Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 29

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.

DannyS712 bot 29

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:44, Wednesday, April 17, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Replace file links to Non-free content policy with links to ~~Wikipedia:Non-free content~~Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time run to clear the backlog, then as needed

Estimated number of pages affected: ~290 to begin with

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: According to Wikipedia:Most-wanted articles#1–100, at the end of march there were 289 links to Non-free content policy. A similar number is currently present. The vast majority of incoming links are from the file namespace, and should instead link to ~~Wikipedia:Non-free content~~Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Compare File:Marc anthony-marc anthony-album.jpg (redlink to mainspace) with File:CleanGenius logo.png (proper link to policy). This task would only edit in the file namespace, would would not change the display of piped links, only of the links' target.

Discussion

The policy is at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Using AWB's list creator (What links here (all NS) (and to redirects)), I found that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria has 1896 incoming links from pages in the file namespace, while Wikipedia:Non-free content has 9315 incoming links from pages in the file namespace. If indeed the criteria page is the correct target, then I can file another brfa to fix those >9000 other pages, but since both are labeled as policy pages is there any rule about which should be linked to? DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC is a guideline, which has one section that transcludes the policy, WP:NFCC. Which one you link to depends on context. In this case, the policy is the intended target. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:44, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: in that case, shouldn't all files link to the criteria page? If you take a look at File:CleanGenius logo.png, it links to WP:NFC - should it be changed? When does context call for linking (from a file page) to WP:NFC? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the link text (or other context) indicates that the target is the policy. I just checked and updated the rationale templates. I don't know when someone would want to link to NFC, but since it could happen and be reasonable, a bot shouldn't indiscriminately change the links. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: I see - then the other brfa idea is a no-go. But, for this task (which I just updated) do you see any reason not to change the redlinks to point to WP:NFCC? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, those should be fixed. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:36, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For files using standardized FUR templates (e.g. {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}, {{Non-free use rationale logo}}), you should consider blanking the override fields. I spot checked a few, and the "erroneous" text is effectively identical to the default text. This will decrease our maintenance overhead if we ever decide to change said text again. -FASTILY 09:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: what do you mean override fields? Also, I'd prefer to do that as a separate task if its done by bot, since it seems like a very different scope compared to the less than 300 pages this BRFA applies to initially --DannyS712 (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FUR templates usually have override fields. See Template:Non-free use rationale album cover#Syntax. In the example you give above, File:Marc anthony-marc anthony-album.jpg, section "Other information", the text reads: "Use of the cover art in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above. ". Compare this with the text on {{Non-free use rationale album cover}}, section "Other information", which reads "Use of the cover art in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy and fair use under United States copyright law as described above." -FASTILY 09:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: I see. I'll look into it and work something up for a different BRFA --DannyS712 (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No no, that's not what I meant. If you do that in another BRFA (after this task), you'll risk running afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT. -FASTILY 23:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: I don't think its a cosmetic edit. The first example of non-cosmetic edits: Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as the output text or HTML in ways that make a difference to the audio or visual rendering of a page in web browsers, screen readers, when printed, in PDFs, or when accessed through other forms of assistive technology (e.g. removing a deleted category, updating a template parameter, changing whitespace in bulleted vertical lists) - adding such links change the output text. It provides useful links to both the relevant wikipedia policy, and a general explanation of fair use. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. *This* BRFA is not cosmetic. However, you say "I'll look into it and work something up for a different BRFA". *That* will be cosmetic. -FASTILY 00:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: I think you misunderstood me. *That* will *not* be cosmetic, since it adds the link(s) and standardizes the use of the template. But, if that is a concern, its possible to just remove the override parameter entirely (ensuring that this will not be a cosmetic edit while also ensuring that only a one time run is needed and that in the future, deviations from the standard format are less prevalent). Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm . Here is an example edit of what I'm talking about. If you don't want to do this, then don't. I've already outlined my reasoning above, so I won't be repeating it here. -FASTILY 00:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: Oh... in that case, I think that would be too much of a context bot. Sorry, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: I collapsed it as a separate discussion because I don't intend to make these edits as part of this BRFA. It would take a lot more work and a very different approach than my current plan. I didn't mean that the edits shouldn't be made, but rather that it was separate from the point of not part of this request. I probably should have phrased it better, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for the explanation -FASTILY 22:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} its been a week since this was opened, and no BAG comments yet. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see this in action, DannyS712. As usual, take all the time that you need in completing this trial and thank you for your patience. I hope to process what's left of the backlog over the next couple of days. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:30, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor:

Trial complete. 25 edits made ([1]) - I supervised the first bunch, and didn't see any errors. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved.. Under normal circumstances, I would prefer to leave the close for someone else. However, given the backlog, lack of recent BAG activity (myself included), and the fact that this task is uncontroversial and based on how well the trial went, I am inclined to make an exception for this. As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 08:05, 27 April 2019 (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.