Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DodoBot 2

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

Withdrawn by operator.

DodoBot 2[edit]

Operator: EdoDodo (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manual startup, automatic run (supervised)

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Will be available

Function overview: Add portal links using {{Portal}} or {{Portal box}} to relevant pages, per this request.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot Request

Edit period(s): One-off runs

Estimated number of pages affected: No runs planned yet, probably something in the 100s of articles per run.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Add portal links using {{Portal}} or {{Portal box}} to relevant pages automatically. So far it will add the link in the "see also" section if it exists, otherwise in the "external links" section. I am still open to suggestions about what to do if neither exists, a couple I was considering were adding it at the top if the page, adding it inline inside a new "see also" section (using the template would leave a blank "see also" section which is not very visually pleasing), and not doing anything (so a user can check it and place it wherever is best). I tried making a regular expression to add it at the top of the page, but having trouble with infoboxes, since adding it before an infobox will break formatting, so placing it under them would be ideal, but I'm having trouble detecting what an infobox is so haven't succeeded in placing it under one yet (because of nested templates, all infoboxes having different names, etc.). The next thing that I was considering is adding it alone in a new "see also" section, either inline (using a bullet point) or using {{Portal}} (most people find this isn't visually pleasing, but it's done on some good article such as United States). Regardless of all of the above, if there's an existing {{Portal}} or {{Portal box}} the bot will group it with existing portals (creating a {{Portal box}} if necessary).

Discussion[edit]

{{rfctag}} There is an ongoing discussion about whether a bot should add portal links (using {{Portal}}) to relevant pages, and how this should be done if there is no "See also" section to place the link in (Create one? Use {{Portal}} or a bullet point?). More input at the discussion, especially from editors experienced with portals, would be very welcome. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If neither exists, I then put the portals under the references section. If even that doesn't exist, I just put the portal at the end of the text. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, might make it do that, would like some more input from other editors on what would be best though. - EdoDodo ^talk 21:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally agree with WhisperToMe, but you may want to get some input from an editor more involved in portal tagging (I've almost never touched the stuff). As for a potential trial to test how the bot works – if you don't have any planned runs, is a trial even possible at this stage? It would be best to wait until the bot has a job before we test it out (duh), but how long will it be before that happens? — The Earwig ^(talk) 20:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think WhisperToMe had something in mind when he requested the bot. Otherwise, I have created a portal on IRC that I will be happy to add to relevant articles (Category:Internet Relay Chat up to one subcategory?) - EdoDodo ^talk 16:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to test the bot, I am happy to help. I try to tag portals myself. This would help me easily tag series of articles with portals. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I've already written the bot and when/if it is approved for a trial I can run it myself. - EdoDodo ^talk 09:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern here is that portal links were initially intended (as I understand it) to be added to be added to a few key articles - so {{Portal|Mexico}} might go on Mexico, Outline of Mexico, Index of Mexico-related articles, and maybe articles such as Mexican history. Some WikiProjects encourage their members to "Add a link to the portal on all XXX related articles".
Secondly the portal link should not go in refs, or external links - because it is neither (although most portals are terribly WP:SELF REF). If there is no "see also" then (it's likely that it's not a suitable article but) create one. Consider using a {{Clear}} before the header and after the portal flag, using a direct bulleted link
Mexico Portal

or floating the portal left with a colon thus.

Mexico portal

Rich Farmbrough, 17:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The reason why I placed portals in other sections is because other users sometimes try to delete seemingly empty "see also" sections. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that creating the See Also section would be the best way, perhaps floating the {{Portal}} left as you said, so it does not appear empty. As for tagging lots of articles with portals, I have very little experience with portals, so I'm not sure how many articles are normally tagged. It would be nice to have some more input from people involved with portals, I'm going to leave messages to a couple of people and relevant WikiProjects. - EdoDodo ^talk 09:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Here from a message on my talk page.) I'm worried that this will encourage the addition of the portal link to all (or a large subset of) project-tagged articles, which would be entirely inappropriate. IMO, the portal tag should only be added to a very small number of top-level articles, and these should be selected by editors after gaining the consensus of the project. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, if more editors agree that this is the way portal links should be added then I will be happy to withdraw my BRFA, since a bot would be unnecessary for tagging a few top-level articles. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who requested the creation of the bot, I had the idea that portal links are supposed to be added to "all (or a large subset of) project-tagged articles" - Wikipedia:Portal doesn't specify which articles need to have portals. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well do you agree with Espresso Addict's opinion now? Because if so then there is no consensus/need for this bot, and I'll withdraw my BRFA. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with his opinion - Portals are not inappropriate self-references to Wikipedia, and people need to see portals from all articles, not just the "major" ones. Portals will receive more traffic if every article is tagged with appropriate portals. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I mostly agree with you on this, so we can keep the discussion open. - EdoDodo ^talk 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. So... It's been a while since I opened this request and I've tried to encourage discussion with the RfC as well as asking a number of users involved with portals for their opinions on this, but it seems that discussion has gone stale. It seems there is no consensus for this bot, so although I would have liked a bit more discussion I am going to withdraw this request. If in the future there is consensus that a bot to add portal links is necessary then feel free to leave me a message on my talk page and I will be more than happy to reopen this BRFA. - EdoDodo ^talk 16:39, 6 July 2010 (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.