Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 26

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

Denied.

BattyBot 26

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

Time filed: 04:35, Tuesday December 10, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Convert {{multiple issues}} parameters to templates

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template_talk:Multiple_issues#Convert_deprecated_parameters_to_templates? and Template_talk:Multiple_issues#Lua_rewrite

Edit period(s): Hopefully one time run, but might night to pick up a few more based on how long it takes to create a new version of {{multiple issues}}

Estimated number of pages affected: Category:Pages with multiple issues using deprecated parameters currently has 12,052 articles.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Using the work I did on BattyBot 19, convert all of the deprecated parameters in {{multiple issues}} into templates (e.g. this edit). This work would be done in order to implement a simplified (possibly Lua) version of {{multiple issues}}, and allow the AWB developers to streamline some of their code. Any AWB general fixes would also be done at the same time. I will also monitor Category:Pages using multiple issues with incorrect parameters and fix any issues that arise from edge cases.

Discussion

I don't get it. How does this improve the encyclopedia? Josh Parris 06:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several ways:

Improve performance and decrease loading time for articles.
Have one easy-to-understand method of using {{multiple issues}} rather than the dual system currently running. This will help editors to use the template.
Streamline the templates, so that there is only one version of each maintenance template, and the message displayed is exactly the same whether inside {{multiple issues}} or not.
Simplify the logic used by AWB, which will make this tool easier to maintain.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My intention is to deny this, as a WP:COSMETICBOT Josh Parris 07:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris: While each edit may appear to be cosmetic, the goal is simplify the {{multiple issues}} code (and AWB code) without breaking 10,000 articles. GoingBatty (talk) 13:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would not be acting in line with the consensus at the linked discussion, if you acted unilaterally in this manner. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the participants in a discussion at Template talk:Multiple issues can be considered a consensus-forming body. There are dozens of members of WP:BAG, and none of them have shown an interest in approving this BRfA as it stands. Basically, my view is the use of the template as it stands is not broken. An observation was made in one of your linked discussions: whenever someone takes the initiative and (only) changes these templates, they get yelled at; that's your community consensus: It's not broken.

I see the benefits as being cleaner template code, a cleanup of AWB and faster render time. None of these benefit the wider community of readers and editors one iota. Wait for the passage of time to transform these template calls; it's in general fixes and AWB users visit each article at least once a year. Josh Parris 21:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris: Converting {{multiple issues}} from the deprecated style to the new style is NOT part of AWB's general fixes. Could you please help me understand your statement that faster render time doesn't help the readers? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Readers never see the render time; it happens on the servers at edit time. I fixed a page with deprecated multiple issues and the rendered html went from 257613 bytes to 264358 bytes; load times after fixing will be slower.

If this template conversion isn't made one of the general fixes, I don't see how it's ever going to get done. The fix only seems to benefit technologists, and no-one else. Josh Parris 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it went slower due to the mixed code used right now. If we simplify the Multiple issues code the rendered time will reduce I assume. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You keep talking about render time. What do you think that is? Josh Parris 01:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Parris The time is needed for server to convert from wikicode to html and load the page. Am I wrong? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not wrong from my understanding. So, what's the render time of this template at the moment? Josh Parris 09:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comparing tables. As I wrote: I assume. Less complexity most probably means less time. It is clear that parameters would be faster than grabbing other templates but we switched to the latter because the first was getting outdated very easily. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we had everything converted it would also be easier to add/remove templates. This is very useful in my task to move orphan tag to the talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} - Just want to make sure people didn't forget about this request over the holidays. GoingBatty (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly haven't forgotten about this BRfA. I was hoping you'd provide a compelling reason to approve this task.

I suggest that if you're still wanting to achieve this outcome, then during your orphan tag movement you convert the template. If you also get it added to the genfixes of AWB then you'll have some hope of getting it done in a reasonable time frame; it seems most articles are visited at least a year by a user of AWB.

This task does not benefit readers, nor editors, but the maintainers of AWB. To pursue it as a task in of itself would be disruptive, as has been observed in past. The render time of a template that appears once on a page is of little concern (compared, say, to a cite template which can appear hundreds of time); it appears on ~365 pages > 100kb, and ~20 pages > 200kb. No supporting data was provided as to any impediment currently caused by the template used in its deprecated form. The purported benefit of faster load times was demonstrated to be wrong; longer load times will result after conversion.

Denied. Josh Parris 00:44, 31 December 2013 (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.