Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MatrixBot 2: Difference between revisions

Line 87: Line 87:

*:::I decided to go with the former, since it makes more sense – [[Template talk:Afd top]]. —”'[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]”’ [[Template:ping|ping]] mewhen u reply ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] – [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|c]]) 18:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

*::::It’s not a technical dispute. These pages are already noindexed, so adding the magic word <code><nowiki>__NOINDEX__</nowiki></code> is redundant. If it was just added, it should be removed. –[[User:Novem Linguae|”’Novem Linguae”']] ([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]]) 03:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

*:::::{{ping|Novem Linguae}} where are they noindexed? robots.txt isn’t the same as a noindex tag – if the AfDs are linked by a third party website they could still be indexed. That’s my understanding at least. —”'[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]”’ [[Template:ping|ping]] mewhen u reply ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] – [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|c]]) 10:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

*::If thats the case, I think we can [[WP:UCS|use common sense]] and just not implement that part of the close. [[User:Voorts|voorts]] ([[User talk:Voorts|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Voorts|contributions]]) 18:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

*:::I’m fine with that – it could always be pushed later as part of a new transcluded template. —”'[[User:Matrix|Matrix]]”’ [[Template:ping|ping]] mewhen u reply ([[User talk:Matrix|t?]] – [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|c]]) 18:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

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

Time filed: 18:59, Sunday, September 7, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Make old AfD discussions dark mode compatible

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Pywikibot

Source code available: replace.py

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Think this is non-controversial, but I am free to get consensus if it is required

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~~Let’s assume 40 AfDs per day. We need to correct everything between mid 2024 and mid 2005, which is 19 years. That works out to 19*365*40=~277400 pages~~ 495000 per Cryptic

Namespace(s): Wikipedia

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):Yes

Function details:

The bot will replace '''Please do not modify it.''' with '''Please do not modify it.''', as well as replace background-color: #F3F9FF; with background-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF);, which will make looking at old AfD archives easier for dark mode users. There are a few variations of the former which I am aware of and will ensure to include.

It will also fix a lot of instances of the “Background color inline style rule exists without a corresponding text color” lint error.

—Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:59, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know for a fact that this will be controversial, because fixing linter errors on old AFDs had a few individuals bringing out their pitchforks. Please at the very least get a silent consensus to do this task. Primefac (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, @Primefac, could you please link an example of “individuals bringing out their pitchforks” (like a discussion somewhere) so I can assess the potential reasons for not doing this kind of task before I try to get consensus from somewhere? —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 20:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main one started here and ended up here. The end result was (unsurprisingly) that a vocal minority didn’t like the edits but they had consensus to continue. I’m not saying that you don’t have consensus for it (the RFC at least gives an indication it’s not outright a problem), and one of the primary movers in that dispute has retired, but part of BOTREQ is that we should have some indication that there is a desire for these edits.

To put it another way, I personally see no issue with making useful edits which assist other editors even though the changes are minor/trivial, but with my BAG hat on I would be remiss if I didn’t at least mention the pushback when “sub-sub-subpages of AfD talk pages from 2005 that literally no human will ever visit again” are edited. Primefac (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think those apply to this task. The objections to MalnadachBot wasn’t that it was fixing linter errors, or that it was editing old closed AFDs, or even the combination; it was that it was editing the same page many – sometimes very many – times each, fixing one user’s signature at a time. —Cryptic 18:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide a link to a couple of example edits on real pages that show both of the changes that this bot task would make? – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:55, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this task. It’s not worth running a bot to make 200,000 edits so the small number of people viewing old AfDs in dark mode see some form-letter text they most likely already know slightly better. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 02:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: do you know how many people use dark mode? Plus we’re fixing lint errors along the way. Paving the way for a more accessible Wikipedia should be important. I don’t see the cost, what is “not worth” about it? I’m doing it, I’ll happily give up some of my time. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 19:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn’t the number of people who use dark mode, it’s the intersection of the number of people who use dark mode and who visit old AfDs, and the latter set is pretty small in the first place. And you surely know already that large bot tasks inevitably cause people to complain as they are happening. * Pppery * _{it has begun…} 19:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: ok let’s have this discussion in VPP, I don’t want to reply twice. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 19:14, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: Sure. I made an example at User:Matrix/before-after-dark-mode-afd for more recent AfDs. An example for old AfDs is available at User:Matrix/before-after-dark-mode-afd-2. You won’t actually notice the background change in the “after”, which is because old AfDs have the “metadata” class, and crude dark mode fixes target this class, see phab:T365330. My bot won’t remove this class, since the issue will be fixed by phab:T365330 anyway. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see the differences, but I don’t understand the reason for them. The red text, and all other text, shows up just fine for me in both light and dark mode. Maybe I am missing something; if so, please point it out. I am skeptical of page-by-page changes to address the technical issue of bgcolor without a specified color when the page looks fine already. Is there any way to modify one of the existing classes to address this issue instead of going page by page? – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: the red is slightly different on the latter example; it now has a higher contrast with the surrounding text, and fits in with the new link colours; you can try using the WGAC contrast extension to see. You can scroll a bit at [1] to see that there are indeed linter errors on AfDs (plus a bunch of other stuff).

