Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 9


 * 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

Cewbot 9
Operator:

Time filed: 05:51, Sunday, August 8, 2021 (UTC)

Function overview: Do the same thing on Vital people as on Vital articles (see User:Cewbot).

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s):

Source code available:

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Per this BOTREQ.

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 3+ pages

Namespace(s): Wikipedia

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Update icons and summaries.

Discussion
This is a tested long term task on Vital articles. Some test edits available. Please see the revision history of Vital people, Vital people/Level/1 and Vital people/Level/2.
 * How exactly is the "vital people" WikiProject distinct from "vital articles in the People category" (eg Vital articles/Level/4/People)? Furthermore I'd note this ongoing discussion which implicitly questions the usefulness of these things on talk pages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I may have misunderstood what this task is doing. The BOTREQ and BRFA seems to say it will do these tasks for Vital people. The third thing in that list is this, which edits talk pages. Is that task being bundled in this BRFA for vital people? (I'm doubting my original read because your page estimate is 3). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reply. Since there is no template like Vital article, the task will not edit talk pages in this time. However, the algorithm is the same. Kanashimi (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay. For clarity and completeness, can you list out all the pages that will be edited? (you don't have to list subpages, just the root page is fine). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Only subpages of Vital people, now it is only 3 pages. Kanashimi (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have undone the split of vital articles into vital people, as it really didn't have consensus and needed further discussion. The Cewbot should therefore go back to how it worked before, with all entries pulled from "Vital articles", not from "Vital people". Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I stop the task just now. Kanashimi (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Interstellarity Please respond after consensus. Kanashimi (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you are saying? I'm having a hard time understanding what you just said to me. It really helps. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Is seems we should waiting for Wikipedia talk:Vital articles... and if we removing links from Vital articles/* to Vital people/*, the bot will miss the links and remove Vital article on talk pages. Kanashimi (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Interstellarity I re-execute the program and it seems the bot code is correct. So I will restart the test. Please keep the links under Vital articles, so it will not cause big problems. Kanashimi (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It works well as on Vital articles. Please see revision history of Vital people/* for the test edits. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see much problem with managing the subpages of Vital articles; so long as those pages exist, they should be maintained. So I'm inclined to approve this task. Obviously if a consensus arises that the WikiProject fork shouldn't exist then the task will need to stop. I'll hold off on approval to await further opinions, and in case that discussion finds a consensus sometime soon. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_19 is closed but with no closing statement, apparently. I presume the proposal was withdrawn? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't close the discussion. I thought that the split of people from the vital articles would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Because of the opposition associated with the project, it seems as the vital people project is dead at this point. It was active for a little bit until they stopped working on it. If there is a chance to revive the project, that would be great. See discussion: Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_183. Interstellarity (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks for clarifying. I think it would be best to mark this as denied due to the opposition associated with the project; it wouldn't make sense for a bot to actively update pages for a dead project that doesn't seem to have consensus. Feel free to file a new task if that changes, though! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 19 September 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.