Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WillieBot 2

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.

WillieBot 2

Operator: Mono (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 02:44, Friday October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted:

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB autotag, working from list of new pages

Function overview: Tag pages with cleanup tags if they are not up for CSD.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Standard operation; this would happen anyway.

Edit period(s): Daily, or as much as possible

Estimated number of pages affected: Unknown

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N, also needs AWB bot approval

Function details:

Removes {{stub}} if article has more than 500 words.
Removes {{expand}} if any {{stub}} found (en.wiki only) (Per instructions in {{expand}}'s manual. "Expand" should not be used on articles concurrently with stub templates - a stub template is an explicit request for expansion.)
Appends {{Orphan}} if article (or its redirects) have less than 3 incoming links (excluding redirects) and the article is not a disambiguation one. Read WP:ORPHAN for more details about orphan articles.
- Orphan tagging can be limited to articles with 0 incoming links (excluding redirects) from the Tools Menu. There is an option called "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages".
Appends {{uncategorized stub}} if article has no categories and is a stub.
Appends {{uncategorised}} if article has no categories and isn't a stub. It removes the tag in case article has at least 1 category.
Appends {{stub}} if article has at most 300 characters.
Appends {{Dead end}} if article has no wikilinks. Removes the tag otherwise.
Appends {{Wikify}} if article has < 3 wikilinks or the number of wikilinks is smaller than 0.25% of article's size. Removes tag otherwise.
Adds {{Ibid}} if article has references containing constructs such as ibid, op. cit. and loc. cit (per WP:IBID).
Tags empty level-2 sections with {{Empty section}}, en-wiki only.
Changes {{Unreferenced}} to {{BLP unsourced}} if article is in Category:Living people.

Copied from Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General fixes THEMONO™ 19:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I think that this looks like a good idea although I'm not sure my view counts. Just out of interest, what constisutes an article needing a cleanup tag? Regards, Rock drum _Ba-dum^Crash _{(Driving well?)} 07:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since tagging is a subjective process, the bot does automated checks. An example might be "IF (article) contains no (link) THEN (tag) {{Dead end}}". lolbotspeak, THEMONO™ 01:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs wider discussion. Mass tagging of articles has historically been controversial. Start a discussion at WP:VPR, and advertise it at the talk pages of the templates you would intend to apply and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. Anomie ⚔ 14:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done THEMONO™ 16:57, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to oppose adding {{Wikify}} for three reasons:

The Wikify documentation fails to adequately explain the circumstances where it should be applied; this fault should be fixed before any further consideration is given to automatic application of the template.
The bot would not give any guidance in the article's talk page as to why the Wikify template was added.
The kinds of problems that might lead me to add a Wikify template would not lend themselves to robotic detection. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - this is an issue. I'll see if I can find out, but I think that AWB checks for wikicode and links, and tags based on that. Perhaps a new parameter (or template) could be introduced (like {{BotWikify}}) which has more advice.

I assume this is a manually supervised task as it cannot be automatic as tagging is subjective? What tags are you proposing to be using and by what logic do you determine when an article needs those tags? The "Function details" section supposed to be more descriptive than the overview section and you have not given enough details on how this would make decisions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this would be an automatic task. Some tags are not subjective, and the bot would tag articles with those tags. For example, the bot can check "what links here" and if nothing "links here", it will be tagged as an {{orphan}}. THEMONO™ 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How long after creation do you plan to wait before adding the tags? Mr.Z-man 18:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to check if I could delay this; at the moment, it tags articles instantly. Another option would be to run it on random pages, in case that is an issue. THEMONO™ 19:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would definitely be an issue. Its something that always comes up in similar proposals. By tagging immediately after creation, you're not giving people the chance to make more than one edit to the article. Articles should be checked for meeting CSD right after creation, but there's no rush for cleanup tags. Worse, the creator or a new page patroller might edit conflict with the bot, which would be rather annoying. By going too quickly, it'll also waste time tagging articles that are later speedy deleted. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose messing with stub tags by bot as per User:Grutness/Croughton-London_rule_of_stubs. A stub can't be determined based on length alone. From the above discussion it looks like the same sort of thing applies to Wikify. However, I support anything to remove the silly "expand" tag... that thing is useless. Orphan tagging only on 0 incoming. Uncategorized and dead end seem OK to me. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a stub should be judged based on length, that's something for users to individually assess, I did raise this up at WT:BRFA once, I forgot what happened in the discussion but that's beside the point, Orphaned articles should be those with no incoming links, 3 links incoming is still not sufficient, period. I like everything else though. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 7:39pm • 08:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. No consensus for this task. Anomie ⚔ 03:54, 27 October 2010 (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.