Wikipedia talk:Bots/Noticeboard/Attribution bot proposal

Discuss issues with the Attribution bot proposal.

Proposal: change 'Comment' lines to noinclude content

DreamRimmer, if it is all right with you, I would like to change the concept of 'Comment lines' in the §§ Input file format and input file description, and remove its definition as any string between /* these delimiters */. That creates some awkwardness in interaction with non-data lines on the page, as you can see in the wikicode of User:JeyReydar97/Attribution set 1, where it awkwardly interacts with the hatnote at the top of the page, and with the {{div col}} template that folds the list in reader view mode. The page works, it's just weird looking, and non-standard.

I still want to keep the concept of user-defined, non-data line elements, but more following the wiki-way. I suggest we simply use pairs of <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags around whatever the user wishes to have on the page that is not one of the data lines. If you are okay with this proposal, I will change the spec; or if you have a better idea, please lmk. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User requests and administration

I've added new section § User requests and administration. Please look it over and change it in whatever way makes your life easiest. Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! User requests and operation section looks awesome. Thank you for all your hard work, Mathglot. I really appreciate it :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on live run...

DreamRimmer, please hold off on making a live run; I am making a change to the edit summary text, and will ask for your approval. Please stand by... Mathglot (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer, I made a bunch of changes, but almost all in the interest of clarity; very little substantive change. Only two that might affect you:

There is no longer a concept of /* comment delimiters */; instead, please see new subsection § Comment lines, which explains the use of inclusion control as a sort of comment-line workaround. This plays much nicer with other material the user may wish to see when viewing their page, such as hatnotes, See-alsos, Intro paragraphs, templates to fold the list, and so on.
The summary text has been slightly modified to append some sort of bot id. I have proposed (by AttriBot) but feel free to place anything there that will somehow identify it. Later, if/when a bot is approved, we should also link the id to the bot landing page.

Maybe a third thing, regarding the words Dummy edit in the summary. In your test edit, you included the words, Dummy edit to note that the, but that all seems superfluous to me. In fact, none of the suggested wording at WP:CWW, including examples at WP:TFOLWP and at WP:RIA mention in the edit summary that the dummy edit is a dummy edit. The WP:RIA suggests starting with the word NOTE:, which makes sense to me, because exceptionally it is talking about *some other edit*, so I feel that is a worthwhile inclusion (and it's brief). What I do personally, when repairing insufficient attribution manually, is include the word NOTE: and hyperlink it to the RIA shortcut, so I end up with something like this:

[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of $TIMESTMAP was translated...

and that would be my preference; unhyperliked NOTE: second choice. But I don't feel strongly about it, and if you prefer explicitly identifying it as a dummy edit in the summary, I don't object.

My chief concern is the first two points about comment lines, and some kind of bot identifier tag; are you okay with those two? If so, I think we are ready for the next step: a debug run. Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Sure, I will run it in dry mode and only generate logs. Since I will be using my alternate account for this, I cannot use “(by AttriBot)” in this run. If we handle more than 500 articles or 3 to 4 requests in the future, I will file a BRFA, and we can include it then. Regarding the dummy edit wording in the edit summary, I noticed it being used by others, which is why I adopted it, but I am fine with your suggested format. Thank you for formatting the page. This works for now, but for future runs, I will provide a format that the bot can easily understand. There are some issues with dummy edits that automated user scripts or bots may encounter, such as being unable to make an edit by adding a space if there is already trailing whitespace or a newline. In such cases, the bot cannot perform an actual edit, so I plan to run it in supervised mode for the first few edits to compare the new content with the old content before saving any changes. – DreamRimmer (talk) 01:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer, Understood; we can deal with appended id later. If it's just a dry run, then we don't need to wait for confirmation from JR (see next section), but we should do, before doing a live run. A couple of questions:

Shall I change those /* comment delimiters */ to <noinclude>s? That would be my preference, but if you are ready to go, we can change that later.
Does your procedure make it easy enough for you to write the output log anywhere you want? In section § Logging of the spec, I suggested writing the log to a subpage named '/log' of the input file, but I don't really care where it goes as long as we can do something systematic enough to be documented.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Please check log at User:JeyReydar97/Attribution set 1/log. – DreamRimmer (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is encouraging, thanks! I glanced at the top few, but am about to be on some other things and then offline for a bit, possibly till tomorrow. Should have it checked within a day, though. Log format is different than spec'ed, and I would prefer seeing the input line echoed in the log on top of the edit summary line, rather than just see the en-wiki article name; for one thing, because the second argument contains the lang-code of the Wikipedia in question, and without the :fr: I can't tell if it is printing the correct language name or not. But the log format is not as important as the edit summary, so I will start validating those, soon.

