Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 13

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.

Yobot 13

Operator: Magioladitis

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: It's AWB auto-tagger. Code is available

Function overview:

Auto-tagging of uncategorized articles found in toolserver. Tagging/untagging will include all AWB's taggers.

NEWSFLASH! Generalised function after discussion: Auto-tagging by request running in selected lists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Per request in Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Tagging_of_uncategorized_articles. It turns out that various bot have been doing similar tasks in the past but discontinued. Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 11, Yobot is already using auto-tagger in other categories without any problem.

Edit period(s): Often

Estimated number of pages affected: ~13,000 articles in first run.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: AWB's auto-tagger will be activated. Pages will be loaded from toolserver. Auto-tagger includes various tags like: {{orphan}}, {{wikify}}, {{stub}}, {{ibid}}, etc. Orphan tagging will be restricted to linkless pages according to nowadays demands.

General fixes is a question. I can run it with genfixes off. A recent discussion concluded that we can activate genfixes if we make certain restrictions. I am ok both ways (genfixes can be limited only if tagging is performed). I have reorganised AWB's bug page so that we have an overview of all the known bugs for bth auto-tagger and genfixes.

-- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I made a list a few months ago of articles that use Ibid as a reference. See here. Tim1357 (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I hope that in the future AWB will be able to fix some of these cases automatically. I can use AWB to tag these article if you want. I noticed some of them are not tagged with Ibid. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Feel free to run with limited genfixes enabled. — The Earwig ^(talk) 19:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. (25 April 2010 22:19-22:29). Everything went as expected. I limited the genfixes by not doing Manual of style fixes and I had "Skip if not Auto-tagging" turned on. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:31, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could extend this bot run to article lacking Ibid based on the list given above, if they are no disagreements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could make a bot to help this situation too. I updated the function request to generalise it. did 50 extra test edits (from 22:00, 2 May 2010 to 22:05, 2 May 2010) -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} I think we can close this as "approved". -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to edits performed in the trial. Josh Parris 09:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First run (main task to add uncategorised): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], for more check the timestamps I gave above.

Second run (main task to deal with expand tag): [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], for more check the timestamps I gave above.

Maybe [20] should be replaced with expand-section instead of being removed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a second thought in the last one: I think we have to stick to the rule "if stub remove expand". -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding that particular edit, it removed an expand template from a section, leaving the section without text. In this particular case it appears that the {{expand}} has been used when {{expand section}} or even {{empty section}} ought to have been. Correct as you see fit. Josh Parris 14:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Josh Parris 14:16, 4 May 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.