Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cewbot 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was
Denied.
New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!
- Approval process – How this discussion works
- Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
- Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon
Operator: Kanashimi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 05:51, Sunday, August 8, 2021 (UTC)
Function overview: Do the same thing on Wikipedia:Vital people as on Wikipedia:Vital articles (see User:Cewbot#Update vital articles).
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): wikiapi on GitHub
Source code available: 20200122.update vital articles.js on GitHub
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Per this BOTREQ.
Edit period(s): daily
Estimated number of pages affected: 3+ pages
Namespace(s): Wikipedia
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Update icons and summaries.
Discussion
editThis is a tested long term task on Wikipedia:Vital articles. Some test edits available. Please see the revision history of Wikipedia:Vital people, Wikipedia:Vital people/Level/1 and Wikipedia:Vital people/Level/2.
- How exactly is the "vital people" WikiProject distinct from "vital articles in the People category" (eg Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/4/People)? Furthermore I'd note this ongoing discussion which implicitly questions the usefulness of these things on talk pages. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I may have misunderstood what this task is doing. The BOTREQ and BRFA seems to say it will do these tasks for Vital people. The third thing in that list is this, which edits talk pages. Is that task being bundled in this BRFA for vital people? (I'm doubting my original read because your page estimate is 3). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for reply. Since there is no template like {{Vital article}}, the task will not edit talk pages in this time. However, the algorithm is the same. Kanashimi (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. For clarity and completeness, can you list out all the pages that will be edited? (you don't have to list subpages, just the root page is fine). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Only subpages of Wikipedia:Vital people, now it is only 3 pages. Kanashimi (talk) 08:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Okay. For clarity and completeness, can you list out all the pages that will be edited? (you don't have to list subpages, just the root page is fine). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for reply. Since there is no template like {{Vital article}}, the task will not edit talk pages in this time. However, the algorithm is the same. Kanashimi (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I may have misunderstood what this task is doing. The BOTREQ and BRFA seems to say it will do these tasks for Vital people. The third thing in that list is this, which edits talk pages. Is that task being bundled in this BRFA for vital people? (I'm doubting my original read because your page estimate is 3). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)- Comment - @Kanashimi and ProcrastinatingReader: I have undone the split of vital articles into vital people, as it really didn't have consensus and needed further discussion. The Cewbot should therefore go back to how it worked before, with all entries pulled from "Vital articles", not from "Vital people". Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- I stop the task just now. Kanashimi (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Interstellarity Please respond after consensus. Kanashimi (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kanashimi: Could you clarify what you are saying? I'm having a hard time understanding what you just said to me. It really helps. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- Is seems we should waiting for Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Splitting the biographies from the main vital articles... and if we removing links from Wikipedia:Vital articles/* to Wikipedia:Vital people/*, the bot will miss the links and remove {{Vital article}} on talk pages. Kanashimi (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Interstellarity I re-execute the program and it seems the bot code is correct. So I will restart the test. Please keep the links under Wikipedia:Vital articles, so it will not cause big problems. Kanashimi (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Kanashimi: Could you clarify what you are saying? I'm having a hard time understanding what you just said to me. It really helps. Thanks, Interstellarity (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Trial complete. It works well as on Wikipedia:Vital articles. Please see revision history of Wikipedia:Vital people/* for the test edits. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see much problem with managing the subpages of Vital articles; so long as those pages exist, they should be maintained. So I'm inclined to approve this task. Obviously if a consensus arises that the WikiProject fork shouldn't exist then the task will need to stop. I'll hold off on approval to await further opinions, and in case that discussion finds a consensus sometime soon. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
- So Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Archive_19#Splitting_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles is closed but with no closing statement, apparently. I presume the proposal was withdrawn? @Interstellarity: ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: I didn't close the discussion. I thought that the split of people from the vital articles would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Because of the opposition associated with the project, it seems as the vital people project is dead at this point. It was active for a little bit until they stopped working on it. If there is a chance to revive the project, that would be great. See discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_183#Proposal:_Split_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles. Interstellarity (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- Denied. Understood, thanks for clarifying. I think it would be best to mark this as denied due to the opposition associated with the project; it wouldn't make sense for a bot to actively update pages for a dead project that doesn't seem to have consensus. Feel free to file a new task if that changes, though! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
- @ProcrastinatingReader: I didn't close the discussion. I thought that the split of people from the vital articles would be a good thing for Wikipedia. Because of the opposition associated with the project, it seems as the vital people project is dead at this point. It was active for a little bit until they stopped working on it. If there is a chance to revive the project, that would be great. See discussion: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_183#Proposal:_Split_the_biographies_from_the_main_vital_articles. Interstellarity (talk) 20:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
- 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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.