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: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:03, Friday, July 19, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: manual

Programming language(s): Javascript

Source code available: Modified version of User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist

Function overview: Disambiguate links following page moves without flooding recent changes

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Variable, probably only used for more than 30 links per dab page

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: Sometimes an RM is closed with consensus to disambiguate, and a new dab pages is created. All incoming links to that page were, minutes ago, working links to the page that was moved, and after the dab page is created they must be retargeted to keep working. Having closed a recent requested move and then making over 250 edits to retarget links, this would avoid flooding recent changes (though the script does limit the rate of edits)

This is a WP:CONTEXTBOT issue, many of the links this bot will be "fixing" will be incorrect (as the initial link will be wrong in the first place), making the issue worse, not better. Leave this to the human dab solvers to deal with. Iffy★Chat -- 08:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: my intention was to make these edits manually, and to only use the bot account to avoid flooding recent changes (since enwiki doesn’t have a “flooder” user group). I’ve changed it to be manual instead of supervised - sorry for the confusion. I agree that this has context issues, but all edits are being made manually by me, so I think it should be okay. Thanks, —DannyS712 (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) - this has been open for a week and a half. I hope my clarification that this is a manual task (meaning that I will personally use the script to make each individual change) helps. If desired I could do this with a different bot account to separate "automatic" (bot) tasks from "manual" (flood) tasks --DannyS712 (talk) 21:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Approved for trial (20 edits or 14 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (which ever comes first) with the clarification that this is 100% manual, bot as a bot-ran-task it should not change the meaning of any article content. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Xaosflux: what do you mean "as a bot-ran-task"? DannyS712 (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @DannyS712: Since this is running as a bot, it should not be changing the "meaning" of statements in articles, such as changing a wikilink to go from pony to pony; that is you will need to manually make sure the context of the link persists through the edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Xaosflux: oh, okay. That makes sense. I was just confused by the juxtaposition of "100% manual" and "bot-ran-task". Trial complete. - I happened to come across the exact situation at Talk:Mission: Impossible (1966 TV series)#Requested move 26 July 2019. Half of the edits at [1] are the trial (the other half was task 52 running at the same time - search for "Disambiguating" to find the relevant changes). Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. with the stipulation that it is indeed always run manually with care to ensure that "meaning" of statements in articles is preserved (per Xaosflux). As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:04, 19 August 2019 (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.