Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 28


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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

Yobot 28
Operator:

Time filed: 19:49, Wednesday, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB / WPCleaner / C#

Source code available: Yes

Function overview:
 * Replace Category:Year of birth missing with Category:Year of birth missing (living people) if article has Category:Living people.
 * Date of birth missing
 * Place of birth missing

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): This task was approved partly before. This is an extension to the previous tasks to cover all similar categories that should be subcategorised.


 * Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot

Edit period(s): Occasionally

Estimated number of pages affected: Less than 500 per month

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Example

Discussion

 * Support. Seems fine. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can we agree that Yobot will only perform approved tasks, and will not run genfixes or anything else at the same time? SarahSV (talk) 15:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, perhaps it has already been agreed. I see that the nutshell close of Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 13 is: "Portions of tasks utilizing AWB genfixes, or that otherwise result in cosmetic edits (broadly construed) are no longer approved." Does that mean that, if an approval does not explicitly include AWB genfixes and cosmetic edits, Yobot is not approved to perform them? SarahSV (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While portions of the bot policy are being worked on, BAG certainly can impose that as an approval restriction on any approval. — xaosflux  Talk 18:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think some of the good requests here are being lost among the unclear ones. Not sure whether a further edit here will be helpful to BAG members or not, but this task look perfectly fine to me, and the function overview is clear on the bounds of the task. I see no reason not to proceed to a trial. ~ Rob 13 Talk 02:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

BAGAssistanceNeeded Magioladitis (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Could we get a full list of the categories that may be subcategorized? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  18:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

only those three according to Category:Articles missing birth or death information. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are looping through Category:Articles missing birth or death information to find the categories that need to be changed? I guess this is OK, but since you are using C# perhaps it's possible to run a query against the database replicas? You could get a full list of pages that need these fixes with a single query, and save the expense of unnecessarily looping through thousands of pages. I'm happy to help with the SQL &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

My method to create the list is to compare each one these categories with Category:Living people and work in the intersection. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

If you are good in SQL, maybe you could take over this task? :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that seems like a reasonable approach but I assume you still have to fetch every category member from each of those categories. In my mind SQL seems like the best way, and frankly I'm interested in taking up the task if it makes sense to, but first I should try to write the query :) It's possible it will time out since Category:Living people is so large. Let me get back to you &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, so I made a quick query for "Year of birth missing" and it went quite fast. I got 25 pages, when spot-checked it appeared to be accurate. I ran the same query but for all three categories and got a total of 37 results. Does that sound like the right amount? If so I'm happy to take on the task :) Or if you are able to connect to replicas with your bot, by all means feel free to use the SQL I've written &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this should be right because I fixed many a month ago so they should be very few left! Please open a BRFA so I can close this. Thank you very much. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Done at Bots/Requests for approval/MusikBot 11. Thanks &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  18:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If favour of a better solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2017 (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.