- 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:
Jamesmcmahon0 (
talk ·
contribs ·
SUL ·
edit count ·
logs ·
page moves ·
block log ·
rights log ·
ANI search)
Time filed: 23:35, Sunday July 21, 2013 (
UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s):
AWB
Source code available: Runs through
AWB with a standard find and replace: {{stub}} with {{bio-stub}} (not case sensitive)
Function overview: Replaces {{
Stub}} with {{
bio-stub}}. Will run on appropriate articles in
Category:Stubs
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Periodically
Estimated number of pages affected: A few hundred per run.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
It will run against pages in
Category:Stub that are also in
Category:Year of birth missing,
Category:Year of birth missing (living people),
Category:Year of birth unknown,
Category:Year of birth uncertain,
Category:Year of death missing,
Category:Year of death unknown and/or
Category:Year of death uncertain and replace {{
Stub}} with {{
bio-stub}}. It will also perform general fixes and auto-tagging whilst making the edit.
I would like it to run against all articles contained under
Category:WikiProject Biography but as far as I can tell this is too big for AWB to work with, the ones I listed above hit a large proportion of articles, especially when dealing with stubs.
Discussion
Comment - You could load all articles in
Category:Stubs, and then skip all articles that are not in the categories above. You may also want to add
Category:Living people to your list.
GoingBatty (
talk)
04:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for the tip, I was using the list comparer to generate the list of articles to work on. The reason I didn't include
Category:Living people was that when building the list, it will limit it to 25 000. With your method however I can include that and thus hit a larger percentage of the appropriate pages. I will also add
Category:Possibly living people for good measure.
Jamesmcmahon0 (
talk)
11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Update I will check each page for the following Regex and skip if it's not there;
\[\[Category:(Year of birth|Year of death|Living people|Possibly living people)
- Credit for this goes to
GoingBatty (
talk ·
contribs)
- I've tested this and it does get most if not all of the biography pages and doesn't seem to get any false-positives (obviously it will if a page is mis-categorised.
Jamesmcmahon0 (
talk)
06:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
{{
BAGAssistanceNeeded}}
Jamesmcmahon0 (
talk)
08:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Stub-sorting does not appear to have any contention, and the proposed cat cross-check method appear to be valid. Large trial for bigger sample size on false positives. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
20:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks I should hopefully get chance to give it a go tomorrow eve.
Jamesmcmahon0 (
talk)
21:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
reply
Trial complete. As far as I can tell there were no false positives i.e. all the non biographical articles were skipped (it's hard to know how many, if any, biographical articles were skipped). There was a mistake in the find and replace, which affected these edits;
[1],
[2],
[3] and
[4] I've fixed that now and tested it without saving the edits (the find/replace was Stub/Bio-stub now it's {{Stub}}/{{Bio-stub}}).
- Another issue is that some of the pages that have {{
stub}} tags also have another more fine grained stub tag, i.e. the {{
stub}} shouldn't be there at all. I can think of a few way to deal with this;
- Change it to {{
bio-stub}} as in the edits at the moment. - This means that there is now a potentially redundant {{
bio-stub}} on the page, not sure if that is better or worse than a redundant {{
Stub}}?
- Skip any pages that have a fine grained stub tag, using "\-stub\}\}" - This does mean that there are pages left in
Category:Stubs that shouldn't be.
- My choice would be to file another BRFA which would go though
Category:Stubs and remove {{
stub}} from any page that matches "\-stub\}\}" i.e. more fine grained stub tag exists on the page.
-
Jamesmcmahon0 (
talk)
12:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
- {{
BAGAssistanceNeeded}} - I think this is ready to go, now the find and replace is fixed. I will go with option 2 above so 100% of its edits are useful and submit another BAG request for option 3. Could this get approved please or another test to prove the find/replace now works as advertised?
Jamesmcmahon0 (
talk)
12:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
reply
Approved. No further issues raised or that I can see. Noting genfixes are enabled. —
HELLKNOWZ ▎
TALK
13:19, 6 August 2013 (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.