Another thing I was going to do, was to draw up a test file, as a kind of smoke test. For example, does the current version handle arg 4 (copy/translate token) and arg5 (user-supplied comment)? And how it reacts to extra white space in various places.

In the meantime, I just wanted to acknowledge all the great work you are doing, and let you know how much I appreciate it. I think this is the core of something that is going to be a very useful and productive tool.

JeyReydar97, don't feel you have to "validate" anything in the edit summary wording in the log file output by the tool, but you'll probably be interested to see this, as it is the first clear result to come out of all this, including the time you spent drawing up the input file, and in discussion before that. I also wanted to thank you as well for all your effort; we couldn't have done it without you. It's a pleasure to see the emergence of something new and useful that comes out of a collaborative effort like this. The output of Dream's process is here. Pretty cool, eh? (Note: this is just a dry run so far; no articles were changed.) Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, one other thing: how hard is it to run this? Is it a very Rube Goldberg thing, all scotch-taped together on your laptop so unworkable elsewhere, or could I maybe download some software, learn some commands from a manual, and end up being able to run it myself? If more in the latter category than the former, if you could add a new subsection to § User requests and operation with some instructions or tips, that would be nice. Or, if there is a lot to it, either a new section, or a separate page. Thanks again, Mathglot (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Just to note, I have not implemented the full proposal you suggested because we currently do not have enough articles or requests to justify such a task. If this becomes a regular task in the future, I will develop a fully automated process. For now, the current version of the code needs to be adjusted manually based on specific requests. For example, in this task, I am tweaking the code according to the provided list and values format. We are working with four key values: article name, target project language, target article name, and timestamp. Additionally, the user part ("by JeyReydar97") has been hardcoded into the edit summary for this task, but I will provide a format later to make it easier for others to supply all the values needed for the bot to understand. If we use the current format you applied, it would require regex, which increases the risk of false positives. Therefore, for the initial requests, I prefer to handle them manually, tweaking the code to match the provided values and format to minimize mistakes. For this run, I have thoroughly checked everything and found no issues, so we can proceed with a live run. However, I have no objection if you and JeyReydar97 would like to re-check these logs/edits. Finally, since the edits will be made on my end using my account, I take full responsibility for any errors the code might make. Please don’t worry about mistakes, as I always review everything multiple times before executing any changes :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide you with an easier version of the code that you can run yourself for a small number of pages (100 to 200). I will also provide the necessary documentation to help you set it up and run it. You just need to be careful when using it to ensure it doesn't make any mistakes. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Log format changed: User:JeyReydar97/Attribution set 1/log – DreamRimmer (talk) 04:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping replies to previous messages at various levels:

Implementation level: understood, re: incomplete implementation, tweaks for prefixes, hard-coded userid, etc.; I'm grateful you got something going that fast, and obviously it's a proof of concept that could be generalized to something more configurable if demand pans out, as you say. I think we will get a better feel for that once we advertise this at a centralized discussion location, but I'd like to have at least one live run under our belt first, so we have something to point to. I will proofread the log file, so we can do that tomorrow, or perhaps the next day if there are issues in this run.
Log file: that looks ideal; big thanks for that.

Other things: one minor point: the final stats line is nice, but for a debug run, it should show 0 edits. It would be nice if the final line also echoed runtime params (or up front, if you prefer, as a header line).

I was also thinking of failure conditions of various sorts. One type might be a typo in an article name in the input file, or conversely, an article that is correct in the input but cannot be read for some reason at run time. I was thinking it would be nice if the input line was echoed to the log first, then attempt to edit the article and add the edit summary to the history, and if it succeeds, echo the edit summary to the log, and if it doesn't, you can write some error message to the log, and we will know which input line the error belongs to, because its already identified in the log and it can be looked into later.

Was also thinking about what to do with redirects, and I don't think we should follow them. Users aren't copying content or translating from one redirect to another, and if they specify a redirect rather than the content-bearing page in their input file, that should be an error. There are even redirects that are linked via wikidata to redirects on other Wikipedias, and I still don't think we should process them: it makes no sense to "copy" or "translate" redirect content from one page to another, and even if in some unique, wacky edge case a user claims to have done so (copying some {{Rcat}}s?), it doesn't require attribution because the content of a redirect page is non-creative content and that cannot be copyrighted, and therefore does not require attribution. So I think we should just not try to process redirects and emit an error message to the log if we encounter one.

