Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/^demonBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

[edit] ^demonBot

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

Operator: ^demon

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted at start of each run, makes edit automatically until completion.

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Removing stale "no license" images from images that now have licenses.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): As needed

Edit rate requested: 10 edits per minute

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

Function Details: Takes regex commands of what templates to remove (ie: {{no source|month=April|day=12|year=2007}}), and goes through the backlogged subcats of CAT:CSD finding images that now have licenses, removing the notices from them.

[edit] Discussion

You mentioned different templates in different parts of your request. So, will it remove {{no source}} or {{no license}}? How do you make the list of license templates? MaxSem 18:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Depending on which backlog it's clearing, it would use one or the other. For example, with Category:Images with unknown source, it would use {{no source}}, whereas Category:Images with no copyright tag would be using {{untagged}}. As for the second part of your question, essentially what keeps these categories sitting around so long is that people go through and delete those that can be deleted, but the ones that were tagged people become too lazy to un-tag for deletion. Therefore, this bot would only run through a category once all images have been deleted that are eligible. Potentially, I would like to expand it so that any article that has one of the tags listed here would automatically get de-tagged for deletion, but that's more long-term. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that removing {{no license}} when appropriate is relatively easy and no false positives should be feared, I don't think that any bot should ever remove {{no source}}, because mistakes are quite possible and there is no guarantee whatever that an external link found on the image description page means that it's a source for this pic. MaxSem 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawing at this time, I do not have time to devote to it as of yet. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 11:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

However the idea is wonderful and I'll try to implement it myself, at least for {{no license}}. MaxSem 15:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.