User talk:Vanderwaalforces/checkTranslationAttribution.js

Reduce visibility of warning bar?

Howdy! So I have a couple user scripts that present article warnings to users. They also use colored bars at the top of the article. However, their colored bars are much smaller, to the point where no one has asked me for a way to close them since they don't take up much space. But because of their color they are still pretty noticeable.

Side-by-side comparison screenshot

Anyway, any interest in making your user script's warning bar look a bit more like mine? Looks like to make your bar look like mine you'd want to reduce padding, change font from white to black, left align, and remove the option to close it (the X). Just an idea, up to you.

Thanks for the script! –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Thanks for the feedback, acknowledging receipt. I will get to it soon. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:23, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Very high match rate for "Warning: There are citations in this article that have access dates from before the article was created."

I'm seeing "Warning: There are citations in this article that have access dates from before the article was created. This suggests the article may have been copy-pasted from somewhere." very frequently. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, the match rate for this is so high that I doubt all the matches are actually unattributed translations, and I suspect something else is going on instead (citations copy pasted from another article with Visual Editor? a bug?) and that these are false positives. It is generating so much noise that it is probably no longer a useful warning. We may want to remove it, or to create a setting to turn it off. (The easiest way to create settings for user scripts is to make a variable such as window.checkTranslationAttributionShowAccessDateWarning. The window part makes it global and lets users set it in their common.js file.) –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Hehe, I was actually told this via NPP discord earlier. I just did a fix that I think works perfectly now. Try and check the article you saw it on before whether it still appears. Actually, I have with this particular orange warning detected a lot of unattributed translations today. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

For example, the ones I just caught, Behind the Blue Nights and Georgy Shtil. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

But when I looked at some of your scripts, I really bought the idea of doing something like window.checkTranslationAttributionShowAccessDateWarning. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. I clicked open my most recent 50 or so mainspace edits and the script is giving warnings on the following 7. I haven't checked in detail if these are false positives or not. If you have a minute maybe you can spot check them, and if any are warning incorrectly look into a fix: 2024 Lebanon pager explosions, Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station, Homelessness in California, Mordechai Vanunu, Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic, Agenda 47. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• 2024 Lebanon pager explosions: Citations 42-44 have access dates that are before the article's creation. I stopped checking there.
• Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station: Citations 1-4 have access dates that predates the article's creation date.
• Homelessness in California: Citation 134
• Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic: Citations 22, 23, 28-31.
• Agenda 47: Citation 18.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Right. But is it useful to display a warning for these? Are they actually translation copyvio? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae The way it works right now is that once the access date predates the creation date of the article, then it flags it. Whether it is translation or not. It is honestly beneficial to, because I personally have caught some of these unattributed translations that left no sign at all, it was the access date difference that made me check and I caught them.

Do you think there's a way I could do it to only flag "very possible" translations? I am currently exploring but would love to hear from you :) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe @GreenLipstickLesbian has some ideas for reducing false positives when checking the access date? Because not all access-date issues are going to mean translation copyvio, I think. It's triggering an awful lot for me. On like 7 out of 50 mostly old articles in the above sample size = 15%. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I was wondering; Should we now only flag articles as suspicious if there is both an indication of translation (via edit summaries, tags, or interwiki links) and the access dates predate the creation date. If access dates predate the creation date but there's no indication of translation, we should suppress the warning and assume it's a legitimate citation reuse? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the edit summary warning is so useful on its own that I wouldn't suggest tying it to the access-date. I think the edit summary warning will almost always be a true positive. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae I have to be honest that yes, the edit summary is just so useful, and looking at the whole logic, tying the access dates thingy to it would really make detecting suspicious access dates pointless. I am still looking though (even though I don't know what I am seeing yet, lol) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae BTW, I made some improvements to the regex for access dates detection because I noticed that some articles that have no access dates that predate the article's creation date are being flagged. I noticed it was an issue with how the script was handling the date formats. For example, Homelessness in California is no longer showing any notice. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Just looking through, these false positives seem to be happening when somebody archives a web source, then uses the archive date as the access date. Can you make the script check if the access date matches the webarchive date?

Also, the Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic is a false positive only in the sense that it was an attributed intra-wiki copy. I looked at the citations, went to the text they supported, and used the mw:Who wrote that? to see who added the text and when. The text was copied, with attribution, in Special:Diff/1061714804. That's something a human would need to analyze on a case by case basis. Ditto the page Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station. It's a translation, and it's not the best attribution, but it tells you exactly which fr Wiki page was translated. I haven't had a chance to look through the other false positives. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Homelessness in California is looking to be a good warning. The page histories are messy as anything, but there's definitely a lot of unattributed copying within Wikipedia, probably across the entire set of "Homeslessness in X" articles that I'm going to try and figure out when I have a free moment. Wish me luck! GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking through, GLL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

False positive on Paraphilia

Any idea why the non access date warning message is triggering on Paraphilia? I don't see the string "translat" in the edit summaries of the 10 oldest revisions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae Did I attend to this? lmao, because I cannot see any banner. I don't even know how I managed to miss this thread. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Unable to reproduce. We can consider this  Fixed. Thanks for following up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)