Community Wishlist Survey 2017/Bots and gadgets/Convert AWB into a special page

Random proposal ►◄ Bots and gadgets

Convert AWB into a special page

Problem:
- Malfunctions
- No translations
- Need to download program and install continuous updates
Which users are affected?
Who would benefit:
- All program users (including administrators)
Proposed solution:
- Convert AWB to a special page can only be used by program users (including administrators) and will be translated into all languages by translatewiki.net
- And we will get rid of Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage (Q11214943)

More comments:

Phabricator tickets: T157271: Web-based AutoWikiBrowser alternative

Proposer: ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Translations: none yet

Discussion edit

@Magioladitis, Reedy, and Rjwilmsi: FYI this proposal. Please help improve the proposal if you can, or give other input on the difficulties that might be involved. Thanks! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a lot more than just a "conversion". That being said, @MaxSem: was working on something... Reedy (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, it's at https://github.com/AutoWikiEditor/AutoWikiEditor - I stopped when a CORS-defeating proxy was needed. If you really want to make it a MW extension, this problem goes away. While this project was started using Preact, the backend (99% of what has been done) is framework-agnostic and thus can be used anywhere. Max Semenik (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also the lighter-weight and underutilized JavascriptWikiBrowser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Joeytje50/JWB @Joeytje50: It doesn't have as much of the functionality of AWB, in terms of manipulating sets, but with tools like Petscan, you don't need those features as much. Sadads (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also https://github.com/he7d3r/mw-gadget-APC. Helder 15:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good, but I worry we don't have enough resources to complete this *rewrite*.--YFdyh000 (talk) 10:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned that this is such a backwater discussion page that very few people who use the program even know of its existence. The voting should reflect the community. The handful of people who have logged in votes here are not representative of the AWB using community. Also, the proposal is so vague as to be almost incomprehensible. Who will be allowed to use it? And who will be making that determination? On Wikipedia, the Wikipedia community decided the restrictions. Will those restrictions still be honored, and how? The Transhumanist (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think en:WP:JWB already takes care of whatever this proposal is supposed to be. Headbomb (talk) 04:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like not everyone will have access to it. It also sounds like it will be starting over, with fewer features. If it will have the same access restrictions as we currently have (anyone with 500 main namespace edits can use it), and will start out with all the same features as the current version of AWB, I would support. Otherwise, it will be a major step backwards. The Transhumanist (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I'm unclear on the permissions here... Right now anyone can use AWB. Would that change? --Zackmann08 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Zackmann08: No, the proposal is useful for only "program users" i.e. holders of the right to use it --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No, large projects like English Wikipedia or Commons restrict the use of AWB to allow only users listed on a specific page (e.g. w:Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage for enwiki). The proposal is to keep this restriction. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Voting edit

Oppose Sounds bad, it's better to make it as a Portable application than either download-install or on-wiki application. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Liuxinyu970226: This needs time to be downloaded and to be updated and the proposal is aimed at not requiring this --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thomas Obermair 4 (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Xaris333 (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Luan (discussão) 20:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like this idea, would make page maintenance easier. Reception123 (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Syced (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 16:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Honischboy (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the proposal as written (perhaps someone with native English-language skills could clarify the description for us), but it sounds like the proposal is to convert AWB from a downloadable program (for Windows only) to a web-based interface of some sort. If that is the case, I Support the proposal. As a Mac OS user, I have been unable to use AWB, which would enhance my gnome editing significantly. Jonesey95 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I like the idea but I think this proposal needs to be better explained. --Zackmann08 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in theory, subject to being able to restrict access to those with a user right. This proposal really needs more detail before anyone can make an informed decision, though. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What? This proposal is hard to understand. Are you trying to turn the AWB program in to a webpage? Do you plan on it running server side? What about people that use it on non-WMF wikis? Is this a "FORK AWB" proposal? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, who will maintain this? (WMF? Volunteers?) — xaosflux ^Talk 04:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Liuxinyu and Xaosflux. --Terra ❤ ^(talk) 06:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unclear. I'm concerned that the "database scanner" may disappear; I use it with regexes that are far too complex for the MediaWiki search box. I'm concerned that I may lose the ability to configure find+replace rules in a text file; my rules are up to 2.5 megabytes and are sometimes edited with Notepad. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose is the proposal trying to make AWB an online tool like twinkle? Simply put: I dont think it would work reliably. Also per TerraCodes, and John of Reading. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:39, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, improve the existing tool instead. Currently it’s absolutely possible to internationalize and localize C# programs, and even to run them on *nix systems like macOS and Debian GNU/Linux. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If this is proposing to change AWB into a page then I can't see how it's going to work and as Xaosflux says who's going to run it and keep tabs on it ?, If I have read this right then I don't the point in changing it all at all ..... if I've read it wrong and it's Twinkle or something else related then you've lost me ..... –Davey2010^Talk 15:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the proposal is too vague. Having fun! Cheers! Checkingfax (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support AWB is hard to get started on, and making the onramps a little nicer would help. NessieVL (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For all of its esoteric and arcane controls and processes and its supposed faults and steep learning curve, AWB is valuable tool. The proposal appears to be based on the assumption that turning it into a special page will somehow remove its problems. There's no reason to suppose that such a translation would deliver the expected benefits. More probably, it would result in a neutered tool with a reduced feature-set.--DavidCane (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support as this is egalitarian, but the proposal is vague. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:33, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John of Reading and Xaosflux Ronhjones (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This sounds like a wonderful idea! It's always good to see software go cross-platform! RandomDSdevel (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per xaosflux SQL ^{Query me!} 04:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Haxpett (talk) 23:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - AWB give us Modulity. We can add plugin and and can make module according to our requrement. But Wikimedia will allow anyone to upload .dll file into their Server (For Secuirt Resons). And This will destory AWB wide uses. Hence I am oppsing this. And Other thing which is "Same Faciltiy is given by JWB. But you can see major Diff between Both". Thanks-Jayprakash >>> Talk 06:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]