Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Addbot 22

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

Request Expired.

Addbot 22

Operator: ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!}

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Overview: Removing uncat tags from articles which contain the tag but also contain categorys.

Edit period(s): Continuous / 1 Time daily run (each)

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

Function Details: Adding and removing both uncat and orphan tags

Discussion

The tasks have previously been approved (please see [1] [2] [3]. This BRFA is to see if the tasks should still continue as the approval was 10 months ago. All questions comments and other observations are welcome. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 17:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that bot approvals last indefinitely unless you have actually put an expiration date on yours (I haven't checked your links yet). @harej 18:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments:
1. Orphan Tagging: Tagging of orphans created some controversy awhile back. I recommend before re-starting that task you post at WP:Orphan, Template:Orphan, and the Village Pump.
2. Orphan Untagging: My bot (JL-Bot) does this already though there is no harm in having multiple bots do it. However, your previous BFRA says you're using this ToolServer report. If you are, please be sure to double check the article yourself before removing the orphan template as that report does have bugs. For example, it will sometimes list new articles without any links.

-- JLaTondre (talk) 20:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An observation: occasionally I will partially address a tag and thus leave the tag on the article; for categorization, I'll add one I can think of, but it will be obvious to me that there would be another that I can't figure out in a timely way. Admittedly, this is sub-optimal, but there you go.
1. I don't think there's any easy way to detect that an article needs multiple categories; do you think it's a reasonable idea to say a tag-half-actioned article has had that tag actioned? (This isn't a loaded question, it's just a question)
2. As a way around this objection, you could say that if any bottom-of-the-category-tree category is used, or multiple categories are used, then it's been "correctly categorized".

Josh Parris 23:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'actioning a tag', but your concerns don't seem relevant. For purposes of {{uncategorized}}, an article either has categories or it doesn't have categories. It isn't about whether categorization is complete or correct (that's handled by other templates like {{cat improve}}). I agree that a bot detecting that an article needs multiple categories is problematic, but that's not what this is about. The report detects whether an article has any categories which is straightforward. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've been doing things wrong. Josh Parris 15:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 05:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if Addshore had responded to my comments above first. Given the previous debates over orphan tagging, I don't think that should be considered an uncontroversial task without greater exposure. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my slow reply, I have been having exams. I will happily post at WP:Orphan, Template:Orphan, and the Village Pump. The task itself was very visible when it was first approved so I may as well do it again and see if anything has changed. I do know there are already bots un-tagging orphan (JL-Bot) but the more the merrier and the quicker things will get done. Soon my bot will also be on the toolserver and I will be able to do direct DB queries, and the bot does currently check before it acts on an article. As for the current definition that I am using for an orphan, 1 link from the main space not including lists or diambigs (this is the same as the orphanage). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addshore (talk • contribs) 17:03, 12 January 2010

You're right that the task was very visible the first time. It stirred up quite a bit of objection to the orphan tag. The criteria is actually 3 links. It is recommended that articles not be tagged unless they have no links. But if was manually tagged, it shouldn't be removed unless the article has 3. There are also pages that are excluded from being orphans (dabs, names, SIA). -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any update on the trial or followup questions? MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be more accurate: The criteria for orphans is:

3 links to the article directly OR to its redirects.
- Redirects(and dabs) don't count in the number of links.
Redirects and dabs should not be tagged as orphans.

AWB does must of it right now. Check my BRFA in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 11. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my slow reply. I have just restructured my bot so at the moment I cannot fun the orphan side of it. ·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better if Addbot works only with uncat tags. 10 months ago Addbot added orphan tag to 80,000 articles. This is more than half of the backlog we already have. The Orphanage has requested some kind of cease fire. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) What is the current status of the bot - is it able to undertake a trial, regardless of the intent to run? Josh Parris 06:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Operator has been inactive for nearly two months. Josh Parris 03:20, 9 March 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.