Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MoohanBOT 2


 * 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

MoohanBOT 2
Operator:

Time filed: 23:35, Sunday July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Runs through AWB with a standard find and replace: with  (not case sensitive)

Function overview: Replaces Stub with bio-stub. Will run on appropriate articles in Category:Stubs

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Periodically

Estimated number of pages affected: A few hundred per run.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: It will run against pages in Category:Stub that are also in Category:Year of birth missing, Category:Year of birth missing (living people), Category:Year of birth unknown, Category:Year of birth uncertain, Category:Year of death missing, Category:Year of death unknown and/or Category:Year of death uncertain and replace Stub with bio-stub. It will also perform general fixes and auto-tagging whilst making the edit. I would like it to run against all articles contained under Category:WikiProject Biography but as far as I can tell this is too big for AWB to work with, the ones I listed above hit a large proportion of articles, especially when dealing with stubs.

Discussion
Comment - You could load all articles in Category:Stubs, and then skip all articles that are not in the categories above. You may also want to add Category:Living people to your list. GoingBatty (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip, I was using the list comparer to generate the list of articles to work on. The reason I didn't include Category:Living people was that when building the list, it will limit it to 25 000. With your method however I can include that and thus hit a larger percentage of the appropriate pages. I will also add Category:Possibly living people for good measure. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Update I will check each page for the following Regex and skip if it's not there;

\[\[Category:(Year of birth|Year of death|Living people|Possibly living people)
 * Credit for this goes to
 * I've tested this and it does get most if not all of the biography pages and doesn't seem to get any false-positives (obviously it will if a page is mis-categorised. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Stub-sorting does not appear to have any contention, and the proposed cat cross-check method appear to be valid. Large trial for bigger sample size on false positives. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks I should hopefully get chance to give it a go tomorrow eve. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell there were no false positives i.e. all the non biographical articles were skipped (it's hard to know how many, if any, biographical articles were skipped). There was a mistake in the find and replace, which affected these edits;, , and  I've fixed that now and tested it without saving the edits (the find/replace was Stub/Bio-stub now it's / ).
 * Another issue is that some of the pages that have stub tags also have another more fine grained stub tag, i.e. the stub shouldn't be there at all. I can think of a few way to deal with this;


 * 1) Change it to bio-stub as in the edits at the moment. - This means that there is now a potentially redundant bio-stub on the page, not sure if that is better or worse than a redundant Stub?
 * 2) Skip any pages that have a fine grained stub tag, using "\-stub\}\}" - This does mean that there are pages left in Category:Stubs that shouldn't be.
 * 3) My choice would be to file another BRFA which would go though Category:Stubs and remove stub from any page that matches "\-stub\}\}" i.e. more fine grained stub tag exists on the page.
 * Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 12:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


 * BAGAssistanceNeeded - I think this is ready to go, now the find and replace is fixed. I will go with option 2 above so 100% of its edits are useful and submit another BAG request for option 3. Could this get approved please or another test to prove the find/replace now works as advertised? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

No further issues raised or that I can see. Noting genfixes are enabled. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:19, 6 August 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.