Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 20

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

Approved.

BattyBot 20[edit]

Operator: GoingBatty (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:48, Saturday March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Remove invalid |washpo= parameter in {{CongLinks}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 53#Delete broken links

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 325

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: {{CongLinks}}, used in External links, has a |washpo= parameter, for Washington Post. The Washington Post has changed their website, and now the link generated by this parameter in broken if the parameter value contains an underscore. This bot task will remove the invalid parameter value. By using a specific edit summary, interested users will be able to see a list of articles impacted so they can add new parameter values. AWB general fixes will also be done at the same time. Example of test edit done manually: this edit

Discussion[edit]

Will AWB general fixes get rid of the spaces within the template? These are important for ease of readability and updating. As a note for the future, I see the example also shows a bad votesmart link. 26763 works, but the old form shown (H0501103) can be identified by a leading alpha character. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, AWB will not get rid of the spaces within the template - see the example edit above. GoingBatty (talk) 14:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume there is no way to find the right variable and have the bot correct it? MBisanz ^talk 19:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's beyond my level of expertise. If someone else wants to submit a bot request to do that now, I'll be happy to withdraw this request. If someone else wants to submit a bot request after the invalid parameter values are removed, they could do so for all instances where the parameter is blank. GoingBatty (talk) 16:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's fine. Could you try commenting it out instead of removing it? Like ? That way a future bot/person would have the old variable to go off of. MBisanz ^talk 22:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, like this edit? GoingBatty (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would commenting out help? The current (broken) value is the name, roughly the same as the article name. There are currently articles with a correct value, an incorrect value, no value, and no parameter at all. The only helpful future list would be a cross-ref of all Template:Current U.S. Senators (and some lst of U.S. Reps) with anything but the first instance. It would be simpler to scan for no value or no parameter than to have to check for something commented out. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't fully understand what part of the WaPo they were linking to. Knowing that, I'm fine with it just removing the variable (not commenting it out.)

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 10:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - diffs can be found here. Note that I fixed the edit summary halfway through the trial. GoingBatty (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. :-) 184.78.81.245 (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 20:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.