Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/StubSyncBot


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

StubSyncBot
Operator:

Time filed: 07:12, Monday July 30, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Combination of automatic and manual Mainly manual, it may be possible to make some portions automatic.

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: "AWB"

Function overview: Synchronizes stub classification between an article and its Talk page. If an article is a stub, then this bot will ensure that any WikiProject tag on its Talk page will also indicate that it's a stub.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): One at the Village Pump and another on my Talk page

Edit period(s): Mainly one time run, possible rerun in several months or so

Estimated number of pages affected: From ~1.6 million article stubs, most likely over 9,000 article Talk pages, but a maximum of ~90,000 depending on the outcome of the discussions over the functionality of the bot. Reruns of this bot should only affect less than a hundred Talk pages.

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: This bot inserts the stub classification into a WikiProject tag on the Talk page if and only if the article is currently a stub and WikiProject templates in the Talk page do not already indicate stub status. Some portions of this task can be done completely automatically, while others will be manually assisted unless I can figure out how to automate a text insertion. Although it would affect any WikiProject, using WikiProject Computer Science as an example to illustrate the four types of edits the bot would make: A full description of the bot's function is purpose, function, and the regular expressions behind it is listed on User:StubSyncBot.
 * If a stub's Talk page contained the WikiProject Computer Science tag, the bot would change it to
 * becomes
 * becomes
 * becomes

Note: some details of this bot's functionality are being discussed in the Village Pump, (link above) including a debate over whether the bot should replace |class=Start with |class=Stub if the article is a stub. It is becoming more clear to me that this bot should be manually operated, although I'm still hoping that I can reliably fully automate certain find-replace aspects.

Discussion
I am very unsure this is desired by all Wikiprojects, mostly because I would expect their talk page rating to be more up to date than the presence (or lack thereof) or a stub template. Typically a stub is created, then expanded. After expansion, the talk page is updated, but people either leave the stub template behind to encourage more expansion, or forget about it. The case that a stub template in the article should overrule a C on the talk page is very flimsy.

