Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 47


 * 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

DannyS712 bot 47
Operator:

Time filed: 03:00, Sunday, June 9, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Help implement TfD closes

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous / as needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Thousands

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Per discussion at Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 46, I'd like to file a BRFA for implementing general TFD closes. Similar past tasks include Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 22, Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 23, and Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 31.

Discussion

 * Pinging participants in previous discussions: --DannyS712 (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely convinced as to the need for this bot when there are already two other bots approved for the same task. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if there is not a need for this, is there any disadvantage? As seen in #46, sometimes things do slip through the cracks. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:07, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The usual problem with having two or more bots do the same task is that if at some point in the future a modification becomes necessary, it's more work. And chasing up bot owners can be especially difficult, as so often happens, if they have retired (while still keeping the bot running) or are less than keen to implement changes. This shouldn't be a problem here as the task (am I right to conclude?) is not fully automated but supervised. – Uanfala (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm recusing as a BAG member, but for the record here are the BRFAs for SporkBot and PrimeBOT (orphaning and merging), which as mentioned have a remit to implement TFD outcomes. I'm mostly ambivalent about having a third bot with the same remit. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If it can be demonstrated that this new bot will not be conflicting/getting in the way of the existing bots, then this is probably harmless/some net-benefit. -  F ASTILY   08:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded its been 10 days --DannyS712 (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As per usual, please post a permalink here when done and take all the time you need for the trial. -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 50 edits made: . The only issue is that AWB edit summaries are too short, so I couldn't link to both the BRFA and the TFD, but once approved that shouldn't be an issue. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the record, I find it in poor taste that Danny is using this trial/task to sidestep the decline of a previous BRFA. I have added the template in question to the auto-subst list and recommend sending this back to trial after said transclusions are removed. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * After you closed the previous BRFA, I realized the AnomieBOT generally isn't used for TfD substitutions - see here. The point of this BRFA was to implement TfD closes that are missed by the other bots, and Double image is exactly the type of template I was thinking about. I have no issue with an extended trial, and I apologize if I unintentionally misled you or TSD --DannyS712 (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * From a "things to think about" perspective, not only for this task but in general:
 * If you're linking to a TFD, link to the day (not the specific #subheading)
 * If the links/descriptions are getting too long, create a user subpage (e.g. I link to User:PrimeBOT/24 for Task 24 to keep things short).
 * Keeping these in mind you shouldn't have an issue linking to everything relevant. Primefac (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded Its been a week since the trial ended. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , do you still have an objection to this task following the above response(s)? -- The SandDoctor Talk 04:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what's changed. I'm still objecting to your sidestepping the previous TFD, and my opinions regarding this request (in general) have not changed; I'm still mostly ambivalent. I'm also still recusing from BAG duties on this task. Primefac (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Can you take a look at this? DannyS712 (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded --DannyS712 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We got off on a bit of the wrong foot, let's see if we can correct it. Primefac (talk) 23:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks - will report back with results --DannyS712 (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Made the first 4 edits - . I haven't seen many TfDs closed as orphan or substitute recently, so its taking a while. DannyS712 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There are a ton of templates to convert, merge, replace, etc, but obviously take what you're comfortable with. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 27 more made - - have completed 31/50 for the extended trial DannyS712 (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is me genuinely curious, are you only running this bot for orphaning templates? Primefac (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * For now, its sticking to the orphaning or substituting, since those are the most straightforward --DannyS712 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If this can be used for removing duplicate navboxes after a navbox merger (i.e. If navbox Foo is redirected to navbox Bar and an article has both Foo and Bar remove Foo) we should have enough things in the holding cell currently (Western Schism and Substantive human rights) depending on the outcome of Templates for discussion/Log/2019 August 25 that may be a good target. --Trialpears (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * yes, I can help with merging too - that would be a good example DannyS712 (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 0.7 set nominee was just deleted and could be used for the trial. to not orphan it. --Trialpears (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That one was orphaned by sporkbot, but maybe V0.5 would be appropriate for the trial. --Trialpears (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * sure - I'm hesitant to close it myself and then orphan it, but I'll check back at 0000 UTC and, once its closed (and I assume it will be closed as delete) will remove 19 of the transclusions (only 19 edits left in the trial) DannyS712 (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * - 19 more edits made - I verified each of the edits, and didn't see any issues DannyS712 (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Summary (just to make it easier to find)
 * 4 orphans
 * 27 orphans
 * 19 orphans
 * Total of 50 edits. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded DannyS712 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Under normal circumstances, I would prefer to leave the close for someone else as I was involved in trialing this. However, given the backlog, lack of recent BAG activity (myself included), the fact that Primefac's objection appears to have been resolved, and based on how well the trial went, I am inclined to make an exception for this. As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Amendments and clarifications

 * The scope of this task is currently to close orphan TfDs if necessary. This can be expanded upon request and an additional trial period. -- The SandDoctor Talk 16:22, 12 October 2019 (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.