Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DinoBot2

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

Denied.

DinoBot2[edit]

Operator: T-rex

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): C#

Function Summary: converts html elements to wiki markup

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):run once per week

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

Function Details: To be run primarily on the wikify catagories;

Converts tags for <b> <i> <em> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6>

Similar to what I was previously running at DinoBot

Also handles <a href="example.com">link text</a> as a special case

Ignores all articles with nowiki tags, to avoid where this change is unwanted

Discussion[edit]

I don't see why this is necessary. — Werdna talk 12:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary, but it's much perferable for a bot to do this rather then to do it by hand --T-rex 21:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this why you have AWB? —paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 23:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you do it by hand? — Werdna talk 00:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. Thats why I've made a bot to do it for me. --T-rex 02:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, {{wikify}} articles with HTML markup need to be checked for copyright violations. --Carnildo (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this task has been done before (DinoBot)—what differences will there be this time around, if any? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no significant differences from before. The main difference is that this bot is able to look through the articles based on category, rather then by template. Functionally the result should appear to be the same. --T-rex 21:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just keep using the same old bot then? IMO it's already "approved" in that sense. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 06:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. If you look at the logs you will see that it's been awhile since DinoBot has been run. Some changes to wikipedia since then have prevented it from running properly. Eventually I decided that I would rather write a new one. While I guess I could have run it under the same account I have decided not to. --T-rex 17:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is this bot approved or not? --T-rex 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objections, but another opinion won't hurt. If nobody comes here soon try {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O)

Please don't replace <h#> tags. They are subtly different from using === signs: they don't create edit section links. Contrast:

Example using <h6>

with

Example using equals signs[edit]

Thanks, Smith609 Talk 14:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that the edit section links were preferred. (I should probably note that this bot will only be editing in the mainspace). Still if this is not wanted, it would be trivial to remove that. --T-rex 15:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Werdna here, it is not necessary, just a waste of resources ... -- maelgwn - talk 02:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, these are the kinds of things that could be included in AWB general fixes, but no reason to edit pages just for this. Mr.Z-man 04:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are already in AWB general fixes...Soxred 93 16:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bot is not AWB --T-rex 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the people who do use AWB can fix this without even intending to. Soxred 93 20:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for assistance per dihydrogen monoxide's suggestion. Can I get this bot approved already? thanks --T-rex 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Anyone here? It looks as if I may have to approve the bot myself? --T-rex 14:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can not do that and it simply looks like you are pressuring the BAG for the approval; please let the BAG deliberate over your request (it has only been 10 days since you filed the request) and we will get back to you. — E ↗^T ^C ^B 09:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I am pressing BAG for approval. Last time I did this I had the idea approved, the bot tested, and the bot approved, and the bot flagged all within five days. Now I'm twice as long out and all this request has to show for itself is some generically positive comments from Dihydrogen Monoxide (but no approval), a legit concern by Smith609 (but no follow up), and a discussion of somebody else's bot. So I am going to keep pressing, because nothing is getting done. --T-rex 13:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only objections anyone seems to have are "Is this task really necessary?" and "Hasn't this been approved once already?", which somewhat negate each other. Why not just approve this bot for a standard trial run and move on? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to justify the need to make these stylistic edits, as you are required to per WP:BOT. Why is it necessary to make this sort of edit? --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to spell it out for you? Wikipedia makes use of a markup language known as "wikitext", the idea being that it is seen as an easier markup language then html, and allows the project to control what styles are possible to be used to create a more uniform appearance. Some HTML tags are allowed to be mixed in with the wikitext, but policy states that "you should avoid HTML in favor of Wiki markup whenever possible". As such some new users to wikipedia who know html sometimes make use of it. Fortunately for us, the patterns used in html are easy to identify, and as such a convertion from html to wikitext can easily be preformed by an automated process. That is what this bot will do. Currently Wikiproject Wikify (Wikipedia:WPWF) has a 14 month backlog of over 14,000 articles and could use all the help then can get. This bot is an attempt to do just that. There was some question over this the first time I had this task approved, but as you can see, the bot found plenty of work to do [1]. --T-rex 02:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been over two weeks with no action taken on this request. As such I'm going to go ahead and do what I joked about earlier and approve the bot myself for a 50 edit trial. I would still welcome any comments/approval from BAG, but have realized that waiting forever isn't going to do anyone any good. Please feel free to continue this conversation. I hope to have the trial run completed in a day or two. --T-rex 14:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You CANNOT do this, consensus has not been reached for this to go ahead or not to and as such needs to be evaluated by BAG. If your bot edits it will be blocked for not being approved. -- maelgwn - talk 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and why not? BAG has had ample opportunity to look at the request. I would love for them to go ahead and formalize it, but I see no point in sitting around and waiting for all wikilawyering to continue to say nothing. If you want to try and build a consensus one way or the other, by all means please go ahead. However besides one comment suggesting a trial run [2] there has been nothing said regarding this since this edit[3] a full nine days ago. If you can give me a good reason not to go ahead with the test that is not founded on wikilawyering, I'll stop and reconsider. --T-rex 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found some issues with the bot. As a result it looks as if you will get a few more days to try to get others to discus this. --T-rex 16:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well to begin with, Bot policu requires a bot to be useful and not an unnecessary waste or resources. This task could just be considered useful but as for being i think it fits perfectly in being a waste of resources. -- maelgwn - talk 00:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not 100% convinced the way you're going about this is the best possible one, I'd like to point out that you can easily work around the lack of formal trial approval by manually reviewing each edit before saving it and making the edits under your own account: that makes them "assisted" rather than "automated", and thus not subject to the full provisions of the bot policy. Just make sure you note this clearly in the edit summary. The user of your own account is to stop someone from interpreting the username policy literally and blocking your bot account as "unapproved bot or misleading username". HTH. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm aware of this, but in my view that really defeats the point of having a bot in the first place. Seeing as how the code to allow for the bot to edit it is already in place, there is no real benefit to be had from taking it out, and doing it manually instead. Actually I never would have brought it to bot requests for approval, had I wanted to take that approach. --T-rex 13:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. Unnecessary waste of resources, this bot does not contribute any necessary task but is simply a formatting bot. Also, in some cases the <hx> tags are preferable to == headings. --uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.