User talk:Magic links bot/Archives/2017/May

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2018: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Templates first?

Have you considered converting magic links in templates first? The category contains a bunch of pages that do not actually contain magic links but do transclude templates that have magic links.

Here's a PetScan report of templates in the ISBN magic links category. Since they are templates, it might be best to fix them with AWB instead of a bot, to make sure that the replacements are valid. Templates are strange. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. There are still going to be templates causing magic links that won't be in the category. ({{#if:{{{example|}}}|ISBN {{{example}}}}}) — JJMC89(T·C) 20:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I also found and fixed a whole bunch that were not in the report. I think this means that pages are still trickling into the category. Jonesey95 (talk) 22:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
They definitely are. Categories like this take forever to populate on enwiki. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

ISBN inside citation template

This edit introduced a citation error. The bot should avoid replacing ISBNs that are inside of templates or square brackets, if possible. Thanks. Jonesey95 (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A similar one. Jonesey95 (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: Links have always been excluded. (I assume this is what your are referring to by square brackets.) For both pages the ISBNs shouldn't have been in |title=. I fixed both. Excluding templates will prevent the introduction of citation errors, but in most cases the citations need to be fixed anyway. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. I keep an eye on those CS1 error categories, which is how I noticed those two. Jonesey95 (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Protection of Template:ISBN

I've just full-protected Template:ISBN on enwiki, as it has now become a highly visible, and therefore high-risk, template. I suggest that the equivalent template on other wikis, and all the other templates being generated by this bot, also be protected, for the same reason. -- The Anome (talk) 10:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You may want to consider template protection instead, The Anome. Template protection for w:Module:Check isxn is probably also a good idea. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)