Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RscprinterBot 4

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.

RscprinterBot

Operator: Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 20:51, Thursday March 22, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Removes article categories from userpages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:USERNOCAT, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 46#Remove article categories from User pages, BattyBot BRFA for the same task

Edit period(s): Multiple runs

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: On user pages, change any article categories from [[Category:Foo]] to [[:Category:Foo]] (e.g. this link)

Discussion

Note: This is an exact duplicate of BattyBot's ninth task. I would have taken it first (as shown on the link to the bot request above) but hadn't the time. I'm requesting it now to share the responsibility of the task, and expect a speedy approval. Rcsprinter (speak) 20:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this decategorization? Josh Parris 22:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to avoid the problem at https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User:CalvinSays/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=482648167 ? Josh Parris 22:20, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking a trial against Category:All disambiguation pages, how many are in there now? Josh Parris 22:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh. If I may provide responses to your questions:

I see that BattyBot changed two article categories on User:Starling0616. Do you see a problem with this edit?
Rcsprinter should be able to avoid the problem I had on User:CalvinSays/sandbox by using the revised F&R rule posted here
There are currently 180 user pages in Category:All disambiguation pages. However, I would expect that many of the user pages are in the category because they contain {{disambiguation}} or {{sandbox}}, and modifying or remove the template was not in the scope of my bot request.

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:07, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On User:Starling0616, Josh was referring to the article wizard category, but I can programme it to avoid those. For the rest, GoingBatty's answered for me. Rcsprinter (chatter) 16:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you avoid commented out cats? Rich Farmbrough, 15:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I don't know who'd comment out a category, but yes. I wouldn't be on that page anyway because that wouldn't be how I found the article categories, it would be through the pages in the category itself. Rcsprinter (yak) 18:04, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting out categories is one way to not display them, thus it's widely used to avoid mis-categorizing the pages. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I know that, but I still wouldn't be on any pages with them for the reasons I explained above. Rcsprinter (natter) 10:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible though, if sort of unlikely. A user could have commented out categories and then added an uncommented one. Or the bot may have stumbled on a page with commented cats because a template is adding it to categories. In any case, afaik AWB can handle comments. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What happens on Category:Articles created via the Article Wizard pages? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is trained to not touch any text with that category in. Why are you asking me all this stuff now, instead of GoingBatty before? It's an exact duplicate I tell you, and you approved that without too much bother, so why are you picking mine apart? Rcsprinter (state) 11:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BattyBot BRFA did not mention this particular case, therefore I asked. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. No problems found. Rcsprinter (talk to me) 11:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Edits look good. All details clarified. Previously approved task. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:06, 25 March 2012 (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.