Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 19
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Qwerfjkl (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:45, Tuesday, May 30, 2023 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: On PAWS
Function overview: Add {{Wikiproject banner shell}} to talk pages without WikiProjects
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:Qwerfjkl#Bot work, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Articles without Wikiprojects
Edit period(s): One time run (unless more are necessary in the future)
Estimated number of pages affected: Around 150,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will act on all talk pages that either don't exist, or don't have WikiProjects (excluding pages that already have {{WPBS}}). Using ORES (>90% probability results only), it will determine whether the article is a biography, the quality of the article, and what WikiProjects should be applied, and it will then add them. Some testing of this can be seen at User talk:Qwerfjkl#Bot work. I have attempleted to follow MOS:TALKORDER, though I suspect there will be a GIGO issue on at least a few pages.
Discussion
edit- I have reviewed the test work and find it overly conservative. (This is probably the right thing to do.) I look forward to human editors saving hundreds of hours by having the bot tag the obvious cases. I have notified WikiProject Biography, since they should expect to see a sudden spike in tagged articles. WikiProject tagging bots have been used successfully and uncontroversially in the past (see, e.g., Category:Automatically assessed biography articles, which contains about 300K articles, and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Dreamy Jazz Bot 4), and it's particularly important to have WikiProject Biography tagged on bios, because the banner can be used to add an extra BLP warning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing, good to see I'm an
experienced bot op
. — Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
- @WhatamIdoing, good to see I'm an
- I also support this request. Are there any more details on how it will "determine ... the quality of the article"? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
- @MSGJ,
Using ORES (>90% probability results only)
- that is, it will query mw:ORES. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
- @MSGJ,
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 08:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Primefac,
Trial complete. See these 102 contributions (2 are from other tasks). The first 50 edits are done on articles without talk pages, the second 50 on pre-existing talk pages. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- My MOS:TALKORDER code doesn't work quite work; compare e.g. its edit on Talk:1876 women's lawn tennis season with that on Talk:1872 in Bolivia. I'll fix this soon. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Think I've fixed it, it was because I was looking for uppercase templates. Fixed now. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- Qwerfjkl, is the bot supposed to be making edits such as Special:Diff/1159007489 and Special:Diff/1159007417? This seems rather like a pointless edit. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Primefac, it is, yes. Perhaps Martin can explain the purpose of this? — Qwerfjkltalk 14:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes these edits are valuable work in the aim of assessing all articles under the new project-independent quality ratings. Firstly they draw attention to the fact that the article has not yet been assessed. (In fact it kind of worked on 1872 in Bolivia because three days later an editor came along and added a rating and WikiProjects, although they added a duplicate banner shell ...) It populates Category:Unassessed articles which helps editors to find articles which need assessing. And it invites/encourages the assessment with the blank
|class=parameter. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)- Excellent, thanks for the explanation. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes these edits are valuable work in the aim of assessing all articles under the new project-independent quality ratings. Firstly they draw attention to the fact that the article has not yet been assessed. (In fact it kind of worked on 1872 in Bolivia because three days later an editor came along and added a rating and WikiProjects, although they added a duplicate banner shell ...) It populates Category:Unassessed articles which helps editors to find articles which need assessing. And it invites/encourages the assessment with the blank
- @Primefac, it is, yes. Perhaps Martin can explain the purpose of this? — Qwerfjkltalk 14:21, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Qwerfjkl, is the bot supposed to be making edits such as Special:Diff/1159007489 and Special:Diff/1159007417? This seems rather like a pointless edit. Primefac (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
- Think I've fixed it, it was because I was looking for uppercase templates. Fixed now. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
- My MOS:TALKORDER code doesn't work quite work; compare e.g. its edit on Talk:1876 women's lawn tennis season with that on Talk:1872 in Bolivia. I'll fix this soon. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Approved. Primefac (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2023 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.