- 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 Request Expired.
Operator:
Hazard-SJ (
talk ·
contribs ·
SUL ·
edit count ·
logs ·
page moves ·
block log ·
rights log ·
ANI search)
Time filed: 05:42, Thursday June 20, 2013 (
UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available:
GitHub
Function overview: Helping out at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Whenever it checks requests are available
Estimated number of pages affected:
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Some of the details, I'm currently unsure of, but I'll separate them into parts for easier discussion:
- Helping out at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working;
- Making merges to multiple targets (this is
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Multiple merge targets, but I plan to make a subpage in my bot's userspace for users (admins only, I guess?) to add the general cases of this merge (in some cases I might end up hard-coding some of these since they might not all be straight-forward;
- Null-editing articles based on
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Templates removed or updated - deletion pending automatic emptying of category;
Adding {{
cfd jobqueue}} per
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Templates removed or updated - deletion pending automatic emptying of category where necessary;
Hazard-SJ
✈
How do merges to multiple targets work exactly? Don't you need to manually specify everything for each case anyway? From what I understand you want to add generic templates for admins to work with? Some more detail would greatly help, as it takes ages to review all the venues and processes to review this BRFA. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Generally a merge to multiple targets is the same as a normal merge, however it is done for each target in turn. So if the merge is
Category:Foo1 to
Category:Foo2 and
Category:Foo3, you would replace
Category:Foo1 with
Category:Foo2 and add
Category:Foo3 in the affected article. This assumes that the target categories exist.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- But in case of multi-merges the bot also IMO should check whether the target categories are on the page. If
Category:Foo2 is already on the article, than it should replace
Category:Foo1 with
Category:Foo3; if
Category:Foo3 is already on the page, than it doesn't need to be added again; and if both (or every) are already on the page, than it just needs to remove
Category:Foo1. Thus I think a better approach in this IMO would be to remove the original category and add the target categories, which are not on the page already.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
01:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, correct, and I agree with the above.
Hazard-SJ
✈
05:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Approved for trial (5 cases/merges). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see a small run. Don't think not being an admin is an issue here, because the bot or botop don't make up new cases, just follow through already decided ones. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
21:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
reply
- {{
OperatorAssistanceNeeded}}
Armbrust
The Homunculus
23:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I apologize for the delay, hopefully I can get to this soon.
Hazard
SJ
03:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- {{
OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} More than twenty days passed, but still nothing happened.
Armbrust
The Homunculus
14:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry about that, I expect to have this done within the next week.
Hazard
SJ
07:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
Trial complete. I was working on the code earlier in the week, but didn't get to finish it. However, it's now complete.
These edits were initially made, but I became aware they messed up the page layout somewhat, so I modified the code, so the latest set of edits are
these edits. If more edits are needed for the trial, just let me know.
Hazard
SJ
19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Looks OK. The only issue that I was was the insertion of a blank line between categories. Categories should be in one group with no blank lines between them.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Was that in the first set of edits?
Josh Parris
23:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I thought so. In looking at that again it seems the blank line is between the DEFAULTSORT and the first category. There should not be a blank line there.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Some things I noticed:
-
[1] messed up the
WP:ORDER
-
[2] moved the interwiki Featured Article link, but I could find no MOS reason to do so, nor any reason not to do so. The documentation for {{
Link FA}} is silent on where to place it. {{
Featured article}} says "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis". I suggest you change the bot's behaviour to match {{
Featured article}} and change {{
Link FA}}'s documentation to match (also {{
Link GA}}). And pull mentions of interwikis.
-
[3] removed a blank line in the category list - good work
- The addition of a blank line between DEFAULTSORT and the cats seems unnecessary. Is there any MOS reason to do so?
-
Josh Parris
23:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Re the order comment, the before example was also wrong. As I understand the MOS, there should be two blank lines between the last category line and the first stub line. There should be no blank line between DEFAULTSORT and the first category. While special words like that start with {{ they are not really templates and should not be treated as templates. Also, there should be no blank line between {{
Authority control}} and DEFAULTSORT. Don't know if that is documented but seems to be how articles are edited.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
00:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
- {{
OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} What's the skinny?
Josh Parris
01:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
reply
Operator has edited on four days in the last two months and has become unresponsive. I'm expiring this without prejudice; the operator is welcome to re-open. Request Expired.
Josh Parris
07:40, 17 November 2013 (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.