This user account is a bot that uses AutoWikiBrowser, operated by とある白い猫 (talk).It is used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually, in accordance with the bot policy. This bot does not yet have the approval of the community, or approval has been withdrawn or expired, and therefore shouldn't be making edits that appear to be unassisted except in the operator's or its own user and user talk space. To stop this bot until restarted by the bot's owner, edit its talk page. If that page is a redirect, edit that original redirecting page, not the target of the redirect. Administrators: if this bot is making edits that appear to be unassisted to pages not in the operator's or its own userspace, please block it or remove from the approved accounts.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Denied.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised
Programming Language(s): AWB
Function Summary: I'd like to use the bot to fix redirects created by my username move (I want pages to link directly to my userpage rather than through a redirect. Aside from that I may make similar fixes.
Edit period(s)(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): The bot will not run unattended.
Edit rate requested: 100 edits per hour
I am unsure what to suggest this is my guess, I do not expect to 'hit' any near the number
I hereby request a bot flag. -- Catchi? 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You need to be specific about bot tasks, and file another request for approval for each task. For fixing redirects to your old userpage only, you are Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —METS501 (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. For future referance (to me) how specific do these tasks are supposed to be? -- Catchi? 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible to give the bot a bot flag so it doesn't bother RC teams? Is there a request page for that? -- Catchi? 20:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the request system. There was some concern on AN/I about the edit rate being too high for such a non-crucial task. Would you be willing to lower the edit rate to 1/min? I can't see how the RC people could complain about that, you could almost do it manually at that rate. CMummert · talk 02:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. I stopped the bot after concerns were posted. -- Catchi? 08:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have reran the bot at a 1 edit/min rate after your comment here for a while. Since Ned Scott is revert waring over the bots edits, I have restopped the bot. -- Catchi? 12:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe "server load" claim is ridiculous. I can make those edits manually just as well. I also find this users post here self contradictory since he is revert waring over the bots edits waisting server resources. -- Catchi? 10:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, server load isn't a major concern of mine, it's just the part where you somehow get special permission to do something that you shouldn't be allowed to do. If everyone did this we would have a very big problem. It needs to stop, server load or not. -- Ned Scott 10:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
In other words you have no reason to complain but are complaining for the sake of complaining. People do not change usernames daily nor do they typically have a fraction of the number of edits I have. This isn't the median for this, you are welcome to propose a policy banning signature updates. I am merely using a bot to do a task I can manually do to save myself time. -- Catchi? 10:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Ned, while I agree that these edits don't add content, I don't see why they should be forbidden provided that they are made at a manual-like pace (say 1/min). As Cat says, they could be made by hand, and that would be alright. The figure quoted on ANI was only 1500 edits, which would complete in about a day at 1/min. CMummert · talk 11:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the trial is more than over, trials usually mean 50 edits, so don't run it again until you're approved. Also, this bot violates policy, and while users get some leeway with policy, bots do not. Do not bypass any redirects using this bot until it is approved, and you need to explain why you need to do this. You told me on IRC that you just didn't want people to see the redirect, and if that's your only reason, I'm going to deny this bot. --ST47Talk 13:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Some reasons why I requested a sig change:
I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time. This is the perfect opportunity for it.
Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.
I cannot provide a more detailed reason as there cannot be such a reason. I am a perfectionist and I am merely updating sigs. Many users has done this in the past and I feel it is the responsible thing to do. It isn't against policy to update signatures and the bot is merely making edits I would otherwise do by hand.
I would welcome an elaboration on how the bot violates policy, I am not certain whats not working there.
So far the bot has done exactly what it was approved for, updating my sigs. Its first few edits had a few problems but I have manually corrected those.
per redirect policy. Bots are expected to follow policy. Unless the link displays incorrectly...there is no need to edit the link. --ST47Talk 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I am opposed to this task. Policy states that bots must be useful, and this task is not useful. Further, it causes unnecessary load, and there is no community consensus for this task. Further, bots must obey all policies and guidelines, and WP:RDR says "Do not change links to redirects that are not broken". --ST47Talk·Desk 12:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Changing your signature in archives was a major point of contention before. I don't think is a good idea at all. --Deskana(apples) 12:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Denied.
There is no consensus for this bot to run, following the extended discussion on the issue. Furthermore, BRFA will not be used to try and create such consensus. Please do not request a bot be used for controversial tasks until it has consensus support (in which case it becomes generally-uncontroversial). Daniel 12:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Bot not approved. This is fairly useless. Voice-of-All 12:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Speedily Approved.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Supervised & automatic. I will review the former category and new one (as well as the change in RC feed) but probably wont review every individual diff.
Programming Language(s): AWB
Function Summary: Rectaegorization (based on discussions on medians such as Wikipedia:CFD)
Edit period(s)(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Assisted but automated runs. I will manually input the task (recategorization) and monitor. Each task is to be run only once.