There is no way to modify one of the existing classes, other than place an !important rule in MediaWiki:Common.css, which creates a new host of problems (one being that we are actively trying to stop using that page). TemplateStyles would also necessitate going page by page to insert the <templatestyles /> tag, which defeats the point. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know that there are Linter errors flagged; I have fixed literally millions of Linter errors since 2018. I am skeptical of some of them, however, including this background color error, since it sometimes produces false positives. I won’t stand in your way if you want to fix them, though. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95: This is not a false positive; we can look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lee Marshall and see there is a background color without a foreground color. We have a workaround with the selector “html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output [style*=’background’]”, but the less we use this janky workaround and actually fix issues, the better. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason AfD does not use a template for the that style part? A template would have made fixing this much easier. Not a an admin, but support fixing lint errors. Also, the previous RfC was pretty clear. I don’t see how we need a new lint RfC each time. The small number of people watching these old pages can safely put the ignore bot flag on their watchlist. —Gonnym (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: honestly, I don’t know. Probably just people in 2004 decided it should be that way, and everyone went with it. On Commons, templates aren’t substituted for i18n reasons, but on enwiki this doesn’t apply. Also, if we were to change that, it would probably break Twinkle, Ultraviolet and a bunch of other tools, and no one wants to deal with that headache. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my 2 searches (1, 2nd one which times out), it seems that this would affect more than just AfD pages. There’s a lot of talk pages with old RMs with the same markup. Tenshi! (Talk page) 18:23, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am limiting the scope of this task to AfDs, any other tasks will be discussed at a later date if this is successful. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The number of pages is closer to about 495000, FWIW. —Cryptic 19:38, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Cryptic: I was pretty sure my estimate would be way off, but don’t know how to do SQL. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 20:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. There is evidence of disagreement, and 495,000 pages is a huge number, so as others have mentioned, this is likely to be controversial. Please seek consensus at the Village pump or a similar venue first. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an RfC ongoing at WP:VPP that wasn’t linked here. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the RfC as follows: There is consensus to replace the offending text with an unsubstituted template and to add NOINDEX to old AfD pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I object to adding NOINDEX to old AFD pages on technical grounds. These pages are already NONINDEXed at a higher level: https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/g/operations/mediawiki-config/+/d4bb72a6b285c137254fcfd591b6a4ae53d5cc96/robots.txt#204 –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:32, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For now it may be easier to add NOINDEX to {{Afd top}} or {{Afd bottom}} later while the technical dispute is ongoing, than for the bot to add it while replacing the template. @Matrix: Could you please update the function details if you are going ahead with these additional changes, or state that you aren’t. Tenshi! (Talk page) 13:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tenshi Hinanawi: As {{Afd top}} is a member of Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted, we need to either remove it from that (which will trigger a seperate discussion on whether AfD top/bottom should be substed or not for the future) or make a new template. Time to worry about that implementation now. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to go with the former, since it makes more sense – Template talk:Afd top. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a technical dispute. These pages are already noindexed, so adding the magic word __NOINDEX__ is redundant. If it was just added, it should be removed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae: where are they noindexed? robots.txt isn’t the same as a noindex tag – if the AfDs are linked by a third party website they could still be indexed. That’s my understanding at least. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 10:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If thats the case, I think we can use common sense and just not implement that part of the close. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with that – it could always be pushed later as part of a new transcluded template. —Matrix _{ping me}^{when u reply} (t? – c) 18:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment