Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 13


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

SoxBot
Operator: X clamation point

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Overview: Updating dead links from http://espn.go.com to http://static.go.com, per this BOTREQ

Edit period(s): One time run

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

Function Details: See summary

Discussion
Seems simple enough. You're sure static.go.com is going to be around for a while and not going to break again in the near future?

Also, will this only be for articles? I don't like the idea of bots screwing with archives, etc. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I made the bot request after discovering the issue yesterday. The above http://static.go.com should be http://static.espn.go.com. I have no strong opinion on whether to restrict the fix to articles. I have not found ESPN statements about their link structure and don't know their future plans. It appears from that the change to "static." had happened by Janury 19.  thinks the old urls "were removed a few months ago". Special:Contributions/Giants2008 shows the editor is manually updating some links but that seems impractical for the number of ESPN links, especially when there is no known rule for which links have died. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just thinking out loud a bit here, perhaps a template is a better idea? ESPN link? Though that seems rather silly unless there's a high likelihood the links will break in the near future, I guess. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Their choice of adding "static." to the url might imply they expect to keep those url's. A template would also be OK by me, but it might cause some confusion when it's only intended for some ESPN links. Lots of working ESPN links would break if "static." was added to them. I don't know a rule a template could use to determine whether to include "static." PrimeHunter (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ST47 (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2009 (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.