Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GargoyleBot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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 Approved.

[edit] GargoyleBot

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

Operator: IronGargoyle (talk)


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

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Replacement of deprecated templates by those that supersede them.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Depends, pretty much a one-time run, but that one time can be repeated, see summary for details.

Edit rate requested: 6 edits per Minute (kept low to reduce server load)

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

Function Details: This bot is a clone of ^demonBot2 (now abandoned by ^demon, blocked, and de-flagged) and, as such, the summary and function details are taken directly from the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/^demonBot2... AWB will work off a list of regex's provided by me (working from what is listed at Category:Deprecated_templates), going through and replacing old templates with their newer replacements. I say "Manually Assisted at Start" up above, because at the beginning of each run, the templates will need to be manually entered, as some require complex syntax changes that can't be predicted by a bot merely running from a list in a category. However, once set to run, the bot will run until the templates are gone. Perhaps (haven't decided yet) listing the template on WP:TFD after completion, to help reduce the backlog of useless templates. I've been doing quite a few template replacements myself, but it's getting to be quite a handful, and after coming across a listing of almost 800 transclusions (for a template made useless by a mediation), I decided to get bot approval, so I can finally eliminate the backlog of deprecated templates.


[edit] Discussion

How will you handle nested templates? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

On a case-by-case basis. I presume by nested template you are referring to a template transcluded within another template? If there were to be changes made to a nested template, I doubt that they would be of the edit-volume where bot-work would be necessary. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question... Could you provide me an example where working with a nested template necessitated bot-work? It's obviously an issue where care is needed (despite WP:AUM being rejected), and the potential for damage is higher when meta/nested templates are involved, so considerable care would be taken if such a case were to occur (not that it wouldn't be anyway). IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
{{infobox foo
|param1 = {{bar}}
|param2 = boz
}}
Imagine that you need to replace param2 with param3. If you match templates using simple regexen like \{\{(.*?)\}\} in that particular case you will match only infobox with the only parameter, param1 = {{bar. Nested parameters are quite popular in infoboxes, many biography-related infoboxes receive {{birth date and age}} and things like that as parameters. Since you're using AWB, I suggest switching to custom module that would invoke built-in helpers, such as Parsers.GetTemplate(). MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I will probably stick with simpler templates, not having any programming experience with regex. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you find us an example template that needs to be changed and post the find and replace lines you would use here? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sure. I would convert {{Non-free DVD cover}} to {{Non-free video cover}}. There are over 5000 transclusions and I want to get cracking per this TfD discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sample edits

Above is a sample of 5 diffs from the trial run. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has any reason why this bot should not be approved, let them speak now or forever hold their peace. — Werdna talk 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Approved. — Werdna talk 13:51, 4 April 2008 (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.