Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 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.
Operator: Legoktm (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:42, Thursday September 13, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: standard pywikipedia with modifications
Function overview: Marks broken redirects for speedy deletion
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): botreq
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: ~25-50/day
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
- Gets a list of pages from Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken redirects
- Checks that each page exists, and is a redirect page
- Verifies that the target page does not exist
- Mark for deletion using
{{db-redirnonebot|bot=Legobot}}
Discussion[edit]
Approved for trial (50 edits or 5 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 17:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Trial complete.. I kept a log here, however I'm not 100% confident that has everything. There are 4 bluelinks on that page, 3 of which were vandalism, and 1 was a misspelling. LegoKontribsTalkM 17:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- This is precisely what I was hoping to see when I requested this bot — it both succeeds in having useless redirects deleted and in having damaged-but-useful redirects sent back to being useful. Nyttend (talk) 02:41, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Do you want another trial or are you confident you've fixed everything? MBisanz talk 13:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure those are bugs though. The bot currently can't detect anything except whether the redirect is broken or not. I could add in something that would check if the page had content before it was redirected, but I'm not sure what the bot would do after that? Revert? Tag with something else? Personally I think that being tagged for CSD (while erroneous) gets attention faster for a human to look at it, than it would if just left alone. As for the misspelling, since that was the original edit to the page, I don't think there is anyway the bot could have caught that. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Those aren't bugs. Many redirects with old histories should be deleted, and all of them qualify for speedy deletion regardless of what should be done with them. The bot's using a speedy deletion template with a big warning to admins to check for possible targets before deleting; it really can't know what to do, and by bringing these redirects to administrative attention, the bot is taking care of them quite well. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure those are bugs though. The bot currently can't detect anything except whether the redirect is broken or not. I could add in something that would check if the page had content before it was redirected, but I'm not sure what the bot would do after that? Revert? Tag with something else? Personally I think that being tagged for CSD (while erroneous) gets attention faster for a human to look at it, than it would if just left alone. As for the misspelling, since that was the original edit to the page, I don't think there is anyway the bot could have caught that. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:33, 21 September 2012 (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.