Would love a version of the code, but to save you unnecessary duplicate effort, maybe not yet. Let's see how the dry run validation goes tomorrow, perhaps there will be code tweaks that come out of it. After we have a good dry run and then a good live run and you feel reasonably comfortable with whatever version you are using, then I'll ask for one. I would say we were ahead of schedule if we had a schedule, but since we don't, I'll just say I'm very pleased with the way this is going.

. Mathglot (talk) 07:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Test run prep

I believe we are almost ready for a test run. Before we do it, I just want to confirm the following points with User:JeyReydar97:

We are talking here about the articles listed in the input file User:JeyReydar97/Attribution set 1.
You, JeyReydar97, are the user who made all the edits identified by the articles and associated timestamps in the input file; i.e. you are not reporting edits made by any other user.
All of the articles listed there represent translations from some other language Wikipedia; that is, none of them are content copied from one English Wikipedia article to another English Wikipedia article; they are all translated.

Can you confirm that all of these statements are true? Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can confirm all of the points made above. JeyReydar97 (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great; I'm thinking that a questionnaire like this might be good to have if & when we formalize this into a user request process for requesting bot runs, because this is a minimum bar, I would think, before running the current, semi-automated process. DreamRimmer, do you agree? (A fully automated process down the road, perhaps category-based, might require additional safeguards, but I think this is a minimum.) Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input file verification

Right-to-left issues

Before I verify the debug output log (here), I am spot-checking the Attribution set 1 input file. I am finding issues with seven input lines about halfway down the page involving Hebrew originals. No doubt this is some sort of right-to-left script directional issue; I think something probably got mangled in the copy-paste out of the contributin history. Here is a copy of those lines:

Seven input lines pertaining to right-to-left script in the source page

* [[Arlozorov Young Towers]]; [[:he:מגדלי הצעירים]]; 23:23, 27 November 2024  
* [[Dan Center Tower]]; [[:he:BBC Tower]]; 19:10, 23 November 2024
* [[Eden Tower]]; [[:he:מגדל עדן (בת ים)]]; 22:54, 5 December 2024
* [[Hi Tower]]; [[:he:מגדל Hi Tower]]; 22:57, 22 November 2024
* [[Midtown Tel Aviv]]; [[:he:מגדלי מידטאון]]; 21:39 22 November 2024
* [[Nimrodi Tower]]; [[:he:מגדל נמרודי]]; 16:20, 23 November 2024
* [[Rom Tel Aviv]]; [[:he:מגדל רום]]; 11:41, 5 December 2024

Arlozorov Young Towers; he:מגדלי הצעירים; 23:23, 27 November 2024
Dan Center Tower; he:BBC Tower; 19:10, 23 November 2024
Eden Tower; he:מגדל עדן (בת ים); 22:54, 5 December 2024
Hi Tower; he:מגדל Hi Tower; 22:57, 22 November 2024
Midtown Tel Aviv; he:מגדלי מידטאון; 21:39 22 November 2024
Nimrodi Tower; he:מגדל נמרודי; 16:20, 23 November 2024
Rom Tel Aviv; he:מגדל רום; 11:41, 5 December 2024

62. Dan Center Tower; he:BBC Tower; 19:10, 23 November 2024
:[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of 19:10, 23 November 2024 (UTC) by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia article [[:he:BBC Tower]]; see that article's history for attribution.
63. Eden Tower; he:מגדל עדן (בת ים); 22:54, 5 December 2024
:[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of 22:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC) by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia article [[:he:מגדל עדן (בת ים)]]; see that article's history for attribution.
64. Hi Tower; he:מגדל Hi Tower; 22:57, 22 November 2024
:[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of 22:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC) by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia article [[:he:מגדל Hi Tower]]; see that article's history for attribution.
65. Midtown Tel Aviv; he:מגדלי מידטאון; 21:39 22 November 2024
:[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of 21:39 22 November 2024 (UTC) by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia article [[:he:מגדלי מידטאון]]; see that article's history for attribution.
66. Arlozorov Young Towers; he:מגדלי הצעירים; 23:23, 27 November 2024
:[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of 23:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC) by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia article [[:he:מגדלי הצעירים]]; see that article's history for attribution.
67. Nimrodi Tower; he:מגדל נמרודי; 16:20, 23 November 2024
:[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of 16:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC) by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia article [[:he:מגדל נמרודי]]; see that article's history for attribution.
68. Rom Tel Aviv; he:מגדל רום; 11:41, 5 December 2024
:[[WP:RIA|NOTE:]] Content in the edit of 11:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC) by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] was translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia article [[:he:מגדל רום]]; see that article's history for attribution.

