Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 3


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Fbot 3
Operator:

Time filed: 02:37, Monday July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently, although I'll probably post a copy in my userspace soon.

Function overview: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 3-4k at most

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Same as above: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.

Discussion
The bot should have some kind of exclusion list (or even just follow bots), just in case there is a legitimate reason for a template to be transcluded (maybe its on a page showing examples or something). -- Chris 11:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm, that sounds reasonable. bots it is.  I've adjusted the run details above accordingly.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 06:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking at User_talk, File_talk, and Talk for just one template - it appears that this template is occasionally transcluded as part of regular discussion. Would it make sense to exclude all talk pages (perhaps even 'just for now')? SQL Query me! 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but these templates were not intended for use in discussions. Image license tags inappropriately categorize non-file pages (i.e. category pollution) into categories intended for files.  The bot will untransclude file license tags so that non-file description pages are not inappropriately categorized.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you just make categorisation namespace-dependent? Or is avoiding transclusions on Special:WhatLinksHere also necessary? If so, why? Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the concept of making categorization namespace dependent, but IMHO, it lacks practicality. We have a large number of license tags which would require the addition of a new parserfunction to each and every template. Furthermore, employing such a protocol would make creating new license tags unnecessarily complicated for non-coders.  While a side goal of this bot is to help clean up license tag tranclusions in Special:WhatLinksHere, the main purpose of the bot is to maintain and clean up categories pertaining to media file license tags. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, do they not have a meta-template that could be edited? I haven't looked. - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. The vast majority of image license tags are constructed with templates such as imbox or just plain raw code. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * To be (possibly too?) blunt, I would greatly prefer to see the underlying templates corrected, over constantly having to maintain all the affected pages indefinitely. SQL Query me!  08:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to second that. It may take a few days, but it'll solve the root of the problem, instead of chipping at the symptoms as they appear (if you pardon the House-esque analogy). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. Please consider this request withdrawn if a volunteer willing to maunally update all 200+ file licenses templates over the span of a few days can be found.   Otherwise, I'd like to run this bot task. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I went through the templates and made 3 changes. It looks like almost all the tags already employ file other. Do you by any chance have a list of templates that have caused mis-categorization? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not have a list, but I'm sure one could easily be generated. I'd write the script to do that but I'm currently on vacation.  - F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there doesn't appear to be consensus for this bot, I'd like to formally withdraw this request. Thanks,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 04:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

per operator SQL Query me!  08:10, 14 August 2011 (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.