Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Grafikbot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[edit] Grafikbot, MILHIST article tagging

I would like Grafikbot (talk • contribs) to tag military history related articles with the {{WPMILHIST}} template for assessement purposes as defined in the WP:1.0 program.

A complete automatic tagging bot is still out of reach, so for the time being, a limited tagging will be executed as follows:

• Every article with {{Mil-hist-stub}} stub tag and related tag (list available at WSS) as well as with {{mil-stub}} and below (list available at WSS) is considered as a military history article and thus subject to tagging.
• The list from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/New articles will also be processed.
• The talk page of each article is tagged with the {{WPMILHIST}} prepended to the talk page (even if the talk is empty).
• The run is repeated say one or two times a month to make sure that new stubs get properly tagged.

Note: a rather lengthy debate took place on WP:AN a few weeks ago, and a consensus emerged that such a tagging was desirable for the whole WP project. Obviously, a bot can't tag everything, but I think it just can handle this one. :)

Can someone approve this please? :)

Thanks, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• This somewhat touches on some of the same issues as discussed in relation to Dark Shikari Bot, but I see no problem as such. The scope does seem rather wide, though: {{mil-hist-stub}} obviously makes intuitive sense, but does the wikiproject really want to "adopt" the whole of {{mil-stub}} (i.e. corresponding to the whole of Cat:Military)? Perhaps when you're approved for a trial run, you might start off with just the former, and consult somewhat on the latter. Alai 04:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, aside from fictional stuff (which people really shouldn't be using {{mil-stub}} for anyways, I would think), we've already adopted basically all of Category:Military already. Kirill Lokshin 04:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Then it's not very well-named, is it? (BTW, you rather said the opposite when a "Stub-Class articles" category was being discussed for deletion, that there was no single hierarchy to your WPJ's scope...) At any rate, if there's any scope whatsoever for "false positives", it's not the best place to start. Alai 05:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, no; the project's scope is actually broader than merely what's in Category:Military ;-) As far as false positives, I don't know how best to handle that. (What's the danger of having a few extra articles tagged, though? These are only talk page tags, and tend to be removed from articles where they don't belong with minimal fuss.) Kirill Lokshin 05:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For your collective information, I note that there are 11,216 articles in or under {{mil-stub}}. That even misses a few, since for some incomprehensible reason, aircraft are largely split by decade, rather than into military and non-. There's 3,374 that are specifically "military history". Let's be as sure as possible these are all within the Wikiproject's scope before getting carried away with this (especially the "non-historical" ones). Alai 07:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I am leaning against a bot. I have just been cleaning up some 75 articles in cartridge category that had the WPMILHIST banner on the talk page that I assume were done by a bot. If the article was read it clearly stated that it was used for sporting or hunting with no military referenced at all. Article should be read and assessed at the same time.--Oldwildbill 10:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are no tagging bot here that I'm aware of, at least not today. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I just took a quick run through the various stubs involved here. The only one in which I found articles not within the project's scope is {{weapon-stub}} and its children, as there are some hunting-related articles there. Hence, we should not automate tagging for that tree. As far as I can tell, however, all of the other children of {{mil-stub}} are reasonably safe to tag by bot. Kirill Lokshin 04:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

So, are there any other opinions on this point? The project discussion on this issue wasn't very active, but there weren't any objections to this tagging proposal. Kirill Lokshin 18:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like there is a heavy backlog on this page currently... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable request, guys, if approval is only for the mil-hist tree. Rich Farmbrough 22:02 28 August 2006 (GMT).

What's the status here? Are you still waiting for a response or did you get approved? --kingboyk 12:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

appears to be vaid go ahead with a 50 edit trial run and post the diffs here. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 04:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Approved (already has a flag). Please follow the instructions next time. -- RM 00:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.