Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SeveroBot

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

Approved.

SeveroBot

Operator: Severo (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 07:58, Wednesday January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Standard AWB

Function overview: Stub sorting ~~and WikiProject tagging~~

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): As needed

Estimated number of pages affected: Up to 1,000/month

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details:

Stub sorting: adding, removing and replacing stub tags as approved at WikiProject Stub Sorting (maximum run of 150 articles).

~~#WikiProject tagging: tagging talk pages with WikiProject banners by request.~~

My main goal is to make stub sorting a bit easier - I already do a fair amount of stub sorting using AWB so I'm comfortable setting up AWB for this task. Severo^TC 07:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hi Severo, what method do you plan to use for WikiProject tagging? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In AWB, simple prepend (sort meta data after), not copying assessments. Severo^TC 21:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly prefer to see this split into two BRFAs, particularly so project-tagging regulars can discuss the merits of having a new bot without it clouding the approval of the unrelated stub-sorting feature. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool to remove it, I'm focussed on stub sorting so I'd like to go ahead with that, can always come back with anything if need be. Severo^TC 20:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, probably a good shout :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a brief overview of the kind of discussion that sparks the request for "adding, removing and replacing stub tags" (etc.)? Are we talking SfD here, discussions on the talk page, etc? What is the "controversy" rate usually like on these? - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 23:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will assume people reading here don't know much about WPSS to make it accessible rather than talk down to anyone :) The need for adding, removing or replacing stub tags originates in two of WPSS functions: 1) the creation of new stub types (Proposals) and 2) results from the discussions at Stub types for deletion.

The case with (1) is that all stub categories should be sized 60-600 and the work we do at Proposals is to ensure no stub category gets too big. Very often we create a stub template before it will be used on 60 articles - often in the range 20-40 - and leave it "upmerged" to existing categories, so that when it passes 60 uses it's fairly easy to create a category. Anything vaguely controversial should be allowed five days at Proposals for debate - this includes any split along a new line. Some things are eligible for "speedy creation" - generally by country if we have already split by country (eg {{Country2-bio-stub}} if we already have {{Country1-bio-stub}}). Therefore, nothing should be controversial when it comes to implementation.

The case with (2) is the removing of stub tags when discussion has led to them being deleted (and so they need to be removed from articles before deletion) and the renaming of stub tags when it is not deemed desirable to leave a redirect in place (often due to the old name being badly formed or uninformative). This would only be done after discussions have been closed.

Hope that explains everything :) Severo^TC 07:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 15:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. I've checked all 50 edits - everything looks to be functioning without problems to me. Severo^TC 11:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 9 February 2012 (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.