Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 23


 * 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 Symbol neutral vote.svg Request Expired.

Hazard-Bot 23
Operator:

Time filed: 05:42, Thursday June 20, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: [//github.com/HazardSJ/HazardBot/blob/master/enwiki/cfdMultipleMerger.py GitHub]

Function overview: Helping out at Categories for discussion

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Whenever it checks requests are available

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Some of the details, I'm currently unsure of, but I'll separate them into parts for easier discussion:  Hazard-SJ  ✈  
 * 1) Helping out at Categories for discussion/Working;
 * 2) Making merges to multiple targets (this is Categories for discussion/Working/Manual, but I plan to make a subpage in my bot's userspace for users (admins only, I guess?) to add the general cases of this merge (in some cases I might end up hard-coding some of these since they might not all be straight-forward;
 * 3) Null-editing articles based on Categories for discussion/Working/Manual;
 * 4) Adding cfd jobqueue per Categories for discussion/Working/Manual where necessary;

Discussion

 * Comment. If 3 is done, do we need 4?  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support. Yes, splitting categories takes time and there is a lack of editors willing to do this thankless chore. This is one of the two long standing backlog of requests that takes forever to complete.  If a work page is needed, it should be protected so that only admins can edit it.  Before the working page was protected, unauthorized mass changes could be slipped in and processed without oversight.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's reasonable.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   16:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Very Strongly Oppose. Tiyang (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it everything that you oppose or a specific part?  Hazard-SJ  ✈   02:55, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Admins only. Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * BRFAs aren't conducted in secrecy, can you at least hint as to why you are withholding your oppose? I do understand that there is a need for secrecy when privacy or harassment, outing, etc is concerned, but I would be both surprised and alarmed if that was the case here. -- Chris 05:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * @Tiyang If it is something that warrants such secrecy can you please email me? -- Chris 16:00, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your objection in English? So far two posts and no reason why you are objecting.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my opposition. I have questions, but "let it go" seems prudent.  Respectfully,   Tiyang (talk) 03:34, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you have questions feel free to ask them. No one is going to bite you. This is a discussion not a vote. -- Chris 14:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

How do merges to multiple targets work exactly? Don't you need to manually specify everything for each case anyway? From what I understand you want to add generic templates for admins to work with? Some more detail would greatly help, as it takes ages to review all the venues and processes to review this BRFA. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally a merge to multiple targets is the same as a normal merge, however it is done for each target in turn. So if the merge is Category:Foo1 to Category:Foo2 and Category:Foo3, you would replace Category:Foo1 with Category:Foo2 and add Category:Foo3 in the affected article.  This assumes that the target categories exist.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But in case of multi-merges the bot also IMO should check whether the target categories are on the page. If is already on the article, than it should replace  with ; if  is already on the page, than it doesn't need to be added again; and if both (or every) are already on the page, than it just needs to remove . Thus I think a better approach in this IMO would be to remove the original category and add the target categories, which are not on the page already. Armbrust The Homunculus 01:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct, and I agree with the above.  Hazard-SJ  ✈   05:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's see a small run. Don't think not being an admin is an issue here, because the bot or botop don't make up new cases, just follow through already decided ones. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded Armbrust The Homunculus 21:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Just in case we get some new editors/approvers, if you check here you may see some of the current backlog. At the time of this post, we have over 10,000 articles that have apparently not been updated in over a month. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The only issue should be deletion of the empty category. I believe there is a page where these can be listed that is not protected Categories for discussion/Working/Manual? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * D Armbrust The Homunculus 23:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the delay, hopefully I can get to this soon. Hazard SJ 03:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * D More than twenty days passed, but still nothing happened. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I expect to have this done within the next week. Hazard SJ 07:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

After first trial
I was working on the code earlier in the week, but didn't get to finish it. However, it's now complete. [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hazard-Bot?limit=5&offset=20131109190000 These edits] were initially made, but I became aware they messed up the page layout somewhat, so I modified the code, so the latest set of edits are [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hazard-Bot?limit=12&offset=20131109191000 these edits]. If more edits are needed for the trial, just let me know. Hazard SJ 19:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks OK. The only issue that I was was the insertion of a blank line between categories.  Categories should be in one group with no blank lines between them.  Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Was that in the first set of edits? Josh Parris 23:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought so. In looking at that again it seems the blank line is between the DEFAULTSORT and the first category.  There should not be a blank line there. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Some things I noticed:
 * messed up the WP:ORDER
 * moved the interwiki Featured Article link, but I could find no MOS reason to do so, nor any reason not to do so. The documentation for Link FA is silent on where to place it. Featured article says "This template should be placed at the bottom of the article before defaultsort, categories and interwikis". I suggest you change the bot's behaviour to match Featured article and change Link FA's documentation to match (also Link GA). And pull mentions of interwikis.
 * removed a blank line in the category list - good work
 * The addition of a blank line between DEFAULTSORT and the cats seems unnecessary. Is there any MOS reason to do so?
 * Josh Parris 23:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Re the order comment, the before example was also wrong. As I understand the MOS, there should be two blank lines between the last category line and the first stub line.  There should be no blank line between DEFAULTSORT and the first category.  While special words like that start with {{ they are not really templates and should not be treated as templates. Also, there should be no blank line between {{tl|Authority control}} and DEFAULTSORT. Don't know if that is documented but seems to be how articles are edited. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:31, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
 * {{tl|OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} What's the skinny? Josh Parris 01:17, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Operator has edited on four days in the last two months and has become unresponsive. I'm expiring this without prejudice; the operator is welcome to re-open. {{BotExpired}} Josh Parris 07:40, 17 November 2013 (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.