Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/John of Reading Bot

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

Approved.

John of Reading Bot edit

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

Time filed: 08:53, Tuesday October 28, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB settings posted at User:John of Reading/X3 (permalink)

Function overview: Deletes "align=center" from calls to {{MMAevent bout}} to remove articles from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 185

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: I removed 45 articles from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls by removing "align=center" from calls to {{MMAtitle bout}} (sample edit). The template handles the center alignment itself, and does not expect an "align" parameter. The same problem occurs in 185 more articles using the similar template {{MMAevent bout}}.

Discussion edit

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does your bot also perform general fixes and/or tagging, I looked at a few of the edits and it didn't seem to be? If not I think it probably should. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had those turned off. There are a few I'm not keen on (description here), so I wouldn't be keen on applying them automatically. -- John of Reading (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it does seem like your bot will hit a large number of varied pages so some of the changes you have issue with are likely to be enacted. Although, I looked at the <small> tag one and removing them made no difference on my screen, at least on the page you used as an example. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 16:26, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this need any further input from me? -- John of Reading (talk) 08:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at this, I see that the trial has already successfully fixed 50 of the 185 pages (27%) which have been found with this relatively minor issue. And now the operator has been kept waiting for over a week, just for permission to make another 135 automated edits. Heck, at a supervised rate of nine-per-minute, this could be finished in just 15 minutes. Seems to me like the bureaucracy here isn't worth the bother. There will only be another 84 thousand edits needed to clear this maintenance category; at this rate it will take almost forever. I took a quick glance at the edits and saw no issues. Surely this can be approved a bit more speedily? Wbm1058 (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. As always, sorry for the delays. I haven't been checking WP:BRFA recently due to real-life commitments, but if there is ever a request you want examined, you are welcome to let me know on my talk page and I'll look as soon as possible. — Earwig ^talk 01:49, 17 November 2014 (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.