Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ImageRemovalBot 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: Carnildo (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 19:57, Friday November 9, 2012 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl
Source code available: User:ImageRemovalBot/removebot-badlinks.pl
Function overview: Removing completely-invalid redlinked images from articles
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Once a week
Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown, maybe 25-100 edits per week.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will periodically run through mainspace articles at Category:Articles with missing files and remove any file links where a user has tried to insert an image on an external website (eg. [1]), or on their hard drive (eg. [2]).
The bot is not exclusion-compliant for two reasons: 1) the exclusion templates should not be used in mainspace, where the bot operates, and 2) I can't think of any valid reason to prevent the bot from removing an invalid file link.
Discussion
editTo preemptively answer the question that I'm sure will come up, no, the bot will not be notifying the person who inserted the faulty file link. It's a very difficult task to figure out who it was, and false positives are likely. I'd rather notify nobody at all than notify someone who reverted a page or section blanking. --Carnildo (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- What about the HTML image tag? Will your bot remove them? Or transfer them into a normal wiki markup if the image exists? mabdul 22:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- If the user tried to use the <image> tag rather than the [[]] notation, it won't show up in the category and the bot will never see it. --Carnildo (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 23:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- 50 edits. Four of the links removed were to images hosted on EnWp or Commons; I'd only be comfortable converting one of them to an inline image. There was one problem edit ([3]) that I've adjusted the bot to deal with in the future. --Carnildo (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- There's also this one. Apart from that, it looks good. Is that to say, you'd like to extend the task to converting images where possible (i.e. urls to wikipedia or commons), or just a general side comment? --Chris 15:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you're referring to the bot not removing the item in the "image =" parameter of the infobox, that's because it's not an image. The lack of a "File:", "Image:", or "Media:" prefix makes it a cross-wiki link to a non-existent page named "\All Photos\Tu Tu only pictures\IMG 7789.jpg" on WikiData.
- There's also this one. Apart from that, it looks good. Is that to say, you'd like to extend the task to converting images where possible (i.e. urls to wikipedia or commons), or just a general side comment? --Chris 15:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- 50 edits. Four of the links removed were to images hosted on EnWp or Commons; I'd only be comfortable converting one of them to an inline image. There was one problem edit ([3]) that I've adjusted the bot to deal with in the future. --Carnildo (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- The comment on converting is mostly just a comment. If there had been a higher proportion of good images, I'd be thinking about modifying the bot to convert them. --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool, everything looks fine and dandy 
Approved. --Chris 05:21, 17 November 2012 (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.