User:JeyReydar97, could you look at those seven lines at /Attribution set 1 and attempt to fix them? If you run into problems, please lmk and I will try and take care of it. Mathglot (talk) 19:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll fix them in a minute! JeyReydar97 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because hebrew language is written backwards, I ran into a writing problem while fixing the dates, so I just put them under the corresponding object as subpoints. JeyReydar97 (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into that, and attempting a fix. However, that won't work for the automated procedure; the input file must be one line per article, per the format given at § Input file; I've reverted. I will look into this (a bit later in the day) and get it fixed. Mathglot (talk) 20:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried everything. It simply won't get written inline. That's why I got them underpointed. By the way, can I add one more article on the list? I just translated one a couple of hours ago and I didn't give the attributions in the edit summary (maybe because I'm not yet used to it but I'm trying desperately to not repeat this mistake over and over again). JeyReydar97 (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeyReydar97 I will take care of getting the Hebrew articles into the Input file; don't worry about that. Yes, you could in theory add one more article to the list, but please don't. It would be a useful skill for you to learn how to do it on your own. The reason is, as you go forward, if you have just one or two such articles that need fixing, it isn't fair to ask someone to take the time to configure and run the bot just for a handful of articles. So may I ask you to try this one manually? I assume we are talking about Rimini Skyscraper, right?

The two things that you need to know, are:

the text of the edit summary that needs to be added (see WP:RIA; your exact text is the following:)
[[WP:RIA|NOTE]]: Content in the edit of 22:16, 15 December 2024 was translated by [[Special:Contributions/JeyReydar97|JeyReydar97]] from the existing Italian Wikipedia article at [[:it:Grattacielo di Rimini]]; see its history for attribution.
how to perform a dummy edit. If you change nothing on the page, the Publish button will not save the edit summary; you have to change something. Typical is to just find a blank somewhere, and turn that blank into two blanks. That is enough of a change, that when you add the edit summary and hit Publish, it will save it.

That is all you need. Are you willing to give it a try? Mathglot (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let me try it just now! JeyReydar97 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update It seems that the edit was saved. I added the text you pointed above. The edit history section recognizes the edit so I assume it's been done correctly. JeyReydar97 (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeyReydar97, your edit added the text to the edit summary, so ~~that complies with the licensing requirement, so you are done. Congrats!~~ One minor point: it looks like you did not do a dummy edit, which would have shown a +1 byte change to the article size in the History, but instead combined the attribution in the edit summary with a small addition to the article that increased it by +48 bytes. In particular, adding the words "as well as the tallest in Rimini" (diff). This doesn't invalidate the attribution, so all is well, but it is not customary to do it this way, because it leaves the addition of that phrase to the article without an edit summary. Next time, if possible just do the dummy edit (adding a blank and nothing more) along with the WP:RIA edit summary. But this is fine for now; thanks! Mathglot (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JeyReydar97, Oh no, it's not fine, I take it back! Just noticed that you added the wrong timestamp. You should have copied the text I gave you above. I will fix it. Mathglot (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought that the timestamp should match the very time in which the edit has been made, but however it makes sense. And thanks for the tip regarding the dummy edits. I'll keep that in mind from now! Thank you for all your help and for the fact that you noticed these problems all along! JeyReydar97 (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Do you see the difference, and understand why? Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the present moment, but the timestamp of when you made the translation, as you have already figured out, I think. It is the translation that needs to be attributed, which is why you have to identify it later via WP:RIA, if you forgot to do it the first time. Mathglot (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger. Your explanations have been crystal clear. It's so convenient to receive such help. Thank you. JeyReydar97 (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have solved the right-to-left script issue in this edit. It involved addition of a trailing left-to-right mark after Hebrew titles. We won't know for sure until we do another debug run (which we are not ready for, so please not yet).

A question remains open in my mind whether the marker should be inside or outside the closing brackets; it may not matter, but I think the most logical place is inside—after the title, and before the brackets. That's how it is now in Attribution set 1 after this fix.

Another issue is mixed LTR and RTL text in the same title, such as in the title he:מגדל Hi Tower at Hebrew Wikipedia. I think we have this one right as well, even though the Hebrew page title field shows it reversed (that is, with the English portion to the left); the url shows it with the English portion to the right. If you scroll down the input file and click on the Hebrew titles, they all bring up the Hebrew Wikipedia page, so they look right to me this way. When we get to the point of writing test cases for a bot, all of these cases should be included.

