Meta:Requests for bot status/AvocatoBot
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.
AvocatoBot[edit]
- AvocatoBot (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • CA • email)
I'd like to request bot flag for fixing redirects and fixing double redirects.--Avocato (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- Hi, a double redirect bot is not usually an issue, but my bot, User:Thehelpfulbot does this task from time to time and meta doesn't have many double redirects that aren't example redirects of a double redirect. You mention that you're going to be fixing redirects, by this do you mean broken redirects? I'm unsure how a bot will be able to do this - if you're going to be using pywikipedia, will it be tagging pages for deletion (as it would need to be an admin bot to actually delete them)? Note, this is by no means an oppose to your request, just a couple of questions. :-) Best, The Helpful One 17:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi The Helpful One, I see no problem with helping other bots in fixing double redirects :)
- No, i didn't mean dealing with broken redirects. When i said "fixing redirects", i was talking about making edits like this one. --Avocato (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, yes I agree that more bots isn't necessarily a bad idea. I like the script that you're using to basically replace redirects with links to the redirected page, is it a pywikipedia bot script? The Helpful One 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. --Avocato (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For anyone else reading this, the source code is here, it's intended to be used for Featured Articles on a wiki, but it's not used on en-wiki for example because of the not broken rule:
- Yes. --Avocato (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, yes I agree that more bots isn't necessarily a bad idea. I like the script that you're using to basically replace redirects with links to the redirected page, is it a pywikipedia bot script? The Helpful One 19:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi The Helpful One, I see no problem with helping other bots in fixing double redirects :)
- Reasons not to change (bypass) redirects include:
- Redirects can indicate possible future articles.
- Introducing unnecessary invisible text makes the article more difficult to read in page source form.
- Non-piped links make better use of the "what links here" tool, making it easier to track how articles are linked and helping with large-scale changes to links.
- Shortcuts or redirects to subsections of articles or Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links.
- If editors persistently use a redirect instead of an article title, it may be that the article needs to be moved rather than the redirect changed. As such the systematic "fixing of redirects" may eradicate useful information which can be used to help decide on the "best" article title.
- Reasons not to change (bypass) redirects include:
- Does this apply to Meta-Wiki? Well, perhaps not the first bullet point, but some of the others make valid arguments against fixing_redirects.py unfortunately. The Helpful One 11:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. Actually, i didn't found any policies here prevent operating fixing_redirects.py, but i won't operate it because of points you told. I will just fix double redirects then. :)--Avocato (talk) 12:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
- In which case, I will find an crat to approve this for you. Best, The Helpful One 13:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And approved for fixing double redirects, bot flag set. -Barras 13:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]