Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 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

Denied.

DannyS712 bot 5

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 10:07, Sunday, February 10, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Substitute templates in Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 45, User talk:AnomieBOT

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: >100 per run, I'd guess around 200 each

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Currently, AnomieBOT won't substitute templates with more than 100 transclusions unless the specific template is listed at User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force. There are a number of templates currently with more than 100 transclusions and not listed there. I would, using AWB, simply substitute the templates that AnomieBOT won't do automatically, to avoid editors needing to add it to the force list each time. (I have AnomieBOT's page on my watchlist, so this would be run as needed when I see it post about needing help)

Discussion

What's the point of duplicating the work of AnomieBOT when the templates could just be added to its subpage and handled that way? Nihlus 10:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: Why not request template editor rights? So that you can add templates to User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force by yourself. Hhkohh (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you do not have a template editor right, you can have an edit request on User talk:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force Hhkohh (talk) 11:07, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  @Hhkohh: Yes, but that would both require other editors to help me and potentially clutter up the list of templates. --DannyS712 (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hhkohh: I'm not sure I'm qualified for TE rights, and, in response to @Nihlus, this wouldn't duplicate the work of AnomieBOT, but rather assist it - I would manually run this on templates that AnomieBOT can't cope with, on an as-needed basis --DannyS712 (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of templates currently with more than 100 transclusions and not listed there – Okay, well what is that number? And, maybe I'm missing something, but what do you mean by AB can't cope? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: I was referring to WikiProject Andorra, Polytonic, WikiProject Guam, and about a dozen more (see that talk page). By "can't cope", I mean that the code for that task includes the check if($row->{'ct'} > $max_transclusions && !($force{$title} // 0)){ that tells it not to automatically substitute templates with more than 100 transclusions unless explicitly told. In such cases, I could manually determine that the templates should be substituted, and then do so - I can already do this with AWB, but I just don't want to push the save button so many times :) --DannyS712 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But User:AnomieBOT/TemplateSubster force is exactly how AnomieBOT does cope with these pages. The 100x limit isn't because the bot can't handle such things, it's to prevent disruption and mass-editing of something because someone disrupted a template. The links on that talk page are a good example — nearly all were just recently rewritten and added to Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted by User:Gonnym. The bot is performing its task appropriately by saying "Hey, something big changed — someone should check that this is kosher and tell me to go ahead" rather than charging ahead and making thousands and thousands of edits because one editor changed some templates. I don't think this BRfA is necessary at all. Folks should review the changes made to the templates — especially since they were done in bulk — then add them to the force page if desired. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:46, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amorymeltzer, see also:User talk:Gonnym#FYI Hhkohh (talk) 11:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of coping or not, as it can clearly perform the task you are wanting your bot to do. That's the basic definition of duplication. Nihlus 11:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on a process point (noting the discussion helpfully linked by Hhkohh) it looks like you made about 100 of these edits, filed this BRfA to handle such edits, and then proceeded to make about 500 more of them anyway. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Amorymeltzer: Yes. Sorry, but did I do something wrong? I'm just trying to help improve the encyclopedia --DannyS712 (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. As mentioned in the discussion above, there are good reasons for the "100-edits" stopgap, and plenty of TPEs watch the bot's page to take care of such issues. To answer DannyS712's last question, nothing has been done wrong, just that it might have been a little unnecessary to manually make 500 edits when the bot can handle it. Primefac (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2019 (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.