Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 2

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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.

TedderBot

Operator: Tedder

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming language(s): perl

Source code available: yes, github, password is outside of repository

Function overview: Rename transclusions of FOO to BAR. ~~Specific request: Wikipedia:Bot requests#Change of template name.~~

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Trivial task, so the only consensus necessary should be a given BOTREQ: ~~Wikipedia:Bot requests#Change of template name.~~

Edit period(s): ~~One-time~~ Manually run.

Estimated number of pages affected: 58 Unknown, depends on request. Trials and delays between edits are possible.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No.

Function details: Simple regex substitution: s/{{Space telescopes/{{Space observatories/g using "embeddedin" and "backlinks" on namespace 0 to find list. Logs to User:TedderBot/TranscludeReplace/log.

Keep in mind I'm asking for approval of any sort of transclusion type change, not just this specific one. It's still an incredibly limited scope. ~~since this is my first (successful?) botreq.~~

Discussion

Can't 58 pages be simply edited with AWB? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. And now the root problem has been taken care of. It'd be nice, however, to have this approved for use in the general case. tedder (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking for approval for a bot that changes the used name of templates generally? Who decides which templates? Is the original problem fixed? Josh Parris 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. So the original problem is moot, but the idea is to have a bot that can run, on demand and with consensus of the given template community, to update template names. tedder (talk) 06:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the template community WP:TfD? Or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, or Wikipedia:Requested moves? Josh Parris 06:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the relevant wikiproject, the template talk, or whoever is discussing the template. For instance, {{WikiProject Oregon}} is at WP:WPORE. tedder (talk) 06:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How will these communities know that this bot is able to serve them? Josh Parris 06:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As was noted on the bot request, unless the old name needs to be repurposed for something else, or other rare reasons, we don't need to fix redirects that aren't broken. Mr.Z-man 17:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to understand the request: so this is the sort of bot that you want to have so that you can complete possible, future request-type-things? Even if it doesn't actually get its tasks from that particular page. Ale_Jrb ^talk 18:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, Ale. It's not like I'd go through an unilaterally/arbitrarily change templates. I can see a group wanting to unify templates from {{PROJECTNAME}} to {{WikiProject PROJECTNAME}}, for instance. However, if it's not desired because the preference of a project is overruled by "don't fix what isn't broken", then this should be withdrawn. tedder (talk) 18:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is problematic dealing with wikiprojects, if the project can show a clear-cut consensus for a change. But I think the bigger projects might not show this readily, and the smaller projects may get no input. Is there a place where this can be discussed in general, like the community pumps, or someplace more specific, asking projects whether a dedicated bot for project templates would serve a purpose? I don't think it's far-fetched to assign a bot to doing tasks as they come up by community agreement. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I offered my help at WT:TFD. Im not sure that applies to this. Tim1357 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody still interested with this? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this bot has to be rejected, someone do the changes manually and Tedder can request other tasks for its bot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it "has to be rejected"(sic)? tedder (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for a general "template replacement bot". AWB can be used to do "{{foo}}" → "{{bar}}" replacements (assuming there is reason for it), so why would we need a bot to handle these? The operator is not requesting approval for more complex replacements (e.g., "{{foo|bar}}" → "{{baz|bur}}", that would actually require a bot and specific code; they are requesting approval for a general-purpose, simple replacement bot. Other than slightly less work (esp. if there are a lot of pages involved), I don't see a reason for it: AWB would probably get the job done faster, because there are hundreds upon hundreds of users with access to it, and any one of them could complete the task, but in order for the task to be done with this bot, you would need to be notified. Unless, of course, I misunderstand the task? — The Earwig @ 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced all Space telescopes -> Space observatories using AWB. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please address Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 34#Update Template Transclusions a 7000 transclusion request. Your source code doesn't seem particularly generalized. Do you intend to change to be more flexible? Josh Parris 08:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the request says only one-time run and 58 pages affected? I thought it wanted to change only the pages I fixed. If this bot is gonna do more stuff, we have to change the request above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. Tedder, please update the request to reflect your current proposal. Josh Parris 09:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Making some changes, will modify before running, and will run against one fix before doing 50. tedder (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I genericized the script, added a page documenting the request, and then ran against (almost) 50 requests. Here's the log: User:TedderBot/TranscludeReplace/log. tedder (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do minor changes at the same time? More specifically in talk pages if a change is made change: talkheader"" to "talk header", "skiptotalk" to "skip to talk", "WPBS" to "WikiProjectBannerShell". This will help my project in making talk pages for readable.

If you run it manually I 100% agree that you do it but I think some substitutions can be done automatically. Moreover, no need to log every edit. Just record date, which substitution you did and how many articles were affected. -- Magioladitis (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The script isn't really built to do AWB-style changes. I'm nervous that adding in those changes isn't going to get consensus- but if it does, it'd be a PERFECT use of this script- run it manually or automatically and keep fixing them up as WPBS keeps getting used, for instance. tedder (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that these changes can be done ONLY if the major substitution is done. My bot (Yobot) has already a similar approval and they are no complains. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of your bot is as described in your BRFA. Do you intend to accommodate Magioladitis' request, or press on as the BRFA is currently framed? Josh Parris 12:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to add in the additional behavior- trying to keep the bot with a narrow scope. tedder (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. having reviewed the trial edits and the sources, and given Tedder's desire to keep it simple, this bot task seems useful and harmless. Josh Parris 06:23, 28 February 2010 (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.