Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BOTijo 6

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

BOTijo 6

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Emijrp (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic unsupervised

Programming Language(s): python

Function Summary: Clasify redirects when they are different capitalisation

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

Edit rate requested: 10 edits per minute

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

Function Details: Code is simple.

1. Bot checks if an article is a redirect.
2. Bot checks if title.lower() is equal to redirecttarget.lower()
3. ok? Then it is a Redirect from other capitalisation
4. Adds {{R from other capitalisation}}

Tricks:

1. It is easy to check if it works fine. It always adds 32 bytes
2. If redirect page contains explanations, html comments, another templates... bot doesn't edit.

Discussion

What does this actual achieve? As in why do we want this done? Just curious ... :: maelgwn - talk 11:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

To sort them? More information. There are 63 categories for redirects. Many people do it by hand. An interesting question is how many redirects are going to be categorized by this method. 500,000? I think that exist 2,000,000 redirects in total, and capitalization is a very usual class of redirects. --Emijrp (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.Sounds reasonable to me, can't think of any exceptions and you have previous approval in the area so should be straightforward. :: maelgwn - talk 12:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

 Done 50 edits. I want more opinions about this bot because Category:Redirects from other capitalisations can be overpopulated with 500,000 redirects or more. Any problem? --Emijrp (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No. It's harmless (foolproof, really) and useful.  Approved. — madman bum and angel 18:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.