Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 27

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.

Addbot 27

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

Time filed: 04:15, Wednesday January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: On request

Function overview: Removing Template:Dead end from pages with wikilinks

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): couple of times a week to being with progressing to weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 50 a run from Category:Dead-end pages

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no

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

Function details: Get a list of pages from Category:Dead-end pages and check to see if they have wikilinks. If they do then remove the tag.

Discussion

Comment - Already running (almost daily) by User:BattyBot per this BRFA. Many times it will add {{Underlinked}}. GoingBatty (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that they could interfere though, and redundancy isn't bad. Speedy approval would be great here since we already have a bot running. No objections to a trial either since I believe it runs seperate from AWB(?). Vacation^nine 14:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Speedy approval would be great here since we already have a bot running." [..] "since I believe it runs seperate from AWB(?)" - it uses PHP, but why speedy when then bot is using a totally other source code? Every bot needs a trial unless it uses the same codebase as another bot (or AWB with a similar already approved bot task). mabdul 15:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, if it uses a different code base it shouldn't be speedied. Vacation^nine 16:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with redundancy or a trial. Just ran my bot, which removed the tag from 4 of the 535 articles tagged with {{dead end}}. At that rate, it will take quite a while to get up to 50 edits, so I'll be happy to stop running my bot during the trial period. GoingBatty (talk) 02:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy is not an issue for me. It's always good to have a backup. I'm more concerned about bot conflicts. Will your bot check for any changes to the page before submitting?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot conflicts wouldn't really be an issue. The processing of each page would take at most seconds from the point the page is loaded and then checked and then potentially edited. Of course I could check for edit conflicts. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be ideal to have it check for that. In those few seconds, someone could push an edit, or the other bot could and your bot may overwrite something.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 19:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Coding ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 09:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bot done. I will list edits as they happen in the list below ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 13:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First run - [1]

As with my task 28 I am going to modify the code to make it look for the template under a heading, If it finds the template in such a place it will add the |sections parameter to it! Otherwise the bot would ignore tags under headings. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has your bot made any more edits for this run. I'm any more. Perhaps you could log it?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just ran it again and now we also have [2][3][4]·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful in this case if your bot logged every edit for this task. It doesn't seem to making many edits and this making it hard to follow among your bot's many other tasks. If it's not too hard, do you think you could set up a temporary log?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another option is to use Snottywong's User Edit Summary Search. GoingBatty (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Thank you. I knew there was a tool for this. I just couldn't remember where.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also I am doing each run manually so there shouldn't be any edits I miss as I watch them come through on IRC [5] [6] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 14:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another run gives us [7] and [8] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Realised the bot was ignoring links with spaces in it ... [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything causing it to skip Harlan Literary Society (like maybe the underscore in the article's wikilink)? GoingBatty (talk) 01:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that I have also made it ignore underscores for some reason.. Will fix and give the bot another run ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please see [22] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like your edit also removed the }} from many templates. GoingBatty (talk) 02:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may need some fixing.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I noticed it removed the }} from the maintenance template but failed to notice the rest of the diff. Just trying to work out which part of the regex is causing this now. Testing in my sandbox with the article text, won't run again until it is fixed. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that last mod may reveal some answers, it didn't happen until that mod scanning for underscores was in place.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 03:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this diff the bug is fixed. It turns out it wasn't my main regex but one that I added to deal with the multiple issues template. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 03:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I get some more eyes on this, I could be going mad, but...

Why is adding $text = preg_replace("/\{\{((Multiple|Article|Many)? ?issues|MI|multiple)| ?(\r|\n){0,3}\}\}/i","",$text);

Making an edit that was previously like this end up like this ?

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 21:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try $text = preg_replace("/\{\{((Multiple|Article|Many)? ?issues|MI|multiple)\| ?(\r|\n){0,3}\}\}/i","",$text);—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~True! there are no parentheses around it so no need to escape it ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

*cough* ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that fixed it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's always the smallest of things! Another edit done [23] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, yea that's too true. I once had nested for loops in a program but couldn't figure out why it wasn't working right and found that I had used the variable "i" in both loop parameters. A personal rule of mine is to never assume because results can be quite unpredictable.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[24] [25] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[26][27][28][29][30][31][32] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 20:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[33], [34], [35] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[36],[37],[38],[39] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 10:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[40][41][42][43][44] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[45][46][47][48][49][50] ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 22:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and approve it Addshore. You're part of BAG now. ;)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll avoid approving my own bots ;p ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 23:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun with your new job. :)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 18:02, 28 January 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.