Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OmniBot 3

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.

OmniBot 3

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

Time filed: 07:19, Friday, April 1, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Change {{WikiProject Insects|class=x|importance=y}} to {{WikiProject Insects|class=x|importance=y|Hymenoptera=yes|Hymenoptera-importance=y}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time run for now, will be run irregularly after

Estimated number of pages affected: 3400

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: As mentioned above, the bot will change {{WikiProject Insects|class=x|importance=y}} to {{WikiProject Insects|class=x|importance=y|Hymenoptera=yes|Hymenoptera-importance=y}}. It will skip pages with Hymenoptera=yes|Hymenoptera-importance=VALUE. It will use the following categories:

Category:Wasp taxonomy and all subcategories
Category:Bee taxonomy and all subcategories
Category:Vespoidea

Discussion

I think you mean to skip pages with Hymenoptera=yes|Hymenoptera-importance=VALUE, right? Or some regular expression? Also, I'm not sure if copying the importance directly is a good approach. Usually task forces have their own importance system (see here), hence it being a separate parameter. I forget the usual convention for WP tagging bots, but it might be safest to leave that empty. — Earwig ^talk 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging here was meant to be a one-off, rather than a weekly run. The reason for inheriting the parent importance is that the most obvious high- and mid-importance pages have been tagged manually already. If need be, we can evaluate all the pages by hand, but we were hoping to get initial values set (most of the several thousand articles will be low priority anyway), and then modify them as we see them. M. A. Broussard (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's reasonable. Agree, usually these taggings are one-off or infrequent. — Earwig ^talk 20:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @The Earwig: @M. A. Broussard: Whoops, sorry I actually did mean to put one time run, not sure why I put weekly there. Anyway, I made the changes you suggested. About copying the importance: I agree with M. A. Broussard, the pages which are more important to the Hymenoptera task force have all been tagged already, meaning that the pages the bot will tag are most likely low-importance or the same importance as they are in the parent category. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 22:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Better yet, check for |Hymenoptera=yes by itself (unless you want to importance-tag things that are already in the task force—I figure you don't). Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 22:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - @The Earwig: Thanks! Is it possible that you could add my bot to the AWB check page just for the trial, so that I can use the "max edits" function? Or do I need to go through RFR? — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 23:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. — Earwig ^talk 23:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig:

Trial complete. You can take a look at the result on the bot's contributions page. I haven't seen all the edits yet, but at the moment there don't appear to be any errors. From the number of edits made in the trial period, I would estimate the number of total edits that need to be made at around 3400. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 01:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me so far. All the articles are within the purview of the project and seem to have inherited priority just fine. M. A. Broussard (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea about these? — Earwig ^talk 19:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, nice catch. I'll see if I can fix that. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 21:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, @The Earwig:, I've got it fixed. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 22:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also noticed that Acarapis woodi was tagged, which is curious as it isn't a hymenopteran. It's not immediately clear from me why category traversal found it, but since it's associated with bees (~~and someone else found it appropriate to place under WPInsects~~ never mind, a bot did that) I don't think it's a wrong action by the bot. With all that said, I think we can go forward. Approved. — Earwig ^talk 02:04, 10 April 2016 (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.