Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KarlsenBot


 * 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.

KarlsenBot
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia, invoked as python replace.py "-transcludes:Football player statistics 1" -regex -always -namespace:0 -putthrottle:10 "-summary:|} =>, task 1" "-excepttext:\{\{\s*Football player statistics end" "\{\{\s*Football player statistics 1((.|\n)*?)\n\|\}(\s|\n)" "{{Football player statistics 1\\1\n\\3"

Function overview: replaces all instances of |} terminating a usage of football player statistics templates with template:football player statistics end

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template_talk:Football_player_statistics_1, Bot_requests

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 3000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): yes, native to pywikipedia

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

Function details: For every page which transcludes template:football player statistics 1, the first |} directly preceded by a newline (which closes the usage of the football player statistics templates) will be replaced with, to produce more readable wikitext, per the bot request, and discussion on the template talk page.

Discussion
Erm, " "" is more readable than "|}"? I understand what you mean about the template getting rid of a confusing ending "|}", but this change seems to introduce unnecessary bytes of text to the page and a non-essential template, without providing any real change to the article. &mdash; Capt'n Earwig  ( arr! &bull;  talk ) 00:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, are you contesting the template (in which case we should probably move the discussion back to the original location), or the necessity of a bot to apply it? I proposed the template to prevent an unmatched bracket, which as you pointed out is confusing. Removing the unmatched bracket also makes the life of AWB users (and I presume bots) slightly easier, though that's a secondary benefit. I also did it following what I believed to be the standard, when a template starts a table to have another template end it, see col-end, Extended football squad end, Football squad end and probably other. None of them are essential, but they are used for the purpose of clarity, at the cost of some bytes of text. The fact that the template does not change the article in any way, I believed to be a benefit, since otherwise 3000ish articles will change. I'd like to point out that the suggestion, the actual change of template and documentation, and my trial manual edit run all went uncontested, and I just felt doing 3000ish manual edits, though can probably be done with AWB in several hours, is more suited for a bot.--Muhandes (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'm going to you for a short trial just so we can make sure everything is okay. &mdash;  Capt'n Earwig  ( arr! &bull;  talk ) 23:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The first run had to be reverted due to errors. After revising the parameters with which the script is invoked, I restarted the bot on the same articles, for 30 edits. This last run was completed correctly. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Best to provide a link to the run. Rich Farmbrough, 09:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC).
 * The last run is at . Peter Karlsen (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded
 * Looked through these, does not seem to have any problems. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to have done what it said. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

uncontroversial edits: Just replacing "|}" with a template which consists of "|}" for cleaner wiki-code to help other programs/users. You might as well also mark these edits as minor too. - Kingpin13 (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2010 (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.