Wiktionary:Votes/bt-2006-06/KillRedirectsBot (User:DblRedirBot)
- Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2006/June#KillRedirectsBot.
I'd like to add another bot task to User:DblRedirBot. That is, to actively correct links to redirects.
Why?
External links currently get auto-redirected to the correct entry. But internal links can often point to redirects. Then the redirect is canged later into a valid entry, the entries that used to point to it are now wrong.
Also, many newcomers (myself included, way back when) have trouble finding the "Redirected from" link and subsequently editing the redirect.
Lastly, having a method to eliminate such redirects means that sound policies about redirects can then be developed more easily.
- Method
To eliminate links to a redirect, I plan to use something like this:
$ python replace.py -ref:Alias "[[Alias]]" "[[alias|Alias]]"
Deletions (automated or not) must be done from a sysop account, therefore are outside of any 'bot request debate...as they will always be logged and appear in Special:Recentchanges.
- Request for opinions
Please comment here if you feel I should not do this, or have other concerns about it. I really don't want to go through the hassle of a separate bot request. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Strong support if I get it right. Do you mean that bad links, such as [[Successful]] will be corrected to [[successful|Successful]] (unless Successful is not a redirect)? If so, yes please. With or without bot flag, today rather than tomorrow. — Vildricianus 11:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- That is what I mean, yes. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support, though I don't see the reason you need one bot per task to be done… Jon Harald Søby 11:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Rod (A. Smith) 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was soliciting comments, as it had been a month or so, since the auto-redirects fix was in place (I thought.) Since it was brought to my attention, that that was broken up until an hour ago, I'll hold off on this task for a week, or two or four or ten. --Connel MacKenzie T C 20:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)