Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 3


 * 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

BHGbot 3
Operator:

Time filed: 05:17, Friday, January 20, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming Language(s): AutoWikiBrowser with custom modules

Source code available:

Function Overview: 1) creating category redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Estimated number of pages affected: initially one run of about several thousand articles. Possibly more later

Edit period(s): initially one run

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

Function Details: Category:Organizations by country has thousands of sub-categories, whose names may be spelt either "organizations" (with a Z) or "organisations" (with a S). Since this is a WP:ENGAVR issue, only some countries (see WP:TIES) have a convention for one form or the other; the others use whatever form the creator chose.>br />This randomness of title makes categorisation unnecessarily difficult. I have used AWB to generate a list of the categories involved, from which I have generated a mirror image list (e.g. if we have Category:Foo organisations in Bar, my list contains Category:Foo organizations in Bar), or vice versa. My AWB module simply takes the category name, skips the page if it already exists, and otherwise parses the name to create a or vice versa. I have tested it on the first level of (see these 40 edits, where I forgot to switch-to skip-if-exists for the first few edits).

BHGbot does not currently appear to have bot authorisation for AWB, and I will need that to do this tasks. Thanks.

Note that I used the BHGbot account years ago for Wikiproject tagging, with a custom Perl module. I have no current plans to resume that task, but the bot flag has been removed due to inactivity. If this task is approved, I would like that flag to be restored. Thanks. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Hello BHG, mass creation of pages/redirects has shown to be contentious in the past. Has a discussion taken place anywhere (please link in the header above) where the community has shown support for the thousands of pages you want to create? —  xaosflux  Talk 15:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While I don't believe there's been a specific discussion for this in the past, at least to my knowledge, I can say that past CfD discussions have always supported maintaining or creating a redirect from organizations to organisations as uncontroversial and likely to benefit navigation. ~ Rob 13 Talk 20:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please post this at WP:VPR, you can introduce it however you would like - but encourage anyone to comment here at BRFA if they have bot-related questions. — xaosflux  Talk 05:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response. I have posted at WP:Village pump (proposals), inviting editors to comment here on whether they think that this is a good or bad idea. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have also left an identical note at WT:Categorization, where the category specialists are more likely to spot it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Try it for example with Category:Transportation by dependent territory, which I created recently as a redirect to Category:Transport by dependent territory. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC) This will be a a welcome improvement over the the current situation, where the mistaken entry goes uncorrected unless and until it is either fixed by a reader of the page, or spotted somewhere in the massive backlog at Special:WantedCategories. (Currently the focus of a huge blitz by me and others, but many of redlinks i find are 5 years old or more. And since it is limited to 5000 pages, many redlinks aren't even on the list). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me. If editors chose the "incorrect" (in the context of the category name) spelling, even if it would be correct in the article, other bots would (eventually) fix the problem.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - this will simplify our category usage - both with Hotcat bypassing redirects to place the correct category, and with bots which move pages from redirect categories to their target categories, as well as human readers who open te wrong category being told "this one doesn't exist, but the other one does". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This propsoal would actually make it harder to categorise using hotcat as both variants would appear in the window and many articles would end up in the redirect categories. Tim! (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Tim, articles would not end up in the redirect categories ... because HotCat resolves the redirect before saving.
 * Interesting that works today when I tried but not when I tried it yesterday. Tim! (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * * And of course manual category edits can still end up the the redirect category. Tim! (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * indeed they will, where they will be corrected by a bot. Thanks to the User:R'n'B, his User:RussBot task#4 has been doing this since for over 9 years it was authorised in September 2007.


 * Strong support This is one of the largest examples of the differences between en-GB and en-US being relevant here--there are many thousands of categories about "organi(s/z)ations" and there's no point in allowing for duplicates to exist. Making them and using catredirect or just making actual standard MediaWiki redirects in the form of #redirectCategory:Organizations based in place would be doing God's work. Thanks, User:BrownHairedGirl. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the feedback above assist BAG in making a decision on this bot? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) BAG assistance needed


 * Strongly support. We clearly cannot impose uniformity - even within most countries - and trying to make this work is very time consuming.  An excellent idea. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

As the discussions are only about "organi(s/z)ations" and per WP:MASSCREATION, we cannot approve the bot for an an open-ended task, as suggested by "possibly more later" and "initially one run", without a clear method of determining such consensus without further BAG involvement. Is there (should there be) a CfD-like venue where these can be proposed and selected, then run by any approved bots (like renaming bots do)?

