Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MoohanBOT 6

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

Withdrawn by operator.

MoohanBOT 6

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

Time filed: 11:47, Monday March 24, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): WP:AWB

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: Go through pages at Wikipedia:Database reports/Stubs included directly in stub categories and remove the direct stub category and add a generic {{stub}} tag.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s):

Estimated number of pages affected: Around 1600 in current database dump though some may have been fixed already, I don't expect it to be this high regularly especially after the bot cleans through it the first time.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: It will find any stub category in the text and replace it with a {{stub}} tag this will bring it to the attention of many editors who regularly sort stubs but may not be aware of the database dump. General fixes and tagging will then be applied to the page. If there is already a stub tag on the page the bot will skip it so as not to undo any previous good work.

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I have reviewed all of the edits and didn't spot any errors. I have made two slight additions/changes to the task however.

If the AWB attempts to remove the stub tag (because it deems it too long to be a stub) skip the page. I feel this kind of decision should not be automated and should be left to the judgement of humans.
If the page is a biography article (using the same logic as MoohanBOT Task 2) add {{bio-stub}} instead of {{stub}}. This just means that my bot is making less edits overall.

Approved for trial (200 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --slakr^\ talk / 06:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a few edits so far (30-50) it seems to be working as planned.

After comments from PamD and Redrose64 on my talk page I will edit the Bot task; It will no longer remove the direct stub category, but simply add the relevant {{stub}}/{{bio-stub}} along with a comment  Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 10:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Have you finished the 200 edits or otherwise done enough to be confident in final approval? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The database report is updated on the first of the month and they tend to get fixed reasonably quickly. In May the bot only made a couple of edits and there have been no edits made using the updated task. I should be able to get a sizeable number of edits done on 1 June, if not then I will look into doing the database search myself and running it on those. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 09:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified)June 1 has come and gone. Any updates to report? Hasteur (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Since I can't find enough pages to perform a trial, there's probably not a need for this bot. Editors have routinely got to and cleared the database dump before I've had a chance to run the Bot. Since those guys are actually sorting the stubs (rather than just bringing them to the attention of other stub sorters as my bot does) making them wait for the bot to run wouldn't improve anything. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2014 (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.