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.

Operator: T-rex

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic.

Programming Language(s): C#

Function Summary: Crosslinks between related categories to improve navigation (see original request)

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): one time run

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

Function Details: Finds Album and Song categories for the same artist within and finds matches that do not already link to each other and add link to both using ((Cat see also))

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Looks promising. And uncomplicated. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. This task is the last 54 edits using the summery in the style of "Bot: Linking to Category:bandName albums/songs". No errors were found in the edits. The edit speed was very fast, but this has since been addressed --T-rex 16:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just checked a few random instances, no real problems but the bot produces the text "See also Categories: blablabla" and I'd suggest two small improvements: first, Categories should not be capitalized and second it shouldn't be plural. From what I understand this is the result of using ((Cat see also)) which is designed for a small list of extra categories. I'd rather see the bot simply generate "See also category:blablabla" (which is the most frequent way of linking to other cats). Also, as I said in the original request (sort of), the added complication of figuring out whether a given category already links to other categories is unimportant: the only negative is a slightly awkward "double" see-also which people will naturally fix by hand as they encounter them. For example, after the bot edit, Category:Aerosmith albums looked like this (strange but still helpful) which I've changed to this (less strange). Pichpich (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consistent formatting across these categories which makes anticipating pretty formatting like in Category:Aerosmith albums impossible. As for why ((Cat see also)) gives categories as plural? I don't know, but that is a template issue, and should be easy to fix for someone who has more template experience then I do. --T-rex 03:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I wasn't clear. I certainly don't expect the bot to worry about prettiness. In fact it would be a complete waste of effort to shoot for this and my point was precisely that prettiness doesn't matter: people like me will one day browse the Aerosmith category, notice the awkward layout and fix it. By the same reasoning, I think not using the template might be a good idea because a) frankly, that template sucks and b) if the bot adds ''See also [[:Category:Blabla]]'' instead of ((Cat see also|Blabla)) it will be easier for the random newbie that doesn't understand templates to fix the layout . Pichpich (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Whether you use the "Cat see also" template or not is up to you. My personal opinion is that it would be best to fix that template (to not capitalize "Category", and to not pluralize when there's only one), rather than ignore it. But that's just one guy's opinion. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:30, 11 August 2008 (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.