However, if this is only for the cases where |class= is empty, then there should be no problem of making that Stub yes, on an opt-in basis [i.e. the Wikiproject has the final word on whether they want to do this or not]. Also some projects don't use importance and it should not add that one needlessly. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I can see how people can update things manually, the problem is when tools like AWB and others start auto-tagging new pages as Stubs, or when someone uses AWB to automatically create Talk pages and add certain WikiProject templates to them. The two get out of sync. I can see that if someone cared a lot about the article they would also update the Talk page. Your "The case that a stub template in the article should overrule a C on the talk page is very flimsy" statement is very similar to the one I raised in the Village Pump discussion, (link above) and there is also much debate about that, so unless I see a lot of support for it, I don't think I'll have the bot do that at this time. I think it would be very rare to see a |class=C when the article was a stub, if it's not a |class=Stub, it's more likely to be a |class=Start. Jesse V. (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I found User:STTWbot, which has a similar functionality: "Stub class is added based on already existing stub templates." Clearly mine is going to do this too, except that it's not limited to just one or two WikiProjects. Jesse V. (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The thing is with STTWbot, that was how those Wikiprojects wanted things to happen (WP:FR and WP:GER), and it didn't overrule existing assessments. You can't assume all Wikiprojects desire the same handling of their templates. Some prefer to do it by hand, others are fine doing it by bots, and others don't use the assessment schemes at all. Hence why the projects get to decide how bots should handle their banners. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Per the above, this task will not be approved under any circumstances unless it is on an opt-in basis (per WikiProject) instead of an opt-out basis (excluding WikiProject banners without class or importance parameters). If it is on an opt-in basis, then the bot can overrule a Start-class rating or any other rating if that's what the WikiProject wants. But there is no consensus for project-wide enforcement of this task's parameters or anything like them. Thanks, &mdash; madman 04:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What if I blacklist all Wikiprojects except the ones that are listed in both Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment and which use Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment? I have thought about the impact that this bot would have, and I've come to really agree with the objections that have been stated against it. Some WikiProjects handle stubs differently than others. With them in mind, if I focus on the ones in both aformetioned categories, I don't think there should be a problem. How would you feel if the bot were to skip over a Talk page that contained any templates of blacklisted WikiProjects? &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 02:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would feel that not all WikiProjects within Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment will have opted in. I understand the rationale behind this task and I think that WikiProjects should find it useful. But they still have to be asked, because there are human contributors to those WikiProjects. And you'll find they have differing opinions as to what constitutes a Stub-class article, as to how stub templates are currently being used, and even as to how bots are being used and whether they should be touching "their" banners at all. There's no indication at this time of any sort of cross-project consensus for this task. So unfortunately it can't be approved except in the circumstances I describe. &mdash; madman 08:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I very much like the idea of this task and I think it will be a great benefit but I do have a couple recommendations. Make it option and let the projects that want too and those that don't want too won't. I also don't think that it should replace start with stub unless the project wants that which I suspect most won't. The problem is the classification of adding stub templates and how a project determines stub class could be different. Kumioko (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the bot needs to operate on an opt-in basis. If that is fine with you, we could go to trial. If not, then I don't think this BRFA can go foward. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:26, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the decision then I guess we can proceed from there. I can use AWB to notify all the WikiProjects. I'm not sure how much time I'll have to devote to this bot since my studies resumed at USU, but I'll see what I can do. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 03:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You may want to look into using User:EdwardsBot, it's probably faster than using AWB. LegoKontribsTalkM 03:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There's actually a few bots that can do that for you, such as User:Project Messenger Bot. However, for the trial, that's not really necessary, just find yourself a project that's willing to be the guinea pig, and let us know when you're ready for trial. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would volunteer WPUS but I have already done them manually so you wouldn't get much. Try asking at WikiProject Biography. They have a massive amount of unnassessed articles. Even if the bot were 90% right it would be a massive improvement. Kumioko (talk) 03:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The talk page appears essentially abandoned, and the WikiProject itself is semi-active. How about WikiProject Computing? Per this thread it looks like they have a lot of unassessed articles too. I'll write a note on their Talk page. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 05:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * – Looks like WikiProject Computing hasn't replied. Is there another WikiProject we could try? &mdash; madman 20:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The operator has been watchlisting this page, so I'm staying on top of this discussion. I think this lack of response is going to be common. I really believe that since I'm targeting all the ones that use Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Category:WikiProject banners with quality assessment, they all should agree on what a Stub is. Honestly, the stub classification is fairly simple and I believe to be fairly uncontroversial. As one moves up towards GA, A, and FA, things become more tricky and require experts from the respective WikiProjects. There was controversy with replacing |class=Start with |class=Stub and when I wanted to affect all WikiProjects, not just the ones using 1.0's quality scale. WP:MILHIST was specifically brought up, and this bot won't be affecting it because MILHIST doesn't use 1.0's quality scale. I've adjusted what I'm going after, and I really didn't expect this resistance. I don't know what other WikiProjects need attention. Please advise. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 00:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know what other WikiProjects need attention either, unfortunately, as I'm not a member of any at all. Maybe another post at WP:VPP asking what WikiProjects would be interested in the trial may help? The Stub criteria may be completely self-explanatory and self-evident. Personally, I agree with you that this request is fairly common-sensical. The problem (though I'm not sure I should say it's a problem) is that we can only approve bot requests which have evidence of consensus, and so far there is no consensus that all or even most of the WikiProjects using the Version 1.0 Editorial Team's quality scale are at all interested in having a bot do assessments for them. There would probably be no problem at all with a human contributor performing this task. But bots may make many edits in a small amount of time and their scope in requests such as this is very broad. Therefore, they're more restricted in what they may do. I hope this makes sense. Thanks, &mdash; madman 01:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Any update on this? If no WikiProjects have expressed interest in utilizing this bot task, perhaps it should be withdrawn for the time being. &mdash; madman 07:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that there's not really consensus for this. I thought it was a great idea but it looks like its going to be more complicated than it's worth. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 06:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It happens to all of us. &mdash; madman 14:11, 29 October 2012 (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.