The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

Operator: Pkbwcgs (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 11:41, Sunday, December 9, 2018 (UTC)

Function overview: The bot will fix two one high priority WP:WCW error using AWB.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised (Error 62 will be mostly manual)

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 100 to 500 a week (working from CheckWiki list only)

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The bot will fix WP:CHECKWIKI high priority errors 3 (Reference list missing) and 62 (URL without http://). General fixes will be switched on but spelling fixes will be turned off. Every-single edit will be previewed before saving as this task will always be supervised. An example of an error 3 fix is this and an example of an error 62 fix is this when AWB added "http://" before a weblink. General fixes were switched on for both of the edits which is why AWB done general fixes on this edit.

Discussion[edit]

I assume that your changes will be taking into account the possibility that there are multiple reflists or that the External Links section comes before the References section? Primefac (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How are you determining the protocol designation to use for links? (i.e. http:// vs https:// vs ftp:// etc etc - are you actually checking every link manually to ensure it is valid?) — xaosflux ^Talk 15:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Every edit will be checked to make sure that there won't be multiple reflists and that the references and the external links are correctly placed. @Xaosflux: I shouldn't need to check every time as http:// works most of the time before any link but I still do check manually to make sure the link works. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as long as your are checking, no worries. This is just along the lines of you wouldn't want your bot to a make an edit that a sensible editor wouldn't also make (such as adding an invalid link). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that example AWB added http://, but the site redirects to https://annielouisaswynnerton.com/. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: I have fixed that. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:23, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is your intention to fix all such cases manually? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: My intention is to fix them using AWB and then check them afterwards so the task is going to be supervised. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a yes? In other words, you'll be needing to make two edits - one that is mostly right, and the second that gets it the rest of the way there? Primefac (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: When I need to change from http:// to https:// then yes. Otherwise, there is no need to make a second edit. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, do you have any idea how frequently that will be? Just in general (often, rarely, half the time, etc). Primefac (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to guess "no", so Approved for trial (100 edits (url protocol addition)). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:09, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: It will be done often once a week. @Hellknowz: URL protocol addition is done through general fixes so is it okay for you if I turn on general fixes? Pkbwcgs (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still need to know if GenFixes can be turned on before starting this trial. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. You cannot run only url correction? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: The URL correction is part of AWB's general fixes so I can't run only URL orrection. I did say general fixes will be turned on in the function details. Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How does the bot determine if the change is not genfixes only if you cannot control what genfixes run? Are you only working through a list? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: I am running through a list. It is this list. It is error 62 on WP:WCW. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with enabling all genfixes is that not all AWB genfixes are necessarily approved to be run by bots. I'll leave that for later discussion. Feel free to run the trial with genfixes enabled. I mostly just wanted to know the error rate for non-http links. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 15:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not done yet with the trial but I had to correct two links already. Is there a pywikibot script which can determine whether a link needs http:// or https:// without clicking on the link. Or, is there any other script that can do this? Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. May be those who work with Python can tell you. There are certainly web-browsing libraries. But I imagine it will need custom code. AWB support custom modules (or whatever they are called) where you can do such things (as far as I understand). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: I am actually going to withdraw error 62 (URL without http://) because it needs a lot of attention myself and I feel that the false positive rate is high. I will keep error 3 (Reference list missing) because I am certain that there will be no mistakes on that error. So I am withdrawing error 62 but I will keep error 3 in the running for this BRFA. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: Would you like me to do a trial on error 3 instead? Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do you still need the general fixes on? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:51, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: Having the general fixes on will make the process quick for fixing error 3. I can do it without general fixes by adding the reflist manually but it will be slower. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:59, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: Shall I do the trial with the general fixes on or without the general fixes on? Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave the genfixes on as per function details. It's generally okay for bots to do those. Since you are running supervised, it should be fine. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: Trial complete. That has gone smoothly and well. I am quite happy with the trial and I feel that there are no issues. The trial edits are located here. I have done fifty edits as instructed. Pkbwcgs (talk) 22:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Reviewed all edits, looks good. It's basically genfixes with reflist addition being the substantial change of the edit. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.