Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MoohanBOT 2

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.

MoohanBOT 2

Operator: Jamesmcmahon0 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 23:35, Sunday July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): ~~AWB~~

Source code available: Runs through AWB with a standard find and replace: {{stub}} with {{bio-stub}} (not case sensitive)

Function overview: Replaces {{Stub}} with {{bio-stub}}. Will run on appropriate articles in Category:Stubs

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Periodically

Estimated number of pages affected: A few hundred per run.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: It will run against pages in Category:Stub that are also in Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people), Category:Year of birth unknown, Category:Year of birth uncertain, Category:Year of death missing, Category:Year of death unknown and/or Category:Year of death uncertain and replace {{Stub}} with {{bio-stub}}. It will also perform general fixes and auto-tagging whilst making the edit.

I would like it to run against all articles contained under Category:WikiProject Biography but as far as I can tell this is too big for AWB to work with, the ones I listed above hit a large proportion of articles, especially when dealing with stubs.

Discussion

Comment - You could load all articles in Category:Stubs, and then skip all articles that are not in the categories above. You may also want to add Category:Living people to your list. GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip, I was using the list comparer to generate the list of articles to work on. The reason I didn't include Category:Living people was that when building the list, it will limit it to 25 000. With your method however I can include that and thus hit a larger percentage of the appropriate pages. I will also add Category:Possibly living people for good measure. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update I will check each page for the following Regex and skip if it's not there;

\[\[Category:(Year of birth|Year of death|Living people|Possibly living people)

Credit for this goes to GoingBatty (talk · contribs)

I've tested this and it does get most if not all of the biography pages and doesn't seem to get any false-positives (obviously it will if a page is mis-categorised. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Stub-sorting does not appear to have any contention, and the proposed cat cross-check method appear to be valid. Large trial for bigger sample size on false positives. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I should hopefully get chance to give it a go tomorrow eve. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. As far as I can tell there were no false positives i.e. all the non biographical articles were skipped (it's hard to know how many, if any, biographical articles were skipped). There was a mistake in the find and replace, which affected these edits; [1], [2], [3] and [4] I've fixed that now and tested it without saving the edits (the find/replace was Stub/Bio-stub now it's {{Stub}}/{{Bio-stub}}).

Another issue is that some of the pages that have {{stub}} tags also have another more fine grained stub tag, i.e. the {{stub}} shouldn't be there at all. I can think of a few way to deal with this;

Change it to {{bio-stub}} as in the edits at the moment. - This means that there is now a potentially redundant {{bio-stub}} on the page, not sure if that is better or worse than a redundant {{Stub}}?
Skip any pages that have a fine grained stub tag, using "\-stub\}\}" - This does mean that there are pages left in Category:Stubs that shouldn't be.
My choice would be to file another BRFA which would go though Category:Stubs and remove {{stub}} from any page that matches "\-stub\}\}" i.e. more fine grained stub tag exists on the page.

Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} - I think this is ready to go, now the find and replace is fixed. I will go with option 2 above so 100% of its edits are useful and submit another BAG request for option 3. Could this get approved please or another test to prove the find/replace now works as advertised? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. No further issues raised or that I can see. Noting genfixes are enabled. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:19, 6 August 2013 (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.