Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45


 * 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

DannyS712 bot III 45
Operator:

Time filed: 23:29, Sunday, June 2, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available: New rules will be added to User:DannyS712 test/redirects.js

Function overview: Automatically patrol new redirects that meet one of the following criteria (all rules are case insensitive and accent/diacritical marks insensitive - "a" = "A" = "á"):
 * 1) "FooBars" or "FooBares" -> "FooBar" (plural to singular)
 * 2) "Foo’Bar", "Foo'Bar", or "Foo‘Bar" -> "Foo'Bar" (different types of apostrophes)
 * 3) "Bar, Foo" -> "Foo Bar" (sorting name)
 * 4) "FooBar" -> "List of FooBar" (to lists)
 * 5) "Foo Bar" or "Foo-Bar" -> "FooBar" (or vice versa; differences in spacing)
 * 6) "Foo v Bar" or "Foo vs. Bar" or "Foo vs Bar" -> "Foo v. Bar" (different format of case names)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: No edits / likely ~10 pages patrolled per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This is a follow up to Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 38, which first established that some redirects could be automatically patrolled. Further discussion, as well as example redirects that would be patrolled, can be found at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers.

Discussion

 * Pinging users who participated in the prior discussion at WT:NPR: --DannyS712 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging users who participated in the prior BRFA: --DannyS712 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * — xaosflux  Talk 23:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is this 40 pages patrolled? DannyS712 (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would assume so, given the context and the fact that ‘edits’ is the default for the template and has to be manually overridden using the unnamed parameter 1 (aka easy to miss). — The SandDoctor Talk 23:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. — xaosflux  Talk 00:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

(re-threading to reply to the original thread but also not ignore the BAG template) Converting a redirect into an article puts it back on the "to patrol" list. If I remember correctly, converting an article into a redirect does the same, but I'm not as involved in NPP as some others are, so would appreciate hearing feedback from them before this goes further. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of all of these additional approval conditions, and will also shortly compile a list of special characters that can be uncontroversially substituted (to expand the functionality of the diacritic-insensitive comparison). signed,Rosguill talk 23:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, I put together a rather short special char substitution list here. I'm now wondering if letters from non-English roman keyboards that look like ASCII+diacritic get processed as if they were separate base characters or not by the existing diacritic function. For example, there's ğ,ş, ü, and ö in Turkish (the last two are also encoded as separate base chars on German keyboards), ư, ơ, ă, â, ê, ô, and đ in Vietnamese, and likely many more.
 * Additionally, we could consider having one-way mappings from other alphabets onto the English alphabet to catch all possible transliterations of a given name. While this would be difficult or impossible to do if the goal was to create a set of accurate transliterations, since the goal with redirects is to catch all possible transcriptions of a title, catching unconventional or transliterations isn't really a problem. On the one hand, the number of such redirects is low, but on the other they are potentially difficult to assess for reviewers to assess if they are not familiar with the source language, and machine translation may not necessarily help. signed,Rosguill talk 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd like to leave other character mappings to a separate task, since it would be implemented differently (not adding rules for patrolling, but changing the comparison function). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , sounds reasonable, another easy addition to the comparison function would be . Similarly, substituting number-words for arabic numerals should be trivial, at least 0-10.  Other operator-term pairs would likely be equally easy and uncontroversial, but far less useful. signed,Rosguill talk 01:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - patrols located at . I didn't see any major issues, except that I messed up on the lists and patrolled "List of _" -> "_" instead of the other way around, but I think both are okay to patrol. A permanent link to the list of pages that were patrolled: Special:Permalink/900030478. It includes examples of all types that were to be patrolled except for court case names, which I manually tested with regex to verify the code works. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that List of X -> X would sometimes not be a proper redirect and would not be infavor of bot patrolling of those. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The example I patrolled is, which redirects to 2019 Cricket World Cup statistics. However, if there are objections to patrolling "List of X" -> "X" I won't do it, and will just do "X" -> "List of X" DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't want, for instance List of Microsoft (to name the first company that came to mind for whatever reason). There are a lot of article topics for which a "List of" redirect would just be nonsense and hence why i think they should be patrolled in a way that the reverse doesn't need to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * DannyS712 (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Couple of questions I should have asked at the first BFRA but it didn't occur to me until now - does the bot only patrol redirects which are newly created pages? So if someone vandalizes an existing article into a redirect will the bot still patrol it? Likewise, does the bot ensure there aren't double redirects? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it does not ensure they aren't double redirects. It only patrols new pages that are listed in the "new pages feed", which I believe does not include redirects created by blanking a page DannyS712 (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded Its been almost a week - are there any remaining issues? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded Its been almost a week - are there any remaining issues? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Pinging as they probably know better about how patrolling functions. Also, it's probably nothing, but User:DannyS712 test/redirects.js shouldn't it be in a protected page in the bot's userspace, rather than using that JS subpage? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there some kind if irony in pinging me but typing 'Winged Blades of Godric' ?😈 Anyway, I'm all for anything that makes patrolling easier, so if the bot does what it's supposed to, I'm fine with it if    is. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think it was a mistaken use of u instead of ping, as the former only pings the first user and the latter pings all the users listed. Thus, wasn't actually pinged. My question (and the reason for the ping) was to determine if converting an article into a redirect would put it in the "to patrol" list.
 * To answer question, .js pages are only editable by IAdmins and the page owner, so it's not susceptible to vandalism. Primefac (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I was wondering why the content is in that page rather than in a regularly protected page, especially since the markup looks like it doesn't require functioning JS. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * it does require functioning JS, and I need to be able to edit it. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't know the answer to that. As for this bot in general I'm concerned that it will patrol double redirects, which have no benefit to our users but since that's not a concern anyone else seems to share, I am good with this bot. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In light of certain developments, the ping was unintentionally ironical! No problem with the bot.  &#x222F; WBG converse 13:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to make sure that the concerns raised above regarding hypotheticals (double redirects and articles-turned-to-redirects) are being dealt with appropriately. When the trial is complete please place a notice at WT:NPP/R to get more eyes on it. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have patrolled the current 65 redirects that meet the criteria - should I wait for another 35 redirects to be created? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Primefac (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just did 8 more (I created 8 redirects to supreme court cases to test that rule, since it didn't get tested in the original trial). Now 73% done (just keeping track) --DannyS712 (talk) 01:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - 100 redirects patrolled. --DannyS712 (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * These all look good though trial didn't capture anything that had been in mainspace. I suspect those are somewhat rare so this is not surprising to me even if they do enter the queue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I commented in the thread on the NPP talk page, but yeah, these results look good, even if it means okaying a few weird typos like Youtu be signed,Rosguill talk 03:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the various NPPs that have commented. Primefac (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2019 (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.