Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 14
- 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.
Operator: Magioladitis
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB is open source. I can provide my settnigs file if asked.
Function overview: Moving HATNOTES on the top per WP:LAYOUT and WP:HNP to help accessibility and navigation
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Various discussions in various places show that this is a wanted task.
Edit period(s): Often
Estimated number of pages affected: ~3,000 articles in first run.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details: I ll run throught articles trancluding DABlinks. I ll use a custom module created for AWB and perform genfixes only if a DABlink and/or HATNOTE has to move on the top. AWB will do the rest.
In in intention is to have auto0tagger activated too. If I am asked I can disactivate it.
-- Magioladitis (talk) 14:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Discussion
edit
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — The Earwig (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Trial complete. (25 April 2010 21:48-22:14) [1] caused probably because they are two DABlinks on the top. I;ll try to find a way to avoid this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
The general fixes part of AWB needs to be carefully tuned before a large run is made. The controversial things (removing stub tags, rearranging reference order) need to be disabled if they would otherwise be turned on. The non-controversial general fixes (dashes, nbsp, etc.) are fine, of course, as is the specific task. It's just a few of the extra "general fixes" that can be controversial, but which are not actually necessary to carry out the task at hand here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just FYI, with the way we have stub tagger set I think there is no issue anymore with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks – I never really understood whether that was enabled by default or not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- I can ask for a way to disactivate ref reordering in bot mode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's your bot, you could just comment out that line and recompile. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I 'd prefer not to hack the code. One of my tasks is to improve AWB too. I 'll do it only if there is no other alternative. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Sure; adding this as a general option in AWB would be better. There had been some discussion about it, but I don't know if it got anywhere. Above, I was just just saying that, in the end, a bot operator is the one in control of the code they run, since they can always just edit it to do whatever they want. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I 'd prefer not to hack the code. One of my tasks is to improve AWB too. I 'll do it only if there is no other alternative. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Since it's your bot, you could just comment out that line and recompile. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- I can ask for a way to disactivate ref reordering in bot mode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks – I never really understood whether that was enabled by default or not. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:05, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just FYI, with the way we have stub tagger set I think there is no issue anymore with that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Has the problem with Acts of the Apostles been resolved? Josh Parris 14:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oh. Let me check. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
The bot general fixes, if it can be implemented and practical use agreed, will take some time. For the moment it's easy enough to run a genfixes custom module with only the genfixes you need enabled. Rjwilmsi 18:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with the above example is that AWB thinks it performed a move because they are two DABlinks already on the top or because they are changes in whitespace ([2]) (This comment is more for me and Rjw so we make a more solid solution than the one I give below). -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is that a "no"? Josh Parris 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Fixed now. I had only to activate "Skip if only genfixes". The move is done by a custom module. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- Is that a "no"? Josh Parris 04:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
- The problem with the above example is that AWB thinks it performed a move because they are two DABlinks already on the top or because they are changes in whitespace ([2]) (This comment is more for me and Rjw so we make a more solid solution than the one I give below). -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Approved. Josh Parris 09:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- 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.