DeltaBot

Bot maintainers:

• User:Pasleim
• User:MisterSynergy

Hi.

First of all, many thanks for the patient and useful work.

Could you please avoid creating new elements for en:Wikipedia pages whose title ends with "(disambiguation)" or fr:Wikipedia pages ending with "homonymie"? Just an example: Q126023680 (Cayton) created with Q29597956 already existing. Adding the Wikipedia link to the proper Wikidata element would avoid manual merges.

I hope my request is clear and this is not too much work to update.

One more request: could you please add an accent to the word "Wikimedia" in new_disambiguation_pages.py? Wikimédia is the French translation.

Line 65:

{

       'language': 'fr',

       'site': 'frwiki',

       'project': 'wikipedia',

       'category': 'Homonymie',

       'description': 'page d\'homonymie de Wikimedia',

   }

Hi, Deltabot starts updating the "Humans with missing claims" pages and then hangs on one page. Now P1340 was the last, [last week it was P2190.

While I'm here, I'll ask: could the update be scheduled for Friday? At the end of the week, there is more time to repair the items.

Thanks if you do

Will look into this later this week.

Seems there is some read timeout when the bot interacts with the Mediawiki API (via pywikibot), which apparently ultimately results in an edit conflict and crashes the bot … (?!)

No idea what is going on here to be honest, and I think I might have seen these read timeouts in some of my other bots as well. Needs further investigation for sure.

Anyways, I have rescheduled it to be run on Fridays at 15:50 UTC instead of Sundays at the same time.

Thanks for rescheduling, we'll see if it runs on Friday.

Hello MisterSynergy! Now stopped at P1006.

Can it do this again?

I mean in the subsequent categories.

The corresponding job is still running. In order to add these claim, the inverse claim does already need to be there.

And no bot can add the inverse claim based on the sibling items?

Update process of Wikidata:Property proposal/count seems wrong, continues to remove Transportation count.

The transportation section seems empty, thus it is omitted. Is this really a problem?

"Transportation (invalid parameter Transportation)" appears at Wikidata:Property proposal as a result of the Transportation count being removed. Same error also appears in the Current property proposals message at the Watchlist.

Okay I see. It is now changed to include empty sections.

Thanks.

E.g. Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P213

The job got stuck for some reason. I killed it, so it can restart regularly this night.

The bot is dead again, no update for Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P8616 since 2024-03-06.

Thanks for the report.

The job is being properly started daily, but it gets killed when working on P31 because it runs out of memory. Looking at Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P31, there are probably some complex constraint definitions to tidy on Property talk:P31, and I think the bot should also be more resilient against failures due to large reports.

Not an easy fix, but I hope I can fix this soon.

I added limit of result to all contraint in P31 https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P31&diff=prev&oldid=2120651490 Hope it will help.

Yes this helps, thank you. I also reduced the limit of results per section on these report pages from 5000 to 2000 which is still a lot. Several other reports got shorter as well which hopefully makes this more robust in general.

Probably a cleaning to do in nature de l’élément (P31) a lot of the complex pcontraint don't seem to work at all.

Yes, although this does not cause the bot to fail. If you are interested to work on this, the most likely reasons for failures are listed for all queries on the report page.

Lists can have hundreds of items, could the bot use "#" instead of "*"?

Example of a list containing 993 violations: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Database_reports/Complex_constraint_violations/P213&oldid=2069233160#instance_of_human_and_part_of_X,_X_instance_of_educational_organization

How would this help? There is no intrinsic order among the entries on these reports, thus an ordered list (#) is not correct; in fact, an unordered list (*) is the correct choice.

To make the reports deterministic, the bot sorts entries ascending by the numerical part of the Q-ID of the listed items.

Q525 (Sun)

-> Statements -> child astronomical body

As of October 2023, there are 629,008 numbered minor planets (secured discoveries) out of a total of 1,310,261 observed small Solar System bodies, with the remainder being unnumbered minor planets and comets + Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster

• 18:30, 21 September 2021‎ DeltaBot talk contribs‎  586,129 bytes +447‎  ‎Added reference to claim: child astronomical body (P398): 50000 Quaoar (Q15586)
• 18:30, 21 September 2021‎ DeltaBot talk contribs‎  585,682 bytes +408‎  ‎Created claim: child astronomical body (P398): 50000 Quaoar (Q15586)
• 18:30, 21 September 2021‎ DeltaBot talk contribs‎  585,274 bytes +447‎  ‎Added reference to claim: child astronomical body (P398): (12300) 1991 RX10 (Q12300)
• 18:30, 21 September 2021‎ DeltaBot talk contribs‎  584,827 bytes +408‎  ‎Created claim: child astronomical body (P398): (12300) 1991 RX10 (Q12300)
• 18:30, 21 September 2021‎ DeltaBot talk contribs‎  584,419 bytes +408‎  ‎Created claim: child astronomical body (P398): 102 Miriam (Q11560),.......... etc.

So what is the inquiry here?

Hi! I appreciate what this bot does for WD:RFD, adding useful notices about items being deleted, but my problem is that when it places these notices, I don't get any notification. I make a lot of requests for deletion, and I usually subscribe to the topics. In the majority of cases, this bot is the only reply and so I never get any feedback about whether the item got deleted.

Hey Bovlb, what do you think should be changed regarding the bot? I'd see whether this could be done then. The current source code is here, and it is pretty simple as you can see.

Anyways, you can delete items without listing them on WD:RfD. As admin, you basically only need to list items there where a discussion is necessary—but as you claimed, this rarely happens.

you can delete items without listing them on WD:RfD I am well aware of that, as I also delete a lot of items directly. I'm something of an inclusionist, so outside of the most clear-cut cases, I prefer to post requests on RFD, effectively invoking a "two person rule", so that borderline deletions involve review from at least two people. I value the feedback I receive about my judgement in requesting deletion: How many of my requests are rejected?

what do you think should be changed regarding the bot That's a good question. The way the bot is editing the page does not seem to trigger the notification mechanism of "Discussion Tools". This may be because the bot is editing the page directly, and DT's notification mechanism just doesn't see the replies. mw:Help:DiscussionTools says "You will receive notifications about new comments regardless of the editing interface used to post them." which suggests otherwise. Or it may be because of the botflag. I can't find any documentation about how the botflag should interact with Discussion Tools. CC @Trizek (WMF).

I have a theory. Mentioned users are excluded from that notification . But the mention is suppressed, too: MediaWiki:Echo-blacklist.

Thanks. See also Wikidata:Bot_requests/Archive/2017/12#Ping_creators_and_editors_of_an_item_when_the_item_gets_nominated_for_deletion.

Please consider adding a feature of automatically populating the reverse relationship between template and category of "template populates category (P9926) & template or module that populates category (P4329) " [similar to template has topic (P1423) & topic's main template (P1424) ], if one is specified.

Hey Zhenqinli, those are properties with relatively few uses. It would be much easier to sync these inverse properties occasionally with manually executed QuickStatements jobs, rather than to write a dedicated bot for it.

Hello, this bot incorrectly merged two items as per here [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q122956129&diff=1987201864&oldid=1987198708 ]. Thank you,

Hey, thanks for the report. This was a false-positive merge indeed. Usually when an editor moves all sitelinks to another item, they actually want to merge but don't know how to. This bot tidies those cases, but sometimes a valid edit pattern also triggers it to merge items incorrectly. Sorry for the inconvenience.