Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III 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

Approved.

AnomieBOT III 2 edit

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

Time filed: 15:29, Saturday, March 26, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/MassDeleter.pm

Function overview: Perform mass deletions after consensus at an XfD process, an RfC, or a similar consensus process.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Orphaned Category:Cite doi templates

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: 60682 for the initial run

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No

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

Function details: This will perform mass deletions of pages when consensus exists, as shown by an XfD, an RfC, or a similar consensus process. It will also apply CSD G8 to the talk pages of deleted pages and their subpages that don't have a corresponding subject-space page.

Bot exclusion will not be applied for this task, as a wider consensus for deletion was already established.

Discussion edit

The initial run will be to delete all subpages of Template:Cite doi (but not that template itself) per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 February 23#Orphaned cite doi templates. Anomie ⚔ 15:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This list? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:58, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Anomie ⚔ 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be checking orphan status on each page? — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the SQL query I'm using excludes templates with incoming templatelinks. OTOH, I suspect people will orphan the stragglers once the bot starts running. Anomie ⚔ 20:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about bot wars: User:Citation bot was still creating new pages as of a few months ago. Smith609 - can you provide feedback on this request please. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot is no longer creating these templates, according to the WMF staff that revived it. If there is some other process or editor creating these templates, it will be easier to identify and stop that process once the Cite doi and Cite pmid subpages are deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page request also included Category:Cite pmid templates as well. There's 7094 orphaned and only 4 transcluded templates within that one (most are redirects to the cite doi template), although there's 8,470 subpages there so something doesn't add up to me. It may be better to tackle that one first rather than cite doi since those are more uneven in terms of orphaned/non-orphaned than the roughly 50/50 split that is cite doi. Either way though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite doi currently appears to be a 3/96 split (2127 subpages have transclusions, 58535 don't). Template:Cite pmid has 37187 subpages without transclusions, only 13 with, but I don't have a link to the TfD for that one at the moment. Anomie ⚔ 21:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Cite PMID deprecation RFC. As I have said in other venues, all of the templates without transclusions should be deleted first, and then another pass through the subtemplates can analyze how many are left for the next substitution/deletion pass. Some Cite PMID subtemplates were redirects to Cite DOI templates, or vice versa, I forget which. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'd prefer if it actually said "delete" in there rather than just "deprecate". Anomie ⚔ 13:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (250 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (non-transcluded templates only). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. log Anomie ⚔ 14:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (5000 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please run with a larger batch, barring any issues this will be the final checkpoint before going wide open. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. logs Anomie ⚔ 12:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Template:Cite doi and Template:Cite pmid are now fully orphaned in the article namespace. If there are any subpages still being transcluded, its possible they may need to to be 'touched' to verify if they are orphaned as we assume they should be. -- Netoholic @ 05:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can another check be done? The template itself didn't call upon cite doi but upon cite journal. Reviewing Category:Cite doi templates, templates like Template:Cite doi/10.3724.2FSP.J.1041.2010.00072 and others are orphaned and I believe can be deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The bot task will more or less continuously check for newly-orphaned pages (until the configuration is changed to start deleting some other set of pages, or the task is disabled waiting for the next mass deletion). Anomie ⚔ 12:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misunderstood. I didn't realize we were just at the preliminary trial at the moment. The log looks good. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adding cite_pmid deletions to this request:

It's mentioned above, but wasn't fully decided. There are thousands of subpages of Template:Cite pmid which consist mostly of orphaned redirects to cite_doi templates, many of which are orphaned and being deleted as part of the main request. I'd like to suggest a 2nd set of cleanups centered on those, starting with deletion of any orphaned redirects. We can take a look at what's left (it won't be much) and go from there. Perhaps a small batch of 250 to start, like above? -- Netoholic @ 19:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This task is approving the bot to perform mass deletions generally. The question I have about the pmid templates is whether any discussion actually said "yes, delete these". Anomie ⚔ 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking over the history, Template_talk:Cite_pmid#RFC:_Should_template:cite_pmid_be_deprecated shows a consensus for full deprecation and no more subpages. There's a later discussion on the bottom of the page that continued at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_142#Batch_deletion regarding the technical side of batch deleting those pages by Twinkle. It's been mentioned here as well. Is that sufficient for you or should I just do as before and pick ten, propose it at TFD and suggest the remaining templates? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There would be no controversy deleting redirects to cite_doi templates that you are already deleting per consensus. After all, per WP:G8, redirects to invalid targets are speedy deletes. I think once you finish with the full run of clearing out cite_doi subpages, the vast majority of cite_pmid subpages can be CSD'd without any other justification. For all the non-redirects, I went ahead and posted this to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 7#Orphaned Template:Cite pmid and related subpages just so we can get unambiguous consensus to delete them all. -- Netoholic @ 22:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects will automatically be deleted by Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT III. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, unambiguous consensus is good to have and gives me a clear place to link in edit summaries. Anomie ⚔ 18:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — Earwig ^talk 03:53, 13 April 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.