Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RscprinterBot 5

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.

RscprinterBot 5

Operator: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 16:26, Monday September 24, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Extension to task number four.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Hopefully daily, but will depend on my here-ness.

Estimated number of pages affected: As many as 50 or more per day, roughly.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Basically an extension of task 4, but backwards. Task 4 removes article categories from userpages, so I thought "what if some of those drafts get moved to article space, but the categories never got replaced properly?" So this one searches for articles with [[:Category:Foo]] and turns them into [[Category:Foo]] to function properly. Does the same with interwiki links and TLd templates which add categories, like {{tl|GA}} to {{GA}}.

Discussion

Will it avoid screwing up on a category or interwiki link that is supposed to be a link rather than a category or interwiki? And if so, how? For example, what would it do with List of Anglo-Saxon monarchs and kingdoms, which has a "see also" link to Category:Anglo-Saxon monarchs? Or what about something like Italian Wikipedia, which contains links to the Italian Wikipedia in references? Anomie ⚔ 18:10, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it will come across any of these because it will only come from those which are linked to maintenance categories like Category:Living people or the recent contributions of the bot, but pages which were moved. In this scenario, should it arise, because it is so rare, the best thing to do would just be to report false positive and revert. I don't think I would be able to get it to skip certain ones like that (maybe if it's in a see also section or something it would be viable to implement). Rcsprinter (babble) @ 19:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when you have the bot remove categories from user space, you could make it leave a small comment alongside the category, e.g.:

[[Category:Foo]] > [[:Category:Foo]]<!-- Converted to a link by RscprinterBot -->

That way you could have this task only convert the category links back into categories if they are accompanied by that comment. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, but it would get only a small number of pages, and miss out a great deal of others which are laying around but were untouched by the bot previous. Having this rule seems a bit nonsensical, and if it makes those comments to people's userspace draft, aren't some going to end up removing it? The when it gets moved to article, it would get missed. I think my current ideas of ways of sourcing the edits are the most practical. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 16:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could use a heuristic like the one AnomieBOT's AccidentalLangLinkFixer uses: if the line has anything other than comments, <includeonly>/<noinclude>, whitespace, and the one category/language link on it, then leave it alone. "See also" links and such can be expected to have some sort of wikimarkup, if only a "*" at the beginning of the line. Or do people making these new articles often screw that up? Anomie ⚔ 17:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think they do. Rcsprinter (yak) @ 11:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to try and minimise the problem would be to only re-add categories at the bottom of the page. One way or another the bot needs to implement some kind of satisfactory method of preventing the problem Anomie pointed out. If the ones suggested aren't good enough, then you'll need to come up with something else. Or perhaps a combination of methods? I'm not convinced at the moment that it's rare enough to simply be ignored. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with just having it do the ones right at the bottom, the simplest solution is the best. Rcsprinter (gossip) @ 15:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The other thing was what the bot will do if the category is a duplicate. Take CaliCam for example, where the page has already been re-added to some of the categories, but those categories (along with others) are also still linked. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It'd already know the ones that were already done were done, and just do the others. Very simple. Rcsprinter (natter) @ 19:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Well I think we can give this a trial and see how it goes. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trial is underway, because it is mixed in with other tasks' edits the edit summaries are marked with (5) to make them stand out for review. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 10:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the next BRFA: create a test account or such trails until it is stable/approved for easier checking. mabdul 18:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You could just use this to find the edits really quickly. No need for another account. Legoktm (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any updates? MBisanz ^talk 00:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Task is puttering along smoothly (see Legoktm's link above for the edits). I should point out I only have AWB on my laptop to which I have limited time to access, but I'm past the halfway mark now. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 00:58, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 43 edits have been made so far, 7 left. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. All edits done. Rcsprinter (articulate) @ 17:35, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. all looks good ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:39, 15 February 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.