editors that my be readin this: BRFA is not the place to gain consensus but a place to request based on consensus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not proposing to orphan links prior to an XfD closing - I generally don't, in fact. Striker was an exceptional case based on the volume of links, and the fact that the RM time has run with multiple votes of support and no objections. My proposal is directed solely to link fixes needing to be made after a consensus-based page move has been carried out. I have had very few reactions to runs of thousands of fixes made using AWB, and I have never had a reaction when making obvious fixes of the type I propose. I would be glad to keep doing it this way, but I have actually physically burned out computer mice and had wrist aches that lasted for days! bd2412 T 00:37, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BD2412 Any ideas of how we can ensure there is consensus for this task? I hope you understand my position. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding consensus for fixing disambiguation links, which is the foundation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. bd2412 T 19:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need Anomie's opinion on this one... -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a trial run this weekend. Thanks. bd2412 T 15:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Gentle poke given that it's been two weeks. What's the status? — Earwig ^talk 20:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy with things that keep me logged in to my regular account - I can't run AWB as a bot unless I log into the bot-authorized account. I'll give it a run-through tonight. I'll need to find a set of links with applicable fixes first. bd2412 T 20:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a few tests, but at the moment there are no disambiguation pages with large numbers of links requiring the same solution. These come up sporadically. I tested the bot function on links containing "layout = Longitudinal" (for which the only answer will be Longitudinal engine), links to San Vicente, El Salvador (changed to San Vicente, El Salvador) and Fukushima, Japan (changed to Fukushima, Japan). I made a typo on one variation of the "Longitudinal" fix, and fixed that manually. Otherwise, everything went smoothly. bd2412 T 01:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Now I understand better what the bot does and I like it more. Should you try find more examples in order to complete the 100 edits test period? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to test more - it's a matter of time before an existing article with a few dozen incoming links is moved in favor of a disambiguation page, leaving a certain number of obvious repetitive solutions to be enacted. bd2412 T 12:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- gentle poke - any updates? :) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 12:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something will come up. It always does. bd2412 T 15:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a half dozen more fixes with the bot. It's not a lot, but it is exactly the kind of thing I intend to have it do. bd2412 T 18:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, at last there was a big disambiguation task where I could run this for the purpose for which it is really needed; African has been made into a disambiguation page with over a thousand incoming links. I found a number of obvious fix formulations and ran AWB with those, and made 119 fixes from that group. bd2412 T 01:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also used the bot to fix about 700 links to IDG, which had been turned into a disambiguation page. The links that I fixed were formatted as "publisher=[[IDG]]", and there is only one "IDG" that is a publisher. bd2412 T 13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. To update the status. @Magioladitis and Addshore:. I'll loop back around if nobody's watching. :P --slakr^\ talk / 04:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis, Addshore, and Slakr: What's the status of this? There is a prime candidate for the bot to work on, as there should be some clear fixes that the bot can do for links to the new Palestine disambiguation page. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: To clarify, this task is manually initiated and supervised, right? In that case, WP:CONTEXTBOT never applied. I can't see where opposition to this would originate from. — Earwig ^talk 05:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, each run of edits would be (and has been) manually initiated and supervised. bd2412 T 13:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me.

Approved. — Earwig ^talk 18:16, 11 September 2015 (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.