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 Speedily Approved.

Operator: EdoDodo (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, semi-supervised.

Programming language(s): Python (pywikipedia)

Source code available: Yes

Function overview: Completes WP:BOTREQ#Isotope redirects. Basically, addes a comment at the top of isotope redirects encouraging users to contribute to a main article listing all isotopes instead of creating brief stubs from the redirects.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot Request, Discussion showing consensus of relevant WikiProject

Edit period(s): One time run.

Estimated number of pages affected: Several hundred.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes.

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

Function details: Since a lot of users have been creating brief stubs out of the redirects of isotopes, often with very little useful information, it has been decided to have a main article containing all the information about the various isotopes (Isotopes of oxygen, Isotopes of hydrogen, etc.). All isotope articles redirect to the relevant main article. In order to encourage users to contribute to the main article instead of making a brief stub out of the redirect, the bot will add this message to all isotope redirects:

<!--
 Before converting the Elementname-XXX redirect into an article,
 please consider creating a section entitled Elementname-XXX
 in the [[Isotopes of elementname]] article instead.

 See [[Isotopes of hydrogen]] for an example.
-->

More details as well as consensus for this change can be found at WP:BOTREQ#Isotope redirects and WT:WikiProject Elements#Isotope stub genocide and bot notice to prevent the situation?. The bot will crawl Category:Isotopes's subcategories and, only if it recognizes the title of the article as a standard isotope (Zinc-XXX, Hydrogen-XXX, etc.) and if the page is a redirect, it will then add the message, appropriately customized to the individual pages.

Seems like a speedy approve to me? Rich Farmbrough, 03:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) Any updates on this? - EdoDodo ^talk 12:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Approved. Straightforward task, experienced op. Code looks good too. Anomie⚔ 16:45, 7 October 2010 (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.