Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 4


 * 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 keep vote.svg Approved

FastilyBot 4
Operator:

Time filed: 01:17, Wednesday, February 17, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: When I have written it

Function overview: Removes from any freely licensed files that are not orphaned. This is the same task as Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 6

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 2-3k

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: See section Function overview above. - F ASTILY 01:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Sounds like a useful task. I suspect that the tags haven't been maintained since Fbot stopped doing this some years ago. How is "orphaned" defined, completely unused or only unused in certain namespaces? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I defined unused to be no image links (i.e. code that produces a thumbnail of the image) in any namespace. - F ASTILY  22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * So files with redirects are never orphaned? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's applicable; redirects are basically just wiki-links, which are different from file links - F ASTILY 03:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Might as well try it. —  Earwig   talk 18:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * - F ASTILY 10:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have checked those 40 diffs, and they look correct to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded Could a BAG member please review this request, thanks! - F ASTILY  04:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. —  Earwig   talk  17:54, 14 March 2016 (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.