Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 54 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Helpful_Pixie_Bot_54

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

Time filed: 20:46, Monday, May 1, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic/Supervised.

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: No

Function overview: Replaces deprecated template {{This is a redirect}} per discussion above, and using formatting as per the documentation {{Redirect category shell}}.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Convert_Template:This_is_a_redirect_to_Template:Redirect_category_shell

Edit period(s): One time.

Estimated number of pages affected: 200k 96k 60k

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Replaces deprecated template {{This is a redirect}} per discussion above, and using formatting as per the documentation {{Redirect category shell}}. Parameters are replaced per this list. (Semi-)Protected parameters are dropped, as they are built-in with the new template. Initial run will not deal with named parameters e0, e1.... p1, p2 ... and n1, n2, ... - pages using them will be skipped. They may be added later if necessary. Any fully protected redirects will also be ignored. [update] Named parameters e0, e1.... p1, p2 ... and n1, n2, ... are dealt with. Any other named params will cause the page to be skipped, for later manual inspection.

Um... bot is blocked, and the template is already on the autosubst list. Pointless BRFA? Primefac (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bot can be unblocked. Bot does a better job than autosubst. Pointless objection? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Support but please don't change #REDIRECT to #Redirect (see User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Syntax for redirects). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me that the bot needs to be unblocked first before a proper discussion can be had about a suitable bot task. Regardless, I agree with MSGJ regarding REDIRECT -> Redirect. --Izno (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does it seem to you that the bot needs to be unblocked first? By all means unblock it, but I could have just as easily proposed this for User:Femto Bot. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    
• I have unblocked the bot account. But I would be interested in seeing your response to comments made r.e. changing REDIRECT -> Redirect in contravention of your editing restriction against cosmetic changes, and why you made hundreds of these changes on your main account before even being approved for trial. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll join the rest of the crowd asking that you leave REDIRECT -> Redirect alone. AFAIW, REDIRECT is the preferred form. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, if two is company, three is a crowd. So I can change this, but I might mutter under my breath a little. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    
    • Change made, BTW. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
      

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. SQL^{Query me!} 03:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:SQL! Trial here. Bot now supports p1, p2, ... parameters too. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Trial complete. Primefac (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The trial looks great.  Approved. with the following throttle due to the large size of the task:

1. Run for 2,500 edits, wait at least 48 hours
2. Run for 10,000 edits, wait at least 24 hours
3. Run for the remainder of the task

If there are any unexpected issues with the first two runs, please message me before proceeding. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:09, 4 June 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.