Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GargoyleBot

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.

GargoyleBot

Operator: IronGargoyle (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted at start of each run, makes edit automatically until completion.

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Replacement of deprecated templates by those that supersede them.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Depends, pretty much a one-time run, but that one time can be repeated, see summary for details.

Edit rate requested: 6 edits per Minute (kept low to reduce server load)

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function Details: This bot is a clone of ^demonBot2 (now abandoned by ^demon, blocked, and de-flagged) and, as such, the summary and function details are taken directly from the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/^demonBot2... AWB will work off ~~a list of regex's provided by me (working~~ from what is listed at Category:Deprecated_templates), going through and replacing old templates with their newer replacements. I say "Manually Assisted at Start" up above, because at the beginning of each run, the templates will need to be manually entered, ~~as some require complex syntax changes that can't be predicted by a bot merely running from a list in a category.~~ However, once set to run, the bot will run until the templates are gone. Perhaps (haven't decided yet) listing the template on Wikipedia:TFD after completion, to help reduce the backlog of useless templates. I've been doing quite a few template replacements myself, but it's getting to be quite a handful, and after coming across a listing of almost 800 transclusions (for a template made useless by a mediation), I decided to get bot approval, so I can finally eliminate the backlog of deprecated templates.

Discussion

How will you handle nested templates? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a case-by-case basis. I presume by nested template you are referring to a template transcluded within another template? If there were to be changes made to a nested template, I doubt that they would be of the edit-volume where bot-work would be necessary. Unless I'm misunderstanding the question... Could you provide me an example where working with a nested template necessitated bot-work? It's obviously an issue where care is needed (despite Wikipedia:AUM being rejected), and the potential for damage is higher when meta/nested templates are involved, so considerable care would be taken if such a case were to occur (not that it wouldn't be anyway). IronGargoyle (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{infobox foo
|param1 = {{bar}}
|param2 = boz
}}

Imagine that you need to replace param2 with param3. If you match templates using simple regexen like \{\{(.*?)\}\} in that particular case you will match only infobox with the only parameter, param1 = {{bar. Nested parameters are quite popular in infoboxes, many biography-related infoboxes receive {{birth date and age}} and things like that as parameters. Since you're using AWB, I suggest switching to custom module that would invoke built-in helpers, such as Parsers.GetTemplate(). MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will probably stick with simpler templates, not having any programming experience with regex. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find us an example template that needs to be changed and post the find and replace lines you would use here? --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I would convert {{Non-free DVD cover}} to {{Non-free video cover}}. There are over 5000 transclusions and I want to get cracking per this TfD discussion. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sample edits

Above is a sample of 5 diffs from the trial run. Best, IronGargoyle (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has any reason why this bot should not be approved, let them speak now or forever hold their peace. — Werdna talk 22:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — Werdna talk 13:51, 4 April 2008 (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.