Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MoohanBOT 9

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.

MoohanBOT 9 edit

Operator: Jamesmcmahon0 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 16:56, Wednesday, December 23, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: Simple regex skip then AWB with Kingbotk plugin and User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects

Function overview: Add living=yes/no to pages in Category:Biography articles without living parameter

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): occasionally

Estimated number of pages affected: Max 3600 on first run (current articles in cat) - There are around 500 pages for living=yes

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Check the articles pages of the talk pages in Category:Biography articles without living parameter if the have Category:Living people add living=yes to the bio tag on the talk page. If they have a cat of the form XXXX deaths then add living=no - This might be expanded to include other ways of determining if a page is about a dead person.

Discussion edit

Don't we already have a bot that does this? I thought the simple cases you mention are being handled, but based on the category it seems they aren't.

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig ^talk 19:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. - ran approx 50/50 living dead, all edits seemed fine, no mistakes and no cosmetic-only edits.

It seems Magioladitis has Yobot (Task 9) approved for this, going about it in a slightly different way, not sure why the category has got so big, possibly just not been run in a while. I would like to run the bot and clear the simple cases first before having a look at getting more obscure ones tagged automatically. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: Sorry I'm late to the party. BattyBot 30 also does this. I ran the bot a few weeks ago. GoingBatty (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It should be fine to have multiple bots for this task. The only outstanding issue here seems to be the extra whitespace, which your bot handles fine (so it's definitely possible to fix in AWB). — Earwig ^talk 05:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: I'm not objecting to another bot - just answering your initial question. FYI, BattyBot doesn't use the KingbotK plugin. GoingBatty (talk) 06:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesmcmahon0 I just did another bot run. I would be happy if a second bot joins this task. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:20, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All trial edits look fine, except for a minor point: could you have the bot not add the extra newlines as in [1] and [2]? If it's not feasible, don't worry about it. — Earwig ^talk 04:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jamesmcmahon0 redirects should not be tagged. Moroever, we want to keep the template as clean as possible. No reason to add empty parameters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Where is a redirect being tagged? I must have missed that... the first example is not a real redirect, but a mistake left behind by a botched page move. — Earwig ^talk 06:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: You are right. Maybe then the REDIRECT [[Talk:Jussi Pesonen (ice hockey)]] should have been removed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can get AWB to skip redirects (pretty sure it's already checked to do that though). Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As for adding lines and blank parameters, this is the default behaviour of either Kingkbot or User:Magioladitis/WikiProjects. However, I can have blanc params removed after other edits have been performed if this is desirable? Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, removing blank parameters would be less helpful; can't the necessary change be done with a simple regex replace? I don't think Magioladitis's code adds the line breaks based on what I've seen other bots do, so it must be the Kingbotk plugin. Looks like this has been reported, but no apparent response. @Magioladitis: any insight? — Earwig ^talk 22:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig and Jamesmcmahon0: yes the problem comes from KingbotK plugin. In 3 days I ll be back and I will try to fix it. Perhaps @Reedy: could help too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesmcmahon0: Take a look at User talk:Magioladitis#Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MoohanBOT 9 when you get a chance. — Earwig ^talk 08:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesmcmahon0: the problem was the you activated all checkboxes in the tab. You should not. Focus only on living/non living. I really want you to take over this task. I want to abandon any talk page fixes as soon as possible. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. -- All completed successfully with no erroneous edits that I saw. However, whilst the bot didn't add any extra blank params, there were 8 instances ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] and [10]) where there were lots of existing blank parameters which the bot spaced out onto a separate line each - this does make it more human readable but also makes it much more obvious that there are redundant blank parameters. (NB, all of the blank params that I saw were added by User:Aboutmovies, when first tagging the page as a Biography article) Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Err, it doesn't look like the bot behaved any differently from the original trial... — Earwig ^talk 04:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which edits specifically? I checked them all and didn't see any wrong behaviour (i.e. adding blank parameters) the only questionable instances I thought were the ones I mentioned above where the bot added new lines between parameters that had previously been added by a human. I'm pretty sure on the previous trial but 100% on this one that no boxes were checked in KingKbot other than the living/non-living. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, let me clarify. I mean that it's still adding the newlines as the original trial was. (Did the original trial actually add any blank parameters? I missed that if it did.) My impression was that this second trial was an attempt to see if we had resolved the extra newline issue. If that's not feasible without major changes to the library, I think it's still okay to move ahead with this, but I would like to fix it if possible. — Earwig ^talk 19:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes definite confusion, I presumed I had done something wrong in the first trial and it had added parameters. I was extra careful checking every setting and every edit for the second trial. Above it looks like Magioladitis says that KingKbot adds the lines. If this isn't desirable then I suggest it be pulled from the plugins source. However I don't see why it's bad in itself, it just draws attention to a 'mistake' made by a previous editor.Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(←) It still bothers me a little, but since we're only dealing with talk pages and this is due to a library that other bots use, presumably it isn't a real problem. Enough time spent sitting on a very minor task. Approved. — Earwig ^talk 00:10, 27 February 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.