Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Legobot 19


 * 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

Legobot 19
Operator:

Time filed: 17:15, Sunday September 2, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: here

Function overview: Populating Category:Transport infrastructure by year of completion

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Botreq, requester's talk page

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~400

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:
 * Start with Category:Transport infrastructure completed in 1800
 * If the category doesn't exist, create it
 * Check if the suggested subcategories for that year exist (ex: Category:Airports completed in 1800)
 * If they exist, make them a subcategory of the Transport infrastructure category (if they already aren't), otherwise skip
 * Continue till 2012

Discussion
LegoKontribsTalkM 20:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This bot request asks you to start with the years of the 20th, not the 19th century. Maybe because the bot request also wants you to create airport categories for all those years. You seem to be saying above that you will not creat the subcategories if they don't exist? This would be good, to not have 105 or more categories about airports completed before airplanes.

Essentially this task is to create 400 potentially empty categories? Why? 68.107.140.60 (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to link to a talk page dicussion between myself and Pichpich where he said to start with 1800 as not much could go wrong. Also, the bot won't be creating 400 categories (2012-1800=212, of which many already exist), many of those edits are to add the newly created category to the currently existing subcategories.
 * I'm not exactly understanding what you mean by creating airport categories, the bot request doesn't include that. If I'm misunderstanding you, please let me know.
 * As far as empty categories go, just by looking at Category:Lighthouses by year of completion, you can see that most 1800 years are represented, showing that most, if not all, of these categories won't be empty. LegoKontribsTalkM 06:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi LegoK, you say 400 above. Is it 400 or 200? Better clear that up. You also mention the category airports/1800 above; so, if the bot request doesn't include that? What is the rule about creating categories that are empty, if any? Is there a WP:Categories? Add the link with the talk page, above, please, so folks don't have to go searching for it. A talk page is not the appropriate place for a community discussion, a user talk page. I'm not sure I care too much, but I don't want nonsense categories, such as airport infrastructure of 1800, and I would like to know what the current, if any, rules about categories are, if they apply to this. Thanks for the response. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It says 400 for estimated pages affected. This includes existing categories it will edit, as well as new ones it will create. Around 100 categories it would create already exist, so it would only be creating around 100 more categories.
 * The bot request includes making airports, lighthouses, etc. categories subcategories of the newly created (or not) category, but the bot will NOT create them if they do not already exist.
 * I added that link before your comment.
 * True, a talk page discussion doesn't seem appropriate for community discussion, however it was also on WP:BOTR for a while with no issues raised, it was also discussed on another users talk page. I don't think this is a huge enough task that requires extended discussion. If you feel otherwise, feel free to bring it up on WP:VPR.
 * CSD C1 is what happens to empty categories. I have tweaked the code so it won't create the category unless one of the sub-cats exist. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am generally okay with the community consensus on empty categories, but, yes, you need to check it first. The task looks fine, as it appears that the two users have requested this for their own utility. And, yes, not a huge task, but a bot task requires community input, so try not to have future discussions in user talk space, and when you do, link to them in the BRFA and in the bot requests board. Thanks. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you saying you think more community discussion is needed? As I had said earlier, I am confident that this is not a major change and does not require more discussion. If you feel otherwise, you can raise it at WP:VPR. Thanks, LegoKontribsTalkM 17:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add that the community consensus against empty categories (and therefore against creating empty categories) is about as old as the category system and as far as I know has never been seriously challenged since. I don't think there's much point in reiterating it in a community discussion here. Pichpich (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am asking that you give all of the information up front and that you discuss bots with the community before requesting approval, not on user talk pages. Yes, I assumed that empty-categories were pretty much against community consensus, and you could have been told that sooner if you had discussed the categories in a community space rather than user talk. That's all. 68.107.140.60 (talk) 05:16, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

 MBisanz  talk 00:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * See User:Legobot/Transport infrastructure categories. No years were skipped for having potentially empty categories. LegoKontribsTalkM 01:02, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I'll approve later today unless anyone objects.  MBisanz  talk 15:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

 MBisanz  talk 23:36, 12 September 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.