Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard Where would one discuss a useful BOT (User:HotArticlesBot
) whose owner seems to have retired (@Kaldari
)? I am not currently a BOT operator, but would be willing to, if the choice is to lose a useful bot... (I did leave a note on his talk, and @User:xaosflux
does seem to have picked up some runs...so, not urgent. - Mjquinn_id
) 15:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
: You can probably email Kaldari to see if he can provide you the necessities for running it. --Izno
) 16:03, 8 September 2021 (UTC)And the source is open/published as indicated on the bot's user page, so you could also run it on a bot account of your own after a WP:BRFA
) 16:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation
tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on Tuesday, 14 September 2021.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki
, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
- You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, 14 September 2021. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 WEST/BST, 16:00 CEST, 19:30 IST, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Wednesday, 15 September).
- If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
- Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
- We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org
. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.
Should this job be a bot task? Some guidance please on an AWB job which has grown.
I then follow behind the bot, cleaning up as many as possible of the pages where the bot has made an edit, but not fixed any bare URLs. I use several tools for this, including WP:reFill
, which is outdated and has a few vices, such as using the old cite parameter |deadurl=
, which is now unsupported and should be converted to |url-status=
. Using |deadurl=
generates an error message and places the articles in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter
Rather than fixing this manually, I reckoned it would be faster and more accurate to use AWB to clean up the articles where my use of reFill had created errors.
That worked, and I soon found that it was easiest to just run it on all the pages in Category:CS1 errors: unsupported parameter
, cleaning up similar errors created by other editors as well by me. I run it 5 to 10 times per day.
I soon noticed that many of the pages in that category had other simple errors which could be fixed by a regex, so I began adding those regexes. The initially simple AWB setup is now on version 46, with over 40 replace settings. They include mis-spelt and miscapitalised parameters, non-English language parameters which can be translated, and some minor tasks (H:BR
fixes, and canonicalisation of some params) which are implemented only if an error has been fixed.
If it helps, I will post a copy of the settings file. Just ping me if you want it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)
) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I used to do thousands of these fixes with an AutoEd script, checking each one for errors before saving. As long as I was not making cosmetic changes, I just marked the edits as minor and kept going. I don't think 160 edits in a week reaches the bot-needed threshold; I would sometimes do that many in a day. The only reason to set up a bot, IMO, would be if you were bothered by having to do these changes manually. Also, if you are looking for more patterns to replace, drop a note on my talk page and I'll link you to my regexes. – Jonesey95
) 18:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I've be fixing CW Error #48
on automatic mode, and have done ~2000 edits, with no incorrect edits that I could see. Is this okay? ― Qwerfjkltalk
17:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I looked at your edits, and they look fine to me. Be careful with internal links
, which should be trimmed instead of removed entirely. It looks like there are tens of thousands of errors to fix, so you might want to file a BRFA. – Jonesey95
) 22:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Semi-automated article creation Hello! I am currently working on a project which involves semi-automated mass article creation. At the moment, my tool (CreateTaxonPages
) requires some manual setup, and then produces one-line stubs based on data from GBIF
and Wikidata (it would also edit/create Wikidata items). I would review the article, potentially add more text, and then publish it. I understand that automated article creation requires a BRFA per the bot policy
. However, I am currently proceeding very slowly (mainly to test the tool), and I review each edit before saving it (through my main account). I plan to test it for a while, and then slowly speed up article creation while still manually reviewing each page. If it works well, I plan to create a web tool (WebTaxonArticles
) for people to use. I plan to eventually have CreateTaxonPages
run automatically through my bot account, and I know I'll need a BRFA for that, but would I need a BRFA before this? Thank you! Tol
) @ 03:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I would say yes, a BRFA is required, as that’s bot-like creation of articles. ProcrastinatingReader
) 03:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)That's a very tricky question. The described process, where your tool creates a skeleton article that you then manually review and edit before publishing, would fall under WP:ASSISTED
. If you stop giving it adequate human review, even if a human is still pushing the publish button, you may wind up at WP:MEATBOT
. I'd recommend that, if you make a tool, it be limited to preapproved people who can be trusted to perform the necessary level of review before hitting publish.Also of note is that mass creation of taxon articles in particular has long proved controversial, as it turns out to be easy for seemingly-reliable databases to contain errors, outdated information, new taxons that are still in scientific dispute, and/or data that requires intelligent interpretation. See, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles
and various related discussions. IMO any BRFA for creating taxons must be strictly limited in the set of taxons to be created and must require that multiple members of the relevant WikiProject have already pre-reviewed the full list of taxons to be created for accuracy, and should probably also require that the wikiproject discussion was widely advertised to other relevant WikiProjects and possibly WP:VPR
as well. Anomie⚔
12:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
: I'd strongly urge follow up on part of this prior to even opening a BRFA - that the community will be in general supportive of all these assisted creations; this should have a well attended discussion with a consensus found - how attended and how strong of a consensus should be proportional to how large of a job this will be. — xaosflux Talk
13:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
: I'm not publishing the tool any time soon, though I would probably limit it to trusted users in some way (I was considering just using user groups — perhaps autopatrolled). I'm using GBIF
for all data, which is (in my experience) fairly reliable. However, I'm still manually reviewing each article and checking against recent articles if necessary. I'm hoping that manual input and review will mitigate problems such as those found in the AfD discussion you linked. @Xaosflux
: Should I request input at the Village Pump before speeding up, or is there another preferred venue? Tol
) @ 20:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
: if these are all on the same topic, I'd start with a discussion on the related wikiproject if it has any active members - get some initial feedback, then link in to it from VP. — xaosfluxTalk
21:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
: I saw this as being fairly wide-ranging. I'm currently doing testing with Phormidium
, which would fall under WikiProject Microbiology
, but I plan to create all sorts of species. I could try to concentrate in an area for a while after obtaining local consensus, then move on to another area. Tol
) @ 21:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
, before you get to BRFA, given that many taxon pages on Wikidata were effectively created as a result of Lsjbot's activities, which are known to be, well, bad, 1) what quality guarantee can you give on the point, and 2) if every species is not notable (no really, they aren't), why do you think you should create pages here? Izno
) 17:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
(Ah, I see Anomie/Xaos got it from a current revision. :^) Izno
) 17:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)@Izno
: All content
is sourced from GBIF
. Wikidata is only used to check for existing articles, to match up articles and GBIF IDs, and for populating Template:Taxonbar
) @ 20:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)As for notability, we do have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Species
. My reasoning is that it's an encyclopedic topic that's generally presumed to be notable, and could be helpful to readers, particularly if additional information is added — though I do believe that a (good) stub is better than nothing. Taxonbars also bring identifiers from Wikidata to a reader-facing article. Tol
) @ 21:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyone know a good archive bot? I'm making a news page and does anyone know a good archive bot for this? Thanks, Jeb andDinnerbone
) 08:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Bots need to upgrade to Pywikibot 6.6.1
Last edited on 22 September 2021, at 18:02
Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0
unless otherwise noted.