Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 46


 * 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

DannyS712 bot 46
Operator:

Time filed: 03:25, Saturday, June 8, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Substitute 3366 transclusions of Template:Double image

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Templates for discussion/Log/2013 November 7

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 3366

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The 2013 TfD of Template:Double image was never fully implemented - this bot run would substitute the remaining transclusions, which would replace them with calls to Template:Multiple image. The current template code is set up to allow substitution safely.

Discussion
This task, as mentioned, is already handled by AnomieBOT. There is no prejudice against filing a task request for implementing general TFD closes similar to Sporkbot and 's tasks, but that is outwith the scope of this request. Primefac (talk) 02:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Why can AnomieBOT not handle this task? * Pppery * it has begun... 13:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * not sure what you mean - its been over 5 years and AnomieBOT hasn't done it yet. Why can't DannyS712 bot handle this task? DannyS712 (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * AnomieBOT hasn't substituted the template because nobody bothered adding it to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted. If you (or another editor) were to add that category to the page (by adding yes to the subst only transclusion) and were to override the 100-transclusion limit by adding it to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force, AnomieBOT would then begin substing the template. While of course it would be tecnically possible for DannyS712 bot to handle this substitution, it's not a good idea in my opinion to file a BRFA when another bot by an active bot operator is already approved for a superset of the task in question. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In that case, maybe, in light of the previous BRFAs at Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 22, Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 23, and Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 31, I should file a superset BRFA for implementing TfDs, be it via substitution or orphaning. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bot implementation of TfDs is already handled by . * Pppery * it has begun... 21:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * and yet, there isn't any harm in having multiple bots do this, and it would ensure that things don't fall through the cracks as they did in this case DannyS712 (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2019 (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.