Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ahechtbot 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.
Operator: Ahecht (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:03, Sunday, August 12, 2018 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic (with frequent spot checks)
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: AWB, replacement strings posted at User:Ahechtbot#Task 2
Function overview: Fixes the specific signatures with unclosed formatting tags listed at User:Ahechtbot#Task 2. These are now causing formatting issues on entire pages due to the Change from HTML Tidy to RemexHTML. Also fixes unclosed <s>...</s> tags where found.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Remex: My page is recently broken and I can't figure out why. Continuation of approved task at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Ahechtbot.
Edit period(s): Initially a one-time run. I may do additional runs if I find pages that were missed.
Estimated number of pages affected: 10,000
Namespace(s): User, Wikipedia, and all ...talk namespaces
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (via AWB)
Function details: A week has passed since the run of Task 1 with no complaints, so I am looking to continue with cleanup of specific strings of text that are causing formatting problems on pages. These strings are listed at User:Ahechtbot#Task 2. No "Automatic changes" (genfixes, etc.) will be enabled. All edits will be marked as "bot" and "minor".
Discussion
edit- @Ahecht: regarding the strikeout portion: is this only occurring where the other part of the task is occurring, or in general? — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Currently it's set up to be occurring in general, but if there is concern about overlap with the Galobot BRFA I can switch it to a "minor replacement" and set AWB to skip pages if only minor replacements would be made. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)- @Ahecht: OK to run this WHILE doing your other task, if you want to run it in general on any page please split to a different task, ensure you've documented it on your bot page, etc, etc.. Please include that this may also be done as part of the signature fix task on your bot page. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Currently it's set up to be occurring in general, but if there is concern about overlap with the Galobot BRFA I can switch it to a "minor replacement" and set AWB to skip pages if only minor replacements would be made. --Ahecht (TALK
Approved for trial (200 edits or 7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Trial complete.. I had to add some search strings to catch variants of the signatures that were being missed, and corrected errors in two of the replacement strings, but all the search strings were included in the set of 200, and the last 50 or so edits were made to a random set of pages after the last of the tweaks to the search strings were made. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) One issue, and I missed it in your example reviews. This fix is a problem, as it introduces a template in to a signature in violation of Wikipedia:Signatures#Transclusion_of_templates_(or_other_pages). Either change this one, or take it off the list. How would you like to proceed? — xaosflux Talk 15:23, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I wasn't sure that WP:SIG#NT applied, since the template is being inserted into already rendered signatures, not included in new ones. Also, since it's just part of the style markup, not the links, the first bullet doesn't apply; since this is already a widely used (500,000+ transclusions, and therefore unlikely to be changed without considering server load) and protected template, the second and third bullets don't really apply; since this is not used in placing new signatures, the fourth bullet doesn't apply. I had put the template in there because the signature was exceeding the 255 character requirement before I put in my closing tags and it didn't seem to violate the spirit of WP:SIG#NT, but I can easily substitute it instead if the server load from the template would be a larger problem than the signature length. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)- @Ahecht: for this task, how many more characters will be used to avoid the transclusion? — xaosflux Talk 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: 52. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)- @Ahecht: Just fix it with the extra 52 characters - there aren't THAT many of them. OK? — xaosflux Talk 16:50, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: 52. --Ahecht (TALK
- @Ahecht: for this task, how many more characters will be used to avoid the transclusion? — xaosflux Talk 15:59, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: I wasn't sure that WP:SIG#NT applied, since the template is being inserted into already rendered signatures, not included in new ones. Also, since it's just part of the style markup, not the links, the first bullet doesn't apply; since this is already a widely used (500,000+ transclusions, and therefore unlikely to be changed without considering server load) and protected template, the second and third bullets don't really apply; since this is not used in placing new signatures, the fourth bullet doesn't apply. I had put the template in there because the signature was exceeding the 255 character requirement before I put in my closing tags and it didn't seem to violate the spirit of WP:SIG#NT, but I can easily substitute it instead if the server load from the template would be a larger problem than the signature length. --Ahecht (TALK
- Approved. — xaosflux Talk 18:07, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
- 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.