Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClickBot 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
Approved.
Operator: ClickRick
Users should not be confused by the change of Operator between ClickBot (Sceptre), which had filed a previous request, and ClickBot 2—I have usurped that username as it never ran and the owner had no further need for the username, but I felt that the close association in name between it and my normal account would be helpful to some people for clarity.
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser with custom plugin written in C#
Source code available: AWB with custom plugin "TheTemplator". Source code for the plugin will be available shortly.
Function overview: Changing population fields and values in every usage of {{Infobox UK place}} for consistency, per steps 1 and 2 of User:ClickBot/TaskList.
Edit period(s): One-time run.
Estimated number of pages affected: There are over 13,000 transclusions of the template in question. All will need checking though not all will need amending.
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No. Will need the flag.
Function details: Per the discussion on Template_talk:Infobox_UK_place#Possible_bot_tasks, a number of improvements have been identified for the template which require small changes to the usage of certain parameters. These have been broken down and summarised at User:ClickBot/TaskList. There is consensus in principle to the changes, they just need final ratification.
This bot request is to implement steps 1 and 2 of that list. Once it is complete, a separate request will be made for steps 3 and 4. A third pass for the remaining steps is anticipated and has support in principle, but the changes have not yet been fully agreed in detail.
Discussion
I don't forsee any problems here, but I think we should get down a few more details about tasks #1 and #2: "make the population parameter be numeric" and "move any non-numeric portions from existing population parameters to population_ref". Could you expand, maybe with some helpful examples? - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 16:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Current usage can be, for example,
|population=345 (2001 census)which is fine as far as it goes, but this prevents us from using the population figure in calculating population density. In this example, ClickBot would split the parameter and output|population=345|population_ref=(2001 census). By making this change, the template can then assume that the|population=value will be numeric and so be able to make the calculation. The template can also ensure that the thousands separator is correctly displayed when appropriate. - Some more examples:
| Current parameters | After ClickBot | Displayed in Infobox |
|---|---|---|
|population=12,345
|
|population=12,345
|
Population 12,345 (2001 census) |
|population=12345 (2001 census)
|
|population=12345
|
Population 12,345 (2001 census) |
|population=12,345 (2001 census)
|
|population=12,345
|
Population 12,345 (2001 census) |
|population=12345 (2001 census)
|
|population=12345
|
Population 12,345 (2001 census)[1] |
- The bot will tolerate as wide a range of inputs as can be anticipated (sandbox testing here and here shows the test cases we have checked so far), including missing parameters, and generate consistent output.
- —ClickRick (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- To me, it looks like you have been discussing this bot with the interested community and intend to keep doing so. If the bot is implemented please individually verify the test run edits, and ask for positive input from the same community on the test runs, suggesting they check test runs also, not just assume\ing if you post and they don't respond it's okay. However, I'm not concerned, from looking at your conversations with other members, that this will be an issue. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for your vote of confidence that I've at least been doing things the right way so far. I have read through some of the history regarding previous bots and am aware of some of the pitfalls which can ensue, and have obviously taken advice from some experienced bot users, but your caution to be proactive in getting verification and not assuming tacit approval is something I shall take to heart. —ClickRick (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, a happy coincidence. I think, then, that a trial is warranted. Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- The first trial run of 30 edits has just completed - the results are available for verification of the edits. I have solicited feedback on the template talk page for confirmation that we're good to go for the automatic run of this step, given that it's potentially going to make edits to a high proportion of the 13,000+ articles which transclude this template. —ClickRick (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have had feedback now – two on Template talk:Infobox UK place#Possible_bot_tasks and one on User talk:ClickBot – all positive. I'm ready to roll as soon as the BAG gives the go-ahead and I get the bot flag. —ClickRick (talk) 11:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- The first trial run of 30 edits has just completed - the results are available for verification of the edits. I have solicited feedback on the template talk page for confirmation that we're good to go for the automatic run of this step, given that it's potentially going to make edits to a high proportion of the 13,000+ articles which transclude this template. —ClickRick (talk) 12:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, a happy coincidence. I think, then, that a trial is warranted.
- Thank you for your vote of confidence that I've at least been doing things the right way so far. I have read through some of the history regarding previous bots and am aware of some of the pitfalls which can ensue, and have obviously taken advice from some experienced bot users, but your caution to be proactive in getting verification and not assuming tacit approval is something I shall take to heart. —ClickRick (talk) 08:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- To me, it looks like you have been discussing this bot with the interested community and intend to keep doing so. If the bot is implemented please individually verify the test run edits, and ask for positive input from the same community on the test runs, suggesting they check test runs also, not just assume\ing if you post and they don't respond it's okay. However, I'm not concerned, from looking at your conversations with other members, that this will be an issue. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Approved. Looks good to me (and apparently the community as well). No conerns re consensus, implementation looks fine. Obviously, with a task of this magnitude, it would be wise to run the task in blocks, and review each block before moving onto the next. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 11:25, 15 July 2009 (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.