Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 1

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.

SSTbot 1

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

Time filed: 11:56, Saturday, May 21, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Redirect creation

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive923#SSTflyer and AWB ; Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 21

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~6,000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Creates redirects in the format "Events/Births/Deaths in [year]" to the relevant section in the relevant year article. The bot uses WP:CSV to create redirect pages, and skips any existing page.

For x = 1 to 2016, Events in x is created as a redirect to x#Events, with the redirect template {{R to section}}.
For y = 1 to 2016, Births in y is created as a redirect to y#Births, with the redirect template {{R to section}}.
For z = 1 to 1995, Deaths in z is created as a redirect to z#Deaths, with the redirect template {{R to section}}. Deaths in 1996 and later years are covered by separate articles.

Note that exclusion compliance does not matter, because the bot does not edit any existing pages.

Discussion

That AN thread is far from an endorsement of why you should make thousands of more redirects; has there been any other discussion in support of this process? (Has anyone asked for this other than yourself? — xaosflux ^Talk 12:19, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have created Events in 2007 as an example of a redirect that would have been created under this task, and I have immediately taken it to WP:RFD for discussion. If there is consensus that this redirect is useful, the same should apply to the other redirects I am planning to create, since they all follow the same format. SSTflyer 13:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The RfD is Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 21#Events in 2007. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:35, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Village Pump Proposals link was placed to generate community feedback. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but ask, how're you going to supervise a bot running on est. 6k pages considering you take a minimum 5 seconds to look over them (add +1 for processing). You'd need to sit over 3 hours or do it in batches. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 09:33, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand BRFA correctly, "supervised" means that edits are reviewed soon after being made, which means reviewing the redirects after they are created. SSTflyer 10:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do all of those year articles have #Births, #Deaths, and #Events sections? I'd say that the bot needs to look at each destination page before creating each redirect, and if a page doesn't have a section with precisely that title, the bot should log it for future human review instead of creating the redirect. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- For the years I am planning to create redirects for, yes. Year articles are standardized according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Years#Example Year style guide. SSTflyer 07:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This has kindly come to RfD's attention through the action of the proposing bot owner, which is I think very good faith and fair. I would only add that I think, if possible, a courtesy WP:RSECT at the sections of the targets the bot links to would be useful (this is expected of human editors, or MOS:LINK2SECT, because it means editors later changing an individual article see that there are redirects specifically to the section). I realise that puts a bit of strain on the bot but I imagine it is possible. So as long as they're tied up, I see no problem with it. This is purely a technical comment and I do not mean it to be taken as "for" or "against" whether we should do this (I haven't made my mind up because overlinking of dates in e.g. French Wikipedia is just well of very little utility but these are for specific sections not just kinda blunderbuss approach to linking every date that ever happened). Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's another thing. The bot should check whether actually we do have any deaths in let's say 607 AD. (CE). (We do as it happens but I just plucked a number from the air, but I imagine for many years we won't). We won't always have that section so to create a redirect to a nonexistent section would be meaningless. That is to say, when you say "for all n", it shouldn't be "for all n", but only for those n for which we have information. Otherwise we kinda do end up in the Neelix situation of having thousands of redirects with no information at the target which is WP:RFD#D2 confusing by consensus, usually. Si Trew (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I have to disagree about not creating redirects when a section is empty. Wikipedia will always be a WP:WIP, and just because a year does not (yet) list births or deaths that meet inclusion criteria does not preclude editors from adding entries in the future. SSTflyer 10:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh if the section is empty, if it says whatever it should say "We need more information on this section" {{tlx|empty section} is it? That is fine, I have no problem with that, that encourages editors to add information. What we can't do is essentially WP:REDLINK these redirects they will technically be blue link because the article exists but then give readers a WP:SURPRISE because there is no information at the target. That is easy to avoid if the bot goes and checks that the section exists. If the section does not exist, the bot should not create a {{R to section}} to it. As I have said at User:SSTflyers talk page I am quite happy to kinda work out the exact algorithm with that user. But here i is basically.


For all years n' as stated above
First, check there is a deaths, events, for n
If not, cancel
For others, continue:
Make a redirect as "Death", "Birth" or "Events" and record it under the law of the Register of Deaths, Births and Marriages 1949 like it says on my wedding certificate (joking a bit!)
At the target (and this is going to be the struggle for the bot cos now it has to edit the targets) add WP:RSECT comment that it is linked as is expected by a human editor.

A bot can not be worse than a human editor otherwise in my opinion it don't run. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SimonTrew that a section should exist before we create a redirect. I don't have a problem with a redirect to an empty category, though. ~ Rob^Talk 22:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSECT is a recommendation. As it's worded, it's not even a particularly strong recommendation. Further, the point of the recommendation is to allow redirects to be fixed when section headings change, but these section headings have a near zero chance of ever changing. I can't think of any plausible circumstances under which they would be altered in the future. I don't think we should make any big deal out of spamming comments into articles. In fact, I'd advise against it. ~ Rob^Talk 02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. {{onhold}} Pending discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 21. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is on my wedding certificate the Register of Deaths, Births and Marriages Act 1949 but I was just using that to kinda show the algorithm I was not making a point of it. Si Trew (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: the RfD discussion has been closed as keep, and there is at least no consensus against the creation of such redirects. SST flyer 07:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (75 edits or 10 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your initial run, I've added AWB in manual mode for this account - please report back findings after these are created. Assuming this is successful a subsequent run of 500 pages with +AWBbot, +autopatrolled will be scheduled. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. SST flyer 14:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No issues as far as I can see. SST flyer 14:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I want this to sit for 2 days for any feedback, then we can do a longer trial (a few hundred pages) in automated mode with autopatrolled. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (500 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. AWB Bot mode and +autopatrolled enabled for this trial. Please report back when complete. As you do not have a bot flag, please set delay=6 seconds. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. SST flyer 11:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Wait until the account is +bot before the main run. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: I don't particularly think this task is worthwhile, but we have done due diligence in determining community support in multiple locations to warrant this moving forward. I have no specific technical reason to oppose this task, so am closing as approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:04, 7 June 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.