Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Sambot 13


 * 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.

Sambot 13
Operator: [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy)

Automatic or Manually Assisted:

Programming Language(s): PHP, using Pillar

Function Overview: WikiProject article-assessment

Edit period(s): As needed

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

Function Details: Automatically fill in article ratings in WikiProject banners taking information from, in order:


 * Are there existing ratings we can copy? If so, use the highest one.
 * Is the article a redirect?
 * Is the article in any stub categories?
 * Is the article in Category:All disambiguation pages?

The task currently in mind is this request, but I am going to ask for approval for doing this with any WikiProject banner upon request, as it's a standard and fairly simple task.

Code available here. Thanks to Anomie for his suggestion re disambiguations.

[[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
A few comments on the code: Anomie⚔ 21:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You convert the values gotten from the other templates to lowercase, so in_array("FA", $classes) and the like won't ever match.
 * It looks like you'll only process the first 500 articles in the category, as you don't even get the $continue from get_categorymembers.
 * Oops. Fixed.  Thanks.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy)
 * Anomie⚔ 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

30 edits [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 09:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good so far. DeFaultRyan 14:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Many of these football templates are assessed as "stub" because the bio tag had previously been auto-assessed as a stub for having a stub template in the article. The trouble is, a few of them no longer have stub templates, but never got reassessed. For instance, see Jon Runyan. I'd suggest that if all previous stub assessments are auto=yes and if the article no longer is in a stub category, that this bot not assume the article is a stub. Does this sound like a positive change? – Quadell (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So basically don't copy any stub ratings that are in templates marked as auto=yes? Sounds eminently sensible to me.   [[Sam Korn ]] (smoddy) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. – Quadell (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2009 (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.