Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 30


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Addbot 30
Operator:

Time filed: 22:17, Friday January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: on request

Function overview: Removes stub if article has more than 500 words (see details below)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types

Edit period(s): daily / weekly / on request

Estimated number of pages affected: Variable

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details:

Removes stub if article has more than 500 words.
 * Words To Be Ignored
 * Comments
 * Categories
 * Persondata
 * Interwiki links
 * Any templates and template text
 * Sections including (External links, References, See also, Footnotes e.t.c)

Discussion
What about other templates, interwikis, comments, tables. Why no exclusion compliance? Why 500 word limit, is that in a guideline or a common practice? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The bot will be nobots compliant if it is requested. Many of my un-tagging bots the question of the template being on the page is a clear yes or no, understandably this may be different with stubs. 500 word limit must have got consensus from somewhere otherwise AWB should probably be updated (I will look into this). Also the list of ignored things can of course be expanded!  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e !


 *  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 22:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * nobots is not just for "task shouldn't be done on this page", it's also for "there are issues when bot edits this". May be an article uses intricate syntax or the specific way it included content makes bot's decision incorrect or any other of infinite ways, which no one can foresee. It's not a strict requirement, but it's nice to be able to stop a bot from messing up without the need to contact the operator. AWB and consensus is a very tricky venue. AWB is assisted editing tool, and tasks it does do no necessarily have consensus to be done by bot. Editors are responsible for doing them and most changes had only silent consensus. False positives and such with automated bots become much more important. What about infoboxes, navboxes, etc? Why not just ignore templates, how often is there actual content in them? Also references (section), external links (section), long see also sections? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it is safer to say that all templates will be ignored (so infoboxes, tags, notices)(as will comments, cats and interwikis). The bot will only count words from main sections (so not including external links, see also, references, footnotes, e.t.c)  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 22:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll leave 500 words as a valid measure for now. Disclaimer note on quick trial: The bot is not yet approved, still open for community discussion, and while major details have been clarified, this is foremost a technical trial and to assess the appropriateness of details. I trust the botop will make the necessary sample tests and adjustments. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What I will do is generate a similar report to that from my task looking at the sections tag. This way I will be able to look at a cross section of articles with the stub tags as well as their word count overall, in main text areas, number of templates, char count e.t.c before I trial the bot.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 22:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types the definition is a few sentences, so ignoring everything listed above 500 words should be a good value.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 05:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Organism stubs are not so clearly defined, a longer article may still be a stub if the text is mostly the technical description of the organism without ecology and taxonomy. Have you asked at the ToL projects whether they want articles destubbed by bot? -166.137.191.40 (talk) 13:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have not said anything to the ToL projects. Could you provide me with some examples of some of the articles you are referring to with technical description?  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 23:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it would be too much work to find one. I have had this discussion with Wikiproject plants about my removing a stub template from an aritcle, but being told that they would still consider it a stub because the information it contained, although long, was not of the nature of a general encyclopedia. They do not want articles automatically destubified, they want individual human editor decisions, not bot decisions. -68.104.136.25 (talk) 02:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I will talk to the wikiproject before anything further happens with this bot.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 02:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, otherwise sounds good. It is a utility template, but if the article is no longer a stub, it should be removed. --68.104.136.25 (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I have posted on the wiki project asking for opinions.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 23:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Have had a little discussion here and ran some tests over a few of the planty stub tags here showing how many words each article has with the bold articles having over 500. I have also added every plant type stub tag to an ignore list when removing stub tags so I will try and get my trial underway.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 09:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Right then, I have just wrapped up the discussion on the wikiproject and they agree 500 words should be find for their articles, if there are any specific issues later on down the line they can be dealt with case by case. This trial will now tie in with Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_31 which is a BRFA for all tasks in a single edit with other general fixes. Hopefully not much longer to wait.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 15:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Edits for this task and now bundled into task 31 after my bot rewrite. I will therefore withdraw this request and simply have the one request for all tasks.  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 16:18, 10 February 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.