- 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Withdrawn by operator.
Operator:
Magioladitis (
talk ·
contribs ·
SUL ·
edit count ·
logs ·
page moves ·
block log ·
rights log ·
ANI search)
Time filed: 08:15, Saturday December 21, 2013 (
UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic, supervised
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB is open source. I can provide my settings file if asked.
Function overview: Move Orphan tags to talk pages
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal_to_move_the_Orphan_tags_to_the_talk_page describes the new consensus.
Edit period(s): One big run and then Occasionally
Estimated number of pages affected:
122,673
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function details:
Create list of pages. Remove orphan from page. Load list of corresponding talk pages. Add orphan to talk page following
WP:TPL. AWB recently updated to maintain the correct order of tags in talk pages. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
07:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
Why would this ever require a second run? →
Σ
σ
ς. (
Sigma)
07:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Because editors will keep adding in article page fro some time. I recall that after we switched the consensus on the placements of the place of birth/death categories many editors kept adding on the talk pages. Some editors kept adding wikify tag many months after it was deleted. I guess there are more examples but I think you got the idea. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
08:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I see. Are there plans to make the template display an error in mainspace in order to notify editors of the change? →
Σ
σ
ς. (
Sigma)
08:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
-
Σ I think this is a good question for template's talk page. As far as I recall we did this trick with "wikify" and "expand". After removing it we changed the template's txt to display an error message. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
08:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Will the bot be able to check if the article is actually still an orphan? I would think that many would have been placed when less than 3 links was the orphan definition, not the current 0 links definition, or have had links added since the tag was added. Moving it to the talk page will break the svick cleanup tool tracking by WikiProject, so I reckon they will be removed even slower than currently. Is there any discussion anywhere to crate a new list by WikiProject or topic (don't think catscan works across talk/article name spaces either, so AWB list comparer will be the only way to sort them by topic).
The-Pope (
talk)
16:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
-
The-Pope is there a consensus to remove orphan tag from any page that has at least 1 incoming link? I already completed, with the assistance of
GoingBatty the search for any page that has at least 3 incoming links. If I am asked, yes I can do it. I would also prefer to do it prior the move. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
16:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
- I just read the first line of
Wikipedia:Orphan#Criteria "An article is orphaned if no other articles link to it. It is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles." The second line does make it a bit more grey "Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable by readers." Do other bots/AWB do this currently? Do they use 1 or 3 as the minimum links before they de-orphan? How do they not count dab pages? A quasi-random selection of about 10 old orphans only found 1 or 2 that should be de-orphaned, so maybe it isn't a significant number, but it would be a shame to edit 120000 pages and not do as much as we can to ensure that only those that actually need attention get re-tagged.
The-Pope (
talk)
17:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
reply
This appears to be in line with consensus.
Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
Josh Parris
01:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
reply
- @
Josh Parris: I will first wait a few days for
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#On_Orphan_tags_again since different solutions were purposed. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
04:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
reply
- This is no longer necessary per the
WP:VPR#Alternate idea? discussion. Thank you.
Technical 13 (
talk)
14:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Technical 13 let's wait to establish a solid consensus. I follow the discussions closely this time. :) --
Magioladitis (
talk)
14:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#On_Orphan_tags_again was closed as "no consensus to overturn the previous consensus", and therefore the trial can begin now.
81.183.29.3 (
talk)
20:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
Technical 13 interesting huh? --
Magioladitis (
talk)
22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
reply
Discussion was archived a month ago here:
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_109#Continuation_on_orphan_tags. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
23:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Discussion has resumed in the recent sections of
Template talk:Orphan. –
Wbm1058 (
talk)
12:00, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Discussion continues at
Template_talk:Orphan#Yes. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
15:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Updated statistics: 117343 pages transcluding {{
Orphan}}, 43012 inside {{
Multiple issues}} and 74331 without since there the sole tag in the page. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
22:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
reply
Magioladitis, as it's been six weeks since I implemented my alternative solution which implemented the spirit of the
consensus, and there has been no discussion at
Template talk:Orphan for over a month, can this BRFA be moved to the
expired/withdrawn requests section?
Wbm1058 (
talk)
18:57, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Wbm1058 yes sure. If there is consensus not to move orphan tags in the talk pages I withdraw this request. --
Magioladitis (
talk)
20:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
reply
Josh Parris you can close that as withdrawn since consensus has changed again. I'll revisit if necessary. Thanks, --
Magioladitis (
talk)
09:06, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
reply
-
Withdrawn by operator.
Hasteur (
talk)
13:47, 16 May 2014 (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.