Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RussBot 5


 * 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.

RussBot 5
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia (rewrite branch)

Function overview: Create redirects to disambiguation pages, for use as targets for intentional links to these pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation

Edit period(s): Monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: Probably 30-40,000 on the first run, to clear backlog; in the hundreds in subsequent months

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: The bot will review all "disambiguation pages with links" as identified by this tool. If the page title does not include the string "(disambiguation)", or any other parenthetical phrase "(foo)", it will construct a new title consisting of the disambiguation page title with the string " (disambiguation)" appended. (We don't want to create pages of the form "Topic (foo) (disambiguation)".) If no page exists using this new title, the bot will create it as a redirect to the disambiguation page, with the template in the wikitext. (To prevent edit conflicts, the bot will double-check that the page listed by the tool is still a disambiguation page, and if it has been redirected, will check that the redirect target is a disambiguation page.)

Discussion

 * Perfect. bd2412  T 18:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Why limit it to the pages provided by the tool (ones with links)? Wouldn't it be a good idea to create " (disambiguation)" redirects for all pages in Category:Disambiguation pages, for future usage? - EdoDodo  talk 21:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If a disambiguation page has no links, it's unlikely to ever have any intentional links. So it would be creating pages for no good reason. – xeno talk 22:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your point, but IMHO if it's a disambiguation page, it should be reachable by "Foo (disambiguation)", if only for consistency. Also, in my opinion, there's no harm in having a redirect from a title that makes sense. - EdoDodo  talk 22:10, 10 August 2010 (U TC)
 * You'd want to use Category:All disambiguation pages instead, as the one you mentioned is more inclusive (set index articles, etc.) Personally, I'm fine with only doing the disambigs with links, since this is not a one-off job and newly linked dabs would get picked up later. But I certainly wouldn't oppose going the whole nine yards. -- Ja Ga  talk 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy doing it either way; it just seemed to me that there was no reason to create redirects for links to pages that don't have any links anyway. And I'd probably use Category:All article disambiguation pages if there were a consensus to create the redirects in advance of need.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, this is starting to look like the Bugs Bunny cartoon where Bugs and Elmer pull out bigger and bigger guns. -- Ja Ga  talk 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The next step would be to propose having a "foo (disambiguation)" redirect for every article in Wikipedia, whether a disambig or not. I don't think we're going to go there. bd2412  T 01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see what you mean. Was just a thought :). - EdoDodo  talk 02:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Ready for a trial?  MBisanz  talk 04:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ready whenever you are, Captain. :-) R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah, beat ya to it. 02:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Contributions here. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice, . Tim  1357  talk  14:55, 17 August 2010 (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.