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: Josh Parris

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually assisted

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Bypass redirects: American Broadcasting Corporation → American Broadcasting Company; and Financial crisis of 2007–2009 → Financial crisis of 2007–2010

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 4#American Broadcasting Corporation, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 33#Need a Bot for a Job, Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 33#Change "Financial crisis of 2007–2009" to "Financial crisis of 2007–2010"

Edit period(s): one time

Estimated number of pages affected: 900 pages + 534 pages

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y, Standard in pywikipedia

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details: For every article linking to American Broadcasting Corporation, change the link to bypass the redirect straight to American Broadcasting Company. Normally bypassing redirects is strongly discouraged by WP:NOTBROKEN, but in this case American Broadcasting Corporation is in the Category:Redirects from incorrect names and also Category:Unprintworthy redirects, which it expressly permits.

Same story with Financial crisis. I'm going to use solve_disambiguation.py

Discussion[edit]

A bot flag would make this go faster, I intend to generalize maintenance of Category:Redirects from incorrect names in a later Request for Approval. Josh Parris 06:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure if 900 manually assisted edits would require a BFRA Josh Parris 06:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why you are limiting this to American Broadcasting Corporation --> Company and not making it a general bot task? Conceivably, you could have made this a BRFA about the task in general, making correcting links to ABC a part of the trial. Other than that, I have no problem approving this for a trial (and I will do so pending no objection). @harej 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this particular case is well understood and has specifically been raised as an issue (IP69.226.103.13 seems quite interested in getting the special case done). The more general case I'm still investigating - every time I think I've got all the possible permutations nailed down, I find another exception case (having said that, I'm doing the "this time for sure" run over the category at the moment) so I'm not yet confident as to the specifications for the general case. Mind you, but the time the BFRA is likely to be finished I may have polished code done for the general case. Josh Parris 23:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not interested in getting this case done, over other cases, and I never said that anywhere. Would you please just read what I write and stop trying to guess? I would like to know what is being proposed. I've asked this multiple times. Every time I ask you a question I get jargon in response, but seldom an answer. Please don't jump from my asking a question and your not answering it to mind-reading. A request was made for the one task, and I asked questions about it, and what I got was a grammar on a general task in response. I asked for an outline of the specific task, then you proposed a bot based on your assumption that I wanted this task only done, or whatever you're assuming here.

I'll be glad to give you jargon, and I'll use it correctly: I'm a programmer. But, that's not how programmers should communicate their work to those for whom they are creating programs. If you can't say what you're doing with your code in English, then you probably don't know what you are doing.

At this point, I'd just like the bot owner to answer questions in English. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question? Josh Parris 08:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task has been updated to include Financial crisis of 2007–2009 → Financial crisis of 2007–2010. Josh Parris 23:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. @harej 03:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Other than when I forgot I could replace the link if it was naked, all went well, 25 edits on ABC and 25 on the financial crisis. Josh Parris 07:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All looks well, and I am assuming you're going to fix that harmless oversight.  Approved. @harej 14:41, 12 January 2010 (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.