Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Bots noticeboard

This is a message board for coordinating and discussing bot-related issues on Wikipedia (also including other programs interacting with the MediaWiki software). Although this page is frequented mainly by bot owners, any user is welcome to leave a message or join the discussion here.

For non-urgent issues or bugs with a bot, a message should be left on the bot operator's talk page. If discussion with the operator does not resolve the issue or the problem is urgent and widespread, the problem can be reported by following the steps outlined in WP:BOTISSUE. This is not the place for requests for bot approvals or requesting that tasks be done by a bot. General questions about the MediaWiki software (such as the use of templates, etc.) should be asked at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).


Global bot approval request for Dušan Kreheľ (bot)[edit]

Note that, per local policy, that bot task may not be run here without separate local approval via WP:BRFA. Courtesy ping: @Dušan Kreheľ: Anomie 11:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anomie: Thanks to inform. Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is already Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dušan Kreheľ (bot), but if it's for a different task, we will need a new BRFA yes. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh goody, another URL tracking bot task request. Primefac (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something called ApiFeatureUsage will disappear soon[edit]

I don't know if this will affect any of you, but "ApiFeatureUsage" will be removed soon (end of the month?) as part of an Elasticsearch upgrade. It appears that the official announcement on wikitech-l on May 5th might not have been received by everyone. If you know what this thing is, please panic at your earliest convenience have a look at the linked task and keep an eye on Tech/News in the coming weeks. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Bots/Archive 22#How to use Special:ApiFeatureUsage. See also User:AnomieBOT/header. I'm under the impression that this tool was Anomie's thing. I'm curious to know whether the Search team was involved in any of the aforementioned office politics. Is this tool obsolete because future breaking changes have been deprecated or because the WMF could care less whether bot operators were alerted to breaking changes before they were implemented? – wbm1058 (talk) 04:03, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it was mainly management and HR. There were a lot of different things going on, some of which seem to still be going on. One big one was that WMF had a spate of growing more layers of management that seemed to have no purpose other than "management" and so had to throw their weight around to try to justify their existence and generally kiss up kick down. I've heard that the manager primarily responsible for my troubles has since "left" after finally trying and failing to get rid of someone else who might have been a threat to his rise to power, and turnover has taken care of some others. Whether the new ED and CPTO will turn things around there, we'll have to wait and see.
The problem with ApiFeatureUsage, as far as I can tell, is that the Search team doesn't want to maintain the little bit of code that puts the sanitized data into an index on the public search cluster anymore. As far as I know it was pretty standard logstash and ElasticSearch stuff, just not the same stuff that's needed for MediaWiki's Search functionality. For that matter the ElasticSearch storage is not actually necessary for ApiFeatureUsage, the data just has to be somewhere that can support the necessary queries (and then someone needs to implement two functions to return the data to the extension). But when there are more important things that it seems no one officially cares about, we can't really expect them to care about something like ApiFeatureUsage that as far as I know never really took off in the first place. Anomie 12:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: It appears that they decided yesterday to migrate this instead of turning it off. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HBC AIV helperbot5 down?[edit]

This bot is usually really on top of removing dealt with reports at UAA, but isn't doing so and hasn't done anything in the last six hours. It's maintainer has been inactive the last seven months. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to now be back up and running, which probably doesn't answer any questions. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fine, if it had been explained I probably wouldn't have understood a word of it anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RM notice 20 July 2022[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has requested for Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Wikipedia:History of Wikipedia bots, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:5800:1a1f:4144:3a67:f74d:9f8c (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dams articles[edit]

