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.

BOTijo 2 (again)[edit]

Operator: Emijrp

Automatic or Manually assisted: automatic, unsupervised

Programming language(s): python (pywikipediabot)

Function overview: creating redirects from different capitalisation when strictly needed (like this one). Read this for when they are needed (WP:MIXEDCAPS).

Edit period(s): continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: I don't know, +100K

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): yes

Function details:

Per this message, and this talk, I request re-approval of task 2 (see current approval).

Discussion[edit]

Needs wider discussion. Since you're wanting to see if there's community consensus for this task, you have to spam it out to the appropriate places to get community comments. WP:VPR, the talk pages of the various redirect policies/guidelines you cited in the earlier discussion, the talk pages for the template and category for these redirects if they're actually active, and maybe WP:VPT if you want to solicit developer input as to whether they intend to ever create xeno's software fix. I suggest posting a brief summary of the issues calling for these redirects (may as well expand the Function details above with the summary too) and then point them here for centralized discussion. Anomie⚔ 14:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personally, I think that creating these redirects seems excessive for a number of reasons. First, it should be fixed by a software update, not by creating thousands upon thousands upon thousands of redirects. Also, people should be able to find the topic even if they input the wrong capitalization the first time... the search results usually have what they're looking for as the first option. And people certainly shouldn't be creating wikilinks to these pages, since then inappropriate capitalization would be used within articles (unless the link was piped). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Although I have sympathy with this request the question of how far it will (should) go arises.

  1. Juan alfonso de baena
  2. Juan alfonso De Baena
  3. Juan Alfonso de Baena
  4. Juan alfonso De Baena
  5. Juan alfonso de Baena
  6. Juan Alfonso de Baena
  7. Juan Alphonso de Baena

...

  1. Juan Alphonso de Beana

.... etc.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]
But Juan alfonso De Baena and Juan alfonso de Baena are not needed thanks to Juan alfonso de baena. Check it writing on search box and pressing Go button. emijrp (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2 and 4 are dupes, 3 and 6 too. emijrp (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't you understand that writing "tiTLE" in search box and pressing "Go" button works and send you to title without to have to create tiTLE redirect? Please, read all documentation & previous task approval before. emijrp (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you going to respond to what I wrote? Also, note that not all strangers are lusers. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Emijrp did reply to what you wrote, although not in the clearest possible manner. You wrote some nonsense opposing redirects for every possible permutation of an article's name, and Emijrp pointed out that only redirects from the all-lowercase name are needed for "Go" button functionality and therefore only those redirects are what the bot creates. I don't see where anyone besides you raised the issue of lusers. Anomie⚔ 12:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Johnuniq's comments are not "some nonsense." This is a community discussion. This is the place to address concerns from the community, and, before the bot is approved is a good time to start addressing concerns.
AIt's not necessarily so clear to the reader of wikipedia how redirects work, sometimes I enter mixed caps and don't get an article, other times I do get an article. User Emijrp provided one helpful link in his/her original post, but not in the response post. Obviously Johnuniq does not understand it, and providing a link to an explanation would have helped him and other members of the community to understand the bot request better. If the documentation was relevant, Emijrp, you should have linked to it originally.
The tone of reply from Emijrp suggests to me that if this bot is problematic the bot owner may not be responsive to bugs pointed out by users. For this, for the large number of redirects planned, and because the bot owner is 100% responsible for the edits made, I consider the bot a bad idea.
--69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He did write "Read this for when they are needed (WP:MIXEDCAPS)." which explains the situation fairly well. –xenotalk 18:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See wikt:nonsense, particularly definition 3. Anomie⚔ 20:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was wrong because I read all the links except the last paragraph of WP:MIXEDCAPS (which is the only text that actually addresses the issue). I put titles directly in the URL, and rarely use "Go", and the original request uses the plural "create redirects" so I assumed the examples given were just the first of a series of redirects for each article (it looks like Ric Farmbrough thought that too, and the reply above did not do much to illuminate the issue).
I still think a MediaWiki solution of adding an extra field to the database would be the best solution, and since that might be planned soon, I would personally suggest talking to a developer before adding 100,000+ pages. If I were implementing it, I would investigate using some variation of the Soundex code for each title, although that may only be useful on en.wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 04:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:MIXEDCAPS touches but does not fully adress the situation raised by Johnuniq. If the question cannot be directly answered without reference to an essay called "nonsense," the issue is probably too complex for a bot to handle in the first place, and this many planned edits should not be allowed for a bot that only one person is in charge of supervising, that person, again, not willing to directly answer questions put to him/her.

Again, someone from the community raised specific questions about a bot. The BAG has emphatically make it clear that although they authorize bots they bear no responsibility for them, therefore questions from the community should be addressed fully to make sure that someone is preventing future messes from occurring. The person responsible for answering these questions is the bot operator, and he/she cannot fully do so, therefore the bot is a bad idea. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Denied. Sorry, no consensus for this task. – Quadell (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category