Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DinoBot2 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

DinoBot2 2
Operator: T-rex

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): C#

Function Summary: Removes double redirects from templates

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): upon request

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): no

Function Details: Removes links to redirects in templates
 * Currently requested task would most likely be completed within the test run

Discussion
This task sounds good and worthwhile. Removing links to redirects from templates is different from removing double redirects, it is just removing redirects. Why don't you just do it manually approved if you are only planning on small scale? -- maelgwn - talk 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of edits should be small scale, but the number of templates checked is not. The original bot request was to go through all of the templates in Category:Football squad by nation templates which I am estimating is around 300-400 different templates. Even then having a bot to do this makes it possible to easily do a second time on another group of templates if needed. --T-rex 14:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to remove links to redirects, per WP:REDIR? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't appear to be listed in WP:REDIR, but is briefly mentioned in WP:R (why we have both is beyond me). Short version is that links to redirects are not wanted in template space. Also see maelgwn's comment above, as well as the original request. --T-rex 02:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What will it put in place of the redirect. Mr.Z-man 06:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It will link directly to the target article --T-rex 15:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WHY is this necessary? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 00:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically when a the template links to the page it is transcluded on, then it will show up in bold rather than showing up as a link to a redirect that points back to the page the template is already on. Make sense? See WP:R, it is in the exceptions ... -- maelgwn - talk 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs (st47) 01:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to complete the trial period later today --T-rex 17:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Trial completed. trial run edits are marked as Bot: Removing redirects from Template --T-rex 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the edits and have not found any major problems. This edit is a little problematic though since it removes the section bit of the link. Anyway you could avoid that? By the way. Do you know how many of the templates you checked that did not have to be fixed? Rettetast (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I looked through all the edits and that was the only one that had a section link. Overall I would expect section links in templates to be very rare. This should be fixable, although I'll probably check to see if the specific section actually exists before linking to it. For an example on how different types of links are currently handled see my test page --T-rex 17:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The section link issue has been fixed. The bot now produces diff's like this --T-rex 01:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm that it works in the real world too. giggy (O) 08:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll run the additional trial later toady, but given the rarity of section links in templates, the trial may very well not come across any of them. --T-rex 12:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional trial completed. And as I feared, no section links to be found there --T-rex 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded
 * Can this bot be flagged already? thanks --T-rex 02:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * - Bot will run with a flag. —  Ree dy  09:25, 13 June 2008 (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.