Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FlutefluteBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Withdrawn by operator.

FlutefluteBot

Operator: Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions}

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming Language(s): pywikipedia framework (Python)

Function Summary: 'sorts out' links to disambiguation pages.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Whenever User:Fluteflute feels the need to use it.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): ?

Function Details: Changes links to disambiguation pages to links to the relevant article instead.

Discussion

How exactly is this bot intended to work? Anomie ⚔ 17:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case its not entirely clear, what Anomie (mostly) wants to know is how will the bot tell which disambiguated link is correct? Making a correct determination seems like a very non-trivial task to me, and an incorrect link is much worse than one to a disambiguation page.

P.S. If you are going to manually figure each page out, there is no need for a bot request - just use AWB or similar tool.

--ThaddeusB (talk) 17:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left the question open-ended to (hopefully) elicit a more detailed response. Since the request states "manually assisted", it could well be something like "For each article, the dab link is displayed with the context in which it appears along with a menu of options from which the operator chooses the appropriate replacement", which is very close to the script/bot distinction.

The line between "script-assisted user" and "user-assisted bot" is a fuzzy one, and sometimes it may be "safer" to have bot approval to avoid accusations of running an unauthorized bot. Also, some users who do a lot of this type of work like to use an alternate account to avoid "cluttering" their contribs with cleanup edits, which could lead to further accusations of running an unauthorized bot. Anomie ⚔ 17:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my response was inappropriate. I should have just asked my Q without referencing yours. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my intention was to manually figure it all out. I am more than happy to use my current account if that is acceptable. -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 17:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see in your contribs you've done this sort of thing recently for "Woolston" (I suggest a better edit summary for that case, e.g. "Fixing link to disambiguation page: Woolston → Woolston, Southampton"). If you're manually approving every edit as I suggested in my example, you certainly could continue to do it under your main account with no real issues if that's what you would prefer. Anomie ⚔ 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Let's say you have you have a link to [[Stuff]] and you manually figure out that link should go to [[Stuff (cool stuff)]] what purpose will the script fulfill? Thanks. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's along the same lines as a spellchecker in a word processor, especially the "old" type that brings up its own window instead of just doing a red squiggly underline. Sure, you could go through and correct them all manually, but it can be faster and less prone to typos to have a program give you a list of options and perform the actual replacement for you. Anomie ⚔ 17:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Anomie sad. :) I would use an existing script/program to get the lists of links and save them with a 'nice' edit summary. I am slightly lazy, that is why my recent edits have a 'rubbish' summary. I think I will simply use my current account for this, per the comments above. I therefore close my request. Thanks for all the quick replies! -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 17:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I certainly understand that it would be slightly easier to use a script to do the replacements. I should have worded my question better, as what I was really getting at is how it would be used... I.E. Would you load a page and it figure out all the links on that page that went to disambiguation pages or would you load a disambiguation page and figure out all the pages that linked to it. I guess its not really relevant, I was just curious. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Not really necessary for a bot account here, as this is more "script-assisted user" than "user-assisted bot". Point any complainers at Wikipedia:BOT#Assisted editing guidelines. Anomie ⚔ 17:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.