Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 50


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied

Helpful Pixie Bot 50
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Convert some minor planaet pages to redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot requests/Archive 47

Edit period(s): One time

Estimated number of pages affected: 4862

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Each page will be redirected to the appropriate sub-list of List of minor planets.

Discussion
Simples. Rich Farmbrough 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear, what is the criteria that will be used for redirection? Lack of references on both the JPL SBDB and the ADSABS database (i.e. the intersection of and )?  Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, the first is a proper subset of the second. Rich Farmbrough, 12:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Alright before going to trial, it would be nice if people could agree on a comment to add to the redirect, similar to those on redirects for isotopes, mentioning WP:NASTRO. Also should categories be preserved on the redirects, or can they be scrapped without any great loss? (I've notified WP:ASTRO.)


 * The bot could also be approved to create missing redirects if such a list is built, but that might be best for another BRFA. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK lets keep it simple and any redirects will be dealt with separately. Rich Farmbrough, 01:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * I don't understand an objection here, if there is one. Actually, although this quote from Headbomb, "The bot could also be approved to create missing redirects if such a list is built, but that might be best for another BRFA", is hard for me to understand, it seems to be not an objection at all but rather support for the bot to do something more while it's at it. Please explain. Chrisrus (talk) 04:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the unstated concern is that the redirect info (1998 TYO) is in the data that will be overwritten in the stub (39212 Sharktapus). Rich Farmbrough, 05:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC).


 * But in reality another source is better for these, as our synonym lists are incomplete. Rich Farmbrough, 05:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC).

Rich Farmbrough, 05:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Just my opinion but I'm not sure I see a point in created what could end up being about 150, 000 redirects just in the off chance someone tries to look up the numerical description of a piece of steller debris. I guess if the associated project thinks its necessary though and has garnered some conensus for the change it doesn't really hurt anything. I'm just not sure if its worth it. Unless I am mis understanding the task here. Kumioko (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I know how you feel. Welcome to my world. The honest truth is that all articles in the category "minor planets" that don't have references qualify for speedy delete. However, we have to either follow WP:NASTRO or get it changed. And we can't change it, so here we are. Following it. Chrisrus (talk) 03:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you arguing for 150,000 missing redirects to be created? I agree with Kumioko that that is unhelpful.  Spinning  Spark  14:25, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd like to see all these articles simply deleted. However you or I feel about it, the instructions of WP:NASTRO are that they be converted to redirects to the chart List of minor planets.  We have to turn all the articles failing Nastro into redirects.  That's the rule.  Please read WP:NASTRO. Chrisrus (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was reading this as a suggestion to create 150,000 redirect pages for articles that do not yet exist. We surely don't already have 150,000 stub articles on non-notable asteroids?  Spinning  Spark  15:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This only affects 4,862 articles. Many are big enough hunks of rock to make a nasty mess if they hit Earth, but the value of replicating JPL's data alone is moot.  Therefore we are keeping only those for which there is an additional reference at the present time.  Rich Farmbrough, 16:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC).


 * You could check that none of them belong to category

. I doubt there are any in this group that have orbits dangerous to earth, because if there were, wouldn't they have at least one reference? None of these have any at all other than JPL itself, but feel free if that's what you want to do and you can do it. Chrisrus (talk) 23:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough, with no prejudice on the task being carried out by another bot operator, or by RF if the editting restrictions are lifted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:47, 15 May 2012 (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.