Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 5


 * 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

ZackBot 5
Operator:

Time filed: 03:42, Sunday, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Ruby (programming language)

Source code available: User:ZackBot/nfl deprecation cleanup

Function overview: Rename deprecated parameters in transclusions of Infobox NFL biography

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_biography & this discussion

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 8389 (the union of Category:Infobox NFL biography with deprecated debut/final parameters and Category:Infobox NFL biography with deprecated currentteam parameter shown on PetScan).

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Very simple, the bot will go through and find/replace deprecated params with their new replacement. I am currently trying to do this manually but 5,338 pages takes a while. I see this as super low risk as it only affects exact matches to the deprecated param names that are located within the Infobox NFL biography template. The params to be changed are shown below:


 * &rarr; (manually done...)
 * &rarr; (manually done...)
 * &rarr; (manually done...)
 * &rarr; (manually done...)
 * &rarr;  (manually done...)
 * &rarr;  (manually done...)
 * &rarr;  (manually done...)
 * &rarr;

Also the complete removal of the following params per this discussion.


 * debutteam=
 * debutyear=
 * finalteam=
 * finalyear=
 * coachdebutteam=
 * coachdebutyear=
 * coachfinalteam=
 * coachfinalyear=

Discussion

 * In the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_biography, said of some parameters They aren't actually deprecated.  The template documentation still lists all of these - where is there support for removing these? —  xaosflux  Talk 04:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That comment referred only to the "past_admin", "past_executive", etc. parameters, not the ones here. While I would struggle to link the actual discussions, since they took place across many different talk pages years ago (templates that have since been merged, WikiProject talks, etc), I can say for certainty that the parameters here are actually deprecated based on my history working with this template and the WikiProject., one of the long-time project participants, can surely back me up on that. On the other hand, I have the same WP:COSMETICBOT concerns here as I did at the other BRFA. In the past, I've done other useful clean-up tasks bundled with this one using semi-auto AWB, such as endash fixes, removal of certain "highlights" from that parameter based on project consensus, and overlinking fixes. Personally, I think we should be looking to continue on that basis, not run thousands of purely cosmetic edits just for the sake of knocking these out. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the accompanying WikiProject often struggles to reach any kind of consensus due to lack of participation, so a discussion request on something so trivial would likely have been left collecting dust until it met its fate in the archives. Thus, work is often done on a WP:SILENCE basis. (Not that that's the issue here). Lizard  (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * please chime in here, but my understanding is that the params listed above ARE deprecated. The ones that are not include, and .  so part of the confusion here is that there are a ton of tracking categories associated with this cluster eff of a template. (See Category:Infobox NFL biography tracking categories). Some of these tracking categories are for tracking deprecated params, and some are just for tracking things. For example, there is a Category:NFL player with pastcoaching parameter. I had initially thought this meant that  was deprecated. That is NOT the case. To quote BU Rob13 in the discussion at Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_biography: "The three "past" parameters are just tracked because sometimes it's worth looking at only articles of coaches, admins, or executives. They aren't actually deprecated." Does that help address your question? I realize that thread isn't super clear but the params listed above on this page are 100% deprecated. You will see in the documentation that  and  are not used.  is the replacement. -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 04:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the parameters you listed above in your request are deprecated in favor of the other parameters you've listed, but I still think that simply changing the parameter names to other parameters that achieve the same visual output are cosmetic-only edits. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * that response of mine was written before yours, then edit conflicts.... yey. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 05:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * do you have any thoughts? I know you were part of that discussion as well. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess I just disagree. While I can see where you are coming from, I feel that unifying the transclusions of the template to all use the same parameters has more reaching effects that just a cosmetic change. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing)
