Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mdann52 bot 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.

Mdann52 bot 3[edit]

Operator: Mdann52 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:08, Tuesday June 17, 2014 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: auto

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: standard AWB

Function overview: Adds stub template to all pages in Category:Stub-Class Beauty Pageants articles

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#Stub adding bot

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 1000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no

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

Function details: Places the template {{Pageant-stub}} on all the articles of pages in Category:Stub-Class Beauty Pageants articles. This is invoked by an infobox. A user has created a template for the occasion, and would like it added en-masse to all the articles in the category.

Discussion[edit]

Could the bot add {{Pageant-bio-stub}} if the article is a biography, and {{Pageant-stub}} otherwise? You could determine if the article is a biography by looking at the infobox (e.g. {{Infobox pageant titleholder}}, {{Infobox person}}) and/or the categories (e.g. Category:Living people, Category:#### deaths). Doing this would reduce the need for additional stub sorting after the bot has completed its run. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There may be ones missed with this logic, but I can do it based on categories fairly easily. Looking at a selection of articles, Category:Living people and #### deaths should catch 99.9% of them (I am yet to find an exception). --Mdann52talk to me! 15:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. However, I would like to see some initiative in reassessing the articles where appropriate, and the edit summary should reflect that. - Jarry1250 ^{[Vacation needed]} 14:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Unfortunately, I messed up the order of the rules first time around, so it tagged with the regular stub template. I also had to stop the task part way through, due to RL issues, but finished it this morning. I have reviewed the edits, and nothing strikes me as unusual. I included a message that articles may need reassessing - there is little, if any, way for my bot to reliably judge this. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Mdann52 Please re-run without messing up this time and please provide links to diffs when finished. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. edits. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mdann52 I think it is for best that you enable AWB's general fixes at the same time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mdann52 What is to be done with pages such as Julia Alexandratou, where the page is certainly not a stub? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Unfortunately, there is no way to reliabally detirmine what is and isn't a stub. I can send a list of articles that have had the template added to the relevent WikiProject; The ES already include a note about possible reassessment being needed. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mdann52 if you run AWB's general fixes with autotagger after the stub addition everything will be OK I think. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Will do; I can also make a note of articles that do not have the stub template added, and reassess them manually if that would help (?) --Mdann52talk to me! 15:08, 1 July 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.