Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 3

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

Withdrawn by operator.

Fbot 3[edit]

Operator: Fastily (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 02:37, Monday July 18, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently, although I'll probably post a copy in my userspace soon.

Function overview: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 3-4k at most

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Same as above: de-transcludes file license tags from non-file namespaces by adding "tnull" in front of the template.

Discussion[edit]

The bot should have some kind of exclusion list (or even just follow {{bots}}), just in case there is a legitimate reason for a template to be transcluded (maybe its on a page showing examples or something). --Chris 11:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that sounds reasonable. {{bots}} it is. I've adjusted the run details above accordingly. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at User_talk, File_talk, and Talk for just one template - it appears that this template is occasionally transcluded as part of regular discussion. Would it make sense to exclude all talk pages (perhaps even 'just for now')? SQL ^{Query me!} 13:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but these templates were not intended for use in discussions. Image license tags inappropriately categorize non-file pages (i.e. category pollution) into categories intended for files. The bot will untransclude file license tags so that non-file description pages are not inappropriately categorized. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't you just make categorisation namespace-dependent? Or is avoiding transclusions on Special:WhatLinksHere also necessary? If so, why? Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept of making categorization namespace dependent, but IMHO, it lacks practicality. We have a large number of license tags which would require the addition of a new parserfunction to each and every template. Furthermore, employing such a protocol would make creating new license tags unnecessarily complicated for non-coders. While a side goal of this bot is to help clean up license tag tranclusions in Special:WhatLinksHere, the main purpose of the bot is to maintain and clean up categories pertaining to media file license tags. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:47, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, do they not have a meta-template that could be edited? I haven't looked. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. The vast majority of image license tags are constructed with templates such as {{imbox}} or just plain raw code. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be (possibly too?) blunt, I would greatly prefer to see the underlying templates corrected, over constantly having to maintain all the affected pages indefinitely. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second that. It may take a few days, but it'll solve the root of the problem, instead of chipping at the symptoms as they appear (if you pardon the House-esque analogy). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me. Please consider this request withdrawn if a volunteer willing to maunally update all 200+ file licenses templates over the span of a few days can be found. Otherwise, I'd like to run this bot task. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the templates and made 3 changes. It looks like almost all the tags already employ {{file other}}. Do you by any chance have a list of templates that have caused mis-categorization? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a list, but I'm sure one could easily be generated. I'd write the script to do that but I'm currently on vacation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Since there doesn't appear to be consensus for this bot, I'd like to formally withdraw this request. Thanks, FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. per operator SQL ^{Query me!} 08:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling, not relivant to this request for approval

Please

I'll just chime in to say that Fastily is involved minor controversy. He and a few other has been converted to a novel interpretation of our guidelines-- specially he calls for us WP to effectively surrender our fair use rights in virtually all cases. This new 'interpretation' of guideline has proven to be very controversial, especially as Fastily has not always been careful to establish a consensus for this change.

I'll leave it to wiser minds to decide whether this bot would be worthwhile.

But this is a user we probably should be looking at restoring to editor for a wikibreak, not an editor we should be further empowering-- that will just cause more demoralization and discontent. Free Images only is a great idea, but it's not Wikipedia. Fastily missed the boat on this-- don't be giving him robotic minions to propagate his errors. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This thread is now the subject of an ongoing WP:ANI discussion here -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to ask, how is this relevant to the bot task? The task's scope is very precise and there is no ambiguity in function details. What harm (hypothetically) do you suppose this task can do? Does Fastily have history of misusing alternative/bot account? It's not like he is allowed run it for any other unapproved tasks. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with H3llkn0wz. I do not see how this is relevant to the requested task. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. It would only impact on the assessment of this bot request if community trust in Fastily had been eroded to the the point that he called into question his/her competency in running a bot in line with WP:BOTPOL. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which hasn't happened. I'm closing this nonsense down. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 6 August 2011 (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.