Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Rootology Bot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was  MBisanz  talk 02:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)}}

Rootology Bot
Operator: rootology ( C )( T )

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Re-targetting disambig links after closed Requested Moves would be the primary function.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Should be a one time run the first time for the first project, but would love to use it later to help out on more and possibly on other needed AWB tasks.

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

Function Details: Fairly straightforward. I would be interested in making changes such as this (this is just one example), based on backlinks to the original redirect that would be left after a given move, to eliminate needed piping disambiguation links after moves:


 * \[\[Seattle\, Washington\|Seattle\]\] > Seattle

If the opportunity presented itself in a similar context and would not a loss in the "print" quality or web readability of a given page, perhaps this as well, to achieve the same end result:


 * \[\[Seattle\, Washington\]\] > Seattle, Washington -- blanked the 2nd task as we're not doing that now. rootology ( C )( T ) 18:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, a healthy cleanup after Requested Moves, and only with very precise changes. My doesn't yet have an AWB flag (hadn't asked yet), but my account does--I'd prefer to do it all on the bot account instead for these possible flagged changes. rootology ( C )( T )

Discussion
I don't think the second example edit is a good idea. It goes against the guideline at CONTEXT to avoid linking "individual words when a phrase has its own article". Some people don't agree with that guideline, but bots shouldn't be doing potentially controversial edits such as this one.

The first example is a bit helpful in that it cleans up the wikicode, but since it does not affect the end result I'm not sure if it is worth doing. It's basically just editing to bypass a redirect, which is discouraged by Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken (although here you'd be removing the pipe instead of adding it, so one could debate whether the rule applies). --Itub (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The second is totally optional (I just tossed it out as a related example of what I may do, but if I don't it's no big deal for me), but my primary goal is going to be the piped redirect cleanup. It seemed like a useful (and easy to do) little sort of project for these moves that will help to eliminate totally unrequired redirects. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks straightforward, on the first regex. Lets hold off on the second for a bit.  MBisanz  talk 16:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've asked for AWB on the bot for the trial. Thanks. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Trial done I just finished: here. rootology ( C )( T ) 16:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand, how is this not contrary to R? If it was bypassing disambiguation pages it would be fine, but there's no reason to make an edit just to bypass a redirect. Mr.Z-man 18:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We're only doing it for the disambig trial/task. I'll cross out the other. It's different, in that doing these clean ups after moves will eliminate thousands of uselss piped links. NOTBROKEN discourages changing Z-man to Z-man, if Z-man is a valid redirect to Mr. Z-man. My cleanup runs would be the opposite, getting rid of leftover useless piped links that already go to the same page. The NOTBROKEN says "There should almost never be a reason to replace redirect with redirect ," so it would be clean up of those with \[\[Seattle\, Washington\|Seattle\]\] > Seattle, like this. rootology ( C )( T ) 18:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "There should almost never be a reason to replace redirect with redirect ," but that's not really a good reason to make an edit just to remove that. NOTBROKEN discourages bypassing redirects period, hence why its titled "Do not 'fix' links to redirects that are not broken" as opposed to "Do not make piped links to 'fix' redirects that are not broken." It gives 2 possible exceptions to it, but this doesn't seem to fit either one. Mr.Z-man 00:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I would urge immediately rejection here. Bypassing redirects should only be done in limited circumstances, as Mr.Z-man has said. The MediaWiki software has a redirect function for a reason. While Seattle is currently located at "Seattle," there's nothing to say it won't be moved in a month when consensus changes. I don't see how this bot furthers the goal of creating a free online encyclopedia. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I think it would be for the best to withdraw this request, in hindsight. rootology ( C )( T ) 23:29, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.