Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 20


 * 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

Legobot 20
Operator:

Time filed: 19:42, Thursday September 13, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: standard pywikipedia with modifications

Function overview: Marks broken redirects for speedy deletion

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): botreq

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ~25-50/day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:
 * Gets a list of pages from Database reports/Broken redirects
 * Checks that each page exists, and is a redirect page
 * Verifies that the target page does not exist
 * Mark for deletion using

Discussion
 MBisanz  talk 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * . I kept a log here, however I'm not 100% confident that has everything. There are 4 bluelinks on that page, 3 of which were vandalism, and 1 was a misspelling. LegoKontribsTalkM 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is precisely what I was hoping to see when I requested this bot — it both succeeds in having useless redirects deleted and in having damaged-but-useful redirects sent back to being useful. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you want another trial or are you confident you've fixed everything?  MBisanz  talk 13:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure those are bugs though. The bot currently can't detect anything except whether the redirect is broken or not. I could add in something that would check if the page had content before it was redirected, but I'm not sure what the bot would do after that? Revert? Tag with something else? Personally I think that being tagged for CSD (while erroneous) gets attention faster for a human to look at it, than it would if just left alone. As for the misspelling, since that was the original edit to the page, I don't think there is anyway the bot could have caught that. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Those aren't bugs. Many redirects with old histories should be deleted, and all of them qualify for speedy deletion regardless of what should be done with them.  The bot's using a speedy deletion template with a big warning to admins to check for possible targets before deleting; it really can't know what to do, and by bringing these redirects to administrative attention, the bot is taking care of them quite well.  Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok.  MBisanz  talk 19:42, 22 September 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.