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

Approved.

H3llBot 2b[edit]

Operator: Hellknowz (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 13:49, Monday April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: N

Function overview: Expand on original task: tag citations with dead links with |deadurl=yes, where archive params |archiveurl= or |archivedate= are already set with |deadurl=no.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Main BRFA, deadurl RfC. More on main task here, or see recent contribs.

Edit period(s): This task -- a couple dozen times a day probably, main task would far exceed in frequency.

Estimated number of pages affected: may be 1-5% of edited pages.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details:

Tag citations with dead links with |deadurl=yes, where archive params |archiveurl= or |archivedate= are already set with |deadurl=no, indicating preemptive archiving. If |deadurl= isn't set, or another value is set, the citation is ignored and assumed to be dead and archived. Example:

↓

"Some cool site". Archived from the original on May 10, 2010. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) → "Some cool site". Archived from the original on May 10, 2010. ((cite web)): Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I add , like I do with |archiveurl= and ((dead link)), so it is clear a bot process determined the link is now dead. Alternatively, I can either skip the comment or remove the field altogether, which would default to link being dead behavior. But this would leave no trace that a bot decided the link is dead.

Discussion[edit]

This is a pretty bureaucratic request, and is a small expansion to the existing task. But I like my BRFAs tidy and I feel like I should file this regardless, in case there are some issues someone can think of and I'm not caught implementing undocumented additions. :) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any problems. Common-ish task which is pretty straightforward. Yep. Rcsprinter (Gimme a message) 13:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's occurred to me that this is (surprisingly) more complicated than it appears on first impression. See User talk:Dispenser/Checklinks#Ignore list, User talk:Dispenser/Checklinks#FYI Observation - templates and external links, User talk:Dispenser/Checklinks#URLs with user+password... screw it, just read the whole talk page. Also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumZiBoT. Basically, at the very least, just a URL failing once doesn't mean it's dead. And failing doesn't mean you checked it right. Josh Parris 22:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is, but I haven't listed my logic for the main task (detecting dead links), because it is already approved: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 2. You can read the updated logic here: User:H3llBot/ADL. You can see the bot's contributions. You can also refer to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BlevintronBot, where I basically mentioned everything I can about detecting dead links. I have ignore lists, I don't bother with ftp:// or media, I double-check within 3 days, I have strict detect-404-only rules, etc. As I said, this is just adding a little markup logic to the task to handle the new |deadurl=, which didn't exist when I first filed the BRFA. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, I see I've completely missed the point. Josh Parris 10:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious addition to functionality. Approved. Josh Parris 10:16, 3 April 2012 (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.