Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 64

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.

DannyS712 bot III 64

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

Time filed: 14:57, Monday, November 25, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available:

Function overview: Patrol redirects with slight differences in apostrophes

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Lots

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Extending Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45 to cover ʻ as well (hadn't seen those before, or I would have included them at the time, but apparently they are used)

Discussion

If possible, I'd like to request speedy approval, so I don't need to add separate logic for handling the trial, now that the bot task in run via cron. I believe that this task falls with Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/Guide#Trials's suggestion of If the task is completely non-controversial, such as extensions to tasks that have already been approved in the past, by an experienced coder in good standing, then the task can be speedily approved without a trial. and Wikipedia:Bot policy#Requests for approval's explanation of Non-controversial, technically-simple tasks or duplicates of existing tasks, especially if performed by trusted bot operators, can be speedily approved. The technical change is just the addition of ʻ in 2 places in the code. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to imagine a scenario where a slight difference in apostrophes would imply a major change in meaning and am coming up empty handed. Plus, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot III 45 was in fact approved. So this seems like an acceptable proposal, although it's not my decision to make. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: do you have an estimate for how large the first run will be? Can you provide an example of 3 pages that need this work done? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Well, I filed this after I came across a few made by @Julia - I patrolled the ones I saw, but I can't image more than one or two a day. As for right now, there are none in the "backlog" that would trigger a larger first run. Had this been filed yesterday, the first run would have covered: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] --DannyS712 (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: thanks, samples look fine. In those samples the updates included 2 page actions, will your bot only be performing 'patrol'? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: the bot marks the page as "reviewed" via the page curation API, and I believe that doing this automatically also marks the page as "patrolled" - the bot should do the same things I did DannyS712 (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: ok so the bot will "mark reviewed" and "mark patrolled"? Can you point to a page where this was recently done under another task? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:30, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Actually, I just checked the logs - Its just "mark reviewed" - most recent bot patrolling: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Press_Release DannyS712 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: that page was 15 years old so things may have changed a bit, got an example of a more recently created page? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Pages get added to the feed when they are converted from redirects to articles (and then back), but, eg, https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Gim+Seyeong DannyS712 (talk) 15:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Approved. minor addition to prior task. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:28, 25 November 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.