Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeadbeefBot 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

DeadbeefBot 2[edit]

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

Operator: 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 16:52, Saturday, February 4, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Automatically merge {{OTDtalk}}, {{ITNtalk}}, and {{DYKtalk}} templates on article talk pages to the {{Article history}} template if present

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Rust

Source code available: https://github.com/fee1-dead/deadbeefbot/blob/main/src/articlehistory.rs

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Merging OTD templates to AH

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 2162 + 190 + 954, minus duplicates is ~3000 pages.

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Find talk pages where the article history template is present, and that there are also DYKtalk, ITNtalk or OTDtalk templates. If the bot recognizes the parameters, it will remove the xxxTalk template and add those as parameters to {{article history}} instead.

Discussion[edit]

  • Pinging @SandyGeorgia. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx for the ping. I'm unfamiliar with the typical format here, but "one time run" might not be so. This is a recurring problem, as no single bot today does what GimmeBot used to do (roll all templates everywhere in), so as ITN, OTD, DYK and GAN continue to add templates, they need to be regularly processed. FACbot gets them all, the GAN Reviewer Tool misses some, and there will always be stragglers until/unless someone re-invents what GimmeBot used to do. I would guesstimate that a weekly to monthly run would be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary to that is that each bot now doing all the different pieces uses a different format, where GimmeBot followed a standard format, so that the article history parameters now become jumbled and incomprehensible to those unfamiliar (even though the template still works). If it's possible, please be sure to order the entries in a standard way, as Gimme did. Understanding and use of AH will be enhanced if the average editor understands how to read and use it. See Syntax that Gimme used: the spacing between action-events helps, and the non-action events (which ITN, OTD and DYK are), are grouped at the bottom. Arranging OTD like this makes it more readable than a long string. Thanks for doing this! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, also be aware of Category:Article history templates with errors, which has enough followers (like me), that problems get regularly fixed (and I see one there now). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This bot should add merged otd/itn/dyk parameters to the end of the template, but I am not sure about the whitespace and newlines. I will test that using my sandbox when time allows. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current count is 3256 fwiw. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a list of bots and scripts that merge templates into the {{Article history}} template:
I of course support this BRFA as a quick fix and time saving for the gnoming that SandyGeorgia does, but thinking longer term, there may be an opportunity to create a module/library that all these bots and user scripts use. If we can all get to using the same language, maybe we can copy the code from FACBot. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If code is copied from FACbot, I'd be thrilled if it could follow the syntax scheme laid out above and in the {{Article history}} template, rather than tacking new action-events on to the bottom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm not sure what bot it is, but OTDs are added to AH -- when it is present -- in one format, but to the talk page in a different format when AH is not present. That may be Anomie bot ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FACBot uses regular expression to find and modify templates. This bot uses parsoid. What might be best is to do automatic grouping of these templates if more than one is found. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Handling of ITN and DYK templates were fixed, because there was an undocumented way to supply date in unnamed parameters. Currently, it will throw away any oldid or alt parameters for the ITN template. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See here for edits made. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:58, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
0xDeadbeef I checked quite a few of them including the first ten 17 and then random others further down the list. I found no errors or issues.
I do have some suggestions for improvements/upgrades should you be able to accomodate them. My aim is for as much standardization as possible, to hopefully make it easier for editors to understand the template.
  1. The article history template was originally created at Template:ArticleHistory, so many older entries use that. As long as you're in there anyway, could you update those to the current name, which is Template:Article history? See my sample checks.
  2. Years ago (not sure how many) DYK noms were not set up in separate pages, so very old DYKs don't have a nom page. At some point, DYK switched to having a nom page, but the DYK bot was not adding them to the template. In those cases, one can guess at the location of the DYK template based on the hook, and unless the article has moved, find it and add it to the template. I wonder if you feel up to also taking on that task? That is, find the highlighted article in the hook, see if a DYK page exists for that; if so add it, if not, ignore, no problem. Samples: here (ignore my typo) and here
  3. The TFA Coords are now having to re-run FAs that had a previous maindate appearance. Starting the ITN on a new line would be better than adding it after an existing parameter, if you're able to make that adjustment. It leaves the template easier to understand, and makes it easier for the TFA Coords to see where maindates are. Sample here.
Will someone let me know if I've checked a large enough sample? Thank you SO much for this, 0xDeadbeef. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: 1 is trivially doable, which I have changed. For 2, I have a feeling that we could simply code it within the template to search for the nom page and link if it exists. (technical detail: Module:Article history/config#L-1879) For 3: It is a bit hard, it basically involves adding a newline to the last parameter of the AH template before inserting our ones. Because there might be cases where the last parameter already ends in a newline, I went with the conservative approach. It could be possible using a regular expression, though, so I will have to see if I can make this work. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 05:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome ... I'm unsure how the bot approval process works; do we need another trial of 50, since #1 is trivial, and does the change for #2 need to be tested, or is it good to go? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change for #2 needs changes in the template's modules. I am not a template editor and I don't have time to put up an edit request right now, so those edits would need to be requested at another venue. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 09:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what needs to be requested or where, so maybe one of the experts here will advise on how to follow up ... anyway, not critical ... I will just continue gnoming the missing DYKnom= on FACs and FARs. Thx, again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
0xDeadbeef I'm unfamiliar with the bot request process; do you know why this is stalled? (Just catching up on my watchlist after having had houseguests for a week). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia there is handful of bots that have completed the trial period and are awaiting response from Bot Approvals Group members. Putting this template should draw some attention: {{BAG assistance needed}} 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I'm not in a hurry; I was just concerned that my additional "wish list" above had slowed things down for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. No issues in trial edits. Changes made since the trial sound pretty minor. Please consider running this as weekly/monthly cronjob rather than just a one-time run. – SD0001 (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2023 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DeadbeefBot_2&oldid=1141597265"