Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HasteurBot 7

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.

HasteurBot 7[edit]

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

Time filed: 19:31, Sunday January 19, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python/Pywikipedia

Source code available: Customized version of templatecount.py from Pywikipedia compat. Link to source [1]

Function overview: To tag a set of Talkpages bearing the WikiProject Medicine banner (or any of the redirects pointing to it) with the Society task force identifier when matched by a set of criteria.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_57#Tagging_pages_for_a_new_Taskforce and User_talk:Hasteur#Society_and_Medicine_bot

Edit period(s): 1x per month

Estimated number of pages affected: Dependent on how many pages are discovered that meet the criteria.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This bot will traverse all the Article Talkspace transclusions of the WikiProject Medicine banner to potentially add the Society task force parameter to the WikiProject Medicine banner based on

The talk page also having a WikiProject ~~Biology~~ Biography, WikiProject Companies, or WikiProject Organizations banner
The talk page having the word Charity (case insensitive) in it's title
The Society parameter not already in the WikiProject Medicine banner

The bot will at the end of it's run post a new talk page message at the WikiProject Medicine talk page letting interested editors know that a new set of society articles has been tagged and needs evaluation as to importance and appropriateness for the society task force.

Discussion[edit]

@LT910001, Bluerasberry, and Jinkinson: Here's the BRFA for your bot task. Please feel free to weigh in and let me know if I did something wrong. Hasteur (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, thanks a lot for putting this proposal together, if approved this is exactly what we were hoping for. Only one small note, "WP:BIOLOGY" above should be "WP:BIOGRAPHY". --LT910001 (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Urm... You hit on an interesting question. Since you say {{WikiProject Biography}} does that also include {{BLP}} and {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} when the BLP banner is triggered? Hasteur (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Am happy if we miss a few articles by not complicating matters*, as I believe a simpler bot will be more effective and adding more and more clauses may end up adding too many false positives. Have included the keyword 'charity' in my request as I find these articles are haphazardly wikiproject-ed, whereas biographical articles seem to be universally under the aegis of WP:BIOGRAPHY. A more complicated way of identifying biographies may include transcluding {{BLP}} articles, articles with 'physician', 'MD', 'nurse', 'doctor' or a speciality in the infobox. With regards to {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, do you mean that articles with Wikiproject in the banner shell may not be detected? I am not sure how this bot will be programmed, but I feel if you are just doing a search of the text of the top parts of the talk pages, then this won't be a problem. I will however defer to your more expert opinion on this! --LT910001 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT910001 There are 2 ways to indicate a BLP, the first is by the standalone BLP template, the second is to add the blp parameter to the banner shell template as some people go one way or the other depending on how many wikiprojects tag the page. Hasteur (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks Hasteur. In that case, we better add articles in both formats. --LT910001 (talk) 03:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Ok, finished writing the BLP checks this past week, so this is ready to have it's roll down the driveway. Hasteur (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any Bot Approval Group members active? This project has been waiting for a while and the BAG assistance flag was thrown over a week ago. Urgent is now equivilent to "Whenever we think about it"?

I agree. Things are a mess right now. Some dozens of articles are currently with buggy infoboxes, that displays only part of the content. This shouldnt take that long. Reh man 15:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rehman This is a seperate request from the Infobox Dam request, that I agreed to take on before the infobox dam request. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits) Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ~~for tagging only~~. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The bot will at the end of it's run post a new talk page message at the WikiProject Medicine talk page" -- how often? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hellknowz How often: Once a month (along with the tagging). Obviously per your trial authorization, I won't be doing the notification to the project page by bot. Hasteur (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to post the message as well, I was mostly concerned it doesn't do it too often. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [2] is the set of 21 edits that I made with the process. The first edit had 2 defects, The square brackets weren't ballanced in the edit summary and the regex ate too much of the end of the line. I manually corrected the first edit. The message to WPMedicine is here that I manually typed in. It indicated what happened, where the authorization for it was granted, and how to resolve the message. Hellknowz Please let me know if you have questions. Sorry I left this kinda on the back back back burner. Hasteur (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} I waited the obligatory time. Could one of the BAG memebers please review? Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hasteur. I have finished my categorisation. I can report that this captured everything that it should have. This is a very useful tool and I hope it makes it through. --LT910001 (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Looks good. Very sorry about the delay. — Earwig ^talk 03:30, 31 May 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.