Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContinuityBot 2

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.

ContinuityBot 2

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

Time filed: 01:43, Tuesday January 22, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Base framework (Wiki-Java framework @ http://code.google.com/p/wiki-java/ ) already open-source. Task specific code to be released on GitHub after testing complete.

Function overview: This is a copy of FBot task 4/Svenbot 2.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Svenbot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContinuityBot

Edit period(s): Twice a month.

Estimated number of pages affected: Based off of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 4, 10,000 but will rapidly go down after initial run.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: See Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 4. Note this bot will be run on Labs and may have output to IRC if requested for logging.

Discussion

Requesting speedy approval. Piandcompany (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this code an exact duplicate or modified?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This code should work as it was re-written during the summer at Wikimania, so that will be the same but modified if new templates are added. The base code that runs the bot script will be modified in the next weeks as it's right now stable, but messy (basically so it can then be more readable for when it is open sourced). Piandcompany (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy approval usually doesn't happen unless the code is identical. I would support a 50 edit trial.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 03:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a problem, 50 edits might not find it, heck 5,000 edits might not find it. The only way to make sure that everything is going to work is to make sure that the template blacklist and whitelist are correct for both this task and it's (already approved) converse task. At least for the first run, spot checks need to be done periodically. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. but, as Sven mentions, please do pay careful attention if and when this task is approved. MBisanz ^talk 12:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By request of Incnis Mrsi, I have added the following templates, Obsolete, PNG version available, Vector version available, and Superseded-Image. These templates have also been added to Task I. Piandcompany ^chat 16:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Piandcompany ^chat 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link to edits: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20130122163959&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=ContinuityBot&namespace=6 Piandcompany ^chat 22:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added {{Deleted on Commons}} to task list as per discussion. Piandcompany ^chat 00:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also have other Commons-related problem tags on the list such as {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added that tag to the list. See http://fpaste.org/U1O1/ for the Task II list. Piandcompany ^chat 11:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so here are some more tags which should probably be in that list: {{di-dw no source}}, {{di-dw no license}}, {{OTRS received}}, {{out of copyright in}}, {{di-fails NFCC}}, {{di-disputed fair use rationale}}. {{PD-laws}} may be a problem if the source country isn't the United States, but I don't know if that reason is enough to add the template to the blacklist. Also, all non-free copyright tags and fair use rationale templates should presumably be in the list too. A number of templates, such as {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}, transclude {{Do not move to Commons}}. Is it enough to list {{Do not move to Commons}} there, or is it necessary to also list {{PD-HHOFFMANN}}? I don't see why {{Split media - processed}} is in the list. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add those initial templates to the list. PD-laws should be added (unless there is a specifc reason to exclude it) just for safety's sake. I'll need to check to see if the framework inharets templates correctly as well. Split media processed is there as it is currently undergoing a deletion process, thus should not be moved until such issues are resolved. Piandcompany ^chat 18:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's try another trial, just to be sure. MBisanz ^talk 18:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Did a complete check off all files edited, no f-p's detected. Piandcompany ^chat 01:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean

Trial complete.. A bot depends on these tags to keep the main request page organized and it let's BAG know the trial finished as they are more likely to see it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 18:42, 31 January 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.