Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 42


 * 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

Yobot 42
Operator:

Time filed: 12:59, Thursday, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual:

Programming language(s):

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Arrange categories in Wikicode to be after last headline (CHECKWIKI error 52), in seperate lines (CHECKWIKI error 9) and remove duplicated (CHECKWIKI error 17)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 300 per month

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This is already done by JosveBot, BG19bot and Menobot.

Discussion

 * Oppose. This is a cosmetic-only edit. Categories do not render on a page beyond placing the page in a category, which appears at the bottom of the webpage regardless of where the category is within the source code. None of these changes affect how the page is rendered, and they exist only to clean-up the wikicode. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:23, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13 is in favour of having duplicated categories in the same page. Noted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:HotCat/Archive_2 requested in 2011. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, this is something we've been over many times and in many places. There's a large gap between "this is a good edit" and "this edit should be done at large volumes with a bot" instead of handling it naturally over time as part of other edits. The linked discussion is about HotCat, a semi-automatic tool, which doesn't have the same large volumes as a fully-automated bot run. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to which edits "should be done over time as part of other edits"? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COSMETICBOT is the default. You're welcome to obtain consensus to override it at a broad community venue. ~ Rob 13 Talk 15:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

so you say that there is a policy that allows bots to perform certain edits "over time as part of other edits"? Right? -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was speaking mostly about fixing them gradually via manual or semi-auto edits (as part of other things being done at the same time - general fixes run with many AWB semi-auto tasks, etc). But yes, WP:COSMETICBOT makes clear that aspects of an edit can be cosmetic-only so long as at least one change in the edit is non-cosmetic, so you can "piggyback" cosmetic-only edits on tasks that are non-cosmetic in nature. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:49, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * OK this means I can add "+general fixes" to all BRFAs! -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that so long as you have "skip if genfixes only" checked and take responsibility for any AWB-related errors that derive from the not-strictly-necessary option. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You may, theoretically, request including general fixes in all your BRFAs. Given your history, it's unlikely to be approved. Anomie⚔ 02:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is this need if there are already three other bots doing the same thing? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  01:49, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be enough other bots doing this that your bot is not necessary at this time, and given your recent history it's probably better not to approve any purely cosmetic tasks at the moment. Furthermore, I find flooding WP:BRFA with 20 requests all at once is probably bordering on WP:POINT: I suggest you limit yourself to fewer than 5 open requests at a time so you can more easily express yourself clearly and so you and the community can have time for necessary discussion. Anomie⚔ 02:16, 3 February 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.