Meta:Requests for bot status/Filedelinkerbot

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Closed as successful. Matanya (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filedelinkerbot

Filedelinkerbot (talk · contribs)

Bot's tasks for which permission is being sought: I was asked to clean up Category:Pages with broken file links here at meta and follow up local file deletions.

Automatic or manually assisted: automatic

Edit type (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): continuous

Programming language(s): Perl

--Krd 03:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial request: Hi Krd. Can you please perform a trial of 20/30 edits? Thanks. -- M\A 19:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just saw at your talk that there are still unresolved issues that may be addressed in february, so take your time and when everything is set up and working, run the test. Best regards, -- M\A 22:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I took the code live today for local and commons deletions to be unlinked, but there are no test cases so far.

The edits the bot made today are result of a trial to clean up automatically, which doesn't seem to be a good idea (and has been permanently stopped) because there seem to be some intentional file redlinks. This is not really part of the intended bot job anyway but only an attempt to get and initial cleanup. --Krd 16:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Matanya (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this was approved but if I read well the bot-op stopped the bot because it wasn't ready yet. Krd, is the bot ready to go or shall we reopen the request? -- M\A 12:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is ready and running, although it seems to have nothing to do. And as said above, the intended cleanup of broken file links is complicated as we have some intentional file redlinks here. I'd suggest to keep the flag and discuss possible solutions separately. --Krd 12:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok. Well, I have a couple of suggestions. Either the bot parses the deletion log of meta and finds new and old instances of file deletion, or the bot handles the pages listed at the category, maybe excluding the User: and User talk: namespaces, since some JS writers add a fake filename to keep track of the uses of their scripts. Not sure if all this is possible. Outside those cases, I don't see why we would like to keep intentional broken file links. Best regards. -- M\A 19:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoAurelio: Please look at the bot's contribs which I have undone, "budget", "annual report" etc. Are these to be removed? --Krd 08:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krd: I've quick checked those files and I can't even see they existed at Commons. I'd say they're free to go, unless anybody objects. Thanks. -- M\A 09:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thought has been that there is a main version of the page in English, containing the appropriate PDF file. The page has been translated, but the translated PDF is missing. Removing the PDF would make the translation inaccurate / differing from the original. I'm not sure if we stay out of trouble when removing hundreds of such cases, but of course I'm willing to execute if we have a sufficient concensus. Please advise. --Krd 06:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Can you link to an example of such a case? Glaisher (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Difflink: [1] --Krd 16:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a thread on Meta:Babel. Hope that it gets attention. -- M\A 18:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If it is a link to Media namespace then it should be excluded because these are not rendered as images but rather as links to the file page. Glaisher (talk) 11:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed now, thank you. --Krd 16:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we can start now Krd. No comments on Babel and the point raised by Glaisher was taken into consideration. Unless there are other major issues with this, I'd say to go ahead. -- M\A 10:14, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The code is already active for new deletions. For the existing backlog I give at a slow start and let it run whenever I have time to check the edits. I hope to have it done by end of the month. --Krd 10:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]