Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MetapointBot


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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

MetapointBot
Operator:

Time filed: 23:15, Sunday December 2, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): JavaScript via Node.js

Source code available: https://github.com/stuartpb/metapoint-wikibot (not yet finished)

Function overview: Replaces usages of the obsolete (requires a no-longer-obtainable ID number) Template:Tv.com with modern calls to Template:Tv.com show, allowing the obsolete template to be retired.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Tv.com, Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_27

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 5800 or so

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:
 * Get list of pages transcluding Template:Tv.com. For each page:
 * Get current revision content.
 * Find each transclusion of Template:Tv.com in that content. For each (usually just one per page):
 * Send a GET request to the URL the transclusion specifies.
 * Pull the name of the show from the URL specified.
 * Insert the name into a transclusion of Template:Tv.com show.
 * Edit the page with the updated content.

Discussion
I think this is a bit premature given that much of the discussion on the TfD is towards deleting it without a replacement. Legoktm (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. This should stay on hold until the TFD is concluded.  MBisanz  talk 01:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The replacement of tv.com with tv.com show isn't really contentious. The problem is that some editors have thrown the TfD off-kilter by making delete votes based on an apparent misunderstanding of venues and/or the purpose of the nomination. The TfD for was initiated by an editor who apparently believed that "deprecated" meant "unused" when the template was still in use in thousands of articles; he just didn't check. That same editor has now, 10 days after the TfD began, added other templates to the nomination, which is inappropriate, as I pointed out. Meanwhile, another editor decided that TfD isn't an appropriate place to discuss deletion of templates (WTF?) and took it to WP:ELN, where I had to point out that WP:ELN is the appropriate venue for discussing the appropriateness of tv.com as an external link, but not whether or not  should be deleted. Heading back to TfD, I've now had to point out that TfD is not the appropriate venue for discussing the appropriateness of tv.com as an external link. In the June 2011 TfD I voted for deletion of the templates but if the current TfD decided that the templates should be deleted, I'd have no choice but to take this to DRV because it doesn't really have wide consensus, which is what is required when you have a site that is linked to more than 9,000 times. I don't see any reason why the replacement of  shouldn't go ahead. --AussieLegend  ( ✉ ) 07:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the TfD has now concluded with consensus to delete after replacement. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 08:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Aaaand the replacement template is at TfD now (link). Legoktm (talk) 23:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And now it's at WP:ELN. Legoktm (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Noting that the ELN and TFD are still in progress.  MBisanz  talk 01:07, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the other ELN and TFD discussions currently in progress, the TFD discussion pertaining to this bot's task has closed in favor of deleting the template once this bot has performed this task. Please approve this bot so the closed TfD discussion's decision can be acted upon. --STUART (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Apparently the relevant substitutions have already been made in the time since this request was opened- the template use counter is reporting 2 transclusions, rather than ~5800 as it was when the task was opened. Task request withdrawn. --STUART (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2013 (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.