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.

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

Time filed: 03:22, Wednesday May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: PyWikipedia + custom code

Function overview: Substituting templates that should only be used substituted

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: I have recently noticed that we have many instances of templates that should be substituted, such as unsigned templates (see recently approved BRFA for (even more recently) retired user). I've been running a similar task on Wikimedia Commons for some time now, and was recently approved on Wikidata to do the same. The bot gets a list of templates that should only be used substituted, then checks for transclusions and attempts to substitute them if possible.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Note AnomieBOT will already do this if the templates are appropriately marked, see User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster. As for the unsigned templates, it was discussed at one point having AnomieBOT subst these but it wasn't followed through at the time, see Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 8#Unsigned comment templates. Anomie⚔ 11:28, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know, but there still seem to be quite a lot of the unsigned templates. Maybe I should just limit the task to those?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  23:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a lot because I've never seen actual consensus for AnomieBOT to start substing them. Anomie⚔ 00:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But they should be ... shouldn't they?  Hazard-SJ  ✈  02:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If they should be substituted, then the task is bot appropriate. Is there some reason that AnomieBOT should do it over Hazard-Bot? I think with tasks that require routine bot work, having a couple of bots well-coded for the task makes sense. My opinion is that a trial at least for part of the task, the unsigned templates, is appropriate, unless there is a reason to not substitute them. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for AnomieBOT's current actions, the outlines as written by Anomie is quite a good implementation, and I have no problem ... I actually feel safer with AnomieBOT going through that category. However, I'd still like to substitute the unsigned templates since AnomieBOT isn't currently doing them and that should be safe enough in a limited number of templates.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits or 2 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. For templates that specifically say they should be substed. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. These and these have been made. Please note that the first link contains some additional fixes: I took some queues from User:AnomieBOT/docs/TemplateSubster, skipping templates with |nosubst= or |demo= parameters, and also setting |subst= to subst:.  Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this and this and this. Potentially make the bot skip sandboxes? ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  Hazard-SJ  ✈  03:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits or 2 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 18:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. (edits)  Hazard-SJ  ✈  05:28, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. All looks good ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:12, 22 June 2013 (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.