Category talk:Pre-release and unused content images

From the Super Mario Wiki

Incorrect Name of Category?[edit]

Something has been bothering me and that is the category name. Shouldn't this be Category:Pre-release and unused content images? That way it matches Pre-release and unused content by article name. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 19:01, 7 April 2016 (EDT)

Now that I got a bot to do all this work for ~1,250 images, how does everyone feel now to get this to be a thing? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 02:14, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
The current name is a bit misleading (it kinda makes it sound like the images themselves were unused, rather than them just featuring unused content), but it gets the general purpose across and adding "content" to an already long name seems cumbersome. Hello, I'm Time Turner.
Ha, that's what I was thinking too for it being misleading! Cumbersome to read or cumbersome to edit? --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 02:23, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
Both. There's no need to flood recent change for such a minor change. --Glowsquid (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
Remember a bot will be doing these edits. As for flooding, there are filters you can apply to Special:RecentChanges to hide the file edits (select the file namespace and check invert selection). Sure, this will also hide file changes that are not related to this bot mass edit (if it were to happen). When I had the bot active doing other things over the past couple of days, I hid my edits and kept a careful eye out for malicious edits. Even though I didn't find anything questionable or malicious, if there was a problem, I would have abruptly stopped the bot so that way the vandal would not go unnoticed. As for the long category name, should we call it something else or split it to be Category:Pre-release images and Category:Unused content images? If that split were to happen, that would be truly cumbersome. A bot can't sort that easily. Human intervention would be needed. --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 14:29, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
Get a bot account, so we can hit "Hide Bots". - Reboot (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
I thought bots are hidden by default? There was a time that a bot greeted every new user and I don't think we saw its contributions in the recent changes. Mario Green.pngKaBoom! 17:13, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
They are. However, that only applies to bot accounts. If you do it with a bot marked as a normal user (or using a normal user account), they show up by default like any other user-edit. - Reboot (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
If we are to do something, it should definitely be to rename this to Category:Pre-release and unused content images. I'd keep the other as a redirect so we don't have to change all files if that's a problem. Splitting seems the most troublesome of all. --TucayoSig.png The 'Shroom 21:32, 22 May 2016 (EDT)
A category redirect would be undesirable. The mass editing done by a bot flooding Special:RecentChanges is an unnecessary fear. I wouldn't let the potential for a vandal to slide. As for new bot creation, I don't know if it would be worth it because the stuff I wanted to do bot work on is nearly complete. {{br}} and File: text replacing is all that I ever wanted a bot to do on this wiki. There's a few spots here and there where I found what the bot didn't get. It would be much easier to revive one of Porplemontage (talk)'s bots, such as PorpleBot (talk) and/or MarioWiki Bot (talk). --Wildgoosespeeder (talk) (Stats - Contribs) 17:46, 29 May 2016 (EDT)

I know this is old, but it doesn't look like anything ever happened. I think the rename is a good idea. --Super Mario Fan 67 (TCS) 16:27, 17 May 2017 (EDT)