Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 23

Yobot 23

 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Operator:

Time filed: 08:15, Saturday December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic, supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB is open source. I can provide my settings file if asked.

Function overview: Move Orphan tags to talk pages

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Village_pump_(proposals) describes the new consensus.

Edit period(s): One big run and then Occasionally

Estimated number of pages affected: 122,673

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Create list of pages. Remove orphan from page. Load list of corresponding talk pages. Add orphan to talk page following WP:TPL. AWB recently updated to maintain the correct order of tags in talk pages. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Why would this ever require a second run? → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 07:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Because editors will keep adding in article page fro some time. I recall that after we switched the consensus on the placements of the place of birth/death categories many editors kept adding on the talk pages. Some editors kept adding wikify tag many months after it was deleted. I guess there are more examples but I think you got the idea. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I see. Are there plans to make the template display an error in mainspace in order to notify editors of the change? → Σ σ  ς . (Sigma) 08:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Σ I think this is a good question for template's talk page. As far as I recall we did this trick with "wikify" and "expand". After removing it we changed the template's txt to display an error message. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be in line with consensus. Josh Parris 01:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Will the bot be able to check if the article is actually still an orphan? I would think that many would have been placed when less than 3 links was the orphan definition, not the current 0 links definition, or have had links added since the tag was added. Moving it to the talk page will break the svick cleanup tool tracking by WikiProject, so I reckon they will be removed even slower than currently. Is there any discussion anywhere to crate a new list by WikiProject or topic (don't think catscan works across talk/article name spaces either, so AWB list comparer will be the only way to sort them by topic). The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The-Pope is there a consensus to remove orphan tag from any page that has at least 1 incoming link? I already completed, with the assistance of GoingBatty the search for any page that has at least 3 incoming links. If I am asked, yes I can do it. I would also prefer to do it prior the move. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just read the first line of Orphan "An article is orphaned if no other articles link to it. It is recommended to only place the tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." The second line does make it a bit more grey "Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers." Do other bots/AWB do this currently?  Do they use 1 or 3 as the minimum links before they de-orphan?  How do they not count dab pages?  A quasi-random selection of about 10 old orphans only found 1 or 2 that should be de-orphaned, so maybe it isn't a significant number, but it would be a shame to edit 120000 pages and not do as much as we can to ensure that only those that actually need attention get re-tagged.  The-Pope (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The-Pope I have written User:Magioladitis/AWB and orphans. AWB will tag pages with NO links and untag pages with 3 or more links. AWB will not tag dab pages. Dab pages are detected by dab templates in them. I followed the orphan tagging very closely all these years. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I will first wait a few days for Village_pump_(proposals) since different solutions were purposed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is no longer necessary per the WP:VPR discussion. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Technical 13 let's wait to establish a solid consensus. I follow the discussions closely this time. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Village_pump_(proposals) was closed as "no consensus to overturn the previous consensus", and therefore the trial can begin now. 81.183.29.3 (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Technical 13 interesting huh? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * , that is the least clear closing I've seen in a long time which addresses none of the discussion had in the subsequent sections. As such, I've started Village pump (proposals), so this bot should still be held off. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion was archived a month ago here: Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_109. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion has resumed in the recent sections of Template talk:Orphan. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion continues at Template_talk:Orphan. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Updated statistics: 117343 pages transcluding Orphan, 43012 inside Multiple issues and 74331 without since there the sole tag in the page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

, as it's been six weeks since I implemented my alternative solution which implemented the spirit of the consensus, and there has been no discussion at Template talk:Orphan for over a month, can this BRFA be moved to the expired/withdrawn requests section? Wbm1058 (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * yes sure. If there is consensus not to move orphan tags in the talk pages I withdraw this request. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

you can close that as withdrawn since consensus has changed again. I'll revisit if necessary. Thanks, -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (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.