Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SvickBOT 5

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.

SvickBOT 5

Operator: Svick (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 16:03, Sunday May 22, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language: Python, wikitools

Source code available: Yes

Function overview: Move pages from “List of asteroids/*” to “List of minor planets/*”

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Talk:List of minor planets#Moving subpages

Edit period: Once.

Number of pages affected: 1636 + their talk pages

Exclusion compliant: No, shouldn't be necessary

Already has a bot flag: Yes

Function details: As I understand it, in 2008, List of asteroids was moved to List of minor planets and along with it all its subpages that are meant to be visible to readers (e.g. List of minor planets: 1–1000). But many of the subpages that are used only for transclusion weren't. I think this should be done, mostly to clean up, but also so that those pages don't unnecessarily clutter one of my reports. User<Svick>.Talk(); 16:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Would you rather move to new names that follow WP:NCLL as mentioned in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot (4th request) and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Chris G Bot (5th request)? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care, but the pages I want to move aren't really lists. They are just building blocks for the actual lists. So I'm not sure the same rules apply. User<Svick>.Talk(); 16:42, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It couldn't hurt. Anyway, I suppose it is OK by me. I'll wait for some BAG input (hopefully), MBisanz in particular since he was going to approve it before. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems alright to me. Going to leave a couple of days for anyone to object - if nobody does then I'll go ahead and approve a trial for this. - EdoDodo ^talk 15:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Uncontroversial janitorial edits. If anyone gets butthurt over this per WP:NOTBROKEN, they really need to re-evaluate their lives. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:40, 15 June 2011 (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.