Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 3


 * 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

SSTbot 3
Operator:

Time filed: 01:14, Wednesday, May 17, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Create redirects to filmography sections of articles

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Feminist

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~600 at first, maybe more later

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Creates redirects in the format "[actor or filmmaker] filmography" to the filmography section of the person if such a page does not exist, such as Bella Thorne filmography, as long as the target article contains a Filmography section (will pre-parse target articles for this). Titles that are unsuitable should be redirected to a suitable article, per WP:ATD-R; this is true for unsuitable filmography articles. Consensus for such redirects is established in discussions like Articles for deletion/Shabana filmography and Articles for deletion/Jennifer Lawrence filmography. I am starting with articles on WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Popular pages because these are most viewed and would most benefit from such redirects. Requesting for such edits to be passed through a bot per requests made by editors.

Discussion
Per WP:MASSCREATION, please establish consensus for this mass redirect creation at WP:VPR, and advertise that discussion on the talk pages of the relevant projects. The linked discussions are insufficient for establishing consensus for this task. Anomie⚔ 17:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * An RfD discussion has been started at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18, and this BRFA has been linked from VPR. This is similar to how Bots/Requests for approval/SSTbot 1 was handled. f  e  minist  00:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Question: why? Not disagreeing just don't see a rationale given for why they are needed. --  Green  C  02:50, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Why? Because they are useful. Because articles like Charlie Chaplin filmography exist, readers may search for something like Emma Watson filmography. f  e  minist  03:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * support as long as "[actor or filmmaker]" is unambiguous (i.e. there is no [actor or filmmaker] (disambiguation) page or redirect) and there is a Filmography section on the target page then these redirects are definitely useful. My comment about disambigs is that these should have human review - for example I know of no discussion about whether redirects like William Wagner (actor) filmography, whether William Wager filmography should point to William Wagner (actor) (the other people by this name are a surveyor, bootlegger and academic who do not have filmographies) and what to do with William Smith (filmography) given that there are at least two William Smiths with filmographies (William Smith (actor) and William Craig Smith). Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I plan to skip any parenthetically disambiguated articles. I agree with only creating the redirects when a Filmography section exists on the target page; I have edited the description to add this. f  e  minist  14:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that at least some filmography sections are called "Selected filmography" rather than just "Filmography" if no separate Filmography page exists then redirecting to these is fine. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is the discussion at WP:RfD instead of WP:VPR? Surely VP is a better place for such a discussion. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 13:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's mass redirect creation, not article creation. More people with experience in redirects at RfD than VPR. This is what I did with my previous task. f  e  minist  16:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 May 18 is probably going to be irrelevant here; RfD can easily establish consensus for keeping existing redirects, but it's unlikely to establish consensus for mass creation of more redirects. As for this discussion that's currently linked from WP:VPR, I'd personally rather it had been held there instead of linking here but I'm not thinking it's worth my effort to try to change that now. Feel free to advertise the discussion further if you'd like. Anomie⚔ 06:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 21 worked, so I'm basing this on past experience. f  e  minist  11:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed that it should be held here and the discussion at RfD can't give consensus. I see that the VPP link comes to here, instead of the RfD as before, which is better. If a previous discussion was held at RfD before, that was in my view an error, to not be repeated. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 09:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

the RfD has been closed as keep; while I agree that consensus for keeping a single redirect alone does not equate consensus to create similar redirects, the comments at the RfD discussion explicitly support this task. I have also received no opposition both here and at WP:VPR. I think this may proceed now. f e  minist  13:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Neutral. This strikes me as a solution looking for a problem. The vast majority of these redirects I think would never be used. Also should this be approved, these redirects should all be tagged with R to section. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, they will be tagged with that template. f  e  minist  00:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see the very similar WP:VPR#Proposal to create "Geography of [city]" redirects is getting many more comments. That's why I recommended the RFC for this task be held at VPR instead of here. Anomie⚔ 12:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Neutral: I don't honestly think that many of these will be used, but provided that they're created well no harm is done. But that is certainly not a positive reason to support the task, so I'm neutral on this. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The reception here has been luke-warm. I'm also taking into consideration broader community perspectives at Village_pump_(proposals). While those opinions aren't as directly related to your task as the opinions expressed here, there's potential for the community to reject the idea of creating these redirects with similar rationales, and so I don't believe WP:SILENCE can be applied. At this time, I don't see a clear consensus for this task. You're welcome to try an actual RfC at VPR to get a clearer consensus. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
 * OperatorAssistanceNeeded Please comment on how you'd like to move forward with this. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was busy recently and only just saw this. Clearly this isn't happening anytime soon so I guess this can be closed. f  e  minist  05:57, 17 June 2017 (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.