Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 49

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

DannyS712 bot 49[edit]

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

Time filed: 00:32, Tuesday, June 18, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Implement the results of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/May

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals/2019/May

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 6400

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: For individual proposals, I suggested that a bot carry out the changes, and there was support for the proposal. This is also a follow up to the "proof-of-concept" in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 37

Discussion[edit]

Just to clarify, the idea is that the bot creates new stub templates that were agreed upon during that discussion, adds these to pages which contain a "parent" stub tag + a category or other text string that marks them as suited for the new stub template, and then removes the "parent" stub template from the pages which had the new template added? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: yes and no. The bot doesn't create the new stub templates, it just replaces the "parent" stub tag with the newly created "child" stub tag as appropriate --DannyS712 (talk) 08:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry if this sounded like a stupid question, but stub maintenance is not something I am deeply familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: It wasn't a stub question at all. In the future I may also have BRFAs that include creation of the stub templates, but for now its just the use of them DannyS712 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} Its been almost a week - any update? --DannyS712 (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Am I reading this correctly in that there are seven "groups" of stubs to be dealt with? Primefac (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC) and again, for the record, a week is not really a long time to wait for a BRFA to be looked at, especially with all of the other things going on right now (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
No, 7 is not correct. The football season stubs is 16 "groups" - 1 for each decade. The rules biography stubs is 10 "groups" - 1 for each year. The cycling race stubs is 12 "groups" - 1 for each specified race. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I meant "groups" as in "there were seven proposals for a single category to be split/sorted into multiple others". In re-reading your proposal (which could use a fair amount more detail, in my opinion) I gather your bot run is only going to do the three "big" groups (footy, Aussie rules, and cycling), yes?
In other words, you're changing the stub template found in one of those groups into one of the sub-groups (sorted by year)? I'm trying to figure out how to split up your trial to demonstrate its effectiveness in each group. Primefac (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)[reply]
Sorry about the lack of detail. Yes, there are 3 "big" groups in this 1 BRFA. Perhaps populating 1 of the cycling subgroups, which would be between 60 and 100 edits, could be the trial? While the edits aren't very diverse, it'll show a single complete run. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} --DannyS712 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Almost positive I had sent this to trial...
Approved for trial (60 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please run 20 edits per group. Primefac (talk) 02:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. - 60 edits made (though AWB's edit counter seems to always be off by one for me, so I ended up doing 21/19/20 instead of 20 of each, sorry) DannyS712 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} --DannyS712 (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. As per usual, if amendments to - or clarifications regarding - this approval are needed, please start a discussion on the talk page and ping. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:34, 6 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/DannyS712_bot_49&oldid=909551518"