Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBotI 2

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.

STBotI

[edit]

Operator: ST47

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Continuation of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/STBotI with changes

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

Edit rate requested: Whatever I'm already approved for

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

Function Details:

Wikipedia:NFCC#10c enforcement on new images. I have two 'rules' for this, the first checks for lack of a link or a populated article= parameter in a rationale template:

  • elsif ($imagetext=~/\{Non-free|\{fair use|\{music sample/ and $imagetext!~/\[[^:]+\]|article\s*\=\s*[\[a-z]/i)

the second checks for certain keywords, doesn't work very well, and will most likely be removed later today.

A list of images which would be tagged under this method is at User:ST47/NFCC10c.

Discussion

[edit]

Not a good idea. because of the method of writing rationales is not standard and there is no requirement for the article parameter, or even a wikilink that is a bad Idea. βcommand 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Betacommand points out, the policy itself is not strict about formatting rationales. Something like this would be a reasonable job for AWB, since the regex test will be correct most of the time. But it may be a bad job for a bot, since people expect near-perfection from image bots. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't BetacommandBot do this? Anyway, how about another check, look for the names of the articles that contain the image on the image page? This would make the logic as follows:
  • Is there a wikilink? If yes, stop.
  • Is there a article= parameter? Is there text after it on the same line? If yes, stop.
  • Are there any links to the image? If no, report that, do nothing, and stop.
  • Check each link against the image description page. If any title of any article referencing this image appears on the page, stop.
  • Tag as violation of NFCC#10c.
Would that allay your formatting fears? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If not, maybe this can be a good use of the Wikipedia:TODAY proposal? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How would you (or, just plain would you) do anything different for wikilinks that are redirects? Or, would the presence of ANY wikilink suffice? SQLQuery me! 20:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any wikilink. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me in that case :) SQLQuery me! 12:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Eww at that regex, Perl allows different delimiters so you don't get that escape-spaghetti :P Q T C 08:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't any escaped forward slashes at all in there.
Anyway, poke! {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, that what ST47 laid out above, addresses the concerns by Carl and Betacommand pretty well. Approved for trial (50 edits or 3 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQLQuery me! 03:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. List at User:ST47/NFCC10c. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples:
--uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like it went pretty well. There were several images that your bot listed as having tagged, that it had never edited, by the way. Hardly a serious bug, however, I'd bet due to maxlag. SQLQuery me! 21:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. There's a last check to make sure the image hasn't been tagged that looks for {{di, and that is checked after the log entry is posted. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, figured it was something silly like that :) SQLQuery me! 23:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, is the bot approved? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. — Werdna talk 05:06, 18 March 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/STBotI_2&oldid=273934751"