English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Bots/Requests for approval/Milk's Favorite Bot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Denied.

Milk's Favorite Bot 2

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie

Automatic or Manually Assisted:

• Automatic - Supervised most of the time.

Programming Language(s):

• C#

Function Summary:

• See below

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

• Daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

• No

Function Details:

• This bot will tag uncategorized pages with {{uncategorized}}. It'll also update User:Milk's Favorite Cookie/orphaned. That page will list a list of talk pages with no corresponding article, hence meeting speedy deletion criteria G8. It's next step will be to tag the pages with {{db-g8}}. This will always be supervised to prevent false positives. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

CSD G8 isn't for orphaned pages. G8 is for talk pages where the article doesn't exist. Completely different then orphaned articles. And speedying orphaned articles is a very Bad Thing(tm) Q ^{T C} 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tagging pages with uncategorised seems useful, but how would it generate lists: from categories or new pages? If new pages it would probably be an idea to delay an hour or two after creation to give the creator time to categorise the page. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, (to overlodQ) I meant orphaned talk pages - should have been more precise. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It gets the uncategorized list from the Special page, Special:UncategorizedPages, I believe. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

G8 isn't for orphaned talk pages (i.e. talk pages with no incoming links) it is for ones with no corresponding article. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

User:UnCatBot already checks Uncategorized Pages. I am in the process of recoding it but NNBot is my first priority right now. --Nn123645 (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re to Richard - sorry I forgot to change the "orphan" word above as well. I suppose we could have another bot who tags uncatagorized pages. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So moving on, the speedy deletion tag would be something like:

« Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There really isn't a need for another bot to go through Uncategorized Pages. Uncategorized Pages is cached (like all of the maintenance report pages) and only updated once every 3 days. In addition it is limited to 1,000 pages. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Then why is your bot request above doing it? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My bot request above is using the IRC feed to tag New Pages, not using Special:UncategorizedPages. --Nn123645 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• There's a tool for orphan talk pages: [1]. Maxim_(talk) 17:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooh! Makes everything easier. Thanks Maxim! Brilliant! « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, can we proceed with a trial? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 18:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to make an adminbot to do this (or just have an admin check that tool daily? Maxim_(talk) 19:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I just checked, as of my post, there are only four orphaned talkpages. It would be more efficient for a bot to clean up immediately after a regular admin deletes an article. Maxim_(talk) 19:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe today, but it gets near 30-40 everyday. I think it would be best for a bot to tag them instead of delete. There can be some false positives (although I will always monitor the tagging) « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

G8 tagging really isn't necessary, as I and other admins clear out G8-able pages fairly regularly, so the bot would really only be flooding the CSD category unnecessarily as the deletions aren't high priority. But, then again, that's just my opinion :P --slakr^\ talk / 12:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would "flood" the category. I did tag around 20 to 30 a month ago, and by the time I was done, there were 2 left to delete. Can it go up for a trial? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} I don't think it would "flood" the category. I did tag around 20 to 30 a month ago, and by the time I was done, there were 2 left to delete. Can it go up for a trial? « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie 19:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The {{uncategorized}} tagging seems non-controversial but I agree with the above users, the G8 pages are already handled. BJ^Talk 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see why we need to bots constantly checking a cached page. --Nn123645 (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• Denied.—There appears to be no need currently for such a bot. Maxim_(talk) 14:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.