Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AvicBot 8


 * 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

AvicBot 8
Operator:

Time filed: 18:50, Thursday August 18, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: Tagging uncategorized articles

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This has been done semi-automatic for some time, but I did leave notes at 1, 2, 3 & 4

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details: It's just an automated version of this task. The bot will scan for Untagged Uncategorized Articles, and add  to them.

Discussion
This seems fairly uncontroversial to me, but probably best to wait a bit for any comments. Two questions I do have, though - the instructions you link to have you get the list of articles from a toolserver page. If this is automated & unsupervised, will you still be loading this list manually or have you automated that somehow? Also, will the bot address any of the points raised in the "Hints and tips" section? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The list will be loaded manually. For the hints, I guess I can implement some of them. :-) I'll be doing this in 3 parts - first, scanning the list for all pages with  - this should let me find/fix some common errors, like unbalanced brackets or red-link categories. I'll be reviewing these manually, and they'll be pulled out of the bot's list. The second scan will check for , and pages found in that scan will get the uncategorized stub. The rest will be processed normally.  Avic ennasis  @ 04:51, 19 Av 5771 / 04:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So, to clarify, this bot will only be tagging pages that are completely uncategorized (that is, no categories or attempts to add categories aside from those placed by other cleanup tags) - right? Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. :-) Avic ennasis @ 05:48, 19 Av 5771 / 05:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, may as well see how it runs. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 05:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only issue was getting the newline set for the tagger, and it tagged a page with linked categories, e.g., . (I guess some editors link cats like that while in userspace and forget to unlink them when moving to article space.) Fixed that, and will add it to the initial scan. Avic ennasis  @ 06:25, 19 Av 5771 / 06:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Since this potentially affect loads of pages, could you mark the template with AvicBot? Otherwise edits look fine. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Avic ennasis @ 11:49, 22 Av 5771 / 11:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked some of the trial edits, and they look good. The bot is not tagging articles being currently edited. What is the delay time for tagging an article from last edit? Tagging articles while they are being created is not uncontroversial. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what is the delay since creation, which is even more important. If the bot happens to tag a page two minutes after its created, it is not very useful if the editor is still putting content and markup together. Even though humans tag it like that all the time. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Currently, I believe, the list generated from the TS has no delay. I'm not aware of any options within AWB (Or PyWikipedia) that accounts for time-last-edited. I can, however, have a delay from the time the page appeared on the list. e.g., If the page has been uncategorized for over an hour, tag the page, else skip. Does that sound good? (This would also help cut down on un-needed edits, so the bot isn't tagging pages that will be CSD'd shortly after their creation/tagging.) Avic <sub style="color:blue;">ennasis @ 11:49, 22 Av 5771 / 11:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems good to me. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think more than an hour. When I submit articles for creation, I meander through and edit over a period of about an hour. Human editors can be rude enough, let's not make a rude bot. The articles I looked at did not appear to be recently created though. Maybe 2 hours, in my opinion. It still gets the uncat on soon, but seems, to me, more reasonable than 1 hour? --72.208.2.14 (talk) 14:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, an hour's fine. Some bots also go with 5 minutes after the last edit. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, other stuff exists. I'd prefer 2 hours, if there is no urgent reason to tag in 1 hour. Uncat is an important template, but courtesy to unfamiliar wikipedia users is also of major importance. --72.208.2.14 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

1 hour delay is enough, but it's up to you how long you want to wait. If you can implement a 5-10 minute delay since the last-edit, that would be even better. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:20, 23 August 2011 (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.