Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RelentlessBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

RelentlessBot[edit]

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

Time filed: 08:40, Tuesday, October 20, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Happy to share privately; prefer not to publish at this point.

Function overview: Correct deprecated parameters in {{infobox cyclist}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Parameters have been listed as deprecated since 2012 and placed in Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with deprecated parameters since July last year.

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: around 3000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot goes through all pages in ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Pages using infobox cyclist with deprecated parameters. It looks for the proyears, proteams, amateurteams, amateuryears, manageteams and manageyears parameters. Each of those pairs of parameters should contain corresponding lists of br-separated years or teams. The bot will split them up and place them into separate parameters, e.g. proyears1 and proteam1. This is the normal syntax recommended at {{infobox cyclist}}.

That is the only change the bot will make. If BAG members thought it appropriate, I could also have the bot change hyphens in year ranges into ndashes. It won't get rid of all the pages in the category, but it would be quicker to fix those by hand than to write code to fix them!

Relentlessly (talk) 08:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Seems fine. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 15:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Earwig, thanks for this. I've done 20 or so edits. I've just discovered, very frustratingly, that these have been dealt with by another editor clearly running some automated process yesterday. There are many other articles in the category, however, and my bot can clear them up, although in many cases it won't affect what's actually displayed. It will still make the tracking category useful, however. Is it OK for me to carry on with this slightly different remit? Thanks. Relentlessly (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside—fun little bug involving HTML comments here.

Per WP:COSMETICBOT, I'd like to avoid these sorts of edits if the parameters are empty unless we have explicit consensus to change them. I suggest modifying Module:Infobox cyclist tracking to only include articles in the category if the deprecated parameters are not blank. — Earwig ^talk 00:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, yes! I've reverted that one. I'll have a look at the module and see what I can do with it. Thanks for your comments. Relentlessly (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have coded appropriate code at Module:Infobox cyclist tracking/sandbox. I'm not sure I can be bothered to put it into practice, however, as Frietjes is clearly doing this task semi-automated on that account, ignoring the guideline you link there. Clearly I have misunderstood what is allowed by the bot policy! I suppose I withdraw this then, The Earwig? Relentlessly (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify—maybe there was some miscommunication—the original task would have been fine under COSMETICBOT. Frietjes's edits are not necessarily against policy (WP:BOTASSIST), but they are a little curious (it looks almost like AWB). Some clarification from her would be appreciated. You're welcome to withdraw this as I'm not sure what further work is to be done here (just add {{BotWithdrawn}} below) unless I am missing something. — Earwig ^talk 23:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see what you mean. I was pointing to the edits that make exactly the change you asked me not to make. Ah well.

Withdrawn by operator.. Relentlessly (talk) 07:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good point. I missed that those edits were made along with the ones changing non-empty parameters. Well, it's a bit of a moot point right now. — Earwig ^talk 08:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.