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

Withdrawn by operator.

Operator: Magioladitis (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

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): Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_move_the_Orphan_tags_to_the_talk_page 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)[reply]

Discussion

Why would this ever require a second run? →Σ σ ς. (Sigma) 07:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - I just read the first line of Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria "An article is orphaned if no other articles link to it. It is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} 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)[reply]
    - 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)[reply]

This appears to be in line with consensus. Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Josh Parris 01:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Josh Parris: I will first wait a few days for Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#On_Orphan_tags_again since different solutions were purposed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is no longer necessary per the WP:VPR#Alternate idea? discussion. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#On_Orphan_tags_again 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)[reply]

Technical 13 interesting huh? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis, 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 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Continuation on orphan tags, so this bot should still be held off. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion was archived a month ago here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_109#Continuation_on_orphan_tags. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has resumed in the recent sections of Template talk:Orphan. – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues at Template_talk:Orphan#Yes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Magioladitis, 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)[reply]

Wbm1058 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)[reply]

Josh Parris 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)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Hasteur (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.