Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 64


 * 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 III 64
Operator:

Time filed: 14:57, Monday, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available:

Function overview: Patrol redirects with slight differences in apostrophes

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Lots

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Extending Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45 to cover  as well (hadn't seen those before, or I would have included them at the time, but apparently they are used)

Discussion

 * If possible, I'd like to request speedy approval, so I don't need to add separate logic for handling the trial, now that the bot task in run via cron. I believe that this task falls with Bot Approvals Group/Guide's suggestion of If the task is completely non-controversial, such as extensions to tasks that have already been approved in the past, by an experienced coder in good standing, then the task can be speedily approved without a trial. and Bot policy's explanation of Non-controversial, technically-simple tasks or duplicates of existing tasks, especially if performed by trusted bot operators, can be speedily approved. The technical change is just the addition of  in 2 places in the code. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am trying to imagine a scenario where a slight difference in apostrophes would imply a major change in meaning and am coming up empty handed. Plus, Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45 was in fact approved. So this seems like an acceptable proposal, although it's not my decision to make. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * do you have an estimate for how large the first run will be? Can you provide an example of 3 pages that need this work done? —  xaosflux  Talk 15:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I filed this after I came across a few made by - I patrolled the ones I saw, but I can't image more than one or two a day. As for right now, there are none in the "backlog" that would trigger a larger first run. Had this been filed yesterday, the first run would have covered:, , , , , , , , , , ,  --DannyS712 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks, samples look fine. In those samples the updates included 2 page actions, will your bot only be performing 'patrol'? —  xaosflux  Talk 15:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * the bot marks the page as "reviewed" via the page curation API, and I believe that doing this automatically also marks the page as "patrolled" - the bot should do the same things I did DannyS712 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ok so the bot will "mark reviewed" and "mark patrolled"? Can you point to a page where this was recently done under another task? — xaosflux  Talk 15:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just checked the logs - Its just "mark reviewed" - most recent bot patrolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Press_Release DannyS712 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * that page was 15 years old so things may have changed a bit, got an example of a more recently created page? — xaosflux  Talk 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Pages get added to the feed when they are converted from redirects to articles (and then back), but, eg, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gim+Seyeong DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * minor addition to prior task. — xaosflux  Talk 16:28, 25 November 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.