Edit rate requested: 500 edits per hour (really depends on the task)
Already has a bot flag(Y/N): N
Function Details: Find and replace task. Usage of "Category:X"'s will be replaced with "Category:Y"'s based on consensus
Um, I'm not entirely clear on what you intend to monitor the RC feed for and, also if you don't mind, could you please explain what you mean by 'based on discussions on medians such as WP:CFD'? -- Seed2.0 18:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Say a CFD discussion concludes as a "rename category", the bot would do just that. Or if the discussion concluded with a "delete", the bot would remove the categories. I can use the same function for TFDs - basically any deletion/discussion that may require such a service. The bot would run based on community consensus only.
I will be monitoring the RC feed to check on the bot. I wouldn't be using the bot to monitor RC feed. I monitor the RC feed to check for possible problems. If for instance the bot removes 200 bytes, thats proof of a breakdown (happens rarely with AWB I believe. I should see the same byte difference during the run of all bot edits. Its just me being extra careful.
I'd just like to clarify, since category deletion wasn't mentioned previously. I assume, since you don't have the sysop bit, that if consensus is to "delete" that your bot will only be removing the category from all pages in the article namespace? What other namespaces may be modified? — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
All namespaces could be modified, most likely, main, template, and user. --ST47Talk 18:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The bot can handle any namespace except mediawiki namespace. -- Catchi? 18:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
WhiteCat, I presume this bot is to be tasked with Wikipedia:CFD/W work. You might want to check and see if the bot is even needed, there are quite a few that do this task. In addition user cats tend to be a bit hard for bots to actually do, as some of them are hidden behind noinclude tags in included templates. This makes the category show up on every page that the template is on (say a userbox), but not place the userbox itself into the category, which effectively makes finding the userbox difficult. I have written a tool that does a bit of recursion to identify the userbox, unfortunatly its windows only, so if this is an important task, please let me know and I'll write up a diddy that can be run on linux. I have run this style bot task before. —— Eagle101Need help? 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh I use windows. I use AWB's find and replace function to re-categorize. It works fine IMHO. I can handle it :) -- Catchi? 00:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hope you don't mind or take this the wrong way but since that's a bit unconventional (I assume you write your own regexps to handle pipes, etc.), I just have to ask: what experience do you have working with categories? --Sup? 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I used AWB to recategorise speedy entries under this account. I do not use regexps (not a whole lot of experience with it) but instead the normal button for "find and replace". Replacing [[Category:Foooo1 with [[Category:Foooo2 is rather trivial for me. It works fine. I monitor every edit the bot makes just in case something doesn't work right. -- Catchi? 00:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
There are those specific exceptions where the code would need to be adjusted. This will be done when necesary :) -- Catchi? 17:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not just add a :? instead? A link to a category can be easy for you to miss. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 17:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
What links to a category and the pages categorised are threated differently in AWB. Thats why :) -- Catchi? 17:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Speedily Approved.
This is already done by a bunch of bots and uses AWB which makes almost no mistakes. —METS501 (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Speedily Approved.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic and supervised
Programming Language(s): AWB
Function Summary: A find & replace task updating images based on consensus.
Edit period(s)(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Multiple supervised runs with variable intervals
Edit rate requested: Keep current rate of the bot.
Already has a bot flag(Y/N): Y
Function Details: Update images such as removing duplicates, or changing jpgs -> svgs in coordination with my commons duties (as a commons admin). Much like how Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WOPR (02) handles categories.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Speedily Approved.
Speedily Approved.
—METS501 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised
Programming Language(s): AWB, pywikipediabot
Function Summary: Removal of fair use images from non-article namespaces
Edit period(s)(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): manual bursts, no pattern
Edit rate requested: 100 edits per hour (tho it is unlikely the bot will hit this number)
Already has a bot flag(Y/N): Y
Function Details: Removal of images is built into AWB. I intend to remove fair use images used in non-article name spaces such as in signatures and etc.
I hereby request this additional task. -- Catchi? 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. There's an existing bot that does this, however more is good. Where are you getting the list? --ST47Talk·Desk 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I work on them as I find them :) Auto bots are only effective in a limited manner. I would work on a list if I get on :) -- Catchi? 17:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I can recursively check a category full of fair use images... -- Catchi? 17:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
If it's in the user space, will you notify that user? Will you replace or remove the image? ~Wikihermit 17:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I would remove the image with a notification in the edit summary linking to the policy page. I can warn the user manually. -- Catchi? 17:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Approved. Looks good. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.
