Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DASHBot 13

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

Withdrawn by operator.

DASHBot 13

Operator: Tim1357 (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Auto

Programming language(s): Python Source code available: Not written yet

Function overview: Tag shortcuts with {{r from shortcut}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Monthly Estimated number of pages affected: On first run, 4327 redirects.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: The page is tagged if:

It is a redirect;
It starts with at least two letters (A-Z);
It is in all CAPS;
It is not already tagged;
It has no spaces; and
It is in the Wikipedia: namespace.

Discussion

To see a pre-generated list, click here. Tim 1357 ^talk 01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you distinguish between a shortcut and an abbreviation? Josh Parris 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the template:

Shortcuts are generally reserved for Wikipedia project pages

Abbreviations, rather, are used in the article namespace. That is what is apparent from the What links here pages for both {{r from shortcut}} and {{r from abbreviation}}

The stated conditions should be joined by "and" or "or". Otherwise they cannot be interpreted. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what you are suggesting. I had to use those logical connectors when I made the list. Tim 1357 ^talk 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Function details" section above lists many conditions that will control whether the bot does anything, but it does not say if all the conditions must be satisfied, or any one of them. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All pages must meet all of the conditions listed. I'm sorry I was unclear about that. :-) Tim 1357 ^talk 03:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's the 'win' here? Why run this task? Josh Parris 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing a whole list of redirects who are otherwise un-categorized. Tim 1357 ^talk 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And once they're categorized... then what? Josh Parris 12:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no big picture goal for this task. In my experience, the more we can categorize things, the easier (and more efficient) it is to manage our information in the future. That is why this task is a win in and of itself. Tim 1357 ^talk 13:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is, does anyone actually use redirect categories for anything except determining which redirects are categorized? Mr.Z-man 22:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally WildBot used a redirect catagory to determine what redirects linked to disambiguation pages. Josh Parris 02:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 4779626 redirects that exist on wikipedia, 750371 are categorized using some sort of redirect template. Of those, 11718 are categorized using {{r from shortcut}}. So yes, it seems that the community has some commitment to categorizing redirects. Tim 1357 ^talk 22:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so 15% of redirects are categorized. That doesn't really answer my question. Is anyone actually using this information? Did someone request this bot to be run so that they can do something with the information, or is it just categorizing for the sake of categorizing? Mr.Z-man 03:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be best to ask the community if this task is worthwhile. Therefore, I left a message at the redirect wikiproject. If there is no response there, Ill bring it to village pump. Tim 1357 ^talk 11:20, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd chip in to say that I agree with those above who have doubts about the usefulness of this task. Categorizing articles is important, as it makes finding related information easier, and allows for easier management (cleanup cats, etc.). However, categorizing redirects, especially WP:FOO redirects seems rather pointless. It's quite obvious what they are, and I doubt there'll ever be a need to process them all in a batch for some reason (and even if there is, we can pull a list then). - Mobius Clock 17:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Clarifying_WP:_shortcuts_and_Wikipedia:_page_titles may benefit from this Josh Parris 07:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those tricky arguments. Basically there was a lot of "categorising redirects for the sake of it", I am sure - but some of the categorisation IS useful: most important is "redirects with possibilities" - also distinguishing "redirects from alternative names" from "redirects from typos" - the latter class should never be linked to. Having established that some categories are useful we realise that if we can cat all redirects, we will not have putative members of "redirects from typos" sitting uncatted. I do wish we used "Redirect from" rather than "R from" though. Rich Farmbrough, 21:42, 21 May 2010 (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) Status report? MBisanz ^talk 02:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the lack of response at the Redirect wikiproject's talk page, I think this task is pretty much a dud. Tim 1357 ^talk 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Tim 1357 ^talk 04:57, 15 June 2010 (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.