Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BorgardeBot Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BorgardeBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

Operator: —Borgarde

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Supervised automatic - I will start the bot and monitor it continuously.

Programming Language(s): AWB and the Kingbotk Plugin

Function Overview: To tag the talk pages of articles with {{WikiProject Baseball}} that fall under the scope of WP:WikiProject Baseball, and the the assess as "class=stub|auto=yes" for articles with a stub template. Also tag generic WikiProjects if asked.

Edit period(s): Daily

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function Details: Identify relevent categories (Sub-categories of Category:Baseball - NOT recursive), all talk pages will be tagged with {{WikiProject Baseball}} and auto-stub assessed if necessary, I have been doing this successfully manually with WP:AWB and Kingbotk Plugin.

Also, if supplied with a list of categories or pages for a generic WikiProject, I am able to help tag WP banners on talk pages. The lists will be supplied by the requester and I will check to make sure it is alright.

Are you sure you mean "manually assisted"? that means manually confirming every edit - in other words, exactly what you've been doing with AWB already. Supervised automatic might fit better. How have you been getting on doing it manually? Have you approved every change, or have there been false positives? And incidentally, how many edits do you think this entail? (Too many questions, I know :) ) - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Well, by manually assisted I meant I'll start and supervise, but not approve every edit, I'll fix that in the text. There hasn't really been any false-positives, I've ignored some manually but that was just so I didn't edit just to replace an old template with a new one. I assume when I first start running the bot it will include more edits because it will be cleaning up existing templates, but over time it will simply be adding new pages and auto-assessing stubs, (scope of WP:BASEBALL is pretty large). I don't think they'll be any problems with this. —Borgarde 07:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will the lists of pages/categories be vetted or approved by the project before tagging? Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been part of the project and the assessment team for a very long time now (over 2 years) so I have a good idea of what categories to tag and what not to. It's just simply time-consuming and easier to do with a bot what I have been doing manually. I will have lists though located in the bots userspace. —Borgarde 01:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you add "|class=stub|auto=yes" only to articles in Category:Baseball stubs and its subcats. Are you interested only in Basketball Project?. You may apply this BRFA for generic WikiProjects so that you may be able to help out at WP:BOTR. Just a suggestion -- Tinu Cherian - 09:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the baseball project is what I'm mainly involved with most on wikipedia, so that is why i applied it to that one. The auto-stub will only be for stub categories, this isn't hard to set up at all. Do I need to file a new BRFA to apply for generic wikiprojects? Or can I edit this one? It doesn't bother me, if bot-requests would need help I'd be happy to help when I can. —Borgarde 09:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think converting this for a Generic WikiProject BRFA shud be a problem, since the trial is not yet begun. Well, I once I did apply only for WP:INDIA and then I had to apply for generic WIkiProjects again. I'm just suggesting to ask for Generic WikiProjects, if you are interested -- Tinu Cherian - 10:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have gone and added generic wikiprojects to my request so I can help out with requests if approved. —Borgarde 10:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how long these requests normally take, but if this will help speed the request up a little bit, here is some of the edits I did using the pluging with AWB using "auto-stub" for baseball stubs [1]. —Borgarde 13:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} - 04:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Richard⁰⁶¹² 13:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added bot to AWB checkpage. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.

Thanks, Trial complete. See Special:Contributions/BorgardeBot. —Borgarde 01:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions looks good enough. Some suggestions :

• You may turn off "using AWB" in the edit summary once you have the bot bit.
• Try to keep edit rate low , not more than 6 edits/min.
• Dont use category recursive option to make the article list. One level only category recursive is still safe enough provided you check the one level subcategories neatly.
• Due attention should be taken for the selection of categories to remove false positives. the safest way is to feed only single categories like cat1|cat2|cat3 to generate the list

Best of luck -- Tinu Cherian - 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help Tinucherian, I think in the trial it peaked at 4epm, so hopefully all is good! —Borgarde 05:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, just a note since we bot operators have a tendency to try to shift gears up when we have to tag hundreds of article talk pages :)-- Tinu Cherian - 06:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}}

What's the status on this? —Borgarde 10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Everything looks good, although as Tinucherian said, try to avoid pagelist generation from recursive category sweeps. It can easily lead to one hell of a mess! Richard⁰⁶¹² 18:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.