Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Erik9bot 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Approved.

Erik9bot 11[edit]

Operator: Erik9 (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually started, performs edits automatically.

Programming Language(s): Uses AWB with autosave function

Function Overview: Various Wikiproject template maintenance tasks on article talk pages, as requested at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Tagging_for_WP_Journals.

Edit period(s): continuous, as needed

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

Discussion[edit]

Treat {{Infobox academic conference}} the same as {{Infobox journal}}, rather than as the stub templates. Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Okay, though I'm not seeing how they could be treated differently: the behavior in either case would be tagging the talk pages with {{WikiProject Academic Journals}}, if not already present. Erik9 (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well you split them into two bullets. I see that the same action is taken for both. Rich Farmbrough, 18:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Link to note at wikiproject. By transcluding the redirects, you don't mean you'll be putting the wikiproject banner on the talk pages of dabs and the like? Or do you? --68.127.233.138 (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "any redirect thereto" refers to the tagging of talk pages whose associated articles transclude redirects to the templates listed -- e.g. template:Infobox Academic Conference instead of template:Infobox academic conference; disambiguation talk pages would not be tagged, unless their associated pages transcluded the relevant templates or redirects to the templates, which seems unlikely. Erik9 (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 18:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 19:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. – Done [1]. The trial proceeded correctly, except that two empty "class=" parameters were imported [2] [3]; I have modified the relevant regexp to ensure that text after the equality symbol is mandatory, not optional. Erik9 (talk) 02:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: First, {{WP Journals}} should be used rather than {{WikiProject Academic Journals}}, it's neater, and is the preferred use from what I see. Second, |class= should always be added for convenience (editors will eventually write something there, and I know from experience that writing |class= everytime is very annoying when you're doing assessment runs). The |needs-infobox=yes adding/removal was not tested. Does it work? Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is another trial required for the purpose of testing that feature? Erik9 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno if a full blown trial is required, but it should at least be tested in a sandbox (both adding and removing scenarios). If it works once for each type of scenario (all the various spellings of the two infoboxes), it'll work all the time. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 16:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Setting up effective and representative test cases in userspace is unnecessarily tedious. If it's of vital importance to test the addition and removal of the "needs-infobox=yes" parameter prior to approval, then another mainspace trial should be run. Erik9 (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, template:WikiProject Academic Journals is used directly, rather than the redirect template:WP Journals, to reduce server load. While WP:NOTBROKEN advises against the replacement of existing redirects with their targets (except under special circumstances, as when a redirect is being deleted), there seems to be no compelling reason to use template redirects rather than the templates themselves in initial placements. Erik9 (talk) 16:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even more incidentally NOTBROKEN's reasons do not apply to template redirects (without possibilities) when the page is being edited anyway. Rich Farmbrough, 18:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Looks good to approve for me, any final objections? MBisanz talk 19:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Erik9bot_11&oldid=405739834"