I am now returning to input file verification, and will switch to output log verification tomorrow or the next day. Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: There is no problem with these Hebrew entries. If you copy the log output and put it into an edit summary, then preview it, it looks correct. The script is functioning as intended, so I suggest leaving it as it is. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dummy edits

@Mathglot: Sometimes automated scripts and bots struggle to make a dummy edit by simply adding a space due to various reasons, so if we could append a comment like:  and then remove the comment after an hour, it would make dummy edits much easier. I’m not sure how the community feels about this idea, but if it is allowed it could be a great solution. – DreamRimmer (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is allowed per Help:Dummy edit#Methods. If we file a BRFA and BAG asks us to clean it up, I will remove any comments we use for dummy edits. But for this first run, I think we should leave it as is, since making another edit just to remove this would be a cosmetic edit. We can shorten the comment if needed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 would be good. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @User:Primefac to confirm because Help:Dummy edit is a help page, not a policy. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to find a way to have the bot make a true dummy edit than make two edits to the page - people don't like that. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer, I am not (yet?) a bot writer, but I fail to see why this strategy would not work for a dummy edit: "Append one blank ( ) to the end of the page". I am struggling to think of a case where that could cause problems. Alternatively: "change the first newline on the page to blank + newline" (which however would not work in the rare case of a one-paragraph article stub with no newlines; however it would be very unlikely that such an article would be the result of a translation). Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I think Help:Dummy edit#Methods is aimed at the individual editor making manual edits, not bots. However, what it labels "the simplest method" should work fine for bots, too (although I think my first suggestion is simpler for a bot). Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that adding a space/newline to the end of a page will most likely not work as extra whitespace in that area tends to get ignored/cut off; the suggestion of adding an extra space at the end of the first line is more likely to stick. Primefac (talk) 12:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary suggestion: include diff

Including a Special:Diff link would identify the edit with zero ambiguity due to time zones or user renames. For example, Special:Diff/1247478351 for Galicia Central Tower. I understand that collecting the oldids is additional work, especially since JeyReydar97 has already compiled a list. Flatscan (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. I tend to favor permalinks or diffs in a lot of situations, and I agree with you that rev ids are more precise, but honestly, I think this would be overkill. How often do you really get two edits on the same page involving translated (or copied) content within the same calendar second? And even if it is a good idea, this is the wrong place to propose it. This page is just a bot proposal page, which attempts to recreate the edit summary proposed by the editing guideline Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia in section § Repairing insufficient attribution. If you can get consensus at WP:CWW to make this change, then this proposal page will definitely follow suit. Mathglot (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input file format: article linkage

DreamRimmer, during Input file verification (which I am still working on, due to some RTL issues with Hebrew) I noticed that JR wikilinked params 1 and 2 in Attribution set 1, even though the spec currently calls for them to be unlinked (see § Input format). I think that's a good idea, but wanted to discuss it.

The dry run of your procedure appears to be expecting, or at least, handling the linked source file correctly, and placing it correctly into the into the edit summary wikilinked as is required, as shown in the Attribution set 1/log of the debug run. So that's good and shows that you and JR are on the same page. However, the param linkage doesn't match the current spec, which calls for them to be unlinked. I think we should change the spec and allow (or require) wikilinks in params 1 & 2. Not sure if your are looking for and parsing the brackets in the wikilinks in the input, or just splitting on semicolon or what, but I agree that having the two files wikilinked in the input is helpful for humans (red links for the English articles would jump out at you, and both links are helpful for vetting the input file), so the links makes the input file easier to verify.

So, I'd like to change the spec to match current usage, so that instead of saying that the input line format is unlinked, namely:

* ArticleTitle; SourceTitle; Timestamp; Type; Comment (current spec)

we would instead say that it is linked:

* [[ArticleTitle]]; [[SourceTitle]]; Timestamp; Type; Comment (proposed new version)

Is that okay with you? Do we want to require users to use the bracketed format, with both articles wikilinked ? I would be in favor of that, I just want to make sure it doesn't cause you any problems with the procedure. Alternatively, we could allow them to be wikilinked or not, and accept both formats, if you prefer.

As a secondary issue: am I correct in assuming that your procedure does not currently parse args 4 and 5 (Type and Comment)? If so, for the time being, I'd prefer to leave them in the spec of the Input file format as a future goal, and just mention afterward that args 4 and 5 are not implemented yet, if you are okay with that. Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both formats are good, but the wikilinked format is more helpful, so I think we should use it. Regarding args 4 and 5, they are not implemented yet, but there is no issue with keeping them in the input file format spec as a future goal. – DreamRimmer (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]