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: SD0001 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:13, Friday, March 6, 2020 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: supervised

Programming language(s): NodeJS/JavaScript

Source code available:

Function overview: Merge stub tags on articles where possible

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One-time run; with possible future runs if needed

Estimated number of pages affected: 400

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

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

Function details: For articles that have multiple stub templates Foo-stub and Bar-stub, if the template Foo-Bar-stub or Bar-Foo stub exists, replace the original pair with the combined stub template.

I have already compiled and inspected a list of articles (there are about 400) to which edits will be made. I don't see any issues.

Task previously approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archive_4#User:Alaibot,_stub_template_merger.

Stub tags are placed at the very end of the page (even if they were originally somewhere else), with the two newlines after the final content, per WP:STUBSPACING.

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:20, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. @Headbomb: contribs No errors. SD0001 (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering about [1] mostly, since this is something that pertains to more than just Italian cuisine. Also the edit summary could be friendlier. A full sentence like "Merging ((X-stub)) and ((Y-stub)) into ((X-Y stub))" would be better IMO. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a stub sorter, I think the resorting there is ok. 3 or more stub tags on a page is rarely a good idea. In this case, as there is no ((Monaco-cuisine-stub)), not even a ((Europe-cuisine-stub)), simply using ((monaco-stub)) along with ((Italy-cuisine-stub)) seems pretty much ok. FWIW the latter categorises the article to Category:Italian cuisine stubs, which is a subcat of Category:Cuisine stubs.

Anyway, I have now been manually reviewing the complex cases (>3 tags originally), and doing the ones by hand which wouldn't otherwise be optimally done by the bot. So the bot will skip over those.

Good point on the edit summary. SD0001 (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., on those with 2 stubs templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: Trial complete. SD0001 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:15, 6 March 2020 (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.