Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GurchBot 2

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] GurchBot 2

(Just to be clear, this page is called "GurchBot 2" but doesn't refer to a second task for GurchBot, it's a different account)

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

Operator: Gurch

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automated

Function Summary: Archive page moving

Edit period: Once, will take a couple of days to run.

Edit rate requested: 4 edits per minute (i.e. two moves per minute, since a move is two edits)

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N

Function Details:

Right now this bot is updating a list of ArbCom election results in my user space at regular intervals. I didn't bother requesting approval for this, partly because it's only running in my own userspace, but mostly because the elections had already been running for about an hour when I was asked to write the bot (which took about two hours to write, after which I set it going immediately). Had I gone through the rigmarole of discussion, seven-day trial period and so forth, the elections would have been over before I'd even got it going, which would have made it pretty useless. (For that reason it's not flagged, even though it's doing the sort of thing that a flagged bot is used for). Anyway, it's been going nearly two weeks and nobody's objected, so I can only assume it's OK. If I run it again for next year's elections, I will place a request for approval well in advance, since I already have it written this time.

Anyway, moving on to its next task, there are now quite a few templates available that allow you to "navigate" through sequentially-numbered discussion archives. See {{archive-nav}} and {{atn}} for two examples. At this point I'm not proposing to add any particular template to the archive pages (except {{talkarchive}}, which I already added myself, in the boring non-bot way, a few months back), convenient though it may be. This is partly because I'm hoping at some point to standardize on one template, rather than having several. However, all these templates have one thing in common; they require the archive pages to be named in a particular way in order to work. Specifically, they have to be named "Talk:Foo/Archive N", with a capital "A" and a space before the number. Currently many of them are named "/Archive1", "/archive 1", "/archive1" or something else entirely. What I'd like to do is make it possible to add a navigational template to all of these archives (either manually, or by bot once we've sorted out which one to use). So here's the deal:

• Move all numbered archives already tagged with {{talkarchive}} with a numbering other than "/Archive N" to that name.

  "User talk" archives will be ignored, as it's up to the individual user what they do with those. Archives organized by discussion topic or otherwise employing a system of named rather than numbered pages will also be ignored. Only archives already tagged with {{talkarchive}} will be moved, because the only way to get a list of archive pages short of a database dump is to use Category:Talk archives, which is populated by that template.

• Leave a redirect from the previous name (this will happen by itself, of course).
• Check Whatlinkshere after each move and point out any double-redirects that result, which I'll correct manually.

I already have a list of pages to move, which I've compiled and checked manually; a total of 2523. At the proposed rate of two moves (4 edits) per minute that would take just under 24 hours to complete, though I may split it over two days. I may end up moving slightly more than that, as of course new pages are added to the category every day. As far as I'm aware a bot flag doesn't hide stuff in the logs, which is unfortunate, though one is presumably still a good idea to hide the edits that will result. (Although GurchBot already has a flag, I use that for "assisted" high-speed editing, and I've decided it's probably a good idea to separate that from "fully automated" editing – if nothing else it means the user/talk pages can be worded more clearly – so I'll use this account).

– Gurch 06:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Could you provide us with some example diffs for what this bot would do? -- RM 00:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... well the bot would move pages, not edit them. Moving a page does add an extra edit to the history but it doesn't change anything. I can show you some blank diffs if you like, but that seems kind of pointless. If you mean you want to know which pages I'm going to move, I can post the whole list if necessary, but it would be rather long. It looks like this:

1: Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive1 -> Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive 1
2: Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive2 -> Talk:11 March 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive 2
3: Talk:11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive1 -> Talk:11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive 1
4: Talk:11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive2 -> Talk:11 March, 2004 Madrid attacks/Archive 2
5: Talk:11:11/archive1 -> Talk:11:11/Archive 1
6: Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/Archive1 -> Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/Archive 1
7: Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/Archive2 -> Talk:2002 Gujarat violence/Archive 2
8: Talk:2004 Summer Olympics/Archive1 -> Talk:2004 Summer Olympics/Archive 1
9: Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive1 -> Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive 1
10: Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive2 -> Talk:2004 U.S. Election controversies and irregularities/Archive 2

...
...
...

2521: Talk:Zoophilia/Archive13 -> Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 13
2522: Talk:Zoophilia/Archive14 -> Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 14
2523: Talk:Zoophilia/Archive15 -> Talk:Zoophilia/Archive 15

Is that enough? – Gurch 15:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot trial run approved for the duration of a week 100 moves. This seems like a good idea. Voice-of-All 17:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... what exactly do you mean by that? It's only going to take me two days to move them all... does that mean I can move them all now, or is there some limit on the number of moves you want me to do? – Gurch 17:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, that script response isn't too appropriate here :). Fixed. Voice-of-All 17:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, so you're all talking to me using scripts. No wonder nothing anyone says makes any sense. Makes me wonder if I should bother requesting approval in the future at all. Or whether I should use a script to do so – Gurch 18:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well a lot of stuff I read on BA is confusing, though thats not from scripts :). The task is fairly simple and useful, but I'd rather a few more moves be done just in case, though its probably not necessary. Nevertheless, my reply was a bit hasty. Voice-of-All 18:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done 100 page moves; see http://en.wikipedia.org../../../../articles/l/o/g/Special%7ELog_move_02c8.html – Gurch 21:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot approved. No problems. Voice-of-All 22:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that with a flag, or without? – Gurch 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

At 2 moves per minute it doesn't really matter too much. I looked for a bureaucrat on IRC at the time to quicky flag it but no one was around. But 2 moves/min for a one time two task may not be worth the wait. I'll request a flag, but feel free to run it before thats granted. Voice-of-All 00:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've granted the flag, let me know when you're done with it please. - Taxman ^Talk 00:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not too bothered whether it has one or not, just wanted to make sure I was clear about everything – Gurch 14:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it's cleaner too flag it, as while one bot doing 2/moves per min is ok, if enough are allowed to go unflagged, it will add up. Voice-of-All 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok I removed the flag since you said you were done for now. If you're going to use it again in the future just request it then. Thanks - Taxman ^Talk 18:05, 28 December 2006 (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.