Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RockfangBot 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

RockfangBot 3

[edit]

Operator: Rockfang (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Supervised Automatic

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Add {{Oldprodfull}} to talk pages of articles in Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed Category:All articles proposed for deletion that previously had a {{Prod}} and survived but don't have {{Oldprodfull}} already.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function Details: I'll make a list of pages in Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed Category:All articles proposed for deletion. I'll download the daily prod categories after the day has passed. Then save the list and wait until they would be expired. Afterwards, load the list and set up AWB to skip pages that have been deleted. I'll convert it to talk pages, and check to see if they contain {{Oldprodfull}}. If they don't, I'll add it.

Discussion

[edit]

Why is this necessary? Most of these pages are going to be deleted, per CSD G8, the talk page should be deleted as well. Mr.Z-man 21:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article and talk page is deleted, then it's a not a big deal. But if the article is kept, putting this template on the talk page would indicate to potential future PRODders that the article had been previously PROD'ed. For some articles, it can be a tad annoying to search through the edit history for previous PRODs. This discussion may explain more.--Rockfang (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be done by the script and/or bot doing the deletion. BJTalk 23:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Err, done by the admin that does the keep. :| BJTalk 00:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the keyword there in your response is "should". Runs by my bot would ensure that it gets done, and it would make one less things admins need to do.--Rockfang (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I still don't quite get it. Are there that many prod'd articles that don't get deleted? And why only Category:Proposed deletion-endorsed? These are pages where at least 2 people think the article should be deleted, so even less a chance of it being contested. I'm trying to think of a way to do this that won't result in 20 or so wasted (deleted) edits for every helpful edit it makes. The best thing I can think of is to keep track of the pages in the main category, Category:All articles proposed for deletion, then put the tag on pages that are removed from the category but not deleted. Alternatively, monitor recentchanges for prod removals. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that just because there might be "...20 or so wasted (deleted) edits for every helpful edit it makes" that the task request should be denied. I'm not worried about "wasted" edits. It would be by my bot so its not like it is going to inflate my edit count at all. And it would be 1 edit per talk page, so it is not like it is going to flood the edit history. Are there any other possible reasons why this shouldn't be done? I would be willing to expand the task to Category:All articles proposed for deletion if wanted.--Rockfang (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about make a database of prods by day then check them 7 days later, tag those that are left? BJTalk 01:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because what I requested is simpler using AWB.--Rockfang (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging them all is indeed simpler but I don't think it is the best approach. BJTalk 01:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Is the possibility of there being a better approach a reason to not approve the task request?--Rockfang (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with bjweeks. That template is meant as an easy way to see an article has failed prod for future reference so it doesn't get proded again. You shouldn't be tagging a prod article while the prod is still active. The Bot policy clearly states that bots should "carefully adhere to all revelant polices and guidlines". Just because its hard to make the bot wait before adding tags doesn't mean that you shouldn't have to do it. --Nn123645 (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't be tagging a prod article while the prod is still active. Why? Is there a policy or guideline that says when the template should be added? I don't know of one. In my opinion, this would be the best time to add the template.--Rockfang (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Because it's an unnecessary edit. If the page currently has a prod template then why does the talk page need yet another template saying "Hey this article was prod'ed"? If the article survives the PROD I could see the template being added, but not before. Q T C 03:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For some articles, it can be a tad annoying to search through the edit history for previous PRODs. So, you're saying go through the articles in a category and add this template where it's missing so it's easier for people to tell when it's been PROD'd. Why can't people just see that the article is in that category? Never mind, misunderstood the categorization. Q T C 02:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the request to Category:All articles proposed for deletion.--Rockfang (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to do this with the default features built into AWB would be to use BJWeek's method and go and download the daily prod categories after the day has passed then save the list and wait 7 days. After 7 days load the list and set up AWB to skip pages that have been deleted. --Nn123645 (talk) 03:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the request.--Rockfang (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the request currently stands, I support this and I think it would be useful. – Quadell (talk) 13:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the request provided the operator gives a generous amount of time to the prods. It sometimes is over 5 days before a prod is actually delt with by an admin. That's why I think something like the recommended time of 7 days should be upheld. As the request is currently written it sounds like the operator is planning on tagging the page directly after 5 days. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait the 7 days.--Rockfang (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}
If 4 days is too short for {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}, I apologise.--Rockfang (talk) 07:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Obviously we will need to wait a week before the trial can go ahead, unless you have the prod categories ready from last week. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 20:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the trial, can I just make a list of the articles in Category:Proposed deletion as of 15 July 2008 and then run the trial in 2 days? It would allow the trial to be done sooner.--Rockfang (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noone said no, so I went ahead and did a trial with the articles from the 15th. There was one page that was still around and did not have the template. I'm temporarily storing links for trial edits here for anyone that wants to check them out. I missed the list for the 16th, but I have the one for the 17th. I'll run trial edits for that list on the 24th.--Rockfang (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the 20 edits. The first edit was [1]. The other 19 can be viewed here. After I did the last 19, I went back to check them. FYI, there were numerous times where the admin that deleted the article due to the PROD, did not delete the talk page as well.--Rockfang (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very useful and should be approved, but I don't think that a talkpage of a deleted article should be tagged with {{oldprodfull}}. I think they should be tagged with {{db-g8}} instead. – Quadell (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article's talk page was deleted the same time as the article (which I don't understand why they aren't), then it wouldn't need to be tagged at all. Do most admins only delete the article and not the talk page?--Rockfang (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not convinced this can be done without a bot that has some logic to it. BJTalk 12:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
if article exists and not article talk exists:
   if not find(prod_template) and if not find (afd_template):
       tag article talk oldprod
else if article talk exists:
    tag article talk G8
AWB can't do that, I oppose this bot being approved. BJTalk 12:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If admins deleted both the article and talk pages, then the method I use would be fine.--Rockfang (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Admins forget to delete talk pages often and this is a problem that could easily be solved by an actual bot. BJTalk 13:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may have just thought of a solution using AWB that will not cause extra edits. Noone please close this yet.--Rockfang (talk) 13:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did. You import the list keeping it as articles. Then you set up AWB to not make any changes whatsoever. Also, on the skip tab, you select "No changes are made", and "Non-existant pages". It will process the list skipping all of them and listing the reason in the "skipped" box on the "logs" tab. You then move the ones with the "no changes" (meaning the article exists) reason to the (now empty) list and convert to talk pages. Then, {{oldprodfull}} can be added to the talk pages.--Rockfang (talk) 13:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that sounds fine to me... but it looks like it would be a non-trivial amount of daily, non-automated work for you. How long are you willing to keep this up? – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On a normal basis until at least December. I'm may be moving around that time frame, so I could be without internet for a week or two.--Rockfang (talk) 21:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}

My 2 cents: I think this should be approved, even though it's likely to be an interim measure. This task would be better as a fully automated bot, running unsupervised as a daily scheduled task... but it's important to make sure all odd cases are accounted for before that time. By approving a pseudo-supervised AWB task for this, Rockfang will get a very good idea over the next couple of months as to exactly how the tasks operates, and exactly what can go wrong. Later, someone (e.g. me, if no one else wants it) could create a request for approval of a fully-automated task, using Rockfang's experience. If that's cool with you, Rockfang, I mean. (Also, since the logic has changed, it might be appropriate to have a second trial before full approval.) – Quadell (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The only problem I've noticed was Joana Raposo. It was in my list for articles prodded on the 22nd, but now there is no history of it being prodded. I'm guessing that it was deleted, then remade. Can anyone verify this?--Rockfang (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was prodded once. Looking at recent contribs... --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/RockfangBot_3&oldid=1138383057"