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.

Operator: Rich Farmbrough

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Auto.

Programming Language(s): AWB/Regex

Function Summary:Replace "cleanup" tag

Edit period(s) : Occasional unless integrated with regular task.

Edit rate requested: say max 1 edit per min (expected to be much slower) 6 per minute

Already has a bot flag (Y):

Function Details: On disambiguation pages with a cleanup template replace "{{cleanup}}" and "{{disambig}}" with "{{Disambig-cleanup}}" template.

Fairly trivial. Rich Farmbrough, 16:13 2 March 2007 (GMT).

Ok one question, how do you plan on getting the list of items? Do you plan on iterating through the cleanup category? If so may I suggest a faster method (should allow you to increase your edit speed). Take the intersection of the whatlinks here for both {{cleanup}} and {{disambig}}. Whatever is in both of those, run your bot on. Of course you would double check that the page really does have those templates. Just a thought as to speed up your bot. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:28, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intersection method is what I used. I then used a set up that checked the presence of tags and made the appropriate changes. Since there were only 40 items, I did them by hand. However approval would still be appreciated for ongoing changes. Rich Farmbrough, 13:44 13 March 2007 (GMT).

What does this actually achieve? --kingboyk 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is necessary, especially given the time this request has been idle, perhaps a BAG can call this expired? ST47Talk 21:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((BotExpired)). —METS501 (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-opened this request per Rich's comments below. Martinp23 08:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems completely straightforward, unless there's some objection in principle to the {{disambig-cleanup}} resource itself (which there doesn't seem to be). Otherwise, this seems like a "populating a maintenance cat on fairly inarguable criteria" task, unless there's some resource overkill consideration, which I wouldn't imagine is a real concern if this isn't being done frequently. I don't know how "occasionally" Rich had in mind, but I can also generate the above intersection from a db dump query, which would finesse the live ref-intersect entirely. (There were 48 at time of the recent (4th April) dump.) Alai 04:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems fine to me, and can probably help to focus editors from a disambiguation project onto the articles needing cleanup (based on the expanation given below). Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. 50 edits. Thanks, Martinp23 11:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks trial is here. Only seven edits as that's all that were needed yesterday. Having said this, as the list is made in a seperate phase than the changes, I've upped the requested speed. Rich Farmbrough, 10:44 24 April 2007 (GMT).

 Approved. Martinp23 17:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Rich Farmbrough, 17:56 7 May 2007 (GMT).

1. "What does this actually achieve?"
   

   It gets the correct template on the pages concerned. Note that this is a low use template unlike the two it replaces, enabling the relevant items to be found and dealt with quickly.

2. See also the talk page of template in question. It is part of the dab project.
3. The run was requested by a user, see [1].
4. Archived request. I'm a bit peeved to find this archived, when it took over a fortnight for the first significant question about the request to appear. I kept an eye on the request for a while, but can you notify people before archiving their requests?

   Rich Farmbrough, 08:15 9 April 2007 (GMT).

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.