Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 26

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.

BU RoBOT 26

Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 05:13, Wednesday, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Remove navboxes from pages to carry out a TfD deletion decision (with genfixes)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Always following a specific TfD discussion

Edit period(s): One-time runs when navboxes with a substantial number of transclusions need to be removed

Estimated number of pages affected: Varies by template

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Very simple task, virtually identical to things like Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_3. In the past, I've just made these edits with semi-auto AWB, but they really are quite mindless. They might as well be fully automated to save time. The immediate need relates to Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_July_19#Template:Major_US_Cities (331 transclusions), but large navboxes come through TfD on a somewhat regular basis (1–2 per month with >50 transclusions, usually), so I figure a broader approval is sensible given the technically trivial nature of these edits.

The regex is of the form: \{\{\s*(TEMPLATE_NAME|TEMPLATE_REDIRECT1|TEMPLATE_REDIRECT2)\s*\}\}\s* replaced with nothing. I run genfixes alongside it to adjust whitespace as needed. I've run that for months (at least since the end of 2015) with no issues.

Discussion

Looking at the edit period, how about navboxes with non-substantial numbers of transclusions? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Σ: This could be used for that as well, I suppose, but if it's just <5 transclusions it isn't worth the time to open up AWB. I'm rather generously defining substantial as probably >=30. That's not really meant to be any meaningful restriction on this, just a statement of fact of when I would probably use the bot task vs. just quickly making the edits manually. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, SporkBot has been doing this since 2010, but is seems as though there is a need for more than one bot. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1200 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. , for at least 3 different templates to have something to review. Be sure to link to use meaningful edit summaries that include a link to the deletion discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. 100 edits each of three templates will take a bit, as I'll have to wait for more high-transclusion templates to roll in. If something with less than 100 transclusions comes in, do you want me to run that as one of the three templates (as long as there's, say, over 20 transclusions) or should I wait for huge ones? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 Trial is for up to 100 total edits, but I want to see it on at least three different templates. (You could do 10 of 10 each, 5 of 20 each, etc). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:49, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Whoops, I just finished doing a 100 edit trial on one template because I misunderstood. Can you approve a quick 10 edit "extended" trial (5 edits each on two more templates) to get those additional diffs that you wanted? Sorry about the mixup. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:52, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I increased it to 200 above - point was I wanted to make sure that you are handling more than one template successfully. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get it now. I was recalling the "do this on as many project templates as you want, but max X edits per template" trial from a recent task and thought you were doing a similar thing here. My mistake. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Contributions here. No errors found. Task was completed on {{Major US Cities}}, {{ABS-CBN News personalities}}, and {{Clone Wars}}. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial edits checked. Working as intended. My only suggestion would be to include the template name in the edit summary, e.g.

Remove {{Major US Cities}} per [[wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 July 19#Template:Major US Cities|this TfD]] (Task 26); genfixes

. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: I can start doing that most of the time, but part of the reason I didn't already do it is that the long TFD link eats up most of the edit summary real estate. For longer template names (i.e. the personalities one that was part of this trial), I wouldn't be able to add in the template name without removing the TfD link. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13 You can save a few more characters if you enable "do not use section edit summaries" if it will help. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I'll do that, but I think there's likely to still be some limited scenarios in which it isn't possible to list the template name for particularly long titles. Note that if the title is long, the discussion link is usually absurdly long as well, so you get hit twice with unreasonably-sized template names. I could try using permalink diffs for discussions when there's a long name, if you prefer, although that may cause some confusion when the link doesn't take them directly to the right section. They'd have to search on that day's TfD page. (edit conflict) Feel free to answer here or my talk with which alternative you think is less harmful (occasional omission of template name vs. potential confusion of using the permalink diff). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 17 August 2016 (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.