Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Hi Ladsgroup, edits such as this seem to violate COSMETICBOT. They make no difference to the reader, and there is no consensus to use only templates to display official websites. WP:ELOFFICIAL says: "Use of the template {{official website}} is optional."

Is there any benefit to adding a template? SarahSV ^(talk) 22:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, IIRC We are doing it because we are migrating them to Wikidata so we would have a centralized place to keep and control them. It's super useful but not in the first glance. Ladsgroup^overleg 23:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking pages - is there somewhere spelled out for the steps that are being used for this migration? (e.g. step one, convert to this template; step 2 load to wikidate; step 3 update the template again?) — xaosflux ^Talk 23:48, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, replying to Ladsgroup) Hi, thanks for the reply, which I'm afraid I didn't understand. Can you explain?

If you want to make those edits on a large scale, you need to gain community consensus, because at the moment the guideline says: "Use of the template {{official website}} is optional." The best place to ask would be at the village pump. Or has there been a discussion like that already? SarahSV ^(talk) 23:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux:I don't think so, I was asked to do this so I thought there is a bigger plan and I can help out. I'm not aware of the details. @SlimVirgin: There has been a plan to migrate such data to Wikidata. So later we remove the argument (like Template:Commons category) and use the data in Wikidata instead. It would make these data usable across all other projects (all languages and projects like Wikiquote, etc.). So this is minor change in English Wikipedia but a rather big one for others. Ladsgroup^overleg 00:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup, I'm not aware of any consensus to do that; in fact, it's contentious, unless things have changed since I last checked. One of the reasons is that someone could vandalize (or just make a mistake with) the template on Wikidata, and that would spread throughout the project, but without showing up on watchlists. I think you definitely need to gain consensus somewhere. Who asked you to do it? SarahSV ^(talk) 00:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, the same could be said about Wikimedia Commons and we use commons despite that. Also, unlike commons, you have an option in your watchlist to show any change in wikidata in articles you watched. (Just search for Wikidata in your watchlist page). And also unlike commons, Wikidata has a rather good system to fight vandalism called ORES (which is more accurate than its counterpart in English Wikipedia). Regarding the discussion about it. I think it happened in the talk page of Template:Official website but I'm not sure. I remember vaguely that a discussion like that happened but can't remember the details. Anyway, Marios asked me to do it. Ladsgroup^overleg 00:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but people don't want to have to watchlist Wikidata. The issue here is whether it has consensus. Bot tasks shouldn't be approved for contentious issues. If you want to continue with it, the best thing is to open a discussion on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). SarahSV ^(talk) 00:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small comment. Sarah, you really can not on one hand complain that "somone could vandalize the template on Wikidata ... but without showing up on watchlists" and then when you are told how to include it on your watchlist say "people don't want to have to watchlist Wikidata". — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Martin, in every discussion I've seen about this, people have expressed reluctance to watchlist a second project so that they can monitor textual changes to articles they're editing. And not only watchlist it; they would have to edit it too if something untoward were added. It's a lot to ask.

But regardless of that, the issue here is respecting consensus and the bot policy. The question of Wikidata-enabled infoboxes is contentious on the English Wikipedia. Here we have a Wikidata developer and employee of Wikimedia Deutschland being asked to do this by Magioladitis, who then approves the bot task himself, even though the guideline says using a template is optional.

Bot policy: "In order for a bot to be approved, its operator should demonstrate that it ... performs only tasks for which there is consensus [and] carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines". SarahSV ^(talk) 15:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I need to clarify several stuff: 1- I'm not a WMDE employee. I'm hired by them as contractor. 2- Even if I was employee, I didn't do this in my working capacity. I've been migrating data to Wikidata since its emergence and long before I get hired by WMDE (my bot has 23 million edits there). 3- Moving data to official website template has lots and lots of benefits. It helps us find inconsistencies between Wikipedia and Wikidata (so we would know if someone vandalizes English Wikipedia). We can query these data, use it in infoboxes, check for possible mistakes much more easier. This is not a cosmetic edit.

