Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KuduBot 3: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
re
ClueBot III (talk | contribs)
m Fixing links to archived content. (BOT)
Line 22: Line 22:


<!--Bot tasks require consensus in order to be approved. Please list any relevant discussions here to indicate consensus for the task. If such input is not necessary (for instance, a task that is duplicating or closely matching an existing bot) leave this blank-->
<!--Bot tasks require consensus in order to be approved. Please list any relevant discussions here to indicate consensus for the task. If such input is not necessary (for instance, a task that is duplicating or closely matching an existing bot) leave this blank-->
'''Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):''' [[Wikipedia:Bot requests#Request for hatnote bot]]
'''Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):''' [[Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Request for hatnote bot]]


<!-- e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run, etc. -->
<!-- e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run, etc. -->

Revision as of 18:16, 19 September 2011

Operator: KuduIO (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 00:01, Monday September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python and regular expressions

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia, regular expression / parameters may be available on request

Function overview: Move all hatnotes to the very top of the articles per the Manual of Style .

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Request for hatnote bot

Edit period(s): One-time run, then daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ?

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Discussion

Are there *any* cases where the top is not the best place for a hatnote? Are some used in sections, perhaps? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely could have been used there, so limiting to lead section is probably smart. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's one exception. Are there others? I assume we're limiting to article space here for a start? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 18:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I somehow assumed this applies to articles by default; it definitely should, article layout guidelines do not apply to other namespaces. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It probably applies to project space too, but limiting to article space for now seems wise. Yes, I'll add an exception for sections in the form of a lookahead. — Kudu ~I/O~ 20:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How do you intend to find articles that suffer from this problem? Are you going to randomly crawl through every article, or is there a database report somewhere? —SW— comment 18:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably by processing a dump (AWB can handle this). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, just want to ensure that the operator is willing/able to download and process a database dump. —SW— confabulate 21:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This will be done by accessing the database directly from the toolserver. — Kudu ~I/O~ 20:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not possible. The toolserver database does not include page text. —SW— verbalize 22:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right. Perhaps I can write a separate tool which uses WikiProxy and dumps a list of pages to a file, and then feed that to pywikipedia's replace.py. — Kudu ~I/O~ 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • What is WikiProxy? How will it generate a list of problematic pages if it does not analyse a dump? (Or does it?) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]