Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot

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

I would like to have the bot automatically tag catagorys older than 5 days with ((db-catempty}} that remain unused after five days

How would it do that? What would the bot run in? How frequently would you run it? αChimp ^laudare 16:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will get a dump of all articles in Special:unused categorys and wait five days at that time i will get another dump and compare them manualy, any category that remains on the list is subject to deletion after only four days on the list. once i have the list of old empty cats i will then run the bot in AWB to tag each article with {{db-catempty}} per the deletion policy. I plan to run it no more than once a day, less as the number of empty cats goes down. currently there is 3926 empty catagories.

An initial influx of 4000 CSD's would be a strain on anyone working

CAT:CSD, can this be set to only flag new loney categories for CSD? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Does unused cat's include categories that are "empty" of pages, but have subcats? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to use

One comment about the current 3926 empties. I'm sure that a lot of them will remain empty, but is that the number of categories empty after 4 days, or is that just the total empty right now? (those two stats might actually be different) alphaChimp ^laudare 05:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

right now. update(3914)

Betacommand 06:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Using a holding category sounds good for the initial run, I've got no objection to using {{

db-catempty}} tagging for the rest. Can you implement a check to prevent them from getting tagged on subsequent runs though (e.g. if in holding cat SKIP) ? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

already built in but thanks for the sugestion

Betacommand 03:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Would a trial run be possible without having to deal with the 3926 cats first? — xaosflux ^Talk 03:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to log them under

• Trial period approved. Please limit the initial run to no more than 500 categories. If possible have the trial include some empty cats created after the trial starts. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trial run in progress please see

Betacommand 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Can the per page logs check a master or prior page days to not regnerate so many hits per page? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trial run bloody well unapproved. He set it to tag for deletion hundreds and hundreds of categories that, whilst empty, are key elements in series of categories (like buildings by year, for years we don't have a buliding for yet). I've just sat and reverted them, and I don't have a bot. Much greater thought needs to be applied before approving expansions like this. Please; would this page stop handing approvals out for pointless tasks that don't need doing, and that need doing with a modicum of human judgement? Having witless bots do things merely for the sake of not having them idle is irritating at best. And this particular bot has already had one run of other edits (substs) reverted for also being wrong, and pointless. -Splash - tk 01:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do run short trials to see what may happen and require further review before just letting bots go. I'm not sure why we really need empty cats such as

Wikipedia:CSD#1 does state that empty categories are speediable, and according to your statements above these may not even fall in to the old categories that may have contained articles before, requiring further investigation. If consensus is that we should have all of these empty categories, how did we end up with the speedy criteria? Regardless, due to this complaint, trials relating to editing the categories themselves are suspended, but ones that are preparing lists are not. Additionally, there has got to be a better way to keep track of the gathering then categorizing the categories. This bot has been blocked by Splash, pending a response. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Well no, there were some that did seem a bit arbitrary, but I wasn't going to manually review each of 500ish categories when ~99% of them needed reverting. I do not think there is necessarily a "consensus" somewhere I can point to about the categories, but it does seem fairly obvious to me (and others at User talk:Kbdank71#Bot-tagging of unused categories) that obliterating large chunks of sequenced categories, just because they happen to be empty is wrong. Empty categories should be deleted when they risk confusion or duplication etc; that's what the CSD is for, not for indiscriminate application. Also, just because something meets a CSD does not mean it is required to be deleted, only that it may be.

Xaosflux, to answer your question, yes, I'm fine of course with someone unblocking the bot once its owner appreciates the difference in the manner it needs to be operated. Not merely asking here and getting an out-of-context nod before embarking on major-sized operations like this without checking very thoroughly, in advance that they make sense. WP:BOLD does not need to apply to bots. That said, I do not view the unblock as at all time-critical; the action of this bot fall well below the 'critical' threshold and in some cases well below the 'useful' threshold.

On a broader note, I'd like it if runs of 500 hundred edits were not the trial size. These have to be reverted by patient humans, and the whole point of a trial is to save time if things go belly up. I would think trials of no more than 50, with well announced trialling would be very much more appropriate. -Splash - tk 02:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responce:

• A: My bot did not tag anything for deletion.
• B: All it did was state that the category was subject to the old category rule
  Wikipedia:CSD#1
  .
• C: If someone lets me know about a mistake i can have the bot revert all of the edits quickly without the overwork to humans.
• D: It has been brought to my attention that some cats need to be kept. I would like assistance in creating a list of cats that are key elements in series of categories. i will use thwm as an exclusion
• E: My bot did only 300-350 edits reguarding this subject
• F: If at any point there is concern about my bot leave a message on its talkpage and it will stop editing until i have reviewed it and have resolved the issue

• A, B: It amounted to tagging for speedy deletion.
• E: That's still a factor of 10 too many for a trial run.
• F: That is a useful feature that you should document on the bot's user page. -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What it is key to take away from this, Betacommand, is that you must check with relevant projects and processes and people before undertaking sweeping actions with a bot that are not precedented. Not before, to my knowledge have categories been mass eliminated under CSD C1, and so CfD should have been contacted before going ahead. This approvals page is evidently rather below-par for making sure of the utility and appropriateness of the editing the bot will undertake, really only making sure it is technically sound and possible. It is your responsibility to do the necessary homework. -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this bot is a good idea. If someone where create the category, you expect it to have at least one item. Keeping them provides no navagationial value. --Shane ^{(talk/contrib)} 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well obviously sequential years have navigational value if I'm a newbie trying to work out what categories I can use without realising I can make them (particularly if I'm an anon and prohibited from creating pages at all). -Splash - tk 19:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• After receiving confirmation that this function is disabled for the time being (logs will still be written for debug purposes, but the bot will not make live edits related to this), I've unblocked the bot. However, if the bot is making any funny edits, feel free to reblock again. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with this task. However, if certian categories are "required" or whatever, why not tag them with a template to that effect? Bots can detect the template and ignore it, and it will give humans the same cue. --Chris (talk) 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chris on this, a template would be a good idea, that makes the bot easily future-compatible, which is important for maintenance of series categories. I think that the task is a good idea, as long as some sort of exceptions mechanism is implemented, and all the needed categories are tagged before the bot runs.--

e^{(Talk•Contribs)} 02:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

User:Splash I object to your to how you have handled this situation you are going against Wikipedia policy (empty categories older than four days are subject to deletion), and you inability to read.

is how I marked the categories ‘‘‘NEVER’’’ did I list it for deletion or attempt to speedy it, all the bot did at this point was state 'This page meets Wikipedia's