Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DomBot 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.

DomBot

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

Operator: Chidom

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted

Programming Language(s): AWB

Function Summary: Correct wikilink to bypass redirect on multiple articles.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run with possible "touch up" runs

Edit rate requested: 15 edits per minute? (Whatever current maximum is)

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

Function Details: List of gay porn stars is included in the "See also" section of 264 mainspace articles. The article has been renamed List of male performers in gay porn films; the distinction is an important one and changing the link will (hopefully) keep the old title from being used on new articles. Future edits to change the name would most probably be done by hand, but it would be good to have approval to use the bot for those as well. I realize that changing links to bypass redirects is generally not done; however, there is a difference between referring to someone as being gay and referring to them as having appeared in a gay porn film. I believe the distinction is important enough to override Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken and feel that Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules of use (Avoid making insignificant minor edits) doesn't apply as the change is significant; it is akin to changing the link for a category name that has changed. Thanks.—Chidom ^talk  22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

While I agree that this is a valid activity, I disagree with the comparison to Wikipedia:CFD/W. Now, you estimate 264 edits, you're simply changing a link, so I don't see any problems that I would want addressed, hopefully a BAG member will be along shortly. ST47Talk 23:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe policy says 15 edits per minute is for use in necessary tasks, or some wording such as that - perhaps this could be done at the older standard of 10 if it will be done during peak times. Also, I don't see a reason that this would need to be manually assisted, if you're simply using a find and replace. ST47Talk 23:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a really ghastly list isn't it?! It's redundant to the category and doesn't seem very useful at all. Why would you even want to link to it? --kingboyk 12:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a solicitation of your opinion of the list article; your finding it "ghastly" has no bearing here. You're mistaken, the list is not redundant to the category, see Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. Like it or not, the list is quite useful to others; you may not share their interests, but that doesn't invalidate the list or its usefulness; it's not the only list of its kind on Wikipedia. The article is linked to; I just want to correct the links.

Considering what has recently been said about BAG members being "role models", your comment here is a bit surprising. Since you've made a comment without approving or rejecting the request, is someone else from BAG going to make a decision, or was this a back-handed "reject"?—DomBot / ChiDom ^talk 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone will make an accept or a reject, he was merely pointing out that it might be a good idea to have a chat about if the list is really needed or not, it might not be a bad thing, before we have a bot switch names, as it would be a shame to do all this and find out that the page got deleted for some reason ;) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment here didn't say anything about having "a chat" about anything; it just pronounced the list ghastly and useless. He has since "suggested" that the article be moved to a WikiProject; if that isn't done, he'll nominate it for deletion. (It's already survived two Afd's.) Those sorts of comments don't belong here; this page isn't about deciding whether or not an article is needed. He's made his statement on the article's talk page where it belongs. I won't discuss the merits of his comments here; that's being done there. I expect to have to defend the list on its talk page; I don't expect to defend it during a routine request for maintenance. The comments are out of line and inappropriate for this page.—Chidom ^talk  04:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Denied. This proposal goes against policy, and clearly has no consensus behind it - I suggest that you take the proposal to Wikipedia:RfD, and then if there is support for the idea, come back here and file a new request. Thanks, Martinp23 11:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Please quote the policy that this violates and explain how you reached the "no consensus" conclusion. There were three commenters, one of whom didn't even respond to the request. The other two had no problem with it other than the rate at which the edits were made.—Chidom ^talk  12:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirect policy and AWB use policy. Both are binding - please go to RFD to get a consensus on whether this is neccessary. A bot proposal to change a redirect to Esperanza has also been taken to RfD, so please be assured that this is the norm. Martinp23 12:11, 17 April 2007 (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.