Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeadbeefBot 3

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

DeadbeefBot 3

edit

Operator: 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 14:38, Sunday, October 22, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Rust

Source code available: https://github.com/fee1-dead/deadbeefbot/tree/main/src

Function overview: Converts various talk page templates to {{Article history}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeadbeefBot 2, User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch119#Article history

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: >10,000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This task supersedes the previous one by enlarging the scope of its operations. This bot task can:

  1. Create Article history templates on talk pages with a GA/FailedGA/FA/etc template where information about DYK/ITN/OTD/peer review/etc can be folded in together
  2. Remove standalone DYK/ITN/OTD/peer review templates by adding the information into an existing {{Article history}} template.

I will be gradually implementing additional functionality supporting more information to be folded in as time goes. As always, I will do some supervised edits before letting it process everything when I add new things, so consider this as a pro forma about its enlarging scope. Here are some supervised edits that I have carried out to test some of the new behavior: [1] [2]

Discussion

edit
Just a note - other approvals for same or similar tasks:
– SD0001 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The OG bot that did this and was really good at it but went down and has not been properly replaced yet: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GimmeBot 2. cc SandyGeorgia. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see this effort ongoing! Some questions and comments:
  1. How will Deadbeefbot handle those many cases where the GA closer failed to add the oldid ? (It happens often.) Gimmetrow (Gimmebot} used to use an old Dr pda script which was able to look up the oldid based on the timestamp; it's not critical to have them if the closer didn't provide them, but just raising this for the sake of completeness.
    Separately, maybe we can get someone to fix the GA template/script so that it won't allow a GA pass without providing an oldid. Not sure who to ask on this; Mike Christie?
    The bot does try to add an oldid if the closer forgot. I just had a look through the last few passes and couldn't find a case where the closer didn't add an oldid, but as far as I recall it works correctly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:38, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is it possible roll otd date and time into one line ? See Talk:Guy Fawkes Night for a sample of how long they can get.
  3. I am unclear why DYK is numbered; is more than one allowed and has it ever happened?
  4. Before a certain date, DYKs did not have nom pages (just raising this for completeness).
  5. Would it be better to fully spell out the GA link? That is Talk:Articlename/GA1 rather than just /GA1 so that the link won't be lost when pages move ?
  6. I am confused about the role of APersonbot ... are they still doing anything? MilHistBot is Hawkeye7, so still maintained, but not sure if APersonBot is still doing any articlehistory stuff.
Thanks again !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. it won't try to add it. I could try adding that functionality but it looks like Mike's bot already does that?
  2. Yes, I've changed this.
  3. Not sure about this, but made it so that the first dyk entry is always un-numbered.
  4. The bot would not specify a nom page when folding it into article history.
  5. Yeah, changed.
  6. that task is inactive per User:EnterpriseyBot#Tasks.
0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 07:42, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will come back to this probably this weekend. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. - detailed analysis here. Some specific notes about the trial:
  1. Old peer reviews are hard to handle. Whether it was reviewed in the end cannot be determined through the template. I've come up with a heuristic that if the PR page has 6 or more edits, then it is definitely reviewed. Otherwise the bot will just not handle the talk page entirely. Old PR also doesn't always include an oldid of the article and date when the old PR was completed. The bot currently will carry over oldid if specified, but won't error out if not. At start of the trial, the bot automatically determined the date of the closure of old PR based on the timestamp of the last edit at the PR page, but this can be inaccurate since MalnadachBot and others may have made edits after the closure, so I made it to reject handling a page if OldPR doesn't have a date set (in the future i might turn it back on explicitly ignoring MalnadachBot or any other edit made over a year since the PR page was created)
  2. If I understand it correctly, demoted FAs don't regain GA status even if it passed GA before. The bot made an error with this, but I noticed and fixed the bug.
  3. I'm not entirely sure if we should fold in any article that doesn't have FailedGA/GA/Article history already, but has multiple of OTD/DYK/ITN. An example can be found here.
  4. Currently handling always puts Article history right before the WP banner shell. This works on most cases but some articles don't have the WP banner. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: ping, would be nice to hear your thoughts on some of the above :) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:27, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not Sandy, but this looks really good. Yeah, old PRs are hard to handle, but tbh I don't think anyone really cares if it says reviewed/not reviewed. Rolling in OTD/DYK/ITN isn't necessary, but honestly there's nothing wrong with it. On your last point, I believe someone (probably User:Qwerfjkl (bot)?) is on a very long project to convert everything to WP banner shells, so that problem will probably be gone in the medium future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure an article that once was promoted to GA, later becomes an FA, and then is demoted at FAR, reverts back to the GA status because that was never revoked, just superseded. Hog Farm Talk 13:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Hmm. Despite Warsaw Uprising (1794) being listed as GA, then promoted as FA, then delisted via FAR, there's nothing that suggests the article went back to a GA. No GA icon in the article, no GA status on the talk.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. An article which is promoted to FA loses its GA status permanently; it subsequently has to go through the GA status again. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I thought otherwise was the case. Hog Farm Talk 22:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{bag assistance needed}} trial has demonstrated bot can work. I will just be conservative in counting what articles can be successfully maintained by the bot. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Approved. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DeadbeefBot_3&oldid=1198308880"