Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OmniBot 4

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

Denied.

OmniBot 4

Operator: Omni Flames (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 09:07, Monday, April 4, 2016 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Removes any mentions of "(retired)" in the "position=" parameter, in the Infobox footballer template.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_102#Playing_position_.28retired.29

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Approximately 500-1000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Simple task. As per discussion linked above, the use of "(retired)" is unnecessary. This bot will use a list from Category:Footballers to complete the task.

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will run this soon. — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 10:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I try to make a list from Category:Footballers, it takes a long time to load and I haven't actually been able to make a list from it yet. Even when I try to use some of it's individual subcategories it takes a long time. Is there a better way to do this? — Omni Flames (talk contribs) 22:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are around 130,000 transclusions, identified at Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_football_biography. Could you use the data from there (you could list 5000 at a time using Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_football_biography&limit=5000, if that helps)? C 679 08:28, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Omni Flames: You might try seeding some hints from a site search on the rendered text (like this). It's not 100%, but it'll get you close plus throw in some slightly different ones to investigate as well. --slakr^\ talk / 03:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) @Omni Flames: Do you still intend to trial this? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Sorry for the delay in reply, I was away for a few days. I do still intend to trial this. I'm working on the regexes now, hopefully I'll be able to trial it in one or two days. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 05:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: for that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

created Category:Pages using infobox football biography with position matching retired, but will take time to populate ... Frietjes (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will require a bot. in a preliminary random sampling from this search, I estimate there may be fewer than 50 total. that is, unless my more exhaustive search (with false positives) failed to find some articles. in any case, once the tracking category fills up we will know more. Frietjes (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

((BotDenied)) Very few pages here. They can be dealt manually using the tracking category. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're already here with a trial approved, what's wrong with going ahead and saving the human effort? — Earwig ^talk 03:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Earwig by the time I checked there were less than 50 pages and bot owner does not have any regexes ready yet. Otherwise, yes you are right only bot trial could have fixed everything. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some things need human attention to get them right. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. No pages left. There were less than 100 pages and now all fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.