Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BHGbot 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 Request Expired.

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

Time filed: 05:17, Friday, January 20, 2017 (

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Source code available:

Function Overview: 1) creating category redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Estimated number of pages affected: initially one run of about several thousand articles. Possibly more later

Edit period(s): initially one run

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

Function Details:

Note that I used the BHGbot account years ago for Wikiproject tagging, with a custom Perl module. I have no current plans to resume that task, but the bot flag has been removed due to inactivity. If this task is approved, I would like that flag to be restored. Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Hello BHG, mass creation of pages/redirects has shown to be contentious in the past. Has a discussion taken place anywhere (please link in the header above) where the community has shown support for the thousands of pages you want to create? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't believe there's been a specific discussion for this in the past, at least to my knowledge, I can say that past CfD discussions have always supported maintaining or creating a redirect from organizations to organisations as uncontroversial and likely to benefit navigation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please post this at

WP:VPR, you can introduce it however you would like - but encourage anyone to comment here at BRFA if they have bot-related questions. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Sorry for the slow response. I have posted[2] at WP:Village pump (proposals)#Category_redirects_from_.22organisation.22_to_.22organization.22_and_vice_versa, inviting editors to comment here on whether they think that this is a good or bad idea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have also left an identical note at WT:Categorization#Category_redirects_from_.22organisation.22_to_.22organization.22_and_vice_versa, where the category specialists are more likely to spot it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like a good idea to me. If editors chose the "incorrect" (in the context of the category name) spelling, even if it would be correct in the article, other bots would (eventually) fix the problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this will simplify our category usage - both with Hotcat bypassing redirects to place the correct category, and with bots which move pages from redirect categories to their target categories, as well as human readers who open te wrong category being told "this one doesn't exist, but the other one does". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:19, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• This propsoal would actually make it harder to categorise using hotcat as both variants would appear in the window and many articles would end up in the redirect categories. Tim! (talk) 18:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Tim, articles would not end up in the redirect categories ... because HotCat resolves the redirect before saving.
    Try it for example with Category:Transportation by dependent territory, which I created recently as a redirect to Category:Transport by dependent territory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that works today when I tried but not when I tried it yesterday. Tim! (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

* And of course manual category edits can still end up the the redirect category. Tim! (talk) 09:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tim!: indeed they will, where they will be corrected by a bot. Thanks to the User:R'n'B, his User:RussBot task#4 has been doing this since for over 9 years it was authorised in September 2007.
  This will be a a welcome improvement over the the current situation, where the mistaken entry goes uncorrected unless and until it is either fixed by a reader of the page, or spotted somewhere in the massive backlog at Special:WantedCategories. (Currently the focus of a huge blitz by me and others, but many of redlinks i find are 5 years old or more. And since it is limited to 5000 pages, many redlinks aren't even on the list). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support This is one of the largest examples of the differences between en-GB and en-US being relevant here--there are many thousands of categories about "organi(s/z)ations" and there's no point in allowing for duplicates to exist. Making them and using {{
  catredirect}} or just making actual standard MediaWiki redirects in the form of #redirect[[:Category:Organizations based in place]] would be doing God's work. Thanks, User:BrownHairedGirl. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Does the feedback above assist BAG in making a decision on this bot? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) {{BAG assistance needed}}[reply]

• Strongly support. We clearly cannot impose uniformity - even within most countries - and trying to make this work is very time consuming. An excellent idea. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the discussions are only about "organi(s/z)ations" and per

Other than that, past CfD practice, commenting editors (and

I am going to assume that the newly created categories contain only {{Category redirect|Whatever Organisations whatever}}. Shoudl we add some sort of parameter to this, like |bot=BHGbot, so we can locate these easily, if needed? Also, I don't believe categories have any, but is there or should there be anything akin to Category:Redirect templates?

Approved for trial (50 edits) Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. for "organi(s/z)ations" cases. Please select a random sample of categories used for redirects to avoid bias. Please use a descriptive edit summary with links to task description. Function details to be finalized as per above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hellknowz: Thanks for authorising the trial. I will get to it in the next few days. Picking up on your points:

1. I am sorry that my request appeared open-ended. I had intended it to mean that "I seek authorisation only for what I set out here, but if that is successful I may make a further request for an extension of scope" ... but I guess my wording was clumsy. Sorry.
2. I intended only Category:Organizations by country, simply because that is what I had made an initial list for when I scoped the problem. However, it seems to me to make more sense to set the scope as "Category:Organizations and all its sub-categories". Would it be OK to amend my request?
3. My "initially one run" comment was because the list I had made of several thousand categories was incomplete. I intended to process that, then make further lists to complete the specified set. So the job would be as specified, but in several batches.
4. Yes, I can see no chance of false positives.
5. I had intended that each page should consist only of {{Category redirect|Whatever Organisations whatever}}, as in my previously-mentioned 40 manual edits[3], where I forgot to switch-to skip-if-exists for the first few edits. Adding a parameter such as |bot=BHGbot sounds like a good idea, so I will do that unless instructed otherwise.
6. I will of course use an edit summary which links to a task page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If all of

Wikipedia category}}? I would exercise caution picking scope. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:46, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Hellknowz: there may be similar cases elsewhere in the tree. I had been considering ways to avoid them, but on reflection I don't see the need.

Surely a proper name category-redirect from Category:United Service Organisations buildings to Category:United Service Organizations buildings would be fine? It would merely mirror the existing article space redirect from United Service Organisations→United Service Organizations. Same wth a redirect Category:The Trump Organisation→Category:The Trump Organization, which would parallel the article space The Trump Organisation→The Trump Organization

Similarly, what's the problem with a redirect from

WP:ENGVAR situation where en.wp has no reason to prefer one spelling over the other, but has merely retained the format adopted by the page creator. So it seems to me to be an excellent illustration of a case where a redirect would be v helpful, and as unproblematic as Category:Organizations based in Madagascar→Category:Organisations based in Madagascar

.

AFAICS, the only cases where there would be difficulties would be if the world had a pair of entities which met all of three conditions:

1. Their names are distinguished only the s/z variation, and
2. en.wp has an existing eponymous category for only one of them, and
3. That existing category title uses no other disambiguator, and

In the very rare case that both #1 and #2 applied, I would be very surprised if there wasn't an additional disambiguator carried through per

WP:C2D from the head articles, e.g. "That Stuff Organisation (Scotland)"/"That Stuff Organization (California)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:ENGVAR is an article policy. I'm mentioning those as potential candidates for issues, not that they necessarily are. If you believe they are suitable for redirects and that the consensus reflects that, then go ahead. As I said, exercise caution. But the ultimate decision is up to you, including seeking additional clarification and consensus if needed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

ENGVAR, even where it does apply, does not exclude redirects from the other name. In fact, our redirect policy encourages them. By the way, I just opened a CfR discussion for the organi[sz]ation categories related to Brazil; I'd recommend not adding any redirects there until the discussion is closed. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) - Is this still being worked on? SQL^{Query me!} 18:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Please feel free to file a new BRFA (referencing this one) in the future if you return to this task, and we can pick up from where we left off. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:14, 4 June 2017 (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

.