Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot


 * 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

SDZeroBot
Operator:

Time filed: 17:13, Friday, March 6, 2020 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised

Programming language(s): NodeJS/JavaScript

Source code available:

Function overview: Merge stub tags on articles where possible

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One-time run; with possible future runs if needed

Estimated number of pages affected: 400

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: For articles that have multiple stub templates  and , if the template   or   exists, replace the original pair with the combined stub template.

I have already compiled and inspected a list of articles (there are about 400) to which edits will be made. I don't see any issues.

Task previously approved at Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_4.

Stub tags are placed at the very end of the page (even if they were originally somewhere else), with the two newlines after the final content, per WP:STUBSPACING.

Discussion
&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * contribs No errors. SD0001 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm wondering about mostly, since this is something that pertains to more than just Italian cuisine. Also the edit summary could be friendlier. A full sentence like "Merging X-stub and Y-stub into X-Y stub" would be better IMO. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As a stub sorter, I think the resorting there is ok. 3 or more stub tags on a page is rarely a good idea. In this case, as there is no Monaco-cuisine-stub, not even a Europe-cuisine-stub, simply using monaco-stub along with Italy-cuisine-stub seems pretty much ok. FWIW the latter categorises the article to Category:Italian cuisine stubs, which is a subcat of Category:Cuisine stubs.
 * Anyway, I have now been manually reviewing the complex cases (>3 tags originally), and doing the ones by hand which wouldn't otherwise be optimally done by the bot. So the bot will skip over those.
 * Good point on the edit summary. SD0001 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , on those with 2 stubs templates. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SD0001 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , on those with 2 stubs templates. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * SD0001 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 6 March 2020 (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.