Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 7


 * 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

BattyBot 7
Operator:

Time filed: 00:18, Tuesday February 21, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB general fixes

Function overview: Use AWB's general fixes to remove as follows
 * remove template if has no parameters.
 * convert it to the original template if it has only one parameter (e.g. diff).

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot requests/Archive 45

Edit period(s): Multiple runs

Estimated number of pages affected: hundreds

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details:

Discussion
seems simple and non-contentious to me. Let's see if it works. Josh Parris 04:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * - see diffs - GoingBatty (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've reviewed all the edits, and found three problematic: So, only the first two raise any complexities, and the third may or may not be intentional. Josh Parris 06:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_Wakefield&diff=prev&oldid=478017562 multiple issues was in a section, but didn't have  set.  As a result, the message box that popped out after your edit was for the entire article, not the section.  This has wider implications.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%C3%A9tente&diff=prev&oldid=478018417 had multiple issue templates on it, but not inside the multiple issues template.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=D%C3%A9tente&diff=prev&oldid=478018417 the genfix here shoved an extra blank line before the stub template; is that behaviour by design?
 * Josh, those last two diffs are the same; I think you meant for the latter. First diff: Since this was a problem with the original Multiple issues transclusion, I wouldn't really consider that a bug (GIGO). Detecting whether the transclusion is in a section and fixing it accordingly would be a nice enhancement, though. Second diff: I believe one of BattyBot's tasks is to merge multiple issue templates into Multiple issues, so it could be hit later; is that correct, GoingBatty? If so, I think it's fine that both tasks work independently since they're both working correctly (the Multiple issues transclusion didn't have any parameters, so it should have been removed). To the third diff, I assume that's AWB doing that and not any of GoingBatty's code, and it's not something he can easily fix (I'll look at AWB's code when I have a moment and see if that's the case).
 * I myself am quite concerned by these four diffs:   ; the bot seems to remove all wikify issues. Please make sure this bot accounts for all possible Multiple issues parameters. I have undone those four edits for you. &mdash; madman 14:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, if I'm reading the request correctly, all of this is AWB's general fixes code, and no custom code. If so, I believe that behavior with wikify is a bug; someone should submit a report and optimally a patch (I'll do it if/when I have time if no one else has). Until that general fix has been... fixed, I think we should hold off on approval. &mdash; madman 14:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for your responses and concerns. Madman is correct - this is all AWB's general fixes code.  So if this bot task doesn't run, these same changes could still be made by someone else using AWB (bot or human).
 * I believe the edit to Arthur Wakefield was an improvement, as the message rendered to the user was changed from "This article has multiple issues..." to "This article may require copy editing..." I agree if would be a nice AWB feature to change the article templates to section templates if they're under a section header - I'll gather some information and submit a feature request.  For now, I just manually changed this from  to  on this article.
 * For the Détente article, and  are not parameters of, so no other bot would merge these together.  (If they could be merged together, this bot run would have not made this edit since it skips articles that contain Multiple issues after making all genfixes.)  The Multiple issues template didn't add any value on this article, so I agree with its removal.
 * For the Barker's Bush article, the extra line before the stub template is another general fix which "Puts two blank lines before stubs per IDEALSTUB".
 * The removal of is another general fix: "Appends Wikify if article has < 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Removes tag otherwise (comments, categories and Persondata are excluded from wikilink and size count)."  There is already a bug report and feature request to change the way AWB deals with the wikify template.  I could run the bot with the auto tagger feature turned off, which would then not remove wikify and therefore skip the four articles Madman reverted.  The downside of this is that articles that deserve to be tagged (e.g. orphan, dead end, uncategorized, wikify) would not be tagged.  GoingBatty (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent response on all points (I didn't have a problem with the first two in any case). I have no further concerns. &mdash; madman 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I'm not yet satisfied. multiple issues doco says that  is a supported tag.  Even if Globalize/US isn't supported (which is surprising given   is supported - is it a naming issue?), the other two tags ought to have been merged - and thus the edit not made, as pointed out.  This is a bug.
 * I agree that Arthur Wakefield was less bad after the bot's edit; however I urge the AWB developers to address this missing functionality. Genfixes are meant to be completely harmless and generally helpful; fixing this oversight will push this module further in that direction.
 * Given the purpose of this BRfA is to run a genfix that has demonstrated an 8% "error" rate, I'm disinclined to approve until the AWB developers repair the module. multiple issues isn't a crushing issue, so my preference is for a harmless bot. Josh Parris 06:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first concern, hopefully it's just a matter of re-ordering or slightly changing code within the MultipleIssues general fix (I haven't looked at AWB's code in ages). If fixing the bug is going to require parsing the page twice, I believe the AWB developers are generally disinclined to do that. I can see reporting a bug for that (has this already been done?); your second concern, of course, is a feature request. Is the lack of that feature a blocking issue on this BRFA for you, or just the first one? &mdash; madman 06:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more that I would have expected better from a genfix, and in a tiny sample found a number of things to whine about. That coupled with the lack of urgency for the task.  I wouldn't imagine a double parse would be necessary, but I know little about AWB.  It's not so much that either is a showstopper in themselves, it's more the gestalt of the lot. It's surprisingly unpolished, and my faith has been shaken. Josh Parris 08:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Josh - thanks for correcting my mistatement - unbalanced is indeed a valid parameter of . However, since none of the 20 sub-pages of  are valid parameters, AWB won't merge them into Multiple issues.  AWB's general fix for Multiple issues "Adds 3 or more single tags into new Multiple issues" and Détente only had two tags eligible to be merged into Multiple issues, so this isn't a bug.
 * I submitted a feature request to have AWB change maintenance templates that immediately follow a section header, as you suggested.
 * If you consider the removal of wikify to be a bug, I would be happy to run another trial with the tagger turned off. Thanks!  GoingBatty (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point; not a bug. I have no problem with the removal of wikify.
 * Please continue to pursue the AWB developers of the change to section template FR. Josh Parris 05:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Josh Parris 05:45, 23 February 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.