Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT II 11

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

PearBOT II 11

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

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

Time filed: 21:34, Monday, April 19, 2021 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB (or possibly JWB)

Source code available:

Function overview: General TfD implementation through removal or simple replacements

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Dozens to thousands depending on template

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: It is often enough that I want to perform TfD implementation using a bot that I think this is warranted. There is no acute need for another bot of this nature with PrimeBOT 24 SporkBot and BsherrAWBBOT 2, but it would reduce the wait time for these projects at times. The template that prompted this request was {{R from historic name}} where {{R printworthy}} has to be added to the 5000ish uses which doesn't have it separately, but if I had the bot last month I would probably have done {{Friendly search suggestions}} as well and {{WPUS50}} looks like a likely future candidate for the task.

Discussion

So I think Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT was a TfD-related task, have you done any others? If this goes to trial, do you have any templates in holding in mind you'd like to work on? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader I have one other TfD task now, PearBOT 4. If I ever want to do something even as close to the technical or implementation complexity of PearBOT 1 that will go through another BRFA since a lot of testing and a second pair of eyes will be needed. As I said in the function details, the first usage would be {{R from historic name}} with {{WPUS50}} likely to follow. I've implemented tons of TfDs, often using AWB, over the past few years. --Trialpears (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I think for the Rcat template it can just be replaced with a template call of the target template name, and use AnomieBot to subst it all. But the same can be said for many TfD merges. I suppose they're different tools, and depending on the case one approach can be slightly (or substantially) easier than the other.

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Approved for 3 templates, 25 diffs each. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem with using AnomieBOT for {{R from historic name}} is that there is a significant number where {{R printworthy}} already is present which would result in duplicate templates. Anyway, I've done 25 edits with {{R from historic name}} (1, 2, 3-25). Everything went as expected, except me forgetting to turn of the other currently running task at first which would have made the edits interspersed with each other and put the bot over the recommended max edit rate. Would it be possibly to go ahead with the specific templates I've already had a trial for or do I have to complete all 3 templates first? I don't think there's a third appropriate template for a bot in the holding cell right now and it would be a shame to artificially delay the others. --Trialpears (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is {{R printworthy}} being added? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As noted in the relevant discussions the main difference between them is that historic name tags redirects as printworthy while former name does not. As stated in the latest TfD "It's best to just tag relevant "historic" names as printworthy". --Trialpears (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Gotcha. Presumably it would omit adding printworthy if it's already added? If so, and given diffs look fine, you can complete the run for that template. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes the list excludes all pages with either {{R printworthy}} or {{R unprintworthy}}. I've started the run and expect it to finish for tomorrow and I plan on doing {{WPUS50}} then. --Trialpears (talk) 14:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Another template trial done for {{WPUS50}}: Contribs. First edit got the wrong edit summary because AWB was being weird and unselecting my custom summary. Other than that this was a very uneventful trial. --Trialpears (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Those mostly seem fine but it might be a good idea to respect the spacing preferences that exist in the template. For example in Special:Diff/1020227303 or Special:Diff/1020227281. Don't AWB's AddParameter functions automatically account for this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I implemented a version to deal with block formatted templates (none of the ones that appeared in the trial were block formatted though), but didn't deal with the spacing. I could make a specific regex for it. I don't know about the AddParameter functions but if such things exist that would be awesome. I know there is the template parameter renamer and I suppose the template dater module has to have some sort of parameter adder. Could you give me a pointer to this thing? --Trialpears (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's [1] ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've implemented a module using this. It appears that it only deals with spacing around the equals sign though so I've added some regex to deal with whitespace around the pipe as well. I've done about 25 preview tests with this and it works well. Do you want another 25 edits or can I start the run? --Trialpears (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Though I have no reason to think there will be any issues, another 25 seems preferable for trial. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Here you go! It makes the parameter spacing consistent with the first parameter. Some of the templates in the trial already had inconsistent spacing which it of course doesn't fix. --Trialpears (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

LGTM. Feel free to complete the run. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Is the trivial case of orphaning {{Indic script needed}} fine as the third trial? --Trialpears (talk) 12:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I think it's done now? The orphaning at TfD tends to be done quickly. ProcSock (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Last trial done with {{Auto archiving notice}} and {{Archives}}, 25 edits. Two problems occurred. One was a minor whitespace issue at Talk:1888 Minneapolis General Conference and one was a GIGO issue at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential debates. First one is resolved and for the second I've made it a bit more garbage resistant which would lead to it skipping that page. --Trialpears (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Approved. That's fine. With a task like this that requires operator adjustment for each run it's mostly a question of whether the operator is competent to realise and handle such issues as they arise. It's often a good idea to plan ahead for edge cases before runs (as much as possible), and test on a couple dozen edits before starting a full run to make sure all is going as expected. But I'm fairly happy with the above trial results and your history at TfD, so I foresee no issues here. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2021 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.