ClickBot

This page is simply for the bot's use, most importantly to halt it if it is out of control. If you wish to leave a message for me or ask me a question, please do so on my talk page. —ClickRick (talk)

Population splitting to pop + pop_ref

I have looked at the last ten and they look fine. The only comments are:

• Abbess Roding Population_ref is split ok but disappears in the output – probably caused by <427 (which is not a ref)
• Abbess Beauchamp and Berners Roding has no line below population, probably caused by no Grid Ref. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Good spot - thanks for taking the time.

• Abbess Roding's population will only show after the related change to the template comes into effect such that a |population_ref= value will show even if there is no value for |population=.
• Abbess Beauchamp and Berners Roding's missing line is outside of my control, I'm afraid, but I notice that it had no line before the edit either, so nothing has changed in that regard.

—ClickRick (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Aldham, Essex

The bot failed to split <513 (2001) (est. - includes Fordstreet) correctly, presumably failing to recognise <513 as the population number, moving the whole lot to the ref. Since > and < are not that uncommon, might be worth an exception. I've fixed it in this instance, though. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 15:51, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting that, but the output will be unaffected once the related changes are made to the template code, i.e. the population_ref field will display even if there is no population field. This bot run is to ensure that the population field only contains a valid number, so it can be part of a #expr: calculation for population density. Once this is done, the template can change, and all will be fixed for any other similar instances. ClickRick (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

How long until this template change is implemented? Theoretically, once that's done, I am right in thinking that the change to Aldham would have made to visivle difference? But I can see that undoing the right thing's is, for once, going to be no more different than doing it in the first place. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 16:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have halted the bot until we can expedite an interim change which will avoid this problem. As to your other question, the effect of the change is to be able to calculate population density wherever both population and area figures are given, as some places weren't doing the calculation before, and others were doing it inconsistently, or had incorrectly-calculated values. Please join in at Template talk:Infobox UK place#Bot_issues. ClickRick (talk) 16:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Atterton

The bot has moved the population of c.40 to the reference field rather than leaving alone. Keith D (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. As per the discussion on the talk page of the infobox template, certain parts of the information in the infobox needed to be moved in order to provide enhancements in the infobox, most especially the ability to calculate population density automatically if population and area figures were available. In order to do that, any non-numeric data has to be moved, but it is being moved in such a way as not to affect the output to article readers. I have looked at Atterton and can see no problem in the change, but I shall pause operation of the bot to allow for a more detailed inspection and discussion. Please either confirm that it is acceptable and that the bot can continue or else feel free to note it as a problem here if you feel it needs wider input. —ClickRick (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The output looks OK but I was more thinking of confusing editors as it is not reference information but actual data. A similar problem is with Ballabeg, Lonan where the figure is given as <40 and this is moved to the reference field. Keith D (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this perhaps as simple as a need to improve the description of the |population_ref= parameter in Template:Infobox UK place/doc to reflect that? —ClickRick (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

May be that would be OK. Could add something to the population description like "None numeric values should be placed in the population_ref field". May be worth seeing what other think. Keith D (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I shall be bold and add something to that effect, then invite comment/improvement on the talk page. I can then resume the bot run. ClickRick (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Bishop Sutton & approx.

Hi, I've watched these changes to population in the infobox on my watchlist but think I may have spotted a problem on Bishop Sutton (also happened on Belluton) the population figure is given as "approx. 1000" - this has been moved into the "population_ref" presumably because it is not numeric. It doesn't currently make any difference in appearance, but might later. I know the solution is to get a more accurate figure & reference it properly - but wanted to warn you as it may happen elsewhere.— Rod ^talk 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the close scrutiny - I really appreciate the time that several people are taking to check that there are no significant issues arising from this change, and to report possible issues to me. As you say, there is no difference in appearance in the cases you cite - this was part of the design of the change as a whole - but will have a positive effect on those infoboxes which contain both population and area fgures. If that should change and the edits cause any actual problems then I shall of course endeavour to rectify the situation as a matter of urgency. Thanks again for taking the time. —ClickRick (talk) 12:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Links

Sorry, I don't have much time to explain, but I thought I'd throw you this diff as a variation on a theme, to add to your strictly numeric vs. c. <> debate. Cheers, - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 07:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well caught! I've done what I think is an appropriate change to fix that - please check it. Do you think it's likely that there will be many (any?) more in that style? ClickRick (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea! :) Moving the link to SA works for Bold textme. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 15:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)