Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KolBot

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.

KolBot

Operator: Kollision (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually assisted

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser with Kingbotk plugin

Source code available: Standard AWB and Kingbotk plugin

Function overview: Assisted editing "bot" working only on WikiProject Films articles without the project banner. Adds banner to articles under the projects' scope that don't have the banner, manual class assessment, basic taskforce tagging, needs-infobox=yes and needs-image=yes tagging.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Fairly uncontroversial. Task is listed on the WikiProject Films' coordinators' agenda list.

Edit period(s): One time run followed by runs every now and then.

Estimated number of pages affected: 4,000+ in the initial run

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details: Bot will add the WikiProject Films banner to the talk pages of articles under its scope. ~~If the article has a stub tag, the bot will add class=Stub and auto=yes; if the article is a list, the bot will add class=List; if the "article" is a Category, the bot will add class=Category.~~ Bot will do class assessments – done by me looking at the article and determining the class. The bot will also tag for the project's task forces, determined by categories or the stub template used (eg. if tagged with {{US-film-stub}}, the article will be tagged as being under the American cinema task force.) All of this will be done only for articles that do not have the {{Film}} template.

Discussion

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Have you considered asking them if they want to use other auto-assessment schemes such as inheritance and length (e.g.)? –xeno^talk 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be best if general fixes are activated and some template replacements are done in addition to the main task. xeno, can explain better on that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can post the code for those template replacements tonight or tomorrow. –xeno^talk 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. For the 56 edits I've done so far, I've been looking at the article to check that the class I'm giving is accurate. Even doing it that way, this has been easier and faster than I expected. So I'm going to not use the auto parameter and will manually assess these articles. That will also save someone having to come back and check that the class is accurate and remove the auto tag later. - Kollision (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will also do needs-infobox=yes and needs-image=yes tagging. This is essentially an assisted editing bot. The bot account is mainly due to the speed and number of edits. The bot won't do anything I wouldn't do in my normal editing and I will check and approve each edit. I have updated the function overview and functional details above.- Kollision (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - Kollision (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to look pretty good overall, except for that slight muddle with Wildbot's template at Talk:The Night Holds Terror, has that been fixed? Also, I notice some of the assessments are marked as automatic, and some are not, any reason for that? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that glitch has been corrected. The answer to your second question is that this bot started as a automatic assessment bot (if has stub template then class=Stub) but then I decided I would do manual assessments (I look at the article and decide the class). - Kollision (talk) 04:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Looks good - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2010 (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.