Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 27


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

Qwerfjkl (bot) 27
Operator:

Time filed: 16:54, Tuesday, November 28, 2023 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikibot

Function overview: Fix a lint error.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 93,500

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Using the query, the bot will use the regex  &rarr;

Discussion
Thanks for taking this on. If possible, you may want to have the bot check the page post-edit, but before saving, to ensure that there are no more Linter errors on the page. That appears to be the best practice for Lint-fixing bots; see loads of previous complaints about MalnadachBot's multiple visits to pages. Legobot, when it was doing Lint fixes, had this check in place. See also this search, which is similar text. I get about 125 additional pages, although the search times out. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: This one bot run has the potential to fix 5% (about 180,000) of all remaining Linter errors, according to the current count at firefly's table (3.6 million errors). – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Jonesey95, sorry, I meant to respond to this sooner. I don't think it will be practical to skip pages where there are further Linter errors. In my opinion it would be better to just clear these up in one go - there aren't that many large scale fixes like this one that we can do. — Qwerfjkl  talk  17:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's fine with me. I strongly support this bot task that will clean up 5% of all remaining Linter errors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to ask the dumb question, this task is simply removing  from the affected pages? Primefac (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what is written above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Primefac, yes, using the regex in the function details. — Qwerfjkl  talk  16:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I know you're both looking at me like I'm an idiot, but I just wanted to double-check that I wasn't missing something. Primefac (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nah, you're not an idiot. It is sad that the editing software has let people add syntax errors like this to thousands of pages and continues to do so. But here we are. Bots are helpful for cleanup when humans make messes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Primefac (talk) 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Primefac, See these 50 edits. —  Qwerfjkl  talk  17:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 50 diffs inspected. 50 successful edits. No problems found. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Primefac (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2023 (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 Bots/Noticeboard.