Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

Operator: - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)}

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Summary: To run through Category:Year of birth missing (living people) removing (living people) from those who are deceased.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time run

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function Details: Following discussions with Magioladitis, it appears that I could help sorting out Category:Year of birth missing (living people), by running through it and checking whether people are now deceased in the same way I did with Living people. It would then remove/alter all categories relating to them being alive.

I would be using extensive criteria, which I feel were proved effective by the runs I did on Category:Living people earlier.

I'm currently running a log only run to see how many articles are affected, I'll post the results here. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 09:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The log run turned up 22 pages that need editing. Probably not enough to warrant a bot this time round, so I was wondering if, in future, a similar search turned up more results, and these results were checked by a human (probably me), could I get approval for that in advance, or should I apply at the time? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 16:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support the idea. The bot detected 22 mistakes. There were only 22 pages because I manually fix these issues very often. If we have a short backlog we can create lists and manually fix them every month for example. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. 22 pages fixed by a bot is still 22 pages that humans don't need to worry about! And the idea of fixing these on a regular basis to keep backlogs down sounds good. Richard⁰⁶¹² 22:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Magioladitis has fixed those 22 already I think, the trial may have to wait for a bit for a backlog to emerge. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, you can withdraw this request with no prejudice to reopening it when a backlog has built up (if you feel it won't build up again for a while), otherwise it can just wait here, no problem either way really. Richard⁰⁶¹² 13:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. Richard⁰⁶¹² 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.