Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/VedeBOT 2

< Wikipedia:Bots‎ | Requests for approval
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 Request Expired.

VedeBOT 2

edit

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

Time filed: 06:09, Saturday May 5, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic unsupervised (eventually.)

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: No.

Function overview: Date maintenance tags.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: ~6000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Y

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

Function details: Queries from the API the backlinks to the templates:

And if the articles has the template and no date, It adds date to all the templates on the page. Otherwise, it skips the page and moves on. (Sorry I could have tidied up the list but I just finished coding, I have a headache and I'm tired ;)).

Discussion

edit
  • Surely redundant to Helpful Pixie Bot and AnomieBOT? They are already very apt at this. Rcsprinter (gossip) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Seconded, although if the ArbCom case goes poorly for Rich it wouldn't hurt to have a backup to AnomieBOT. But you're planning to go about it all wrong.
    First of all, the vast majority of these templates will already have dates, so going through all the backlinks is a tremendous waste of resources. All of these templates should place pages into a distinct category when no date is supplied (and these distinct categories should all be direct subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month); it would be much more effective for a bot to process these categories instead.
    I'd also recommend using the list at WP:AWB/DT instead of hard-coding a list of templates into your bot. Then you could also look at handling "special" templates like {{multiple issues}} (which has many different parameters needing dates), {{as of}} and {{update after}} (which need either "Month YYYY" as parameter 1 or year, month, and day as parameters 1-3), {{disambiguation|cleanup}} (which should be changed to {{disambiguation cleanup}} and dated), and the extremely annoying {{rp|needed=yes}} (which only needs dating when |needed= is supplied).
    BTW, why "VedeBOT" instead of another "CeraBot"? Anomie⚔ 16:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have redlinks and redirects in the list; and there are many redirects missing. Also, I'm pretty sure there are many more dated templates than what you have listed. Also, what about {{multiple issues}}? The bot should ideally do everything in one go and not leave more work for other bots. I believe both bots Rcsprinter123 mentions do the whole range. Also, for performance, you should use maintenance categories to get the page list, not all transclusions. Also, on the subject, why are you using "backlinks" instead of "embeddedin"? P.S. Per WP:BOTACC, bot name should be linked to either its function or operator. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some custom code (yes it works) in python that I could use to do this partially (I have to hard-code the templates though, but it only checks through categories, not transclusions. If needed, I could add some more templates (and respective categories) and set up a cron for the job, so basically, I'm available if a bot is needed for this. I don't have support for {{multiple issues}} (as yet?), though.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  00:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Standard AWB using the correct category (recursing one level) will do most of this. The redirects will be replaced, and the tags dated, and Multiple Issues handled. General fixes can be built in to. I used to run (custom) AWB daily to do the task, but it does not need doing that often. You can see a number of users have run this in the past. But be careful, some people think this is against policy if you have a bot approval, and others if you do it quickly. Rich Farmbrough, 13:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Any updates on anything, anyone? No activity for a few days, I don't think the task is worth doing because of the already there bots, but I'll let a BAG decide that. However just sitting here with a pile of comments from previous won't move anything along. Rcsprinter (lecture) 16:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:09, 29 May 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/VedeBOT_2&oldid=1084320712"