Forum:Wiki-tidying bot

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Wiki-tidying bot
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 16 December 2009 by Robert Horning.

Hi people. So, yesterday, I thought up of a bot that would do some minor changes, like changing Image: to File: and things like that. It would also change this:

|| Pie || is || kewl

To this:

| Pie
| is
| kewl

Thoughts? ShinyUnown T | C | E 14:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


Comment - I could probably add this too FluffyBunnyBot's tasks but if we want another separate bot then sure I guess.. Andrew talk 17:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This bot would likely need sysop or otherwise request un-protecting temporary since many of the pages requiring Image: to File: conversion are sysop protected. Maybe a task for Azbot? - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 17:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Support Pending - These changes seem fine. This looks like a fairly mundane task and fairly low on the priority list, but something that we should do to clean things up. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 18:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like functionality is still being hammered out. I'll wait until there is a clearer idea of what this bot is really going to do. For example, I don't think we should have infoboxes changed to a single, long, and messy line. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 18:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - First off, I'd like to see the entire list of of this bot is intended to do, not just general ideas. As for the loose purpose given to the bot, the items listed are so trivial that it seems a wasted effort to me to design a bot for something like this. Any editor can just change these things as they're doing their daily editing.--

Helm of neitiznot (charged).png Azaz129 Crystal shield.png Talk Edits Contribs

18:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, large amounts of this || that (like in the Summoning article) take a while and I feel that would be more suitable for a bot. As for a full list of what it would do, a work-in-progress is here. ShinyUnown T | C | E 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Some of your points are perfectly reasonable such as changing Image: to File: however I am strongly against changing the format of infoboxes as you suggest as it makes it very difficult to edit when there is an update as well as your suggestion to change [[Fire rune]]s and replace with [[Fire rune|Fire runes]]. This is standard mediawiki code and not good practice to do otherwise. Your suggestion would increase the database size (albeit by not very much) needlessly. --Gold ore.png Mercifull UK serv.svg (Talk) 14:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Partly Oppose - While your intentions are good, I have to disagree with some of the points:

  • Like Mercifull said, [[Fire runes]]s is standard code and is actually preferred by the style guide, and saves code
  • -webkit-border-radius and -moz-border-radius - a lot of browsers don't support them, and most occurences are in the userspace (or in a signature)... personally I don't think thats a big deal.
  • Table tidying - meh. I personally prefer using the single line notation, but to be honest it doesn't matter, both take the same amount of code (byte-wise). If you edit a page with a table with the Rich Text Editor then its automatically changed to the multi-line notation.
  • Image: → File: - go for it. Saves a byte per occurrence; considering the large amount of occurrences then that adds up to a decent amount.
  • Underscores → spaces - no rush to do it. Both work just fine, space is better for purely aesthetic reasons. Be aware that if a template parameter uses an underscore (such as min_amount field in Template:Effectiveness Range) it must stay as an underscore - changing to a space breaks it.
  • Unnecessary spaces (as in two spaces after a full stop) and linebreaks (I've seen quite a lot added recently, usually by IPs) - go for it. Saves on code... but be careful on what is define unnecessary. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I've removed the [[Fire rune|Fire runes]] part, I don't think people would like it anymore. ShinyUnown T | C | E 18:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment -

Remove Infobox bonuses templates that only have 0's


Do we want to remove infobox bonuses when it contains only zeros? I'd think we want to have one for every equipable item regardless of whether it changes your stats, that way you know it doesn't change your stats. --Quarenon  Talk 02:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Also doing that would cause a massive number of marked pages, since if a value is not entered we add the page to one of the incomplete bonuses categories. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 05:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Why shouldn't we? Having useless bonus templates would only take up space in the database, and therefore make loading times longer on lower-end computers. ShinyUnown T | C | E 15:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
A bonus of 0 is still a bonus! It says '0' in the Runescape equipment screen too, right? So why not here?! Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
The article would state that it gives no bonuses. ShinyUnown T | C | E 21:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
To me, a blank would mean that we didn't know the bonus, and a zero shows that it doesn't change the stat. Removing the zero could easily cause confusion in the future. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 04:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, keeping the bonus table would make the articles more consistent and easier to use, and I think it outweighs the extra loading time for the code. --Quarenon  Talk 15:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Change Clickpic to File

In Template:Clickpic, it says that using the link= parameter on File: is more efficient than using Clickpic. Example: [[File:Magic.gif|link=Magic]] instead of {{Template:Clickpic|Magic|}} 22:16, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few too: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Clickpic 03:00, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point, (this could also have been a new forum topic of its own). I took a look at the link you provided above and tried to update the use of Clickpic to use the link from a File. I'm pretty sure there were also other users doing the same thing since it seemed to go pretty quickly. Anyway, I tried to get all the uses off of the Main space articles and that appears to have worked. Most of the links are from user signatures (used often in talk pages). I fixed the ones linking to wikia images, but others link to outside images (mostly photobucket). As far as I know this is the only way to have a link with an external image. If there is a better way let me know, but I've cleaned up all that I can think of. Cheers, Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 21:31, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Actually, Clickpic cannot be used to link to external files, as it prefixes the provided image with the wiki server (i think). I believe the best/only way to link to external images is by using fullurl. 01:21, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
Clickpic works for external files (i.e. using an external file to link to a page on the wiki); see:
Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 15:26, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
According to the original specs for the template, the template *should* look like this: {{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{{1}}}}} {{{2}}}. On the RuneScape Wiki though, the implementation is like this: {{fullurl:{{{1}}}}} {{{2}}}. 21:54, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Closed and rejected - Approval for this these tasks to be performed by a bot has been urged as something with caution, and the community consensus simply is not there for approval of a specific bot account to receive a bot flag. Anything that can be useful to help the wiki is certainly encouraged, but this proposal needs to be refined and re-submitted to the community at some future date if the desire is still here to perform these actions. --Robert Horning 16:22, December 16, 2009 (UTC)