Operator: This, that and the other ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 11:10, Saturday July 30, 2011 ( UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Manually invoked to begin with, then automatic (without user review of each edit) while performing the requested task
Programming language(s): JavaScript
Source code available: User:This, that and the other/masstag.js
Function overview: Tag pages en masse with {{ tfd}} (or {{ mfd}} in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I
asked JPG-GR, an admin active at TfD, about this matter. The TfD talk page,
WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.
Wikipedia talk:TFD#Bot for mass TFD nominations
Edit period(s): As required. Most likely, fairly infrequently.
Estimated number of pages affected: Between 10 and 800 per run
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details:
It is a requirement of our deletion processes that interested members of the community are made aware of impending deletion of a given page, and of any discussions that are taking place to that effect. For the XfD processes, this is done by way of tagging each page being considered for deletion with a particular template (in order to give notice to users who have added the page to their watchlist), as well as notifying the creator and/or major contributors to the page with a talk page notification.
However, when mass nominations are being carried out, it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes impractical.
This bot account, running my
masstag.js user script, will tag pages en masse with templates such as the {{
tfd}} tag (for mass TFD nominations), and the {{
mfd}} tag (for userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations). It will run as needed by me, and as requested by other users. The script does what it is told, and does not edit without user permission (i.e. clicking the "Submit" button), so the operator is entirely responsible for any mistakes.
{{
tfd}}
and {{
mfd}}
Operation would be as follows:
At a later stage, a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep" may be added to the script.
This bot is not exclusion compliant because (a) the bot performs a simple, reliable task that only adds to the page content, and does not modify any existing content; and (b) the bot will most likely not operate in userspace (the place for which the exclusion system is intended). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Approved for trial (50 taggings). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
You didn't notify anyone or discuss this with anyone other than one admin? And you got approval for a trial in 4 minutes? Who's your buddy! I would like a detailed explanation of why this bot task should go to trial approval immediately, without any prior discussion in the community. Can you just post links to pages that show that this task is something that either does not require any community discussion or approval, or links to pages that show this task is such a no-brainer that a 4 minute approval for a trial is reasonable? I don't think that any sort of bot mass tagging for deletion of anything has broad community approval. But I could be wrong, so please help me out by posting links. Thanks, -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
My objection is the blanket request for approval for tagging en masse, initially with tfd, but if BAG gives approval for this bot, what unspecified other tagging en masse is this granting permission for? So, yes, I disagree that a personal bot for tagging en masse should be given permission to operate on wikipedia.
The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion.
I requested that this trial approval be revoked. I ask that this request be answered directly. -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
tfd}}
)," then an elaboration about it being for mass nominations, not for tags on templates already nominated for deletion. --
68.127.234.159 (
talk)
22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replyMeanwhile where is this bot's discussion under "Current requests for approval?" The only bots currently requesting approval are Lightbot 16, Fbot, Pause! and BOTijo 10.
This bot is not a current request for approval; according to the BRfA board, this request for approval is not current. So, has it already been passed? The discussion dead and over? That appears to be the case. And, the reason this bot is no longer up for discussion is that 4 minutes after the BRfA was posted, it was apparently granted, or at least the discussion on it was apparently closed (hence it's almost immediate removal from "Current requests for approval).
If it is no longer a current request for approval, because it was removed from that category in 4 minutes, then what is it? An already approved bot! -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 05:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Strongly oppose this bot task. It appears to have morphed into something completely different from what was originally requested. ("It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks," versus adding TfD and MfD tags." Really?)
And the new guise demands community participation, as it appears, also, that the community guidelines for this task have not yet been written. "Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written. –xenotalk 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)" Then let's allow the community to write the policy, before a bot is created and approved to implement it. This is more in line with long stated community workings on wikipedia, rather than requesting approval and granting trials for an ever expanding ill-defined task where the bot operator pre-dismissed community input. ("The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.")
This task should be discussed first, by the community; relevant policies/guidelines written, then approval for a defined task requested rather than trying an end run around writing guidelines by implementing a bot that does what some person wants without prior community input/discussion. -- 68.127.234.159 ( talk) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Per HellKnowz's suggestion, I've put this in a separate subsection (and added a subsection header for the trial above). I saw the note about this at WT:TFD, so thanks for placing that. A few questions about what the bot will or won't do:
{{
Tfd}}
, such as |type=
, to allow the notification tag to appear on pages where the nominated templates appear without being too prominent or breaking page layouts. Will the bot be able to place those parameters when appropriate?In theory this seems like a reasonable use of a bot, but I think all the questions above deserve consideration first, and I didn't see those situations in the trial edits. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
tfd}}
requires <noinclude>...</noinclude>
, then I will specify that when I run the script.{{
tfd}}
needs a |type=
, I will specify that when I run the script. (Essentially I input the wikitext to be tacked onto the beginning of each page. So I can add whatever is needed.)This request is for tagging templates with "a certain tag (initially {{ tfd}})". Are there other tags or categories of tags that might need to be added that we can explicitly list here, to narrow the scope of this request to a limited set of tags? Anomie ⚔ 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Without expressing an approval or disapproval of this bot process, I must point out that "a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep"" is a necessity before full implementation. If say 700 templates are tagged and then the templates are kept, that's a LOT of work (just like tagging 700 templates is a lot of work). The likelihood of a particular TfD being closed with that much baggage and cleaned up properly without a bot is relatively small, I would think. JPG-GR ( talk) 04:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}}
I completely agree - would it be possible to roll this functionality into the bot? Even, perhaps if isn't initially - or even always turned on.
