Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 41

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.

DannyS712 bot 41[edit]

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 04:11, Thursday, May 23, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Assess unassessed articles that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture and are tagged as stubs as stub class

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture#Stub assessment

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 606

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 21, which suggested that a more limited scale would be ideal, and a follow up to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 35, which was approved to do the same for wikiproject SCOTUS for ~150 pages, showing that the logic of the bot is sound.

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. I have a feeling this will get approved pretty easily, but just on the off chance that something's broken let's give it a trial run. Primefac (talk) 23:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: {{BotTrialComplete}} I reran the numbers, and its only around 500 pages total. I didn't see any issues, edits: [1] Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} are there any issues that I need to take care of? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been three days. Please be patient. Primefac (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the run appear to be inconsistent. These are in minor ways, but we normally expect bot runs that will be in "automatic mode" to be consistent, can you explain why these should be different:

Used leading pipe spacing only:

1

2

Used leading and trailing pipe spacing, added an empty parameter

3

Used leading and trailing pipe spacing

4

5

Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Here is what I used in terms of find-and-replace:

{{(WikiProject )?Architecture}} -> {{WikiProject Architecture |class=stub}}

and, only if {{WikiProject Architecture}} wasn't already present (meaning that the first rule did nothing,

{{WikiProject Architecture ?\| ?class ?= ?(\| ?importance ?= ?)?}} -> {{WikiProject Architecture | class=stub | importance=}}

I tweaked the regex over time, and adjust to fit a few unique cases, but generally this should account for the differences. --DannyS712 (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: so sometimes you will add the empty importance= parameter, and sometimes not? Why be inconsistent here? Do you expect to have consistent whitespace going forward as well? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: I can tweak it so that it always adds an empty importance parameter (unless there already is an importance set) and move more consistent whitespace, sorry --DannyS712 (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: it doesn't really matter to me if it is or isn't there, or if there is or isn't extra whitespace - but it should be consistent. The documentation at Template:WikiProject Architecture suggests that it should have both, and there should not be extra whitespace when using an in-line model. I haven't researched how much discussion came up with the example: {{WikiProject Architecture|class=|importance=}} but at least there is something to go off of. If the project wants something else that is fine as well. What do you think? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: sure, I can do that. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. to verify the new consistent settings discussed above. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux:

Trial complete. - [2] I don't know why my AWB is messing this up, but I keep doing 1 too many edits - 51 edits made, didn't see any issues. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OBOE's are common - normally operator/programmer error :D — xaosflux ^Talk 22:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. trial looks fine. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:53, 27 May 2019 (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.