Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FastilyBot 4

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

Approved.

FastilyBot 4

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

Time filed: 01:17, Wednesday, February 17, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: When I have written it

Function overview: Removes {{Orphan image}} from any freely licensed files that are not orphaned. This is the same task as Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fbot 6

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): n/a

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: 2-3k

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: See section Function overview above. -FASTILY 01:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Sounds like a useful task. I suspect that the {{orphan image}} tags haven't been maintained since Fbot stopped doing this some years ago. How is "orphaned" defined, completely unused or only unused in certain namespaces? --Stefan2 (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I defined unused to be no image links (i.e. code that produces a thumbnail of the image) in any namespace. -FASTILY 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So files with redirects are never orphaned? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's applicable; redirects are basically just wiki-links, which are different from file links -FASTILY 03:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (40 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Might as well try it. — Earwig ^talk 18:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [1] -FASTILY 10:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I have checked those 40 diffs, and they look correct to me. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Could a BAG member please review this request, thanks! -FASTILY 04:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Approved. — Earwig ^talk 17:54, 14 March 2016 (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.