SQL
Query me!
05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
{{
Tfd}}
tag, the bot could also add {{
TfD end}}
to the talk pages. I wouldn't see it as a showstopper if it can't, but if we're going to facilitate making mass nominations, we should try to facilitate as much of the closing as we reasonably can. --
RL0919 (
talk)
06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
Approved for extended trial (1 batch of detagging kept templates). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. If possible, placing a {{
TfD end}} (taking into account documentation pages). If you cannot find any, then just do a sandbox edit or two. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
{{
tfd}}
)According to this and links posted by Xeno, it seems the bot is destined for more than simple template deletions, namely, it is also intended for AfDs. I think the AfD community will be interested, and failure to notify the wikipedia community is reason enough to put a halt to this BRfA. Again, if the guidelines need changed, Xeno, change them, then create a bot to implement the changed guidelines. This end run around community policies is nothing that bots were ever intended for on wikipedia.
A discussion at AfD talk, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Multiple_articles_in_a_single_AFD, does not give a strong indication that the policy has changed in a way to favor creation and running of this bot. -- 68.127.234.159 ( talk) 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Approved. Utterly uncontroversial and policy compliant, despite troll's claim to the contrary. Approved.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
Operator: This, that and the other ( talk · contribs)
Time filed: 11:10, Saturday July 30, 2011 ( UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Manually invoked to begin with, then automatic (without user review of each edit) while performing the requested task
Programming language(s): JavaScript
Source code available: User:This, that and the other/masstag.js
Function overview: Tag pages en masse with {{ tfd}} (or {{ mfd}} in limited cases) following mass XfD nominations
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I
asked JPG-GR, an admin active at TfD, about this matter. The TfD talk page,
WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.
Wikipedia talk:TFD#Bot for mass TFD nominations
Edit period(s): As required. Most likely, fairly infrequently.
Estimated number of pages affected: Between 10 and 800 per run
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details:
It is a requirement of our deletion processes that interested members of the community are made aware of impending deletion of a given page, and of any discussions that are taking place to that effect. For the XfD processes, this is done by way of tagging each page being considered for deletion with a particular template (in order to give notice to users who have added the page to their watchlist), as well as notifying the creator and/or major contributors to the page with a talk page notification.
However, when mass nominations are being carried out, it is not reasonable for a user to manually tag many pages. Tagging 10 pages manually is boring and laborious but manageable. However, when the number of pages grows above 50, manual nomination becomes impractical.
This bot account, running my
masstag.js user script, will tag pages en masse with templates such as the {{
tfd}} tag (for mass TFD nominations), and the {{
mfd}} tag (for userboxes in the Template namespace which are involved in mass MFD nominations). It will run as needed by me, and as requested by other users. The script does what it is told, and does not edit without user permission (i.e. clicking the "Submit" button), so the operator is entirely responsible for any mistakes.
{{
tfd}}
and {{
mfd}}
Operation would be as follows:
At a later stage, a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep" may be added to the script.
This bot is not exclusion compliant because (a) the bot performs a simple, reliable task that only adds to the page content, and does not modify any existing content; and (b) the bot will most likely not operate in userspace (the place for which the exclusion system is intended). — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC) reply
Approved for trial (50 taggings). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
11:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
reply
You didn't notify anyone or discuss this with anyone other than one admin? And you got approval for a trial in 4 minutes? Who's your buddy! I would like a detailed explanation of why this bot task should go to trial approval immediately, without any prior discussion in the community. Can you just post links to pages that show that this task is something that either does not require any community discussion or approval, or links to pages that show this task is such a no-brainer that a 4 minute approval for a trial is reasonable? I don't think that any sort of bot mass tagging for deletion of anything has broad community approval. But I could be wrong, so please help me out by posting links. Thanks, -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 21:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC) reply
My objection is the blanket request for approval for tagging en masse, initially with tfd, but if BAG gives approval for this bot, what unspecified other tagging en masse is this granting permission for? So, yes, I disagree that a personal bot for tagging en masse should be given permission to operate on wikipedia.
The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion.
