Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Orphaned talkpage deletion bot

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

Orphaned talkpage deletion bot

[edit]

Operator: Chris G

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Auto

Programming Language(s): PHP using my classes

Function Overview: Deletes orphaned talkpages per WP:CSD#G8

Edit period(s): Weekly

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N (needs +sysop as well)

Function Details: Gets a list of orphaned talkpages from the toolserver. Deletes pages that match the following conditions:

Discussion

[edit]

source --Chris 12:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you considering deleting image talk pages? Because when an image is moved to Commons, sometimes the talkpage is necessary. Also, in userspace and Wikipediaspace, sometimes it's intentional to have a talkpage without an mainpage. – Quadell (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just had an idea. The bot will only delete pages where there was a mainpage but it was deleted. This should avoid a lot of the possible false positives. Also the bot ignores the user space. --Chris 12:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about Wikipediaspace? Imagespace? – Quadell (talk) 13:10, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will only delete pages in the Talk,Wikipedia talk,File talk,Template talk,Help talk,Category talk or Portal talk namespaces. --Chris 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G8 expressly

excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere, user and user talk pages, talk page archives, plausible redirects that can be changed to valid targets, and image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons

How will the proposed bot task exclude the following pages from deletion?
  1. any page that is useful to the project
  2. deletion discussions that are not logged elsewhere
Erik9 (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No bot like this can get things 100% correct however I feel by using the checks mentioned (must have had a deleted mainpage, title can't contain words like 'archive','editnotice', etc) should reduce the chances of false positives and make the bot worth running. -Chris 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleting redirects seems silly. But you do need to avoid subpages (/Comments, /Archive, /Editnotice, etc.). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Just because a redirect does not have a mainpage does not make it any less valid. --Chris 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The query you copied is actually outdated. The better query is available here: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?oldid=290842965 It JOINs against Commons appropriately and such to get File_talk: orphaned talk pages and has some other fixes in it. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) I've updated the query. --Chris 12:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will using this query prevent the deletion of file talk pages where the image move transwikied to Commons? – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Chris 13:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to tag the pages {{db-g8}} for a trial, instead of deleting them, so we can better see how it works? If so, Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – Quadell (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results can be seen here. I've decided to remove the mainpage log check as it doesn't seem to prevent any false positives and causes some false negatives. The one problem that I did pick up was images like File talk:Fieldscape.jpg where the image has been moved to commons but under a different name and thus wasn't excluded by the sql query. Thoughts? --Chris 05:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "the mainpage log check"? – Quadell (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From above: "Just had an idea. The bot will only delete pages where there was a mainpage but it was deleted." --Chris 01:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That concerns me. It seemed like a great way to prevent false positives. How else can you be sure that Talk:Article/ObscureArchiveName actually needs to be deleted? – Quadell (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot avoids subpages. --Chris 08:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then. – Quadell (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When an image is moved to Commons under a different name, that can be a serious problem. Most of the time it should be okay to delete the talkpage, but not all the time. Most of the time it should be evident from the deletion log that the image was moved to Commons, but not always, and you can't count on that. I'd recommend not deleting files in filespace, but instead tagging them with {{db-g8|bot=Orphaned talkpage deletion bot|rationale=However, ''if'' this page contains useful information, and ''if'' the file itself was transwikied to Commons, please transwiki this talkpage content to Commons as well.}} That way a human can see and make that decision. What do you think? – Quadell (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I've updated the code to do this. --Chris 08:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot currently admin-shops such pages since it doesn't appear to check whether it tagged them before or not. Amalthea 14:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the event a page shouldn't be tagged all the admin has to do is add {{go away}} --Chris 10:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the test results, I don't see any false positives. I appreciate that you tested a number of pages in all namespaces. My only real question is, where are the bot's edits? It appears that most of these were deleted by MBisanz for CSD G8 reasons, but there is no record of the bot adding the g8 tag. This is also true of Template talk:Adirondack Phantoms and Talk:Slaters, which were not deleted. What happened here? – Quadell (talk) 13:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I did a run of 50 edits which can be seen here. When it became clear that a, 50 edits was a tad limiting for fully testing the bot - b, Since most of the pages would be deleted it would be hard for non admins to see which pages were tagged; I did a 2nd dry run in which the bot just listed the pages it would delete here --Chris 10:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. But with a caution on the bot-op's talkpage. – Quadell (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Orphaned_talkpage_deletion_bot&oldid=1138382397"