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: Robert Skyhawk

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic; supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: WP:AWB

Function overview: Tagging "Table of contents" subpages of books for deletion per CSD G6 Removing links to Table on content pages on Books after they are deleted.

Edit period(s): One time

Estimated number of pages affected: 116; see list here.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: See Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 31#Books clean up.; basically, the bot will tag the pages in the list linked above for deletion, since the Books feature now generates Tables of content automatically. This makes said manually made TOC pages useless. the bot would remove links to manually made "Table of content" pages. These pages will presumably be deleted in the near future, as per the discussion below.

Discussion[edit]

I notice no user books were included. They should be included as well. Unless no user book happened to have TOCs... Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure about a bot going into users' userspaces and CSD'ing these pages. I would prefer if the bot could drop a message on user talk pages telling them about the TOC change and leave it up to them, or at least give them a note after the deletion has been made. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 02:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recursive searches of Category:Wikipedia:User page Books with both Catscan and AWB find no pages containing "Table of contents" in the title, so I'm assuming that there aren't any in the userspace anyway. If it turns out there are some, I agree with Earwig that simply tagging userspace pages isn't the way to go about it. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 02:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there aren't any, then its a non-issue. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's only 116, its not really necessary to go through and tag them all, an admin could go through the list with Twinkle's batch deletion function in a couple minutes. A bot might be useful for removing the links from the book pages though. Mr.Z-man 03:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well my request asked for both. Concerning how deletion is made, it doesn't really matter to me, it's just cleanup anyway. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively to what is listed above, I can instruct the bot to go to the parent pages of the TOC pages I have listed, and delete the links. If this is preferred, please advise. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's the most important part of the request. The deletion of the pages themselves is simply leftover cleanup. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 03:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mr.Z-man above. We could easily get an admin to delete the actual TOC pages; the bot does not have to do this. Instead, this task could focus on removing the links from the pages, which is not as easy to do. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the fields above to reflect this new task. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 22:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than wait around for an admin to go through and delete the TOCs, I'm going to use AWB (NOT my bot) to tag the pages for G6 deletion. That will let this request actually be approved, since the pages should be deleted before I remove the links. Robert Skyhawk ^{So sue me!} (You'll lose) 23:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I deleted all the TOC pages,  Approved. to remove the links - there isn't much point in a trial for a one-time run of 116 pages. Mr.Z-man 03:03, 13 October 2009 (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.