Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 12


 * 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

Fbot 12
Operator:  F ASTILY  (TALK)

Time filed: 03:46, Sunday December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: Not currently

Function overview: Bot will fix pages listed at Database reports/Talk subpages with redirect parent

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: At least 5000, if not more.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Users, it seems have a tendency to uncheck the option to move subpages when the move pages, resulting in subpages whose parent/base page is a redirect to the article's new title. Since most of the pages listed at Database reports/Talk subpages with redirect parent are archives of talk pages, it's very important that they be moved under their new parent articles so previous discussions regarding the article are readily/easily accessible.

Discussion
IIRC, non-admins don't even have the "move subpages" option. A few questions to start with: Anomie⚔ 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What would it do if it finds the target already has a subpage with the same name, e.g. "Talk:Redirect" redirects to "Talk:Target" and both "Talk:Redirect/Archive 1" and "Talk:Target/Archive 1" already exist?
 * 2) How would it avoid screwing up pages like Talk:Biel/Bienne railway station? One simple heuristic might be to check if the corresponding mainspace page (e.g. Biel/Bienne railway station) exists or has a deletion log.
 * 3) How would it avoid screwing up pages like every AFC request page or all Arbitration Request cases, where the subpages are explicitly supposed to exist there even though the base talk page itself redirect elsewhere. I see several of these are currently listed on the database report. It may be best to skip the Wikipedia talk namespace entirely.
 * 4) Will it insist that the base page redirect must have been in place for some period of time, to prevent the bot repeatedly moving subpages during a move war?
 * In response to the above:
 * The bot would list the title on page in its userspace for manual review.
 * I like your suggestion; that check is very easy to implement.
 * Easy enough, skip Wikipedia talk namespace it is!
 * Sure, why not? I'll set it for a week?
 * - F ASTILY  (TALK) 05:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. If you don't get any more comments (or a trial from another BAGger) in a few days, post something to bring it up in my watchlist and I'll give it. Anomie⚔ 05:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good article reviews are done in talk namespace subpages pages with no corresponding article namespace subpage. Those shouldn't be touched either.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Er, Sven, that doesn't make much sense...? - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right. I worded that poorly. A while back I saw a GA review done for an article under title XXXX. The article itself was later moved to title XXXY for some reason, but the GA review was left at XXXX and people were discussing whether or not moving the GA review as well was a good idea. I can't remember where or when I saw the discussion (or what the titles XXXX and XXXY were), but it came to mind when I was reading this. I suppose it's a moot point, moving the GA review wouldn't break anything, so whatever. Sorry for the confusion.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good idea to me (and Anomie is correct that non-admins don't have the 'move subpages' option). I agree with Sven's original point, though. For whatever reason, the folks at GAN don't seem to want the GA subpages to be moved (like Sven I can't remember which article I saw this discussed at, but I think I've seen it brought up more than once). Anyway, would it be difficult to make the bot ignore all subpages that have "GA" after the slash (my bot/coding/whatever knowledge is next to non-existant)? Jenks24 (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nay, shouldn't be too difficult to do. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * @Jenks - The reason why peer reviews, GA reviews, FA reviews, and GT/FT reviews don't get moved, as far as I have been informed, has largely to do with the very finicky template at the top of many talk pages of quality articles that shows the history of promotions/demotions/discussions. It generates links based on the unique edit number and for some reason moving pages confuses the template, even though the edit number dosen't change. Meh, whatever, it's not that important one way or the other.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:55, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded Well, it's been about a week since approval was promised. Could a BAG member (Anomie?) please review this? Thanks,  F ASTILY  (TALK) 21:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Anomie⚔ 00:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No issues. This bot is ready to go. - F ASTILY  (TALK) 08:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

-- Chris 03:18, 31 December 2011 (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.