Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CpiralBot

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 Request Expired.

CpiralBot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

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

Time filed: 22:32, Monday, December 28, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised.

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: A regular expression, for which I am a highly capable.

Function overview: Retrofit template usage to achieve template feature parity and avoid the need for backward compatible code. Change or remove unwanted template usage. Change a feature or add a new feature in lock step with a new version of a template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The bottom part of template talk:In title#All the above questions, again, and the following section template talk:In title#How to alter this template and its wiki landscaping. Also template talk:Look from.

Edit period(s): One time run, per cleanup/template-change issue.

Estimated number of pages affected: 10070 today, with 5–10 newly added problem pages per day.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No.

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

Function details: This is for {{intitle}}, but the approval needs to extend for the sister template {{lookfrom}}.

In order to avoid popping the 87 inline ones out of their line:

1. Create a temporary template {{intitle-inline}}. Done
2. some text all {{intitle}} in a line → some text all {{intitle-inline}} in a line. As these are renamed, there is no visual change.
3. Temorarily set the default to |bullet=false, and swap in the new intitle.
4. AWB the 5590 bulleted ones, changing * {{intitle}} to {{intitle|bullet=true}}. As each one is repaired by removing the print bullet, it will emit the noprint bullet. There would be no visual change, and so no hurry. A generous delay between edits can be used.
5. Change the intitle default back to |bullet=true. Then we're done.

Step 2 conisists of these 87 to rename to "intitle-inline", probably AWB in manual (not autosave):

• all: hastemplate: "in title" -insource:/\*[' ]*\{\{ *[Ii]n *title/ 185 unbulleted pages

Step 4, with a generous 5-second delay between edits (about 7 hr for this) are these:

• all: hastemplate: "in title" insource:/\*[ ']*\{\{ *[Ii]n *title/ about 5671 bulleted pages

Those can be automated, because it basically just removes the same bullet and adds the same parameter every time.

Optionally, when all is finished, more AWB bot work:

1. Rename all the {{intitle-inline}} to {{intitle|bullet=no}}.
2. Remove the harmless but useless 6000 or so instances of |bullet=true because it is now the default.

As seen by the query, the list of pagenames to run through AWB all match precise, regex-generated search results.

Discussion

Having search links on an article page is a dubious affair. Nevertheless, {{intitle}} exists on 2% of dab pages, and on over 2000 more pages in article space that are not a dab page. In most cases they are showing up in the printed article. Because they are often bullet items, no addition of HTML in the template can remove their bullets from print, hence this bot request.

The new version of the template, {{in title/sandbox}}, outputs its own "noprint bullet". There is no better approach to solving the problem, and {{lookfrom}} must be done as well.

Current plan is under scrutiny at WP:NOT, but some kind of bot will definitely be needed on these same pages (printing issues due to template). — CpiralCpiral 08:01, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

At Village pump (technical) it was pointed out that although it is a fine idea to run a bot to fix the print problem, that it complicates certain patches of HTML in lists for an issue that is almost certainly going to be a normal priority bug-fix. Then I began to realized that any bot fix now is temporary, and should end up, after some time, needing yet another bot-fix to cleanup the complicated HTML patches.

Anytime a second, cleanup run should be done after an awaited, deeper, fix of a minor problem, this should be a classical reason for denying a bot approval request. This is because the first bot-fix makes any cleanup a low priority, plus the time interval between the two related bot-runs, say, a year, can make the need for the second run much less noticeable.

The bot fix consensus is now depending on a response to the matter at T123093. — CpiralCpiral 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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.