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. The user page for any approved bot should include {{bot}} to indicate the wiki user responsible for operating the bot; a list of all active bots will then appear in Category:Wikivoyage bots.

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.


User:Wrh2Bot - Flag broken external links[edit]

I'd like to tag broken external links with {{dead link}}. By default this tag will not be visible to users who have not enabled the ErrorHighlighter gadget from Special:Preferences, but users who have enabled that gadget will see a "dead link" note next to the invalid link, making it very easy to find and fix bad links in articles. Pages with broken links are also added to Category:Articles with dead external links‎‎. See this edit to New York City and this edit to Chicago for examples of what the bot would be doing. Assuming two people support this bot my plan is to initially run the bot slowly and manually review all edits it makes to ensure that there are no false positives. Also of note, the way I've set up the bot is that if a link isn't obviously broken - for example, if the site returns "server error" or some other indication of a potentially temporary problem - the bot won't flag the link in order to avoid false positives. -- Ryan • (talk) • 03:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: I've run the bot against all star articles, so Category:Articles with dead external links‎‎ now contains a number of articles that can be reviewed to see how the bot will work. It broke one link in the process, so I'll need to figure out a fix, but the link in question was a mess to start with - search for "Golders Hill Park" in the following diff: Special:Diff/2909329/2968987. -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Support - This is a great tool, checking manually is a very long job. Broken links can highlight closed businesses or just that web addresses have changed. This will help us increase the quality of articles, making it more useful to readers and increase our search engine rankings. --Traveler100 (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Support. Would like to see it check links twice a few days apart, before updating. A similar tool in OSM produces a remarkable amount of false positives. --Inas (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The current version of the bot is designed to only flag links where the server explicitly returns 404 (file not found) or if the DNS lookup returns "unknown host" (indicating that there is no longer a website at that domain). I think that should eliminate false positives due to issues that would otherwise be resolved by checking twice, although it could also miss some invalid links - for example, in the Santa Monica article a link was set to "https" but the site only supported "http", and the bot doesn't currently flag that scenario (I manually fixed it in this edit after noticing the error in the bot output on my laptop). In addition, if the bot is re-run against an article it will remove all existing {{dead link}} tags and only re-tag articles that fail, so if a link is tagged as broken due to a temporary problem with the external site it should be un-tagged the next time the bot runs. For the first iteration hopefully that's OK, and I could then look to do something like storing failure history for edge cases and flagging more difficult links after multiple failures for a future enhancement. Does that seem reasonable? -- Ryan • (talk) • 14:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It does. --Inas (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Great idea. Support. Pashley (talk) 09:17, 8 April 2016 (UTC)