Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OmniBot 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

Approved.

OmniBot 6[edit]

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

Time filed: 07:53, Saturday, July 30, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Remove requests for an infobox on article talk pages when the article in question already has an infobox.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 72#Pages without infoboxes

Edit period(s): One time run for now, possibly run again if needed

Estimated number of pages affected: I'm still creating the list of pages that need fixing, so I can't give an exact number. However, the number could very well go in to the tens of thousands, considering the fact that Category:Wikipedia articles with an infobox request contains over 100k pages (although the number of those that are in mainspace or talkspace is more like 75k).

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This bot will go through the category Wikipedia articles with an infobox request, and find the talk pages where the corresponding article has an infobox. It will then go through the list of pages which already have an infobox, and remove the category from them. It will also go through the subcategories of that maintenance category, and do the same thing there. Note that in some cases, such as Category:School articles without infoboxes, the category is placed on the talk page via the WikiProject banner, so I'll have to use a different find and replace rule for that.

AWB's general fixes will also be turned on during this run, unless anyone objects, in which case I'm happy to discuss it with you.

Discussion[edit]

@Omni Flames: recall that AWB general fixes for talk pages are optimised with User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will the bot be searching for a {{Infobox in the syntax to identify which pages have an infobox? If so, don't forget about articles which use {{Taxobox}} and {{Geobox}} templates instead (and possibly others). If it ascertains the presence of an infobox in a different way, ignore this comment. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (drone) 22:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, a lot of the edits from 30 July only did genfixes or changed whitespace, not removing the category. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (interface) 22:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rcsprinter: The bot used to simply check if the page contained \{\{(.*)obox. However, after the complaint on the bot's talk page, I realized this was also picking up templates like {{Infobox requested}} (which, I hope, also addresses your second concern). So after that, I changed the regex to \{\{(inf|tax|ge)obox (?!requested). Omni Flames (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have you not got the "skip if ... only genfixes" box ticked in AWB? It needs to stop making edits which don't relate to this task. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (comment) 23:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Rcsprinter123: As I said, I've fixed this issue now. I forgot to tick the "skip if no replacement" box, which I've now fixed. You said that "it needs to stop making edits which don't relate to this task", but it hasn't made any edits at all since your comment, or since the message on the bot's talk page, for that matter. Omni Flames (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, and just a note that the total number of pages needing to be fixed is around 16k-17k. I should have the trial finished by tonight. Omni Flames (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis:

Trial complete. 50 of each here. I haven't found any false positives yet excluding those which were already brought up before. Omni Flames (talk) 09:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This should only be done if the detected template is before the first subheading; sometimes people use an infobox for the subject of a subsection of an article, or use {{Infobox}} to format images, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:44, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You could also remove |needs-infobox= from any of the family of {{WikiProject templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pigsonthewing: In regards to your first concern, that's not a bad idea, and I'll be sure to implement that. As for your second comment, that's already what the bot is doing, have you seen the contributions? Omni Flames (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Andy's suggestion to only edit templates in the zeroth section of talk pages. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial edits check: Only three of the article edits performed the intended task. (Noted to be resolved above - skip if no replacement.) All of the talk page edits look good. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Omni Flames (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please re-run the trial with the corrections discussed above. Please run 25 mainspace edits and 25 talk space edits. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:27, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Do you intend to continue with this bot? — xaosflux ^Talk 01:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Sorry, I completely forgot about this. Anyway,

Trial complete.. I only ended up doing 19 article edits, because that's all there were left (there are a lot more talk page edits). I found a few problems with the article space edits, but that shouldn't matter now because I went through and fixed them manually and I don't plan on ever running that script again now those edits are done. No problems identified with the talk space edits. Omni Flames (talk) 08:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Omni Flames regarding the talk edits - what is going on with the following edits, they appear to be in error. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Oh, my bad. I forgot to click "skip if general fixes only". Fixed. Omni Flames (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - Omni Flames Please rerun your Talk: run for 25 edits, making sure all your parameters are correct. Some editors get rather upset about WP:COSMETICBOT type issues. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} — xaosflux ^Talk 03:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additional operator ping sent. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Sorry for the late reply.

Trial complete.. See [1]. Omni Flames (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Task approved. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:13, 16 October 2016 (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.