Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 2b


 * 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

H3llBot 2b
Operator:

Time filed: 13:49, Monday April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: N

Function overview: Expand on original task: tag citations with dead links with yes, where archive params archiveurl or archivedate are already set with no.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Main BRFA, deadurl RfC. More on main task here, or see recent contribs.

Edit period(s): This task -- a couple dozen times a day probably, main task would far exceed in frequency.

Estimated number of pages affected: may be 1-5% of edited pages.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details:
 * Tag citations with dead links with yes, where archive params archiveurl or archivedate are already set with no, indicating preemptive archiving. If deadurl isn't set, or another value is set, the citation is ignored and assumed to be dead and archived. Example:





I add, like I do with archiveurl and dead link, so it is clear a bot process determined the link is now dead. Alternatively, I can either skip the comment or remove the field altogether, which would default to link being dead behavior. But this would leave no trace that a bot decided the link is dead.

Discussion
This is a pretty bureaucratic request, and is a small expansion to the existing task. But I like my BRFAs tidy and I feel like I should file this regardless, in case there are some issues someone can think of and I'm not caught implementing undocumented additions. :) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can't see any problems. Common-ish task which is pretty straightforward. Yep.  Rcsprinter  (Gimme a message)  13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's occurred to me that this is (surprisingly) more complicated than it appears on first impression. See User talk:Dispenser/Checklinks, User talk:Dispenser/Checklinks, User talk:Dispenser/Checklinks... screw it, just read the whole talk page.  Also Bots/Requests for approval/DumZiBoT.  Basically, at the very least, just a URL failing once doesn't mean it's dead.  And failing doesn't mean you checked it right. Josh Parris 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is, but I haven't listed my logic for the main task (detecting dead links), because it is already approved: Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 2. You can read the updated logic here: User:H3llBot/ADL. You can see the bot's contributions. You can also refer to Bots/Requests for approval/BlevintronBot, where I basically mentioned everything I can about detecting dead links. I have ignore lists, I don't bother with ftp:// or media, I double-check within 3 days, I have strict detect-404-only rules, etc. As I said, this is just adding a little markup logic to the task to handle the new deadurl, which didn't exist when I first filed the BRFA. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see I've completely missed the point. Josh Parris 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

An obvious addition to functionality. Josh Parris 10:16, 3 April 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.