Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AK Bot 2

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

Denied.

AK Bot[edit]

Operator: Andrew Kelly (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 07:14, Wednesday November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available:

Function overview: Tagging disambiguation talk pages with {{WikiProject Disambiguation}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Until all pages are created

Estimated number of pages affected: 14,396

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: According to my calculations, 14,396 of the 129,512 disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia do not have an associated talk page, causing readers of those pages to see red links. My bot would use AWB to tag these talk pages with {{WikiProject Disambiguation}}. Pages that already exist would be automatically skipped. Only disambiguation talk pages would be tagged, as I have checked the list against Category:Disambiguation pages on the Toolserver. AWB would automatically run on my personal computer during night hours (when server load is low and when I do not need to use my computer for other purposes) until the project is completed. It will be set to edit at whatever speed the community sees fit. For full disclosure, I currently run AWB, Huggle, and other automated tools on my alternate account User:AK Auto. What says the community? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Have you ran this past WP:WikiProject Disambiguation to get there views on this? Unless this somewhere helps the WikiProject, this will be 14,396 useless edits, causing unwanted server load. -- d'oh! _[talk] 01:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly 89% of the dab pages on Wikipedia have an associated talk page, helping to explain to the user what the dab page is for. Were those 100,000+ edits, many of which were done by bots, useless? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 04:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is already completed is not currently up for discussion, your bot and the 14,000+ edits the bot will do which - other then consuming resources unnecessarily - doesn't offer any benefits. Also how is this template going to help anyone?

Disambiguation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

I would think the current template already on dab articles to be more helpful:

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title.
If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.

Remember you need to notify WP:WikiProject Disambiguation. -- d'oh! _[talk] 06:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs wider discussion. As D'oh requested, please run this by WT:WikiProject Disambiguation to see if they want dabs bot-tagged. Anomie ⚔ 01:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have been gone for a while. I do understand where D'oh! is coming from and would like to applogize for any snappiness in my previous comment. I have advertised the issue at WT:WikiProject Disambiguation so we can see what they have to say. Cheers! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From WT:WikiProject Disambiguation:

There are roughly 14,396 disambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia that do not have associated talk pages. I have requested approval for a bot to fix this problem. Would some folks who are familiar with this WikiProject mind heading over to the request page and giving their two cents? Thanks! --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind saying what the "real" problem is? I don't think seeing a red is a problem and a missing talk page is not a problem if nobody had anything to say. . . What am I missing? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 05:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm with John. In the absence of discussion, the absence of a Talk page is a good thing. Creating them just to let people know it's a disambiguation page is pointless, and also becomes "make work" during page moves. Since I do a lot of disambiguation page moves as part of the cleanup, malplaced, and incomplete disambiguation problem spaces, I'd prefer to leave empty Talk pages empty. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chiming in on the "what's the point" angle: if I'm working on a dab page and see it has a talk page I'll click to look at it in case there has been any relevant discussion. It's a waste of time when there's nothing but a dab project template. I vote against such functionally-empty pages being created. PamD (talk) 13:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--John (User:Jwy/talk) 00:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear as if the community does not think this job should be done. We have all made our points so is it time for BAG to make their decision? --Andrew Kelly (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to give it a little longer since Jwy just weighed in a little over 24 hours ago, but you're right that it does seem community consensus is against this.

Denied. Anomie ⚔ 01:31, 7 December 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.