Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Italic title 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

Withdrawn by operator.

Italic title bot 2

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

Time filed: 08:03, Sunday December 16, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: [1]

Function overview: Move scientific species names to common names per WP:COMMONAME.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: ~100/month

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

Move scientific name (i.e. "Felis catus") to common name (i.e. "Cat") per WP:COMMONNAME. A manual edit will be needed after the page is moved to remove {{Italic title}} (Currently writing a script for this). -- Cheers, Riley 08:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I totally disagree with having a bot for this and it is a manual task. All of the scientific articles that need to have the common name are probably in their correct place (e.g. cat or fish (pisces)). See WP:ON. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the list is compiled by hand and checked, what's wrong with having a bot mass move it? Legoktm (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Compiled and checked by whom? We don't want to be handing out permission to create a fait accompli. Anomie ⚔ 16:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This, frankly, doesn't really make sense. The source code implies that you already have to manually list all of the pages first. In that case, wouldn't it make more sense for this to just be available as some sort of script on the Toolserver? For example, "input original name", "input destination name", auth with TUSC for something like that, and then the script will login as User:Italic title bot and make the move and delete {{italic title}} (hence saving a step for the editor, which is what a script is supposed to do). That would be the only use that makes sense to me. —Theo polisme 17:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the whole idea of it. Having it on Toolserver would probably permit non-autoconfirmed users to go move pages "willy-nilly". It would be like a tool which can be used to be disruptive. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Theopolisme said to use TUSC, but even I don't see any advantages of a Toolserver tool compared to just making a list. A script just seems more convenient. Legoktm (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have failed to link to the relevant discussions. Please provide links. Thank you. -68.107.131.23 (talk) 02:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't actually obligatory, FYI. Sometimes bots can be requested without prior input. Rcsprinter (post) No, I'm Santa Claus! @ 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My request is for this bot. In this case, links to the relevant discussions showing community consensus for the task are obligatory, in the sense that anything on Wikipedia is obligatory. A general discussion on rules can be started on the talk page or elsewhere. --68.107.131.23 (talk) 13:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs wider discussion. Clearly not an uncontroversial task. Please start a discussion at WP:VPR and advertise it to all potentially-affected WikiProjects' talk pages. Anomie ⚔ 16:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the bot operator is no longer interested. He posted this, and has not responded to any comments, in spite of active editing in other areas. Maybe he has forgotten about it, or is no longer interested, and this can be closed? I posted a note on his talk page. --150.135.114.106 (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) I usually give a week or so after a query such as the one you made before marking it as expired. Anomie ⚔ 22:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this task has been proven to be uncontroversial. Withdrawn by operator. -- Cheers, Riley 16:10, 9 January 2013 (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.