 * I don't really have any thoughts. I guess it is cosmetic. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that there is precedent... See User:Monkbot. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 07:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:COSMETICBOT does not apply to this discussion. Removing deprecated parameters from template transclusions so that the template can be modernized and updated by removing those parameters is a substantive change, and when you are doing it to thousands of articles, a bot is the best way to do it. As Zackmann08 notes, User:Monkbot has replaced deprecated parameters in thousands of articles. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but those are all simplifications, which are quite different. These are two different parameter names that do exactly the same thing. The code for them is the same. One is just an alternative parameter from a past template merge. Much more cosmetic, in my opinion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:35, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once consensus is reached that a set of parameters should be deprecated and removed, how else but a bot should thousands of articles be edited to eliminate those parameters? We don't want a regular editor without a bot flag to do it, since that will clutter people's watchlists with edits that they would not normally see. This looks like standard BRFA material to me. I'm confused. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Normally, we don't go out of our way to just swap out parameter names on thousands of templates. I've never seen it done, personally, and I've been told it's better to combine it with other useful cleanup. I've done it using semi-auto or automated scripts before, but always paired with something else. ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * hope I don't sound like I'm arguing with you. I'm truly not! Just trying to understand... I don't see what the issue is. I can manually sit here for 10-20 hours making these edits, or I can have a bot do them. If I have a bot that will do them with 100% accuracy (let's assume for the sake of argument that I could achieve 100%) why wouldn't I just have a bot do it? What is the counter argument here? If I do it by hand it will take me 10-15 seconds per page... If I throttled the bot to only make an edit every 10-15 seconds would that help? -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * pointed out that is also deprecated in favor of . I will add this to the code as well... -- Zackmann08  (Talk to me/What I been doing) 17:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * after the conversation about TV parameters. Seems like you would support this bot yes? There is a clear consensus on the deprecated params. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The "cost" is crowded page histories, unnecessary server load, etc. The argument against allowing bots to make cosmetic-only edits, if I recall correctly, is primarily to prevent the proliferation of such bots. Imagine, for instance, if we had a bunch of bots going around making constant edits to articles moving around whitespace using the AWB genfixes. It's essentially a "slippery slope" argument. No, the encyclopedia will not crash and burn if we allow this one task through. It might if we started allowing lots of these tasks through and some of them operated on an ongoing basis. The edit doesn't do anything but allow us to get rid of a tracking category and take out an alternative parameter name, which doesn't really simplify the template code much at all. I'm not saying you should waste your time doing these manually (please don't!). I'm saying there's no need to do this at all except as a ride-along to other tasks. There are plenty of non-cosmetic cleanup tasks related to sports templates, such as organizing the highlights section and removing unimportant "highlights". I've knocked out many of the pages from these tracking categories in the past by running those changes with the deprecated parameters fixes tacked on as an afterthought. Yes, it takes time, but we can continue fixing up these articles while doing other cleanup at the same time, if that makes sense. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I... Uh... Crap. I got nothing. That's a good point. lol. Your slippery slope argument is 100% valid and appreciate you giving me some context. I think this one is a case that IS on the "right side of the line", but I can absolutely see how it makes it a slippery slope. I'm getting them pretty hammered out anyway. It is amazing how quickly you can do a copy and paste if you open up like 50 tabs at once and then cntrl-tab through them. :-p -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As an aside, WP:COSMETICBOT can 100% be overridden by consensus. If you threw a discussion about this in a somewhat visible place such as a village pump, you may well get consensus that this is on the "right side of the line", and then I'd have no objections. Obtaining consensus helps us stop from slipping. ~ Rob 13 Talk 06:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * noted! I will do that tomorrow... For now... sleep. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 06:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For the record, "highschool" is also deprecated in favor of "high_school". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * made an excellent point about this being a maintenance task: Village_pump_(policy). I would think this also would apply to ZackBot 4. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Would really love to bump this along and at least get a trial. I've done most of the work manually but would love to knock the last few out if possible. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/ZackBot. Nothing jumped out at me as being an issue. Pretty straight forward diffs. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * any movement on this? I know you are both busy with other projects. Would love some feedback. :-) -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's finish this. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2016 (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.