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

Time filed: 05:47, Saturday, December 5, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: Dates pages in Category:Userspace drafts to organize them in subcategories

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): bot request

Edit period(s): Twice a month

Estimated number of pages affected: 1400 initially, the I'd believe just a few each month

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Goes through pages in Category:Userspace drafts, adding |date= to ((userspace draft)) based on the page's creation date (which would then organize the pages into subcategories by date).  Hazard SJ  05:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should it really be by creation date, or the date ((userspace draft)) was added? — Earwig ^talk 11:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a few pages, a number of them have been created with the template on them, in which case there would be no difference. For cases where it would be a difference, having just looked at a few that include User:Alan.ca/Rita Mulcahy, User:Barney 48/sandbox, User:Callen775/Christopher Richard Tracy, and User:CanerVeli/Liquiproof, all those could be considered drafts from their creation, except that they were only tagged as such at a later stage, and sometimes even be someone other than the creator. At least in my opinion, the creation date should be fine.  Hazard SJ  20:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fully convinced. In the first example, the content has existed since 2011, but it was not a userspace draft until 2013. Perhaps the bot can look through the history to find if it was ever moved from the article space? If so, it is a draft since the most recent userfication; otherwise, it is a draft since creation. — Earwig ^talk 22:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a draft in userspace the moment it was created. The creation date makes the most sense. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That comment wasn't on point since some are movements to userspace and thus created before being in userspace. I'd still argue for the creation date as it gives a better idea of the age of the draft. Some I imagine may have huge differences as there are times were a page is created in mainspace, left alone for a while, deleted at AFD and then userified with a draft tag but this is just a sorting mechanism. The oldest page may go to MFD and there we can argue whether the draft's age if we want (which isn't as relevant as whether the draft or the editor really is active now). I guess could the bot perhaps post to an error page or something if the month category hasn't been created (I think every month back to February 2006 is there so there's a very small chance of that happening). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ricky81682: The reason I brought it up is as an analog to the AFC G13 process; if we were to consider drafts created X months ago as stale, then it would make sense for any userfication to reset that clock. But I realize now that the category is determined by last edit time, so it doesn't matter as much as I thought. Ultimately, this is not a big deal. — Earwig ^talk 21:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: Technically the category isn't considered by anything. There's no speedy deletion criteria here for these drafts. It's just for sorting purposes (triage really) and of course once the bot hits these pages, they won't be in stale drafts anyways as they have been edited. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand that. I'm fine with Hazard going either way here. Sorry to go off-topic, but I've noticed people misspell my name as "Earwing" often enough that it's made me curious... — Earwig ^talk 00:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than listing the nonexistent categories somewhere, how about I exercise the "as well as other such possibilities as necessary in the future" from Hazard-Bot 27 and just create those categories on a per-need basis?  Hazard SJ  06:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, but I don't predict it happening all that much. I assume we're sticking with creation date? Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 07:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Yes to the creation date, and there were no category creations in the trial run.  Hazard SJ  02:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Things like this are gonna happen, but realistically there's nothing the bot can do about it, and it shouldn't matter much. — Earwig ^talk 07:38, 15 December 2015 (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.