Other than that, past CfD practice, commenting editors (and WP:SILENCE otherwise) suggest that there is consensus to create the "organi(s/z)ations" category redirects. Given a parent category is selected, there should be no false positives. Do you mean to run something like Category:Organizations by location or only Category:Organizations by country?

I am going to assume that the newly created categories contain only. Shoudl we add some sort of parameter to this, like BHGbot, so we can locate these easily, if needed? Also, I don't believe categories have any, but is there or should there be anything akin to Category:Redirect templates?

for "organi(s/z)ations" cases. Please select a random sample of categories used for redirects to avoid bias. Please use a descriptive edit summary with links to task description. Function details to be finalized as per above. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for authorising the trial. I will get to it in the next few days. Picking up on your points:
 * I am sorry that my request appeared open-ended. I had intended it to mean that "I seek authorisation only for what I set out here, but if that is successful I may make a further request for an extension of scope" ... but I guess my wording was clumsy. Sorry.
 * I intended only Category:Organizations by country, simply because that is what I had made an initial list for when I scoped the problem. However, it seems to me to make more sense to set the scope as "Category:Organizations and all its sub-categories".  Would it be OK to amend my request?
 * My "initially one run" comment was because the list I had made of several thousand categories was incomplete. I intended to process that, then make further lists to complete the specified set. So the job would be as specified, but in several batches.
 * Yes, I can see no chance of false positives.
 * I had intended that each page should consist only of, as in my previously-mentioned 40 manual edits, where I forgot to switch-to skip-if-exists for the first few edits. Adding a parameter such as BHGbot sounds like a good idea, so I will do that unless instructed otherwise.
 * I will of course use an edit summary which links to a task page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If all of Category:Organizations is used, then there may be some weird cases, like Category:United Service Organizations buildings, which is a proper name. Perhaps also stuff like Category:Wikipedia categories named after organizations that's a Wikipedia category? I would exercise caution picking scope. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * there may be similar cases elsewhere in the tree. I had been considering ways to avoid them, but on reflection I don't see the need.
 * Surely a proper name category-redirect from Category:United Service Organisations buildings to Category:United Service Organizations buildings would be fine? It would merely mirror the existing article space redirect from United Service Organisations→United Service Organizations.  Same wth a redirect Category:The Trump Organisation→Category:The Trump Organization, which would parallel the article space The Trump Organisation→The Trump Organization
 * Similarly, what's the problem with a redirect from Category:Wikipedia categories named after organisations→Category:Wikipedia categories named after organizations? That's a straightforward WP:ENGVAR situation where en.wp has no reason to prefer one spelling over the other, but has merely retained the format adopted by the page creator.  So it seems to me to be an excellent illustration of a case where a redirect would be v helpful, and as unproblematic as Category:Organizations based in Madagascar→Category:Organisations based in Madagascar.
 * AFAICS, the only cases where there would be difficulties would be if the world had a pair of entities which met all of three conditions:
 * Their names are distinguished only the s/z variation, and
 * en.wp has an existing eponymous category for only one of them, and
 * That existing category title uses no other disambiguator, and
 * In the very rare case that both #1 and #2 applied, I would be very surprised if there wasn't an additional disambiguator carried through per WP:C2D from the head articles, e.g. "That Stuff Organisation (Scotland)"/"That Stuff Organization (California)". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ENGVAR is an article policy. I'm mentioning those as potential candidates for issues, not that they necessarily are. If you believe they are suitable for redirects and that the consensus reflects that, then go ahead. As I said, exercise caution. But the ultimate decision is up to you, including seeking additional clarification and consensus if needed. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ENGVAR, even where it does apply, does not exclude redirects from the other name. In fact, our redirect policy encourages them. By the way, I just opened a CfR discussion for the organi[sz]ation categories related to Brazil; I'd recommend not adding any redirects there until the discussion is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

- Is this still being worked on? SQL Query me! 18:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to file a new BRFA (referencing this one) in the future if you return to this task, and we can pick up from where we left off. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:14, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.