What I did wasn't mentioned in policies and guidelines but wasn't against them either. Use common sense and ignore please. If you're against moving data to Wikidata, that's another issue. You are free to start an RfC to stop using Wikidata data but We already moved and deprecated PERSONDATA template, moved authority control data, and tons of other things. It was just a trivial thing among lots of other things to do. Ladsgroup^overleg 15:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ladsgroup, I see you've resumed the task. Please stop. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was in crontab, stopped for now until we reach an agreement Ladsgroup^overleg 15:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping. We did have an RfC about Wikidata-enabled infoboxes, which showed no consensus for it. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 128#RfC: Wikidata in infoboxes, opt-in or opt-out?. In my view, it showed a majority were against it, but unfortunately the person who closed it did so unclearly, so it has left us not knowing. Certainly consensus in favour wasn't demonstrated.

Regardless of that, I'd prefer not to mix up the substantive issue with that of bots and consensus in general. We have a problem in general with bot tasks being approved even though they violate the guidelines. Can you not simply ask on the PUMP if the community wants this? They may say yes or may not care one way or the other, in which case it'll be fine. I will ask on the guideline talk page whether people have there have views about this. Perhaps you are right and no one will mind. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amir, I asked at Wikipedia talk:External links#Official website template whether anyone was likely to mind, and the suggestion was to open an RfC on that page. Instructions at WP:RfC. Please explain in the RfC request what the bot does. You said: "It also handles title part too", so please explain if you're adding the template to somewhere other than External links. I realize this will mean a delay for you, but if you get consensus it means you can go ahead with no further concern. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:57, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the discussion continues at Wikipedia talk:External links#Official website template, and a comment was left at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Official website uses Wikidata. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikidata Phase 2 (May 2013). -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you could take over Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 26 and do this such as this one and this one. I can provide you a full list. The naming is set by MOS:SECTIONS. It's 100% uncontroversial and 3 bots in the past were approved to do it. Since DexBot already does section header fixes maybe it's time to pass this task there and run it on daily basis. The task can standardize the following sections:

• See also
• References
• Further reading
• External links

-- Magioladitis (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My search is for things like insource:/== *Weblinks *==/. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you have any source available so I can look up and follow the algorithm? I'll do it completely if you give a super clear objectives :) Thanks Ladsgroup^overleg 17:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can check FixHeadings.cs in AWB's source code. The main idea is to rename level 2 section headers as following:

• see also|related topics|related articles|internal links|also see with See also
• external links?|external sites?|outside links?|web ?links?|exterior links? with External links
• reff?e?rr?en[sc]es? with References
• Further Reading with Further reading

-- Magioladitis (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Superb, I'll write it this weekend and I'll make a RfBA that time. Thanks! Ladsgroup^overleg 17:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 11 has been approved. Please see the final closing notes. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 05:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ladsgroup^overleg 09:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 10 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 00:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.[reply]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dexbot 10 has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Ladsgroup^overleg 03:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work so far. Post when you are done. I will then manually fix the stupid ones that point to a journal issue instead of a specific article AManWithNoPlan (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's already done, if there are lots of cases, please let me know to check what's wrong. Ladsgroup^overleg 05:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are over a thousand left https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=5000&offset=0&profile=default&search=insource%3A%22links.jstor.org%22&searchToken=84yj1pd47qrv2gkf5ue12ppzm But, many of them are like this one:

• Hilton, R.H., The Origins of Robin Hood, Past and Present, No. 14. (Nov. 1958), pp. 30–44. Available online at JSTOR.

They point to over a dozen articles, since SICI is technically a search. But, these pages has one that your bot missed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction (This one is within a quote strangely)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Johannes_Brahms&action=edit (this one redirects to doi, and not a stable)

One more https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal

AManWithNoPlan (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's because of the pipe issue. The bot would just skip them. I made it to understand it now. Ladsgroup^overleg 16:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is done. There are about 500 that do not uniquely specify a journal :-( I will fix those over time by hand. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think you could similarly convert these http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1068720901&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=6&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1246568407&clientId=17862 to the more stable http://search.proquest.com/docview/222244908/ URL (Some of them have /fulltextPDF on the end) AManWithNoPlan (talk) 02:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm super busy these days. I can pick it up in two weeks. please remind me if I forget. Ladsgroup^overleg 05:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what this approval seeks to accomplish? Does it produce any rendered change on the page? Does it change any categorization, etc.? I'm not seeing any consensus discussion supporting the task. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]