Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Olympic Bot 2

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.

Joe's Olympic Bot 2 edit

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

Time filed: 18:15, Saturday September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: Yes (currently read-only)

Function overview: The previous task updated links from "london2012.com" to specific player profiles on 2012 Summer Olympians, only on athlete bios that were otherwise unsourced. This task would extend this to a limited number of articles that have that shallow link and another source, just enough that automation would be helpful.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Joe's_Olympic_Bot

Edit period(s): one-time

Estimated number of pages affected: 99

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: See the previous task description, save that the revised code would not limit itself ot updating the london2012 shallow link when other links weren't present. I was surprised to discover that this was such a small set, just under a hundred articles. Of course, I'd expect to review the results in case someone had made some practical use for the shallow link, but in the cases I've examined so far, that wasn't the case.

FWIW, Task 1 seems to have been uncontroversial, feedback on my talk page has consisted of a barnstar, and a couple of awesome and enthusiastic editors helping me clean up the cases slated for manual attention.

Discussion edit

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 03:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.

Thanks! The trial went smoothly enough, while I found a good reason or another to hand-edit about half of the articles edited, with one exception, they were all cases where the bot made something better and made nothing else worse--the exception being a case where it updated one of two duplicated references but not the other, I consider that sub-optimal because the result looked silly. Still, as i expect to treat the remaining half of this task as fully-supervised (that is, I intend to watch and sweep up behind the bot in real time), I'm happy with the results. Also, apologies, the first 13 or so edits under this task trial were not specifically attributed in their edit summary to "Task 2", that was corrected for later edits. --j⚛e decker ^talk 17:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Approved. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 19 September 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.