Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 28


 * 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 Symbol keep vote.svg Approved

Addbot 28
Operator:

Time filed: 04:27, Wednesday January 9, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: On Request

Function overview: Removing Template:Sections from pages with more than 2 sections (not including see also, external links and references)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: a small amount per run

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): yes

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

Function details: As above. Removing Template:Sections from pages with more than 2 sections (not including see also, external links and references). Open to discussion.

Discussion
What about to ignore 'Notes', 'Bibliography' and 'Further Reading'? mabdul 07:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They would also be ignored. I will create a regex to match as many such headings that I know exist.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 11:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a useful task and a trusted bot operator. No objections to trial for this one. Vacation nine 14:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How does the bot know 3+ sections means there is no further need to split into sections? A long article can have several sections that all need to be split and organized, like. (Furthermore, what if article needs further Sub-sections cleanup?) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot could have a ratio of sections to article size. Minimum being 3 required sections not including those mentioned above. The ration could be determined after looking at articles currently tagged with the tag. Sub-sections would be ignored. Bot would listen to nobots if there ever happened to be a 'special case'  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If I were a BAGer, I would approve for trial for 10 edits to see how it performs.— cyberpower ChatOffline 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After writing the code it may even be worth running a dummy run to produce a report of what it would have edited and the ratios of sections to content e.t.c  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would definitely give me more insight to how this task would run. If you can do it, please do so.— cyberpower ChatOffline 15:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


 *  MBisanz  talk 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Coding  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 09:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Code done, I ran it for the first 50 pages found and the results showing sections (excluding those listed above) against page size is here  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 14:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After looking at the table and adding the ratios of sections to content I think allowing a size of 2750 per section is a good boundary. Any comments would be appreciated.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 14:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see these edits. I have looked through them and they all look good. I am also going to add another bit of functionality to the bot that will produce a report at User:Addbot/log/sections of any edits just above the 2750 threshold, so 2750 TO 3250 that other editors can look at and manually check.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 14:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you use a little bit more descriptive edit summary? Specifically, it does not say why it is "removing sections tag".
 * Does the threshold apply to the average per section or per each section? What I mean is, if there are section with 100, 100, 100, 100, and 10000, will it remove the tag? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Would "Removing sections tag (Average section size $size)" be better? Currently the script looks at the average across all of the sections although making it look at each section individually would not be hard. This could possibly also mean that the section size the script currently looks for could be increased.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 15:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant something humanly readable, like "Removing sections tag, as there are 6 sections in the article (average size 2437)" or something. My worry with averaging across section is that one superlong section can screw it up. It's possible the tag was placed exactly because that unruly section was there. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have produced another report which also shows the size of the largest section (including the lead). Now just to determine what extra rule to look at. The bot now also looks at the largest section rather than the average.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 17:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking at the report a largest section size of 5000 seems about right. I am also going to add a check to the bot to make sure it does not remove a sections template from below a header. Instead it will convert it to Sub-sections.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 17:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * BAGAssistanceNeeded  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e ! 05:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, when a single section exceeds a large number of characters (I would say 10k+), it's probably best to skip that page, because the tag may have been placed for that section specifically, even if not in the correct place (i.e. generic TW tagger). — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * After looking at the list generated by the bot I think I would leave the size to skip at 5000 currently. Although maybe in the future this threshold could be changed.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e ! 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

— HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please see the trial edits here. All seemed to have gone through as expected.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e ! 22:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please also see an edit as an example for changing the tag to subsections if it appears below a section heading.  ·Add§hore·  <sup style="color:black;">T alk T o M e ! 22:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me.— cyberpower <sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits look good, cases and thresholds clarified, trusted botop. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:26, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.