Wikivoyage:Script nominations

From Wikivoyage
Jump to: navigation, search


According to the Wikivoyage script policy, scripts have to be approved by the Wikivoyage administrators. To create a script that runs against Wikivoyage, post the name and reason for the script beneath the line below.

Explain why we need the script, why it can't be done by hand, and what the script will do. If 2 administrators voice their support for the script and there are no unresolved objections, the script can be run with a bot flag. If objections arise later, the bot flag can be undone.

Scripts that have passed through this process can be found in Project:script nominations/Archive.

NOTE: you must apply for approval on each language version of Wikivoyage. Approval on this page only allows you to run a bot on Wikivoyage in English.


ArchiverBot[edit]

Since it looks like at least some find it useful, I would like to run User:ArchiverBot for periodically archiving inactive sections on discussion pages. My bot is an unmodified copy of archivebot.py of Pywikibot, and will work on pages explicitly tagged with the marker template, with possible page-wise customization. It will need a bot flag to not disturb people watching the target pages. Suggested target pages include Wikivoyage:Tourist Office, nomination pages (possibly with some modifications either in the script or the archiving practice), and user talk pages (at the user's own will); these are merely suggestions and will not be implemented against objections. Whym (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Support from me based on the successful experiment already performed. Just to clarify, all someone has to do is tag a page with Template:Auto archiving and the bot will automatically archive it according to the parameters specified in the template (i.e. mw:Manual:Pywikibot/archivebot.py/setup#Template_parameters)? -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, that's all. To clarify further, after a week or so of experiment I have suspended the daily run, because frequent archiving without the flag can be a nuisance. Once approved and flagged, I'll keep it running daily. Whym (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • What procedure will we use to regulate which pages are being archived? Let's say someone, thinking they're being helpful, adds the template to the Pub; how easy would it be do undo the bot's subsequent actions? Powers (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Undoing and restoring archived discussions are not different from reverting any other edits; since these edits usually don't intersect with others' edits, simple undos or rollbacks without manual copy-and-paste would work. The bot has no special mechanism to help reverting. As for the regulation, it is advisable to establish explicit consensus when it involves significant changes such as a different scheme for subpages. That said, it's entirely up to the community. It looks like other wikis using this feature are doing fine with the spirit of w:Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Whym (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • *bump* Can anyone else comment? All concerns raised have been addressed, but two admins must voice "support" before I can add the bot flag. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm afraid I still have concerns about well-intentioned users trying to archive pages that shouldn't be automatically archived. If it's a high traffic page, or one where the archival isn't noticed quickly, undoing the damage could be a significant time-waster. Powers (talk) 16:14, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
          • How would that be different from a well-intentioned user manually doing the same thing? Unless I'm missing something the archive bot won't instantly archive a page the moment a tag is added, so unless someone doesn't revert the archive tag that is added to the high-traffic page there is plenty of time to undo any tagging. This bot seems like a simple way to save us some time, and to keep pages that often get overlooked (like user ban nominations) clean. Also consider that most other WMF wikis use this bot, and to the best of my knowledge they aren't having the problem you've described. -- Ryan • (talk) • 16:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
            • Placed on a page that wasn't previously archived, I believe the bot would archive most of the page the next time it runs. Other wikis archive all of their talk pages the same so it doesn't matter if a bot does it or a human does it. Powers (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
              • I'm going to rant and then quit watching this thread. It makes me despondent over the future of this project that we're vetoing a bot that runs successfully on all manner of other Wikimedia wikis because a user might tag a page incorrectly, and the bot might run before someone else removes the tag, and it might take 30 seconds to then click "revert" and undo those changes?!? We're not talking about whether we should change how pages are archived, we're simply adding support for a bot on Wikivoyage that can help us with how we already archive some existing pages. The fact that you won't relent on this minor point means that a contributor, who wants to help in a manner that is not in any way out of the norms for a wiki, is being told that his contributions aren't wanted here. Making that worse, we're citing a seemingly irrational fear that in the worst case we'll have to spend 30 seconds clicking "revert" if the bot goes wrong as the justification. Why should anyone else who has a bot that might be helpful want to deal with us if we can't even approve something as obvious as an archive bot? The failure of this script nomination is absolutely, without a doubt, the wrong result - we need new contributors and new ideas, but instead this insane level of conservatism and bureaucracy is going to kill this project, if it hasn't already mortally wounded it. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
                • I don't think it's helpful to have a conniption every time I express doubt about a well-intentioned change you support, Ryan. Please note that I never opposed the approval of this bot; I merely declined to be the second admin to take responsibility for approving it. Is that really such a grievous offense, considering we have dozens of other admins who could (and now, have) easily provided the second support you desired? At least I bothered to comment. Powers (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Powers, would it help if I set up the bot to check pages once a week, instead of daily? That would reduce the chance that an unwelcome addition of the template triggers archiving before anyone notices. It will probably be frequent enough until there is a very busy page that needs archiving. (IIRC, some en.wikipedia page needs twice-a-day archiving, but that's probably that wiki only.) Whym (talk) 13:52, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably that would mitigate any potential damage. I hope my fears are unfounded, of course. Powers (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. I remember voicing support for this bot to be used in the kind of limited way that's proposed above, probably in the Pub, but I see I didn't comment here. I think we need more participation in this thread. Was a link posted at Requests for comment? Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Flagged as bot. Powers (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2014 (UTC)