E.g. Wikidata:Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P213
DeltaBot
Joined 31 July 2016
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.
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q122871188&oldid=1983733594
As you can see, your bot created an item for Gerlof and linked the Dutch article about Gerlof, even though there was already an item for that at Q20981195. So the new item was totally unnecessary and also labeled wrong, as it was not a DP, but a page about a given name. Therefor, the link to Q20981195 was correct and the link to your new DP was not.
A case in point is the item [Q3760499|George Gilder] where the bot wrongly moved two P3831 qualifier properties from a reference on the main property value to the value of a main property. On the property-value pair "place of birth:New York City", the bot moved a P3831 with value "biography" from the reference to the value "New York City" itself. Clearly "new York City" does not have the role "biography" in this context. The bot also moved another P3831 with value "biography" on a reference for the property-value pair "educated at:Harvard University" to the main property itself with value "Harvard University". Also in this context "Harvard University" does not serve as a biography. Why the bot is making such gross errors would seem to be a mystery (welcome to software bugs). --~~~~
P3831 is not meant to be used in references at all. Since some editors misplace this qualifier in the reference section, the bot simply moves it into qualifier position.
Thomas Schaub born 1962 according to GND ID: https://d-nb.info/gnd/1107044073
Thomas Schaub born 1952 according to ETH Zurich: "A dissertation submitted to the SWISS FEDERAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY ZUERICH for the degree of Doctor of Technical Sciences presented by THOMAS SCHAUB dipl. El. Ing. ETH born October 29, 1952 Citizen of Muttenz BL accepted on the recommendation of Prof. Dr. J. L. Massey, referee Prof. Dr. U. Stammbach, co-referee", archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20230807202824/https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/139753/eth-37762-01.pdf
How can we stop this bot from repeating unwanted edits such as ?
I have already tried commenting-out the template, and deleting an entire duplicate edit, to no avail. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey Andy, this is a custom bot that operates completely independent of archive templates on that page. The source code needs to be modified in order to change its behavior.
I can spontaneously offer to stop the bot alltogether from adding archive templates to the page, but the page will soon be unusable and users will complain that the bot has stopped working. My recommendation would be to continue the discussion at another place, possibly Project chat or the Admin noticeboard, and reference the archived deletion discussion from there.
Another option would be to implement some sort of "do not archive" template that signals to the bot that the section should not be archived yet. Since I am on holiday currently and Pasleim is inactive, it will take some days to receive attention, though.
It's not about archiving. It's about placing a big grren tick on a disputed and ongoing discussion.
Regardless, I think you should make the bot such that if it is reverted, for any reason, it does not repat its edit. No human would be allowed to do so, repeatedly.