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

Time filed: 00:09, Saturday, January 2, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python/PyWikibot core

Source code available: Yes at GitHub

Function overview: Create nonprinting redirects that meet the criteria: "Dungeons & Dragons" in the title that does not already have a redirect already in the form of "Dungeons and Dragons". Prevent double redirects if we detect the "source" page is a redirect by following the redirect target.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Dungeons_.26.2Fand_Dragons

Edit period(s): Probably semi-infrequently (1x/year) since source pages aren't generated that frequently and we stand at ~300 pages this would matchto begin with.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~300 redirects

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No. Cant exclude because they don't exist yet

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

Function details: Searches wikipedia for pages that match the title Dungeons & Dragons and checks to see if there's a matching page in the format of Dungeons and Dragons. If there is not, we try to create a redirect pairing the "and" version to the "&" version.

Pinging Nyttend as the requesting user for this. I'm bringing it to BRFA for technical approval in paralell to the consensus discussion happens at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Bot-creating_a_bunch_of_redirects:_two_separate_proposals. Because this is procedurally creating several redirects, I'm wanting to be extra careful in how I'm approaching this (keeping in mind Betacommand, Neelix, doncram, etc) and not want to get afoul of WP:FAIT complaints. Hasteur (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Proposal has unanimous support at the moment and no reason to not do this has been raised. At the very least, a trial should be fine. — Earwig ^talk 00:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. 15 edits complete by [1] between 01:09 AM and 01:26 AM on 2 January 2016 server time. Hasteur (talk) 01:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, and thanks for the help! Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. — Earwig ^talk 23:03, 6 January 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.