Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 43


 * 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

DannyS712 bot 43
Operator:

Time filed: 20:25, Tuesday, May 28, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

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

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Athletics

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 9200

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This is a follow-up to Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 21, which suggested that a more limited scale would be ideal, and a follow up to Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 35, Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 41, and Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 42, which were approved to do the same for wikiprojects SCOTUS, Architecture, and Africa, showing that the logic of the bot is sound.

Discussion

 * We really do need to come to a consensus about whether running these bots as opposed to making the template auto-detect stub class is a good idea. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:07, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * as said in Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 35: "I have objections to making the "best" be the enemy of the "good enough". Peppery, you're very, very welcome to code the templates, but until that actually happens, let's do this." - without the ability for the template to auto-detect stub class, which we currently lack, the discussion would be a hypothetical --DannyS712 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I do kind of think these are becoming make-work. If a project was really wanting this and filing BOTREQ's that would be one thing, but do we really need to go around soliciting them?  The "discussions" have been very minimally attended. —  xaosflux  Talk 21:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * And of those that have attended, users generally agree that it is a good thing. I originally wanted to do all projects at once, but since that was too big of a scope I'm going project by project and seeing if people want this or object to it. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the "users" in this 9200 edit run is one project memeber. You may want to do a WP:VPR RfC Should a bot add class=stub to all talk pages that have unclassified project templates on them where the article has been classified as a stub and just see if there is larger support for what you originally wanted to do. —  xaosflux  Talk 21:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the last thing I'd want to see is you repeatedly hitting the same talk pages (e.g. from task 42, only 1 of 3 project templates was touched in Talk:Chadrack_Lukombe). — xaosflux  Talk 21:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * See Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 28 and Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 21 - "Its scope, as proposed, is simply too massive, with logic that's too ill-defined to to evaluate." - the logic hasn't changed since then (its still: mark as stub class if the page is tagged as a stub) so its just the scope that is an issue. Since a mass BRFA was denied as too big, I've been filing smaller ones --DannyS712 (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * looks like one comment was "get some wikiprojects to opt-in first, and then make the full proposal" - so now you have some proof of concept, so think this should go back out for wider consideration - any other BAG opinions? — xaosflux  Talk 00:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I have been slowly scaling up the scope of the tasks:
 * SCOTUS -> 150
 * Architecture -> 500
 * Africa -> 5800
 * Athletics -> 9200
 * To show that the task is manageable. Would you be willing to approve this task, and then I'll open a full RfC, having demonstrated that the logic works at large scales too? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, but note: I'm likely going to decline any more of these without either (a) an RfC or (b) a substantial request from a project to deal process their project's stubs (so if the RfC says no, but doesn't explicitly forbid more and some project really wants this done and has active editors asking for it we don't hold them up). — xaosflux  Talk 02:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * understood --DannyS712 (talk) 03:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
 * - 100 edits made --DannyS712 (talk) 03:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. For future BRFAs like this, please heed what has said,, and only request where there is explicit WikiProject consent exists and adequate discussion has taken place. For the record/to be clear, I agree with Xaosflux. -- The SandDoctor Talk 17:59, 1 June 2019 (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.