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 Denied.

Operator: GeoffreyT2000 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 23:34, Monday, June 20, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Create "(month)" redirects

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Redirects from unnecessary disambiguations

Edit period(s): periodic

Estimated number of pages affected: 615 on the first run; 1 afterward for each new page added to Category:Months in the 1900s

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This bot will create a redirect tagged with ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) from "Month Year (month)" to "Month Year" for each article "Month Year" such as January 1901 in Category:Months in the 1900s if the redirect does not already exist.

Discussion[edit]

• What's the point? I can at least make a case for unnecessary disambiguation redirects to years, because it's not clear whether 1123 should an article about a number or a year, unlike 1123 (year). But that doesn't apply here, since no one is going to question the primary topic of January 1923. I don't see much of a supporting argument in the linked discussion either. — Earwig ^talk 00:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the links to ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)), some appear to be old moves that were never deleted, for some reason or another (eg ... onyt agoraf y drws ... (Puw)). It may be worth compiling a list of redirects that overly disambiguate and don't have disambiguation page (eg previous example) and seeing what, if anything, could or should be done about them. →Σσς. (Sigma) 01:45, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The user account for this bot needs to be created. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The bot will create redirects similar to January 1901 (month), which I have already created; and August 1914 (month), which originally redirected to 1914#August by SuperHero2111 but now redirects to August 1914, which was originally about a novel but that novel is now at August 1914 (novel). The bot account name currently does not exist, but my alternate account will be renamed, which means that the old username will become unregistered and the new username will become registered. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading the discussion you linked to on WP:AWB/TA, it doesn't seem like there's especially strong support for this task. Is there consensus elsewhere that this task should be run? Enterprisey (talk!) _{(formerly APerson)} 01:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There is really no consensus to create these redirects. The AWB request you linked to shows that there could be significant opposition to this task, it definitely doesn't show consensus to do it. I remember there was a lot of controversy recently when someone (I think it was SSTflyer) decided to create a bunch of similar redirects using AWB, when there wasn't any consensus to do so. I recommend that you start a discussion somewhere else, maybe at RFD to gain consensus for this task, and return once it's obvious that the community approves of these redirects. Omni Flames (talk) 23:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to add my opposition to this proposal. While something like 1789 (year) (created by yours truly) makes sense, as readers may not expect the year to be at the base title, June 1989 is unambiguous. The proposed new redirects, if created, should likely survive an RFD discussion, but I question whether they should be created in the first place. SSTflyer 02:16, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Still, there's no evidence that "month-name year-number" pages in general require disambiguation in the first place. Pages such as August 1914 can be, and are, dealt with on an ad-hoc basis. Creating these redirects for all the rest, it seems to be claimed by both the linked discussion as well as participants here, is simply, as the template itself says, unnecessary disambiguation.

  It's been a while since we've heard from you, anyway; what do you make of this? →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:05, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose (am I supposed to embolden that?), because it's basically unhelpful. As mentioned above, most MONTH YEAR titles are unquestionably the primary topic (to pick a random example, "July 1956" probably appears almost nowhere except in reference to the month current sixty years ago), and while this is good for months sharing their names with other topics, judging which ones share their names is not a good task for a bot. If you produce a list of ambiguous names (whether all-manually or by bot-listing all MONTH YEAR titles that already exist as blue links, and then manually filtering out articles about months), such as August 1914, the bot would be useful for mass-creating those specific month redirects. Nyttend (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per my comments in the "relevant discussion" linked above. There is no benefit to running this task, as ((R from unnecessary disambiguation))s are useful when, for example, something is a primary topic and it's reasonable to expect a disambiguator. That's not the case here. While there's rare exceptions to this, like August 1914 which is also a novel, that isn't a strong enough case to create these for all the other months. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These redirects are harmless, but largely of no use. Would support a bot that only did these for MONTH YEAR titles that do require diambiguation per Nyttend. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Denied. Clear opposition to this task. For the future: linking to relevant discussions about a bot is obviously important, but it's also important for those discussions to demonstrate that people actually want it. — Earwig ^talk 06:19, 4 July 2016 (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.