I requested that this trial approval be revoked. I ask that this request be answered directly. -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 14:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
tfd}}
)," then an elaboration about it being for mass nominations, not for tags on templates already nominated for deletion. --
68.127.234.159 (
talk)
22:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
replyMeanwhile where is this bot's discussion under "Current requests for approval?" The only bots currently requesting approval are Lightbot 16, Fbot, Pause! and BOTijo 10.
This bot is not a current request for approval; according to the BRfA board, this request for approval is not current. So, has it already been passed? The discussion dead and over? That appears to be the case. And, the reason this bot is no longer up for discussion is that 4 minutes after the BRfA was posted, it was apparently granted, or at least the discussion on it was apparently closed (hence it's almost immediate removal from "Current requests for approval).
If it is no longer a current request for approval, because it was removed from that category in 4 minutes, then what is it? An already approved bot! -- 72.201.210.130 ( talk) 05:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Strongly oppose this bot task. It appears to have morphed into something completely different from what was originally requested. ("It appears to cover any tasks that already need to be performed on every article in a bundled deletion nomination, whether it be nomination tasks or post-closing tasks," versus adding TfD and MfD tags." Really?)
And the new guise demands community participation, as it appears, also, that the community guidelines for this task have not yet been written. "Perhaps you are not aware that policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. You have identified a gap where someone has neglected to adequately describe how mass nominations are conducted. Now that policy needs to be written. –xenotalk 23:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)" Then let's allow the community to write the policy, before a bot is created and approved to implement it. This is more in line with long stated community workings on wikipedia, rather than requesting approval and granting trials for an ever expanding ill-defined task where the bot operator pre-dismissed community input. ("The TfD talk page, WT:TFD, is very quiet, and as such, I have not posted there.")
This task should be discussed first, by the community; relevant policies/guidelines written, then approval for a defined task requested rather than trying an end run around writing guidelines by implementing a bot that does what some person wants without prior community input/discussion. -- 68.127.234.159 ( talk) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Per HellKnowz's suggestion, I've put this in a separate subsection (and added a subsection header for the trial above). I saw the note about this at WT:TFD, so thanks for placing that. A few questions about what the bot will or won't do:
{{
Tfd}}
, such as |type=
, to allow the notification tag to appear on pages where the nominated templates appear without being too prominent or breaking page layouts. Will the bot be able to place those parameters when appropriate?In theory this seems like a reasonable use of a bot, but I think all the questions above deserve consideration first, and I didn't see those situations in the trial edits. -- RL0919 ( talk) 16:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
tfd}}
requires <noinclude>...</noinclude>
, then I will specify that when I run the script.{{
tfd}}
needs a |type=
, I will specify that when I run the script. (Essentially I input the wikitext to be tacked onto the beginning of each page. So I can add whatever is needed.)This request is for tagging templates with "a certain tag (initially {{ tfd}})". Are there other tags or categories of tags that might need to be added that we can explicitly list here, to narrow the scope of this request to a limited set of tags? Anomie ⚔ 19:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Without expressing an approval or disapproval of this bot process, I must point out that "a function to remove deletion tags from pages where the outcome of the deletion discussion was "keep"" is a necessity before full implementation. If say 700 templates are tagged and then the templates are kept, that's a LOT of work (just like tagging 700 templates is a lot of work). The likelihood of a particular TfD being closed with that much baggage and cleaned up properly without a bot is relatively small, I would think. JPG-GR ( talk) 04:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC) reply
{{
OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}}
I completely agree - would it be possible to roll this functionality into the bot? Even, perhaps if isn't initially - or even always turned on.
SQL
Query me!
05:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
{{
Tfd}}
tag, the bot could also add {{
TfD end}}
to the talk pages. I wouldn't see it as a showstopper if it can't, but if we're going to facilitate making mass nominations, we should try to facilitate as much of the closing as we reasonably can. --
RL0919 (
talk)
06:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
Approved for extended trial (1 batch of detagging kept templates). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. If possible, placing a {{
TfD end}} (taking into account documentation pages). If you cannot find any, then just do a sandbox edit or two. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
08:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
reply
{{
tfd}}
)According to this and links posted by Xeno, it seems the bot is destined for more than simple template deletions, namely, it is also intended for AfDs. I think the AfD community will be interested, and failure to notify the wikipedia community is reason enough to put a halt to this BRfA. Again, if the guidelines need changed, Xeno, change them, then create a bot to implement the changed guidelines. This end run around community policies is nothing that bots were ever intended for on wikipedia.
A discussion at AfD talk, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Multiple_articles_in_a_single_AFD, does not give a strong indication that the policy has changed in a way to favor creation and running of this bot. -- 68.127.234.159 ( talk) 01:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
Approved. Utterly uncontroversial and policy compliant, despite troll's claim to the contrary. Approved.
Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}
03:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
reply