Hello, I am involved in creating articles in dams manually (not bot), most of them are stubs. Currently, I am working for Japanese dam. I am starting this discussion to get community consensus to create dam stubs around the world. For information, there is a separate wiki project on dams. Best! nirmal (talk) 01:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you nirmal for opening this. For context, I asked them to do so based on WP:MASSCREATE after noticing they were engaged the good faith creation of large numbers (slightly over 1000) of similar articles on dams based on a single source, damnet. These articles take the following form:
NAME (Japanese: JAPANESE NAME) is a TYPE dam located in LOCATION in Japan. The dam is used for PURPOSE. The catchment area of the dam is AREA km2. The dam impounds about AREA ha of land when full and can store SIZE thousand cubic meters of water. The construction of the dam was started on YEAR and completed in YEAR.
A few examples can be seen at Yukiyagawa Dam, Yanagawa Dam (Iwate, Japan), and Bicchuji-ike Dam.
I am not certain certain whether such creations, as opposed to inclusion in a list, are beneficial to the reader, particularly since I am not convinced that all of them meet WP:GNG - I note there is no presumed notability for dams, per WP:GEOFEAT. As such, I am hoping the community will discuss this and decide whether to endorse their continued creation in this manner. BilledMammal (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would definitely invite WP:DAMS to the discussion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. BilledMammal (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-A similar approach was used to create some of the individual articles of List of gaunpalikas of Nepal and members of parliaments of Nepal. nirmal (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fully support creation of such articles. They can always be expanded later, as Jpxg points out above. NemesisAT (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nirmal, what is your intent for the scope of these creations? Do you intend to create articles on every dam listed in that index, or is it only a subset? BilledMammal (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to nirmal for opening this. My opinion is that it would be better to have these be lists of dams (or maybe a table), rather than individual pages, if the pages are going to consist of the five-sentence template quoted above. List of dams in Japan is too long, but I think it could be split into regional lists, and the list entries can have all of the information currently contained in the stubs. For example, it seems to me everything currently contained in articles like Ameyama Dam and Gokamura-ike Dam could be included in two rows in a table in List of dams in Aichi Prefecture. The individual pages could become redirects, and then if somebody wanted to expand the article on a particular dam, they could easily do that (and then link to it on the list/table). Levivich (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure if independent articles on dams are always the best idea if there are already articles on the lakes they sustain. I'd also advise gearing this towards dams that do more than simply hold water (something more important like a hydroelectric dam would be preferable). Bicchuji-ike Dam is a mound of packed dirt which helps area farmers. I doubt its notability unless WP:GNG is eventually demonstrated. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
-Note that almost all of them are large dams.nirmal (talk) 13:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the record, I have in the past thanked Nirmaljoshi for their work on these articles, but also asked him/her to slow down a bit and take care to link new articles to Wikidata or existing articles in other languages, which they have not yet done. I agree that improving the existing list articles would be a good idea, and I stand ready to help. List of dams in Saga Prefecture might be a reasonable example of what can be done quite easily using existing data. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I would like to thank nirmal for coming here. Every other editor who has mass-created articles has refused even to acknowledge that we had a policy on mass creation, or that any consultation at all was needed before creating huge numbers of articles.
My question to Nirmal is this: why not just use a bot? Wouldn’t it make far more sense to do so than trying to do this stuff by hand? I mean, I’m not a programming genius but I think using excel/Notepad++ I could populated a whole bunch of templates with the requisite data in one go.
All of this WP:MEATBOT stuff would be much better if it were just done automatically. FOARP (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FOARP: Thanks for asking. Actually, I find pleasure to check the size of dams and imagine the age when it was constructed etc. Bot will take away that emotional parts :P . Having said that, I use a locally running python script to gather data. nirmal (talk) 04:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At worst, these dams should all exist as blue links, with a redirect to information about the dam in either a list or the adjacent lake article, right? And there's been no dispute over correctness of the information? So this is an introduction of new, reliably sourced information into the English Wikipedia on a topic we underrepresent (Japan), and turning red links into blue. From perusing List of dams and reservoirs in the United States and Category:Dams in the United States by state, it seems roughly inline for us to have articles on dams of this nature. I'm inclined to say that these mass creations are appropriate. — Bilorv (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with your point about parity, but looking at the US dams, not every dam has a stand-alone article, instead they are listed in lists of dams-by-state. From a quick glance at the Alabama dams, the ones that do have stand-alone articles have multiple sections or at least several paragraphs of prose. I think Japanese dams should be similarly organized, but that would mean not creating short stand-alone pages for every dam, and instead having lists of dams-by-prefecture (or some other regional subdivision). Levivich 23:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As discussed above, I started splitting List of dams in Japan into separate articles by prefecture, but Fram has moved these into draft space which has broken all the links from List of dams in Japan. I intend to revert these moves shortly, but just letting people know — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These were moved to draft because they were Wikidata lists, not lists with local content. That this has broken links is not a reason to have these, and reinstating such lists which were disallowed per RfC is not a wise move. Fram (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is irresponsible to leave other artivles in a broken state. By the way I would be interested to see a link to an exact RfC by which you are claiming this consensus. As explained on the AfD this has nothing to do with ListeriaBot. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The link to the RfC has been provided at the AfD. And redlinks in an article is not the same as "leaving articles in a broken state". What any of this has to do with the bot noticeboard is also not clear. Fram (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]