Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JarBot

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.

JarBot

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

Time filed: 05:48, Wednesday, January 6, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): python

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: the bot will put Portal for the Articles that don't have Portal, like here 1 this example from ar wikipedia by my bot.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): etc

Estimated number of pages affected: It depends on the number of articles portal do not have link with portal

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details:

Discussion

Please don't use the bot until it has been approved. This BRFA should be edited by the operator (who is that, by the way? a bot can't be it's own operator), not the bot itself. Max Semenik (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Hi Max Semenik, any help to Transfer the requests to the right page. Thanks.[reply]

Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} This bot request is missing key elements for evaluation and will be denied if not updated. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have no estimates, where are you going to get your list of articles to target? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this going to be running under python, AWB, both? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, AWB, i well get the list from the cat.--جار الله (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked your bot account for this specific trial only. I think we may be hitting a language barrier as to your explanation - please run a VERY SHORT trial of only the edits you plan on being in scope of this request to demonstrate. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once your edits are done, please post here with the details of what was done. — xaosflux ^Talk 06:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've enabled AWB for this account in manual-save mode for this trial. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Xaosflux, 1 2 3 4 5 6, Are there a mistake?!--جار الله (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They look OK in general. What are you going to use for your list of categories to process? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:20, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux, Now I'm will work on the schools Portal (Category:Schools by country), and then I would choose aonther Portal.--جار الله (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Xaosflux Trial period is over what is the decision?.--جار الله (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs)
I think the placement could be adjusted a bit. In many of the articles without "see also" sections (e.g. [1] [2] [3]), I'd argue it belongs at the top of the section so it doesn't create undesirable whitespace at the end of the page. — Earwig ^talk 04:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Earwig, Can you show me where you want to put template, About whitespace can be fix.--جار الله (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of the external links section, rather than the bottom. Example. — Earwig ^talk 20:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i think if i use the Portal bar will fix whitespace, like this 1.--جار الله (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like it, especially as default behavior... — Earwig ^talk 23:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok articles without "see also" the bot will put see also sections and the articles with "see also" the bot will put the Portal there, What's your opinion?.--جار الله (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't add a see also section just for the portal—WP:PORTAL recommends against that. Why not just go with my suggestion? — Earwig ^talk 04:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

i read WP:PORTAL And understand where i most put the Portal, if "see also" sections Existed there if not in external links if the both not i put like what i did, or what?!.--جار الله (talk) 13:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well the instructions there were added by User:Debresser in 2015, and are merely a copy of the instructions on the template document page. These were added by User:Mr. Stradivarius. This may be based on a 2012 message on the template's talk page that MEDMOS deprecates See also sections - this however is no longer the case.

A portal is an internal link, and therefore belongs in the See also section. We do not eschew See also sections with only one link in general, so I see no reason to do so for the portal template. (Indeed there is a case for using a plain link, in this case it is stronger than in the general case.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

One wonders why navboxes aren't in the "see also" section, either... — Earwig ^talk 18:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accident only. We should really have an RFC and get refs moved to the very end, or even find a better mechanism for them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

If you precede {{Portal}} with a : it will float left instead of right. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC).[reply]

ok i will do it, i don't have more Trial edits, if it possible let me do 5 edits to show it to you, thanks.--جار الله (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you can do 5 or 10. — Earwig ^talk 21:35, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux:@The Earwig: i made 9 edits 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 i hope is Successful.--جار الله (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good. I just want to be clearer on how the bot will decide which portals to add to which categories so we don't end up adding portals to the wrong pages. The first question is whether the category traversal is recursive. Second, would it make sense to check with relevant WikiProjects before adding portals to their pages, similar to how we usually handle banner tagging? Thanks! — Earwig ^talk 19:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux:@The Earwig: I will Choose the category carefully, Like the school category and school portal, and for more examples, Category Populated places in Kuwait i will put Kuwait portal, this what i will do.--جار الله (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I need a bot flag for another job in a different Wikipedia I have a bot flag in them but I need to get here the bot flag so I can get more than 25,000 pages when searching with AWB The fact that the administrators and bots have this option and I promise that I will not use the bot here if was rejected subject of portals but I need science to assist me work on other Wikipedia. Thank you and I hope acceptance of all these efforts will be ultimately for the benefit of the Wikipedia.

I apologize for my bad English.--جار الله (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So do you not even want to edit on enwiki, but are really trying to get Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/apihighlimits-requestor access? What kind of data do you need, can you get it from a dump instead of interactively? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: i need to do edit on enwiki but if the was rejected subject of portals, i ask for the flag, yes i can get data from a dump but the size of dump very big and i most to update the dump ever Month, for that the flag bot is Easier, but i need to edit here too and i will be happy if the subject of portals Accepted.--جار الله (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as

Trial complete.; haven't actually looked myself yet. --slakr^\ talk / 03:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. I ask that you try to check with a WikiProject before tagging articles under its scope—a week with no objections is probably good enough. — Earwig ^talk 20:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amended following discussion at WP:BN - Constraint calcification added: Prior to any portal additions to article pages, a consensus must be established at a related WikiProject or with related portal maintainers - this can be by a discussion at the related pages. This replaces the "try to" requirement with a clearer "must be established" requirement. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:26, 11 April 2016 (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.