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.

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

Time filed: 14:50, Saturday, February 18, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: De-tagging of categories and adding ((old cfd)) to the talk page (if necessary)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Removes the CFD tags from pages listed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Retain. This task was previously done by Cydebot, but it hasn't done it since August 2016.
Also adds ((old cfd)) to the talk page of the categories (off course with the necessary parameters).

Discussion[edit]

Did Cydebot do this non-automatically? Does this add ((old cfd)) (or whatever is appropriate) to the talk page? Did Cydebot ever do this? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cydebot did this automatically, but it never added ((old cfd)) to the talk page. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally the bot would incorporate the placement of ((old cfd)). But if it's too much of a hassle to have this part automated as well (and assuming that the bot is only used in case of batch processing) the closer of a discussion should manually add ((old cfd)) at least to the talk page of the top category of the batch. Or the first few in alphabet if the list of categories only contains siblings. Or the best populated categories. That should be added in the instructions for closing anyway. (Btw I've never used this bot, it's the first time I read about it, it's not mentioned in the closing instructions.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there is demand for it, than I could adding ((old cfd)) (with the necessary parameters of course ;-)) to the talk page too. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an experienced CfD closer, I would certainly welcome that additional functionality. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: It will be highly desirable to invent a way to distinguish "keep" results from "no consensus". This could then be recorded in the edit summary on the category page, as well as in the ((old cfd)) template.

I suggest that this might most easily be achieved by having "Keep" and "No consensus" headings on the /Retain page. However, as a bot-writer you may have a better idea. – Fayenatic London 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Yeah, that's a good idea. (Adding the correct result was planned from the beginning BTW.) Probably a section for stale speedys should be added too. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea too, that could also be useful now and then. There's no need for anything on the talk page in those cases. I sometimes copy a stale speedy-page discussion to a talk page, but that could not be automated. – Fayenatic London 20:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you changing or adding any functionality based on the above? If so, you need to be specify this in the function details. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:54, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (1 run). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. The retain list isn't very long, so we can just run all of it. Please use descriptive summary, etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:11, February 21, 2017 (UTC)

Trial complete. Edits for future reference. (The talk pages of the last 25 categories were already tagged with Old CfD, so I skipped them.) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Everything looks good. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:58, 22 February 2017 (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.