Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MotinBot

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.

MotinBot

Operator: Александр Мотин (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 10:57, Saturday October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: manually.

Programming language(s): AWB.

Source code available: N/A

Function overview: tagging (WikiProject templates) discussion pages for articles.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A

Edit period(s): random (manually started).

Estimated number of pages affected: articles without WikiProgect template(s) (mostly with blank discussion pages)

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N/A

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): no.

Function details: example: [1]

Discussion

Will you rate or assess articles as well? Do you always manually write the needed banners or does it select suggestions for you based on infoboxes/categories/etc.? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will rate and assess articles. The banners are always manually written.--Александр Мотин (talk) 12:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you using WP:Plugin++? FYI, AWB is automatically exclusion compliant, so that option is available. Also, (only really relevant if you're not using Kingbotk's plugin) how will the bot react if the talk page is already tagged with the template (or a redirect to the template), but it's missing a parameter that the bot is adding in that run? Judging from your task description, it will simply ignore these? There isn't a massive problem with this, but it half defeats the point of having another WikiProject tagging bot if it doesn't do it as well as the current ones (although I will note that there doesn't seem to be that many active bots on this task just at this point). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has been stressed that this is manual task. So I assume the operator would first check what banners are present and then manually select which ones to add. This looks more like a helper script than automation. Am I correct in assuming this, Александр? I am still unclear, how the operator decides which banners are to be placed, but in any case, this appears to be at operator's own discretion. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If my bot adds a template to the existing talk pages I`ll will watch the process. If a talk page doesn`t exist the bot will add template without my control (this is for cases when I choose articles from one category or of similar type).--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm getting the impression that the settings skip anything already containing a banner (due to the estimated number of pages affected). This need to be clarified - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, this bot won't do work for specific projects but will look for articles without any banners and the author will manually deduce which banners might fit? As such it would serve a slightly different purpose than the standard battery of WikiProject tagging bots and seems useful. –xeno^talk 14:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I choose the articles in a category and check their talk pages. For example, the bot uploads all articles from Category:Mountains of Antarctica and then search for the articles with blank talk pages. If it founds one it adds {{WikiProject Mountains}} and {{WikiProject Antarctica}}. For existing talk pages every action is made manually to avoid mistakes.--Александр Мотин (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, so empty pages get tagged based on unambiguous categorization, as shown in example above. Last question -- is it the same categorization-based logic for non-empty pages, but you first manually check that the same banners are not already there? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But there is no need to check them manually because I can skip the page automaticaly if the banner in there. In this case only saving is done manually (after I checked visually). Avoiding mistakes is more important than speedy tagging.Александр Мотин (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see what could go wrong here, assuming the operator is happy (as policy requires them) to fix any mistakes. But I reckon that the tagging-people will have some efficiency suggestions to make, so, let's make this

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - just the automatic ones, please :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Александр Мотин (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.

You did not choose a very broad example set, as all edits are the same. This is nitpicking, but how did you assess the articles to be stubs and low importance? Do you actually preview the article page and make a choice yourself? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, let's not beat around the bush. This is done all the time by users, this is useful, un-controversial and talk page exclusive. So Approved.

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.