Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/タチコマ robot (13)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was Symbol delete vote.svg Denied

タチコマ robot
Operator:

Time filed: 08:21, Friday April 27, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): pywikipediabot

Source code available: movepages.py

Function overview: bot will rename all FPC subpages containing the namespace of the file ("Image:" or "File") by removing the namespace. Links going to FPC/ are unable to find the relevant pages making template use complicated given the number of veriants.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates (this does not necessarily count as consensus and bot will not be run until there is a complete agreement)

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 531 pages (Image:) + 968 pages (File:) = 1,499 pages

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Y

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Y

Function details: Obsolete "Image:" and current "File:" in FPC subpages make linking to these pages difficult through automated means. There are 4 flavors of FPCs at the moment with 3 flavors (FPC/File:Filename.ext FPC/Image:Filename.ext FPC/Filename.ext) following a common pattern. The 4th flavor is custom names which is beyond the scope of this request. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
Looking here and at the linked discussion, it seems only the proposed operator is in support of this task. All others are indifferent at best and several are opposed. Should consensus change (and I mean actually change, not just get [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_picture_candidates&diff=490481769&oldid=490324902 dismissed]), feel free to file a new BRFA. Anomie⚔ 03:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the "flavours" you mention is not common. Using the file name without either "File:" or "Image:" doesn't really happen.  It's Image:filename.jpg or it's File:filename.jpg, or it's a custom name.  I can understand moving Image: to File:, but no File: pages ought to be moved.  But regarding going ahead with any moves at all, I have thought about this further, and I don't believe we should be changing historic use of Image: en masse just to make it easier to link to the nomination pages from Commons.  I am willing to put the work into making the template link correctly by defining the parameter individually.  Julia\talk  13:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://toolserver.org/~nikola/grep.php?pattern=Featured_picture_candidates%2F%28[^%3A]*[.][a-z]*%29%24&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&ns=4
 * There are 810 such files so it is almost as common as "File:". I would be fine moving all nominations which have filenames as their name (without File: or Image: in front) to File: if this is a better option. Do we really need the namespace in the nomination name? Do you really want to spend human-time for this task that can be handled by a bot? -- A Certain White Cat chi? 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, there are that many because in 2008 your bot undertook moving loads of nomination pages to that format, leaving behind lots of file pages that link to redirects. It's messy, and unnecessary.  I don't really want to spend human-time on it, but the way you propose fixing the 'problem' via bot is not satisfactory.  Julia\talk  18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not a navigational hazard. I do not see the issue with them. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 08:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And I don't see the issue with "over-bloating" parameters . That's nonsense.  Julia\talk  17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you operate bots or work with template code? I do. Non-standardization makes my task far more difficult. When using a bot, I have to run three similar regexes just to handle the three flavors. When using templates, I have to define custom parameters that I would otherwise completely avoid. This is a significant problem for me and is hardly nonsense. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.