Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5

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.

TedderBot 5[edit]

Operator: Tedder (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): perl

Source code available: yes, GitHub

Function overview: automagically remove {{current}} template (and others, currently {{current related}}) from stale pages.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): probably every 30-90 minutes.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~10 pages per day.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes.

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

Function details: See User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot.

Discussion[edit]

I'm not sure personally about the two hours, but we'll see if the discussion at the template talk page continues to support that. Maybe there could be an on-wiki page with a number, which the bot reads, to allow for easy changing of the hours? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not too sure about the exact number, but I'm fine having a dial that can be moved around. I'm really nervous about having a dial that makes it too easy to move around, so it'd probably end up being full-protected, which means it's not anymore useful than having it as a constant in the script. I'll add in trivial support for per-template timing when needed, meaning {{current}} might be 2 hours and {{current-foo}} might be 12 hours. tedder (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for this. Perhaps the nominator was mixed up between this template, which only comes to inform the reader and editor that the subject is current and prone to sudden changes in content, and Template:Under construction, which indeed informs us that the article is under active construction. Even for that case, I think we do not need a bot, and the occasional conscientious editor can take care of removing it, if needed. Debresser (talk) 05:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A number of other editors and I spend a great deal of time removing the template. I personally have removed it over 100 times since mid-February. Abductive (reasoning) 07:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest an alternative strategy for picking how long to leave the template before removing it: start with no edits in 24 hours, and wind the figure down until someone complains the bot is too aggressive, then back off a fair way (eg, if there's a complaint at 3 hours, make the setting 6). What of the other templates, such as {{Under construction}} - do you plan to monitor them at some point in the future? Josh Parris 13:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I originally asked for 12 hours since the last edit. In my experience removing templates, I have found that the template is applied to three broad classes of articles: completely inappropriate articles where it should never have been applied in the first place, articles whose topic or some aspect of the topic have had some brief mention in the news, and the busy articles for which the template is quite appropriate. 12 hours since any edit means that there isn't going to be any new information. I'm speaking both in terms of editing load and the real world news cycle here. The bot is supposed to supplement editors who look for inappropriate uses of the template, not to enforce the guideline on its use. (In other words, to find forgotten and neglected templates.) So I have no problem starting at 12 hours (most editors on the talk page wanted 2 hours) and seeing how it goes. Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other time-sensitive templates can be added to the bot's roster through the usual bot request channel. Right now {{current}} and {{current related}} are the ones that have consensus. Abductive (reasoning) 21:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's see what a trial throws up. Josh Parris 02:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.. I made one pass through the articles with the template in place (snapshot). I made two mistakes: first, I forgot that the consensus here was to move back to 12 hours at first, so I ran it at 2 hours. Second, I found a little logic bug that meant it accidentally removed it from a non-stale template. I fixed the bug and manually rolled back the one page that had been affected. tedder (talk) 00:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And more- to state it clearly here, I looked through each edit to ensure there were no regex problems. I've also rolled back a "stale current" page to see how the bot handles it. I'll have to wait, since the bot now sees that page as having a current edit, not a stale edit. tedder (talk) 00:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the editors who scans for non-appropriate uses of the template, the 12-hour edit will only pick up the most egregious mis-uses of the template. Perhaps all the author intends. I was the advocate of the 2-hour span, as the historical purpose of the template was to warn editors not to step on each others' edits, when there are hundreds of edits a day in some crisis topic. Somewhere above 95% of the uses of the template are superfluous.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that the bot will help editors who remove the templates, not replace them. For example, I spot an article where the current template has just been applied. The person who applied it is still active. I know that the template is inappropriate, but if I remove it, the other editor may get upset. I could wait, but I have to go to sleep or work sometimes. So the bot will provide a backstop. Now if the bot does need to be sped up, that request can be made after a few weeks. Even so, the current-related template may have to stay at 12 hours. Abductive (reasoning) 01:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to limit its activities to namespace 0; would it be reasonable to operate in other namespaces? Josh Parris 01:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. For what purpose? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes a current event template is addede to a talk page, or a template, but I'm not sure if the bot should cover these cases. --Conti|✉ 06:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if approved, the bot should be used for all the current event templates (since their purpose is always the same): Template:Current, Template:Current disaster, Template:Current person, Template:Current related, Template:Current sport, Template:Current tropical cyclone, and possibly Template:Current spaceflight (That one has slightly different guidelines). Most of these templates are rarely used, so that shouldn't be a problem. --Conti|✉ 06:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bot edit message change desirable[edit]

It is not appropriate for the Bot to cite a page that is a redirect, and the page acronym is essentially meaningless with a defunct title, because of the months' ago deletion of the "future" templates. Here's the edit summary as of this date:

(remove stale current-event template, please see WP:CAFET. (bot edit))

The link to WP:CAFET once upon a time redirected to "Wikipedia:Current and future event templates", which was in October 2009 moved to: WP:Current event templates, after the "future" templates were all deleted in 2009.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What edit summary would you prefer be used? It'd be nice to have a short link, but I don't see any others. I'm happy to change it either now or after the BRFA is over. tedder (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot could simply link to the guideline on the template itself, since they're always the same, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 07:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd much rather link to a template. So I've created WP:CET as a shortcut and changed the edit summary: "[[User:TedderBot/CurrentPruneBot|remove stale current-event template]], please see [[WP:CET]]. (bot edit)" tedder (talk) 17:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Where are we at tedder? Josh Parris 11:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll follow up with conti on the edit summary issue. Otherwise I'm not aware of other issues during the test run, so I was waiting for BAG's blessing to add it to my cron. tedder (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. I'm sure you will continue to improve the bot based on feedback from other community members. Josh Parris 05:02, 27 May 2010 (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.