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: Xclamation point

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Overview: Maintaining ((uncat))

Edit period(s): Daily

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

Function Details: This bot will go through all transclusions of ((uncategorized)), and make sure that they are uncategorized. It will check if there is \[\[Category:(.*?). If there is, it will remove the template. If there isn't, it skips the page.

Discussion[edit]

Why is it using a regex on the page text rather than checking for actual categories? --MZMcBride (talk) 03:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because actual categories can include other maintenance categories. Xclamation point 03:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So exclude those? (That shouldn't be too difficult.) Templates can add categories or category code can be inside things like HTML comments (<!-- -->). Scanning the page text doesn't seem like the best option. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worse to fail safe and not remove the category rather than risking removing the tag when the article actually is uncategorized? Xclamation point 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Remove the category"? What? This is about removing ((uncategorized)). And it's best to ensure that the page is truly uncategorized or not and act appropriately. Scanning page text will produce decent, but not perfect results. You should aim for nearly 100% accuracy. Do you have example pages where the bot would edit? And what's the issue with doing a categorylinks check and excluding specific categories? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, sorry about that. The issue with a categorylinks check is that the "certain categories" will be changing often. Besides, what categories would be added to a page inside of a templte besides a maintenance template? Xclamation point 04:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other tags at the top of the page? Stub templates? And perhaps the page text search is sufficient, but I'd like to make sure the results are going to be as accurate as possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to consider:

• Whether you want to move the tag to the bottom or top of the page (for consistency).
• Whether you want to add a date parameter if it's missing in the template. (Probably not needed.)
• Whether you want to remove the category based on the number of categories or replace it with a better tag ((more categories needed)) or whatever. Basically, what is your threshold for uncategorized? Is it zero, one, two?
• If the [[Category:(.*) check comes back positive but the category doesn't exist, does that count as categorized? To me it seems like a page shouldn't be considered categorized until the category link is blue.

--MZMcBride (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • This bot is not adding or modifying tags, only removing them.
  • That might be possible, also out of the scope of this BRFA
  • Right now, it's zero. I could have something like < 2 is ((more categories needed)), would that be a better idea?
  • Makes sense, it will only use existing categories. Xclamation point 10:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we're happy with pages having at least one category, so I don't think ((more categories needed)) is necessary. As long as it's checking category page existence, I have no issues with a trial. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12 edits done, you need more? Xclamation point 19:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Looks great. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:33, 11 May 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.