Revision as of 02:06, 17 June 2021 by Jvvg (talk | contribs) (→‎TBD Bot name: a possible solution for userspace?)

Shortcuts:

For an explanation of how to use this page and request a bot, see the bot request instructions. Make sure your bot is not a duplicate.

Note Note: The Vote section is used after a vote on if the bot should be used, and shows the number of people who approved/declined the idea of the bot. Please note, a formal vote may not be needed to decline/accept a bot, therefore it is not compulsory to fill this box in. The comment briefly describes any important information about the bot at this moment, especially changes that need to be made.
Note Note: Remember to add a section to the table with your name and bot information when requesting a bot.

For archived discussions, see the discussion archive.

Requested Bots
Owner Bot Name Bot Use Current Status Voting Comments and Recommendations
12944qwerty TBD link fixes when archiving Being discussed

TBD Bot name

So, I've noticed that there are a bunch of links that get broken when archiving a talk page. Especially the CP because many people link to the CP. If a user finds this broken link, they have to guess which archive it is now found in which is extremely hard.

  • Is your bot's task necessary? Yes
  • Is your bot's task difficult for a human to do? Yes
    • If not, is there any reason that a bot would be better than a human (e.g. too repetitive, humans are too unreliable)? It gets really repetitive, and humans can make mistakes. There are also too many links that could be broken.
  • Is your bot's task more than one time or quick use? Yes.
  • Is your bot's task pronouncedly different from other bots’ tasks and would adding its task to another bot be impractical? I do not see how another bot could add this functionality as this job is quite different.
  • Would your bot have a moderate request frequency? No, it would be once per month if we only do CP archiving fixes.
  • Would your bot help the Wiki as a whole, and not just a few specific users or articles? Yes, whenever I try going through talk pages, I find archived links that are broken. Which is extremely hard to find. Especially for the CP.
  • Would your bot be almost foolproof against causing harm if something goes wrong? I doub t it. Worst thing possible would probably be linking to a wrong section lol.
  • If your bot is designed to fix a problem, is it a significant problem that happens repeatedly? Yes.
  • Would your bot follow the wiki guidelines? Yes.

I also think that people could have a signup sheet for their archives so that their links don't get broken. This could increase frequency of use.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:11, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, ok but is it necessary so much? First, how can you get the exact header? With search system on Special:Search? Also, how can you find and parse all the broken links that linked to CP?
Ahmetlii logo.gif ahmetlii  Talk  Contributions  Directory 
14:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
How often are archives done (user talk and CP)? Very rarely. There are also not many broken links, so I see no use. Also, the answer to all questions should be "yes", and you answered no to one, so again, I don't see a purpose. I could fix all broken links in under an hour if I knew where they all were, so I don't see the difficulty with a bot doing it. edit conflict with above lol

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 14:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait what, glc, you put part of my text in your message
@ahmetlii What do you mean by header? The header doesn't change, and the parsing doesn't change either so it would be the same. I would also just parse through the CP, and look for each section header and search through the pages (yes, with Special:Search).
@gcl I've seen multiple broken links, and I doubt you'd be able to fix so many in under a hour. The key thing is that you don't know where they all are. To find them would take a really long time as a human. A bot could speed the process up. I also don't need to answer yes to all, (although recommended), I just need to provide a strong argument of why my bot is useful.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
bruh I'm not gcl
I could. Doesn't mean that I would, but it is possible.

garnetluvcookie (talk | contribs) 17:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, fixed
Exactly, you wouldn't. It's too much work for a normal human to be able to do and that's why I proposed this bot.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  17:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
I believe this bot would be useful. For the bot name, I suggest ArchiveBot. Also, this is a reply to both 12944qwerty and garnetluvcookie: the answer there should've been yes, it is a moderate request frequency. Apparently 12944qwerty doesn't understand what moderate means in that context :P
VFDan.png VFDan  Talk  Contribs  On Scratch  00:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I understood moderate as every couple days....
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  21:47, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, every couple days is moderate, but so is once a week. A bot that would fail that bullet would be one that requests every second.
-unsigned comment by VFDan (talk | contribs)
Oh ok....
ArchiveBot doesn't seem to express the job that this bot would do. ArchiveBot seems to say that it 'archives' pages... but that is not what it is meant to do. It's meant to fix links, once the pages are archived.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  18:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
bump
I figured that this doesn't necessarily have to be for only bots though... it can also be for moving pages if they don't leave a redirect.
I was thinking that there could be a sign-up sheet which looks at pages and subpages to see if any links should leading to those pages should be fixed or not.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  17:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
You can avoid links breaking with Special:PermanentLink. No need for a bot especially as retargetting links is not something that should be done automatically as it requires human discretion.
Naleksuh (talk | contribs) 03:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Very Late reply
Yes, but I wouldn't think that forcing every link to be a permanent link would be a great choice. At all.
And don't all the bots require human discretion? Just to make sure that the bot doesn't break anything? We have a period of time for testing the bot for this purpose as well.
12944qwerty Logo.png 12944qwerty  Talk  Contribs  Scratch  14:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
One concern I have is that a significant portion of links that break are in userspace or user-talkspace. Bots must not edit userspace (unless excepted) or other users' messages. Yet if this bot does not, that leaves a rather significant portion of broken links unfixed, defeating the purpose of the bot. Unless you have some workaround for that, I'm afraid this idea is good but ineffective.
Kenny2scratch logo.jpg kenny2scratch  Talk  Contribs  Directory 
01:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We could potentially make an exception to userspace where if it changes the target of the link itself but not the underlying link (and this is done by a bot) that's acceptable. For example, if I link to [[User talk:Jvvg#Section Title]] we could allow it to be changed to [[User talk:Jvvg/Archive 1#Section Title|User talk:Jvvg#Section Title]] (and if there is already custom link text different from the page name, then of course just keep the link text the same).
jvvg (talk | contribs) 02:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.