Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 58


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

BattyBot 58
Operator:

Time filed: 21:54, Sunday, June 27, 2021 (UTC)

Function overview: Remove Category:United States Supreme Court cases

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks, Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/doc

Edit period(s): Monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: 3,300

Namespace(s): Articlespace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No):

Function details: Infobox US Supreme Court case now automatically places articles into Category:United States Supreme Court cases. This is a request to remove the explicit from mainspace pages that transclude that template. Will also apply AWB's general fixes when saving an edit. GoingBatty (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion
(Original requestor and template-wrangler) there will likely be two more cats to remove from those articles soon, but they will each be regexp rather than an exact-string. I'll either have it done within a few days or realize it won't be happening anytime soon, and post a followup here and at the linked discussion page either way. DMacks (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , this goes against what I seem to remember is common guidelines not to include non-maintenance categories in infoboxes and similar templates. Did this change recently or is this a BOLD change that goes against precedent? Primefac (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of that guideline. This specific instance was discussed among several editors on the relevant wikiproject and template-talk. The other two that are in the works are calculated based on infobox data, so it seems unusual to have to manually hardcode those same results elsewhere. And all have known cases where someone hasn't known to apply the manual category, so there are incompleteness problems. I'd be happy to discuss those details further here and/or with...whomever...if you know a better place. DMacks (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Found it (now that I know to look for it:) WP:TEMPLATECAT makes that "recommendation" based on difficulty in understanding the origin of the categorization and difficulty in changing it later. Here, we have difficulty in placing them at all, and the benefit of a centralized definition scheme (several dozen cats with a naming pattern). Again, happy to discuss further wherever. DMacks (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As someone heavily involved in the template "scene" so to speak, I do not think it is a good idea to run this task, however I will leave this open so other BAG can comment and give their opinions (local consensus trumping established conventions etc).
 * As a side note, I find "we want to use the template because otherwise it won't be in every article" is a rather odd issue to have, since you could just check every page calling the template and then see if it has the proper category. Primefac (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * FWIW I'm also rather dubious about this for the reasons given at TEMPLATECAT, and agree that a quick task to align uses of the template with uses of the category seems like a better option. firefly  ( t · c ) 09:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * With no significant consensus to override TEMPLATECAT demonstrated, I do not see this is as an acceptable task. If pages calling this infobox need the related category added, then (if necessary) a bot run should be filed to add any outliers. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2021 (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 Bots/Noticeboard.