I hereby request this additional task. -- Catchi? 10:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.Matt/TheFearow(Talk)(Contribs)(Bot) 10:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Denied. — Coren(talk) 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised
Programming Language(s): python or AWB (whichever is better depending on situation)
Function Summary: Mass revert of edits of a specific user
Edit period(s)(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Manual run when necesary
Edit rate requested: less than 10 edits per minute
Already has a bot flag(Y/N): Y
Function Details: This function of the bot would be used to mass revert disruptive mass edits such as left overs of vandalism only accounts or vandal bot strikes which are typically kept at bay. It can also be used for non-vandalism related edits and would be exclusively based on consensus. I hope to never need to use this function but want to be able to should the need arise. -- Catchi? 14:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to make this clear, this bot's function would be to revert all edits from a specified editor? If that is the case, then I would insist on seeing broad consensus that this is desirable before approval.
A secondary (technical) concern is how the bot will react to edits that have since been modified. Will it revert edits that can be undone even after later edits? How will it deal with those it cannot undo? — Coren(talk) 15:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Can you revert with AWB? Ρх₥α 23:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
If this bot is approved, you are expressly forbidden from using it to make or revert changes made to your signature. You are also strongly advised to seek confirmation that the bot needs to run from an admin before executing it, and it is suggested that you only run without some measure of discussion where blatant vandalism has occurred. If this bot is approved and used on non-blatant vandalism, it does contribute to the operator's revert limit, and if it is used improperly, it will be blocked. (Approval is up to the rest of you.) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 23:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This request is far from uncontroversial, and I would require broad community consensus before we proceed. I have asked the community at the village pump to comment so that such a consensus can be reached. — Coren(talk) 00:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd say this task is easiest accomplished with Javascript and a +sysop flag. Such edits can also automatically be marked as bot so they don't flood recent changes (see Help:Administration#Rollback). MER-C 03:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm particularly worried about a bot performing this activity, especially when dealing with proxy's or school based IP address where not all edits are vandalism based and multiple users are involved. This could result in it doing more damage than it fixes. Although I can see where the idea has come from, as frequently I will follow my bot around the wiki, and seeing the other contributions people have made. Usually 9 times out of 10 if they have vandalised something chances are high they have done the same somewhere else. Perhaps instead of creating a bot to do mass reverting in the chance that all the edits were destructive, create a bot that purposely follows or shadows the other Anti-Vandalism bots around, and looks at the top edits of people warned for vandalism to see if they have made unwanted edits to other articles? Just an idea Lloydpick 01:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
At this time, it appears fairly obvious that there is no consensus (here or on WP:VP that this proposed but would be useful and harmless, and several editors have pointed out that existing tools are able to perform this function without the assistance of a bot, something I agree with.
In addition, the bot as suggested would cause significant Wikipedia:RC noise as it operates unless it had a sysop bit, which would require an administrator as operator. Denied.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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 Request Expired.
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually Assisted, supervised
Programming Language(s): python or AWB (whichever is better depending on situation AWB seems more sane)
Function Summary: Remove illegal links such as youtube links that are in violation of copyrights.
Edit period(s)(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Manual run when necesary
Edit rate requested: less than 10 edits per minute
Already has a bot flag(Y/N): Y
Function Details: Bot will be used to help remove external links to youtube or any other illegal site (in violation of copyrights). This is something I can do regularly with AWB but I'd prefer using the bot account. In some cases some illegal links maybe inserted in bulk quantities which bot removal would be handy. -- Catchi? 13:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Erm...ALL youtube links? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 13:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No just the illegal ones such as linking to TV episodes on TV episode articles. (Assuming the TV episode is not released with a free license). And not just youtube links but other garbage such as spam. I want to have some leniency in the scope to deal with garbage. -- Catchi? 13:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
And how will the bot determine which are good and which are bad? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 13:56, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Many studios now upload to Youtube and other sites, how can you be sure the copyright is being violated? BJTalk 13:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I will be looking at it. I would review each link individually. And bulk remove the same link if it has been inserted multiple times. Determining copyright of the yutube video isn't that hard. I'll be using methods people who had been using so far. -- Catchi? 13:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Request Expired. Marking request as expired as it was either never transcluded to Wikipedia:BRFA or has had no attention for some time. Richard0612 12:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.
generators.py and wikipedia.py should be able to handle this. -- Catchi? 14:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Movepages.py works better. -- Catchi? 10:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Do you know about how many pages need to be moved? Mr.Z-man 22:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe there are too many... Several thousand maybe. -- Catchi? 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't really like the new names (ugly, too long) but I can see their utility if you want to link to them in a systematic way. Would just creating redirects at the new names suffice for your purposes? -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Move the page, create a redirect both achieve the same task. Moving them has an additional benefit - that way the new naming convention is better advertised. -- Catchi? 22:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.20 moves. Mr.Z-man 00:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. What's the status of this? BJTalk 21:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I want to give this another try. -- Catchi? 15:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.20 moves, same as before. Let us know when the moves are done and ready for inspection. – Quadell(talk) 13:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.
