Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DannyS712 bot 37

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

Speedily Approved.

DannyS712 bot 37

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

Time filed: 07:34, Monday, May 13, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Proof of concept: assist in stub sorting. This task focuses on cleaning up Category:Glaciology stubs

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting#Bot runs

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 102

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: This is a proof-of-concept for how a bot can be used to make the stub sorting wikiproject work smoother. Specifically, for this task:

Category:Glaciology stubs is current over populated, despite the note that "Please note that stubs relating to individual glaciers and landforms should not be marked with this stub, but should be marked with {{geo-stub}} or one of its subtypes." I see that there are 102 pages that are tagged as glaciology stubs but are also both categorized in Category:Glaciers of Ellsworth Land as individual glaciers and have another stub template that is indeed a subtype of geo-stub (Ellsworth Land geography stubs). For those pages, the glaciology-stub template would be removed

Discussion

@Pegship: BRFA filed --DannyS712 (talk) 07:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} --DannyS712 (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So, just to clarify - are you saying that there are 100 pages that are using {{geo-stub}} (or its subcategory template) and {{glaciology-stub}}, and you're going to remove the latter per the guidelines on the category? Primefac (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: yes, there are 102 such pages ([1]) and I'll remove the latter --DannyS712 (talk) 23:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily Approved. Low volume, trusted botop. Plus, there's almost no point in doing a trial run that will fix 50% of the cases being looked at. Next time you want to do a bot run but would prefer to do a "trial" run as proof-of-concept, please just use your main account (100 edits is nothing) to show that the larger task to be performed by a bot is feasible. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 24 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.