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

Time filed: 03:10, Friday, October 13, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Fix double colons in internal links (i.e. [[::Test]]); see Special:LintErrors/multi-colon-escape

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Remove double colons from subpages of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

Edit period(s): One time run then monthly runs for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team pages

Estimated number of pages affected: ~25,000?

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Matching (?<!<nowiki>[^<]*)\[\[:: and replacing with [[:. This is an error that changes how the link is rendered on the page (i.e. it doesn't render as a link, it renders as just text). I'm unsure about the number of edits required since the error page lists about 3k while a database scan returns 25k.

Discussion[edit]

Inaccurate and unhelpful comments Nihlus 00:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are only about 1700 pages here, your estimate is wildly off. How come you are so far out?
    • I'm not sure you have demonstrated consensus, the message you refer to was about a sub-set of these pages which have been manually fixed. If you do demonstrate consensus, please ping me.
    • All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    My guess would be the 6k edits you performed about 24 hours ago, and the system just hadn't caught up yet when Nihlus put this through. Primefac (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Good guess, but wrong! They partially explain it at the end of the request, which I initially missed " I'm unsure about the number of edits required since the error page lists about 3k while a database scan returns 25k." If the database scan is a downloaded copy of the database, it's woefully out of date- which is most likely, worrying that they didn't realise this. The other factor is that each page is typically at least 2-3 entries in the table - user, user talk and special. So the figure on the special page is not enough data either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    I null-edited a few hundred pages sometime in the last day or two, which increased the count by many hundreds. This means that the count is not accurate, and is definitely low (the phab link at the top explains why). Rich appears to be correct that the Linter page counts instances of the error, rather than pages, FWIW. When I search for "insource:/\[\[::/" in User Talk space, I get 18,446 pages, some of which are false positives, but most of which have errors that need fixing. This means that the number of affected pages in all other namespaces combined is less than 1,000. If I had to bet, I would bet that the number of affected pages is in the 10,000 to 20,000 range. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Any update on this one? Nihlus 20:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nihlus: Bit of a busy week, but I'll check over the trial tonight. Sorry for the wait. ~ Rob13Talk 21:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihlus: Can you explain this edit? There's more going on here than I would expect. [1] ~ Rob13Talk 13:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like its the pipe trick, not something that the bot did specifically. [[:|]] got converted (properly) to [[:|:]] when the page was saved. It didn't do this before because it didn't recognize [[::|]] as a valid wikilink. No idea about the [[:de:]] thing, though. Primefac (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The [[::de:|]] to [[:de:|de:]] also looks like the bot removed the colon and the MW software automatically processed a WP:PIPETRICK link. Harmless, I'd say. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging BU Rob13 for an update. Nihlus 02:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. ~ Rob13Talk 11:25, 23 October 2017 (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.