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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Seppi333Bot 2[edit]

Operator: Seppi333 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 22:49, Thursday, December 19, 2019 (UTC)

Function overview: Create missing redirects from gene symbols to articles about the corresponding gene/protein and categorize them using ((R from gene symbol)).

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: No. Not going to write it unless approved for trial.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 2000 or 4000, give or take a few hundred (2000 if just the gene symbol redirects; 4000 if the parenthetically disambiguated redirects as well - see discussion below)

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Create missing redirects from gene symbols to articles about the corresponding gene/protein and categorize them using ((R from gene symbol)).

Discussion[edit]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:17, 19 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Give us a little bit to review before BAGAN tagging please. — xaosflux Talk 00:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My bad; will wait next time. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It might be worth creating the corresponding set of parenthetically disambiguated " (gene)"-suffixed redirects (a la Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BogBot 3) along with the proposed set, though it's not quite as necessary. Doing so would double the number of redirects I'd need to create.
Wondering what others think; @Boghog: you in particular. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The justification for the parenthetical redirects was very clear: provide an unambiguous mechanism for locating Gene Wiki articles. Most of these redirects have already been created. Hence it would very useful to provide redirects for the newly created articles and update redirects for the rare cases where the official gene has changed. The redirects provide an efficient mechanism to find Gene Wiki articles. Why is necessary to create and maintain lists of tens of thousands of genes? Who is going to use these lists and for what purpose? Boghog (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm; I don't think it's that rare TBH; I saw around half a dozen gene symbols change when I updated those gene lists today. That said, the gene lists aren't relevant to this task in any way; I'm just proposing the creation of redirects. But, to answer your questions, it's not any more or less necessary than creating and maintaining any other article on Wikipedia. I do it voluntarily because I know there are some who would find it useful/interesting for the same reason I do. I suspect that people who would "use" these lists are readers who are interested in human genes. The alternative is HGNC's gene browser which cuts off the list at 1000 entries and utilizes such an excessive amount of pagination so as to render the viewer relatively useless. As for the purpose, I can't say; I only know what I used it for. But, for what purpose would any of the other lists in lists of human genes be used for that matter? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Been about a month, so... ((BAGAssistanceNeeded)). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Primefac (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.
Category