Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Antischmitzbot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Symbol keep vote.svg Approved.

Antischmitzbot
Operator: mcginnly

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming Language(s):

Function Summary:

Automated AWB tagging for wikiprojects

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):

infrequent runs - once or twice a month

Edit rate requested: X edits per TIME

fast as possible

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

N

Function Details:

I've been refered here from BOTREQ who suggested I get myself a bot. I would like to use AWB in its automatic setting to add project tags to the talk pages of articles within various appropriate cats and subcats relating to architecture, urban studies and planning. cheers --Antischmitzbot 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
What wikiproject do you plan on running these for? Are they ok with the idea, and have added input as to how they want the bot run done ect? —— Eagle  101 Need help? 20:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Architecture and Urban studies and planning. Good idea, no I haven't asked them, I'll go and do it, but other than me and User:dogears at ARCHA there's not a hugely active community there, but I'll go and consult nonetheless. (We were just bold when we put our original request in at BOTREQ for the addition of project tags at ARCHA --Mcginnly | Natter 01:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember that there has, in the paat, been conflict about WikiProject "ownership" of pages, so if you do plan to go ahead and run the bot adding tags to pages in categories other than those above, I'd be careful to make sure that the tag is appropriate, and that you're not going to end up with great long lists of WikiProjects at the head of talk pages. On the other hand, if you only want to do the two Wikiprojects, and have permission, I'm sure that Alphachimp, Beatcommand or myself would be happy to carry out the task on already approved bots.  Thanks, Mart inp23  22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well yeah, I'd be more than happy if they did, but I was referred here because of this . I'm also (I hope) considered an experienced editor and a safe pair of hands. I've replaced the This article is part of xyz wikiproject with This article is of relevance to... on the planning tag (which the architecture tag has carried for some time). I've been at pains to explain to those who have asked questions of 'architecture' assessments that the assessment isn't a reward, isn't a gold star, actually has nothing to do with the general quality of the article, but simply is a means of identifying articles in terms of their quality and importance relating to the subject of architecture, so that members of the wikiproject can can pick up say, a B-class article and improve (hopefully with the specialist knowledge they possess) the architectural aspects of the article. Planning will receive a similar philosophy. Please review the tags Architecture and planning for any possible sources of contention, we'd be happy to consider any improvements you can suggest. Really this is convenience request - Warofdreams has endorsed the request on the architecture wikiproject, and I'm sure dogears and DVD RW would if I asked them. So I suppose the question is simply do you trust me to be a safe pair of hands with this or would you prefer me to continue making requests at WP:BOTREQ? For my convenience I'd rather have the bot, but I naturally defer to your considerations. regards --Mcginnly | Natter 00:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some other points I should perhaps mention - we had the bods at Botreq add about 5,600 tags to articles for ARCHA and we didn't receive a single complaint. Also, I understand the correct procedure is to run a limited test before doing great swathes of wikipedia and I'd hope that any strong opposition would arise then. I can imagine tags for the Dome of the Rock might be contentious if the judaism, islam and christian wikiprojects are all arguing with each other, but none of them would object to adding an architecture tag, because it's not invested with any religious or nationalistic controversy. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The thread which directed you here said that bot operators won't blindly do the job you request. You shouldn't be doing it blindly either! Since you will have to build and check the list and feed it into AWB, why not build and check the list and send it to a bot operator? I say this because (sorry to be frank) your application doesn't fill me with faith that you know what you're doing. --kingboyk 01:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thats fine and a reasonable comment King; I've created a cat list at WikiProject Urban studies and planning/Categories for Urban studies and planning and will try and get some Wikiproject consensus before we run the proposed bot. I'll assess the architecture categories when we're ready to add them again - we're still assessing the articles at the moment and are looking to find ways to distinguish 'architecture' from 'construction' in the Category:Buildings and structures which we omitted last time. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, great. Other possibilities include having my bot do it, or maybe User:Reedy Bot. --kingboyk 13:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cross posted from my talk:-
 * Hi Mcginnly, Bots/Requests for approval/Antischmitzbot remains open. I'm not sure from your last comment if you still want approval or if you want to withdraw the application and ask another bot op to do it for you. Please post your intent there. Cheers. --kingboyk 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Ultimately we just want the tags adding so I'm happy either way. I'd naturally prefer the bot, rather than coming cap in hand to the friendly bot people every time, but if there's some reason I shouldn't be let loose in the china shop so be it. If this is the case, then some pointers as to what the problem might be would be good. cheers. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't proceed to trial. I would though caution you to look at User talk:Reedy_Boy - remember to check your lists carefully... :) Don't forget to set up AWB to skip pages which already have the tag or use my plugin to handle the logic for you. --kingboyk 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do around 100 edits and report back. --kingboyk 00:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll do a bit of reading for a day or two before diving in - hope you don't mind if I need to quiz you a bit? regards --Mcginnly | Natter 00:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, but I charge $20 per question. Only joking! I'm happy to help. --kingboyk 00:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've done about 100 edits. I split them, doing 50 using Kingboyk's generic template plugin and 50 just using std AWB features. When I had first made the 50 std. AWB edits I made an error - forgetting to convert the list from an 'article list' to a 'talk page list' which consequently added the tag to 10 article spaces - I reverted the damage (a bot and a few page watchers did a few pages) - this was a chastening lesson I don't intend repeating. The plugin edits went smoother - Logs at User:Antischmitzbot/AWB logs - you'll see I initially attempted to create a test subpage, which AWB didn't allow, but the std talk space edits went ok. regards --Antischmitzbot 11:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it was my plugin which prevented that (the "plugin manager" is the piece of code within my plugin which interracts with AWB and manages the templating, generic templating and assessments plugins). The plugin won't allow the creation of talk pages if there isn't an attached article. It'll also do a better job of recognizing existing templates, and merging parameters into them, than your standard regexes will. Probably best stick with that. --kingboyk 14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Very diligent test. You had a few teething problems but seem to be on top of it now. --kingboyk 13:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.