Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XVII

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.

SmackBot XVII

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Rich Farmbrough

Automatic or Manually assisted: Auto

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Settings/lifetime

Function overview: replace the short-cut template "lifetime" with the DEFAULTSORT keyword and the categories it generates.

Edit period(s): Once.

Estimated number of pages affected: 60,000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Effectively the same as subst: but moves the DEFAULTSORT to the top of the category list where it belongs.

Discussion

Simple process. Possibly YoBot will also be making an application for the same task. Rich Farmbrough, 13:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

What's the reason for doing this? Is it simply to get the DEFAULTSORT to the right place? Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That is part of it, people miss the hidden DEFAULTSORT and add another, possibly conflicting. They also miss the birth/death categories and re-add those, or Category:Living people. As you say, the main problem is hiding of information. Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC).

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. okay, lets see how it manages - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here looks OK to me so far. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

Yup, I've looked at most of those ones, it did very well, managed fine in a few of the cases I thought would be more difficult. What do you plan to do with the old lifetime template once this is approved? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ideally make it subst only, if necessary I can fix the handful of new ones as they occur. Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC).

 Approved. Good argument for why this is useful, and good edits. As for the template, I'd suggest editing the documentation to encourage substing, but allow users to use it as it currently is, and then have the bot clear up after them every now and again (this will allow users to still have the easy-to-use short-cut template, and it will keep the page tidy). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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.