Speedily Approved. —Reedy 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
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.
How will it use AWB to find out which image names need updating? Why is the bot not exclusion compliant? I agree this is a task that needs doing, but can't see the technical side of it. Rcsprinter(state) 21:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I will manually feed file rename logs (this is what I am thinking of doing currently) and make the necessary changes. For now my main concern is files I moved myself [1] and I'd rather avoid doing this manually. At a later phase I am thinking of using the API to do this for other file renames as well (after the code is BAG approved). -- A Certain White Catchi? 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
And after that tag the redirect for deletion? Josh Parris 02:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
I have no intention of nominating the redirects for deletion. That is beyond the scope of the task discussed here. It may be worthwhile to keep the redirects for article history purposes. -- A Certain White Catchi? 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
So that a historic version of an article still renders with the image. Doesn't the history get polluted when the next person uploads an image with the same name? Whatever. Josh Parris 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
And will this task only be performed when the old name is problematic? Otherwise I don't quite see the purpose. — madman 00:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
After a rename I am asked to manually update every page using the old filename with the renamed new name. I would like to automate this task. -- A Certain White Catchi? 12:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't do much moving of files so I've never seen that prompt. I wonder why such updates are necessary and articles can't just use the redirect; if it's because otherwise image usage information is not correct, MadmanBot (talk·contribs) has solved that problem. — madman 13:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
It increases the readability of the wiki text as renamed files often are random numbers but also allows avoidance of problems should the files be moved to commons. On commons when a file is moved, we use commons delinker to replace all redirect usage with the new name. I see this as good practice. -- A Certain White Catchi? 14:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that sounds perfectly reasonable; I'd call a file name consisting of random numbers problematic in any case. — madman 15:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I can't see a problem, let's see how this works out. Josh Parris 12:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) What was the result of the trial? Where are the links to diffs? Josh Parris 03:02, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have not had a chance to move files and "try" the code yet. I'll however try to find poorly naed files and rename them. I will seek 10 files. -- A Certain White Catchi? 17:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I'll probably do this on next Friday. Rather busy with real-world events all of a sudden. -- A Certain White Catchi? 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Diffs show it working as advertised. Approved.Josh Parris 12:43, 12 April 2012 (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 WT:BRFA.
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 Denied.
Function overview: bot will rename all FPC subpages containing the namespace of the file ("Image:" or "File") by removing the namespace. Links going to FPC/{{PAGENAME}} are unable to find the relevant pages making template use complicated given the number of veriants.
Function details: Obsolete "Image:" and current "File:" in FPC subpages make linking to these pages difficult through automated means. There are 4 flavors of FPCs at the moment with 3 flavors (FPC/File:Filename.ext FPC/Image:Filename.ext FPC/Filename.ext) following a common pattern. The 4th flavor is custom names which is beyond the scope of this request. -- A Certain White Catchi? 08:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
One of the "flavours" you mention is not common. Using the file name without either "File:" or "Image:" doesn't really happen. It's Image:filename.jpg or it's File:filename.jpg, or it's a custom name. I can understand moving Image: to File:, but no File: pages ought to be moved. But regarding going ahead with any moves at all, I have thought about this further, and I don't believe we should be changing historic use of Image: en masse just to make it easier to link to the nomination pages from Commons. I am willing to put the work into making the template link correctly by defining the parameter individually. Julia\talk 13:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
There are 810 such files so it is almost as common as "File:". I would be fine moving all nominations which have filenames as their name (without File: or Image: in front) to File: if this is a better option. Do we really need the namespace in the nomination name? Do you really want to spend human-time for this task that can be handled by a bot? -- A Certain White Catchi? 16:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Basically, there are that many because in 2008 your bot undertook moving loads of nomination pages to that format, leaving behind lots of file pages that link to redirects. It's messy, and unnecessary. I don't really want to spend human-time on it, but the way you propose fixing the 'problem' via bot is not satisfactory. Julia\talk 18:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Redirects are not a navigational hazard. I do not see the issue with them. -- A Certain White Catchi? 08:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
And I don't see the issue with "over-bloating" parameters [12]. That's nonsense. Julia\talk 17:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you operate bots or work with template code? I do. Non-standardization makes my task far more difficult. When using a bot, I have to run three similar regexes just to handle the three flavors. When using templates, I have to define custom parameters that I would otherwise completely avoid. This is a significant problem for me and is hardly nonsense. -- A Certain White Catchi? 15:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Denied. Looking here and at the linked discussion, it seems only the proposed operator is in support of this task. All others are indifferent at best and several are opposed. Should consensus change (and I mean actually change, not just get dismissed), feel free to file a new BRFA. Anomie⚔ 03:19, 9 May 2012 (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 WT:BRFA.
.jpg){kind=link}
