Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 6

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.

Cyberbot II 6

Operator: Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 23:36, Monday, August 31, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: No

Function overview: Move manually added categories to train related infoboxes.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Here

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: about 2000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: The bot will look for articles in DfT categories and move the category from the article, to the article's infobox.

Discussion

This goes against the recommendation of WP:TCAT. While I agree this may be a situation where categorizing via templates is appropriate, I would think a discussion at the relevant WikiProject is warranted to ensure that the editors in this area see a benefit to populating these content categories using a template. ~ Rob^Talk 23:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:I felt the discussion that took place in the bot request addresses this issue sufficiently. Since this is only guideline and since the concerns mentioned here are addressed in the template's coding. The arguments that this more efficiently organizes categorization of train articles is convincing enough to allow for creation of this bot. This is also a task that can easily be reversed in the unlikely event, that this task is troublesome. As it is right now, the setup is inconsistent, with roughly half of the articles using the parameter and the other half manually categorized. — ^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::My worry is that the opinions among those frequenting WP:Bot requests may be different from the opinions among those who edit these articles frequently and actually live with this solution. ~ Rob^Talk 00:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
:::I understand your concerns completely, but the inconsistent implementations are a bigger problem. Either we need to leave the categories there, or we finish moving them, but we are sitting in an in between and that clearly can't be left like that. I propose letting this bot run, see if there are any problems, and if there are, I'll have my bot undo everything. This is really easy to accomplish and implement. — ^cyberpower_Chat:Online 01:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
::::Fair enough, I don't object to that. ~ Rob^Talk 01:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. although this request should likely stay open for a short while after the trial to see if anyone has comments. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 15:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That run was completely off. So I massed rollbacked all 50 edits. I'm putting in a patch to try it a second time, being more careful this time of course. — ^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. It looks like the bot completed its run before completing the trial, which would suggest, someone didn't bother to let the people over at WP:BOTREQ know. Time wasted here. Moving on... — ^cyberpower_Chat:Online 01:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cyberpower678: Are you sure about that? I checked a random article, and it hasn't been converted. See Blackwater railway station. ~ Rob^Talk 02:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single case where the bot set |dft_category=, nor one where it correctly removed a category link from the bottom of the page. The messages left are confusing too: for instance, why was this message left? There are several more like it. Also, are you going to clear up the duplicate messages at e.g. Talk:Liverpool Lime Street railway station? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am so ashamed of myself. I have never in my life created and deployed a script with so many problems. :-( — ^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Massive amounts of typos in my script. I'm not sure what was going through my mind as I wrote it, but it should function now, as I tested it on an article. I reverted all the messages and disabled them. I will make a few final checks before re-running my bot, again. I think I've disrupted the encyclopedia enough at this point. — ^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. for real this time. — ^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link to a page showing the edits? ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 15:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are basically good, although some whitespace has been unnecessarily or even undesirably added. For example, in this edit, there are now two blank lines between the infobox and the introductory paragraph, which increases the gap at the top (no blank lines are necessary here). In the same edit, there is now a blank line part-way through the cats. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the code to maintain line spacing. — ^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it touching so much whitespace? :O ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 15:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an attempt to tidy up the code by lining up the parameters to make it more readable in the edit window.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 15:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 16:03, 4 September 2015 (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.

@Addshore: Why was this signed off when some of the problems that I pointed out have not been resolved? See for instance this edit where a blank line has been left in the place of the removed category. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize. I somehow missed the blank line left behind when removing the category. A side effect of me not reading the diff correctly. On the other hand the bot is done with it's run. Looking back, this has probably been the worst BRFA I have ever pushed through. I've been so careless here lately, perhaps I should reduce my activity on wikipedia for a bit, to pull myself together again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs)

This is a large failure on my part, I totally missed the line when I checked through the final lots of diffs... *prepares to go and fix them all* ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]