Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 35

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.

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:50, Tuesday, April 30, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Assess unassessed articles that are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases and are tagged as stubs as stub class

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases#Stub assessment

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~150

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 21, which suggested that I more limited scale would be ideal. I'm active in the wikiproject, and posted on the talk page with no response for 3 weeks.

Discussion

• @Pppery, Anomie, Qzekrom, Czar, WhatamIdoing, Xaosflux, and Headbomb: since you participated in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 21, I've pinged you to this related task. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Limiting the scope of the BRFA does not make me any more in favor of it than I was the previous time around: bots are clearly inferior here to doing the categorization automatically in the template. * Pppery * _{has returned} 18:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: I have no objection to using lua instead, but I believe that a bot is better than nothing - I don't know how to make the template work automatically, but if you can figure it out I would support that --DannyS712 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I have objections to making the "best" be the enemy of the "good enough". Peppery, you're very, very welcome to code the templates, but until that actually happens, let's do this. It doesn't feel any different from the already-approved Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 15 task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DannyS712, is there a reason you haven't just done this by yourself, since there are only about 150 pages? Primefac (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Primefac, I agree that a semi-automatic run shouldn't be very painful here. Danny was asked in the previous BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 21) to limit the scope, specifically possibly to a single wikiproject. The other issue here is that the logic is still ill-defined. SQL^{Query me!} 15:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense; I just approved a similarly-small BRFA so I think that was forefront in my mind and not the fact that this is a smaller version of a previously-declined BRFA. Thanks for the clarification. Primefac (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @SQL: Its not painful, but I want to do these 150 pages so that the next set can be 500, 1000, etc without worries about the scope. As for the logic, I disagree that it would be ill-defined - all stubs are included in Category:All stub articles. Thus, if the page is unassessed, and it is included in that category, it should be assessed as a stub --DannyS712 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} --DannyS712 (talk) 00:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Can't really see any reason why this should be denied for USSC stubs. The terms of operation for tagging bots are usually that the project requests stub tagging, rather than the bot operator seeking stubs to tag, however, so keep that in mind for future runs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Headbomb: Trial complete. 25 pages tagged - [1]. Other than a typo in my edit summary (asses vs assess), I didn't see any errors - I watched all of them in the bot diff view in real time, and randomly spot checked 10 of the 25. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} --DannyS712 (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Uncontroversial task, trialed well, does what it says on the tin.  Approved. SQL^{Query me!} 03:47, 23 May 2019 (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.