Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 4 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/FrescoBot_4

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: Basilicofresco (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic

Programming language(s): python

Source code available: ask me

Function overview: checking and fixing broken section wikilinks

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): few times per year

Estimated number of pages affected: not much

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: wikilinks to sections are case sensitive (eg.#discussion vs. #Discussion). This task is actually an extension of FrescoBot Task 3. It is going to:

1. check selected pages for broken section wikilinks
2. generate a list of possible section name variants
3. check for the existence of one of the above variants
4. fix the wikilink or mark the talk page with the WildBot tag.

I will start for example checking pages that link articles with {{anchor}}. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 10:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you just clarify how this is any different from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 3 please (or is it just the way it identifies/fixes the links, rather than the actual edits)? Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, both scripts fix section wikilinks and they are actually pretty similar. For this reason I was not sure that a new BRFA was needed... however there are also some differences:

• Task 3 checks the whole dump for any lowcase section wikilink with case errors on the first letter of the section name. This is a common mistake and the script does not have to check a very large number of pages.
• Task 4 is much slower so it is going to check only selected groups of pages. Within these pages it is going to check any section wikilink for problems. If a broken link is found it will try a good number of alternative spellings/variants.

Basilicofresco (msg) 14:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, let's see if it works Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [1]. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 17:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. The trial edits were successful. Josh Parris 03:57, 16 March 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.