Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/タチコマ robot (12)


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

タチコマ robot
Operator:

Time filed: 20:34, Thursday March 15, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Update file links to renamed files so that old names are no longer used. Bypass File: namespace redirects.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): infrequent manual runs

Estimated number of pages affected: depends on workload

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N, all older references to the renamed image should be removed as the old name is problematic

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

Function details:

Discussion
How will it use AWB to find out which image names need updating? Why is the bot not exclusion compliant? I agree this is a task that needs doing, but can't see the technical side of it.  Rcsprinter  (state)  21:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I will manually feed file rename logs (this is what I am thinking of doing currently) and make the necessary changes. For now my main concern is files I moved myself and I'd rather avoid doing this manually. At a later phase I am thinking of using the API to do this for other file renames as well (after the code is BAG approved). -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And after that tag the redirect for deletion? Josh Parris 02:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of nominating the redirects for deletion. That is beyond the scope of the task discussed here. It may be worthwhile to keep the redirects for article history purposes. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So that a historic version of an article still renders with the image. Doesn't the history get polluted when the next person uploads an image with the same name? Whatever. Josh Parris 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And will this task only be performed when the old name is problematic? Otherwise I don't quite see the purpose. &mdash; madman 00:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * After a rename I am asked to manually update every page using the old filename with the renamed new name. I would like to automate this task. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don't do much moving of files so I've never seen that prompt. I wonder why such updates are necessary and articles can't just use the redirect; if it's because otherwise image usage information is not correct, has solved that problem. &mdash; madman 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It increases the readability of the wiki text as renamed files often are random numbers but also allows avoidance of problems should the files be moved to commons. On commons when a file is moved, we use commons delinker to replace all redirect usage with the new name. I see this as good practice. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 14:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, that sounds perfectly reasonable; I'd call a file name consisting of random numbers problematic in any case. &mdash; madman 15:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a problem, let's see how this works out. Josh Parris 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Trial
What was the result of the trial? Where are the links to diffs? Josh Parris 03:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not had a chance to move files and "try" the code yet. I'll however try to find poorly naed files and rename them. I will seek 10 files. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll probably do this on next Friday. Rather busy with real-world events all of a sudden. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have moved a few files. Diffs for bots operation:, , , , , , , , , . -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Diffs show it working as advertised. Josh Parris 12:43, 12 April 2012 (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 WT:BRFA.