Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fluxbot 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Fluxbot 7

[edit]

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

Time filed: 15:59, Sunday, July 8, 2018 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Primary Manual, for explicit district patterns automated runs with spot reviews may be used.

Programming language(s): WP:AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Function overview: Repair of High/Medium priority Special:LintErrors.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Linter describes the need for most of these fixes. See also Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Remex:_My_page_is_recently_broken_and_I_can't_figure_out_why.

Edit period(s): On-Demand

Estimated number of pages affected: Varies, there are ~7million H/M lint errors now, but I will not be attempting to resolve all of the types.

Namespace(s): Any

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Repair of High/Medium priority Special:LintErrors. Will primarily be focusing on Special:LintErrors/multiple-unclosed-formatting-tags, Special:LintErrors/unclosed-quotes-in-heading, and Special:LintErrors/self-closed-tag (which is essentially the same as my task 6). OK if this needs to be restricted to these specific errors. This and similar tasks have been running cross project, see Special:CentralAuth/Fluxbot for examples at other projects.

Discussion

[edit]

@Xaosflux: has the exact code been tested on other wikis already? Also, you plan on doing ~7M edits manually? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: there really is no "exact" on these and I don't plan on tackling all 7 million of these ever really, but was going to leave it open for plowing through the fixes in general. This can be scope limited to the 3 subtype I list above, with a current listing of ~100,000; many be solved via transclusions still. As mentioned in one of the discussions above some of these have spoiled the layout of user_talk pages so while I could work through these with out my bot account doing those would trigger the new message indicator that nominornewtalk flag on bots can avoid. The real point of this request is to let me collect what are mostly low volume edits that are non-content affecting together, with occasional bursts when a very explicit pattern is discovered that can be automated. I understand this is not a typical bot request. — xaosflux Talk 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider sharing the regex used for these? ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 17:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: for the most part this will be many small targeted replacements so I don't have a single regex. — xaosflux Talk 19:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Entirely reasonable :) ƒirefly ( t · c · who? ) 19:18, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, then let's try Approved for trial (25 edits per linter error you want to cover). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this one, it'd be much better to convert to ''foobar'' rather than <i>foobar</i>. The trial also wasn't super varied, and it'd likely be best if you could link to which Linter error exactly you were fixing in the edit summary (e.g. Special:LintErrors: Multiple unclosed formatting tags). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one fixed the lint error you came to the page for by making the apostrophes well-formed on the left; however, the underlying wikitext translated to HTML (before the change) as b-i-/b-b-/i-/b (rather than the Tidy output which was probably i-b-/b-b-/b-/i), so the actual problem here is that wikitext is dumb (or possibly just the PHP parser--we could check the Parsoid output if we were really interested). The change actually created one by opening an i tag at the end of the heading as well. I've since fixed this secondary issue. --Izno (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll probably withdraw this, the initial feedback has too many variances from "how" people want to see LintErrors fixed and I'm not looking at doing complicated use cases for each cause. Will leave this open for any feedback from the first small batch. — xaosflux Talk 22:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, @Xaosflux: well, for unclosed HTML tags, I think that would be fairly uncontroversial. However, keeping <i>foobar</i> just creates more work for WP:CWERRORS down the road (e.g. WP:CWERRORS#26/WP:CWERRORS#38). Headbomb {t · c · p · b}
@Xaosflux: I hope you reconsider this. Something like this is sorely needed for HTML tags (the number of old signatures with unclosed <font>...</font> tags is suprisingly high), and should be done on the principal of Perfect is the enemy of good. Close unclosed tags, don't worry about deprecated markup, and don't leave the job to editors without the bot flag, since that will just clog up watchlists. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. getting a blanket Linter cleanup approval is not going to get consensus, so withdrawing. May consider a more targeted request in the future. — xaosflux Talk 15:19, 10 July 2018 (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 WT:BRFA.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Fluxbot_7&oldid=849673072"