Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48
- 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
Denied.
Operator: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl/AWB
Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.
Function overview: Add missing ref sections and parameter blanks to language articles containing {{Infobox language}}
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 47#add ref section to language stubs
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: 3378
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: Will add a references section, per request, which will be populated when the infobox is changed. Will also add one or two parameters to the infobox if they are missing, depending on whether the language is classed as extinct.
(Revised details.)
For all articles containing {{Infobox language}}
- Ensure that the relevant parameters specified in the bot request are present.
- Ensure the parameters of the infobox are in the order shown on the documentation page.
If there is no reference to Ethnologue 16th edition, and a suitable page exists on Ethnologue, add the reference, using the parameter "ref=e16"- Add a references section if
needed,there is none, and a matching page exists on Ethnologue (that is, if there is an iso3 or lc1 parameter) - Add a
{{Reflist}}
template if needed Re-write the article form the point of view of language cladistics interpreted via Sapir-Worf.- Remove obsolete param "date' " and any preceding line break: change:
\s*| *date' *= * *
→ a space (merging data with the preceding "date" field). [this will eliminate almost all instances. the few remaining ones will be cleaned up manually.] - Delete any other obsolete/unsupported params if the field is empty. If the field is not empty (an example may be "state", which is a frequent error for "states"), they will be tagged with category:unsupported language infobox fields [or other wording of your choice], and possibly moved to the end of the template, where they will be cleaned up manually. Delete 'll# = none' (where '#' is any \d or \d\d number), as it has no effect; this was agreed to in a previous bot request, but never implemented.
- ? People have been removing flags from lang infoboxes per the MOS. Is that the consensus? Maybe s.t. we could do while we're going through them anyway?
Discussion
editDiscussion on earlier specs
|
---|
Trivial.Rich Farmbrough 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the changes in the test edits violate the bot operator's edit restriction by making cosmetic changes that AWB does not make, such as:
These should be turned off before the task is approved; there is no need for the bot to make such changes in order to accomplish the task that as described. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The former is not a red herring, it is a significant issue with the test edits for this task, and I hope that the BAG reviewers will take it under appropriate consideration. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now concerning this task, is there any evidence that the community thinks it's a good idea to add empty reference sections to articles? Because this mind could easily be applied to all stubs, and I highly doubt there is consensus for adding them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the fuss is here.
— kwami (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding adding new fields to the infobox: are values actually being added for the fields, or are they just being inserted empty? Since the latter has no effect on the actual parsing of the template (empty parameters are the same as none at all), I don't see why the bot needs to insert them, particularly if it is not doing anything more significant at the same time. The same goes for rearranging the order of parameters: the parser does not care what order they are in. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also note that the bot operator continues to make edits that appear to be testing edits for this task (e.g. [9] [10]). Perhaps BAG could ask him to stop until the task is actually approved? — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now. Do we have any outstanding issues with this BRFA? All this noise is taking valuable programming time. Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
@ Headbomb: Yes, actually, I only suggested ordering the fields involved in my request, but if s.o. would like to reorder *all* the fields, so that they match the documentation at {{infobox language}}, that would actually be quite nice. I've already gone through and fixed some of the more egregious shuffled fields (while doing other things with AWB), but I still come across them from time to time. — kwami (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply] I figured this would be so trivial that it wouldn't need discussion, but I posted requests here at the wiki project and here at the template. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
Updated spec
editNew spec. Not trivial, but not hard either. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Agree. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1. The spec says that reference sections will be added "if needed". Does that mean that if an article can already display footnotes (via {{reflist}} or <references/>) that parts 4 and 5 will be skipped? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. The spec does not mention general fixes of cosmetic changes. Does this mean that only the tasks specifically listed will be performed? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. There is no plan to add a second references section.
- Not at all. No opportunity to improve the encyclopedia will be missed.
- Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- re 1: can you confirm that no empty
{{reflist}}
or <references/> will be added by the bot? -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- re 1: can you confirm that no empty
- re 2: "no opportunity" is too vague to possibly be approved by BAG, since it could encompass almost anything, and there would be no way to tell if it had approval. Will the task at least be limited to changes that would be made by the most recent version of AWB? Why isn't this mentioned in the task spec? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because you are asking me to solve the halting problem. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Because you are asking me to solve the halting problem. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- re2: genfixes and cosmetic changes are generally permitted, although cosmetic changes are sometimes discouraged for readability. Rich has however editing restriction to perform cosmetic changes other than AWB genfixes.
I'm OK to give a trialwith AWB genfixes only. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Back to reference section discussion then [12]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just clarifying what "needed" means, since people have been misreading it as meaning "even if not needed". — kwami (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So does "iso3 or lc1 parameter" always produce an automatic reference? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is an
iso3
field, then when you enter 'e15' or 'e16' underref
, theiso3
field will be used to locate the corresponding page at Ethnologue, and place it in a footnote in the ref section. That is, the appropriate Ethnologue page has already been identified, and a ref to it can be automatically generated. However, if there is noiso3
field, thenref
produces a generic Ethnologue reference. Alc1/ld1
field means that the info box already links to at least one page at Ethnologue, but there may be several, and the template can't know if one is more important, so an generic Ethnologue ref is appropriate; however, if there is neitheriso3
nor alc/ld
series, then we have no covert reference to Ethnologue in the info box and there's no reason to think one would be appropriate as a footnote. It's possible that some day we'll want to generate footnotes for the other refs in the box (linglist, etc.), but we're not set up for that right now. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is an
- So does "iso3 or lc1 parameter" always produce an automatic reference? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, just clarifying what "needed" means, since people have been misreading it as meaning "even if not needed". — kwami (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Back to reference section discussion then [12]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- re 2: "no opportunity" is too vague to possibly be approved by BAG, since it could encompass almost anything, and there would be no way to tell if it had approval. Will the task at least be limited to changes that would be made by the most recent version of AWB? Why isn't this mentioned in the task spec? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As for (2), this is more than just a cosmetic change. I had a problem with an article just last night where I added an alternate name to the template and it wouldn't display. I had composed a request for help at the tech desk and was just about to hit 'save' when I realized that it was because there already was an (empty) alt name param in the template, down at the bottom and out of order so that I hadn't seen it. That wasted 20 minutes of my time, and nearly wasted the time of the people at the help desk as well. I would appreciate it if all the params were ordered according to the template documentation. Failing that, at least the ones we're working on should be in their expected order. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added request (7) for deleting an obsolete parameter but keeping the data in it (merging w the preceding field). This will affect 284 articles. If not approved, I'll finish up w AWB (already started).
- If we're going to put all the params in order, then we should have some way to handle params that are not supported by the template documentation. I suggest these be ordered at the end and that an error template be added, so that they can be cleaned up manually. Adding as part (8). — kwami (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So...? — kwami (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- re Function Details 8 and 9: adding the tracking category can (and should) be done in the template code. Checking for obsolete/misspelled parameters used too, if one knows the parameter name. So for these no bot operation is required. I suggest we continue this on Template talk:Infobox language. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to add temp code to the template to catch parameters that are 'none of the above', great; I don't think I know how to do that. There shouldn't be too many, because I cleaned it up last year. But flags: that's a simple bot operation. — kwami (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest closure because Rich and Helpful Pixie Bot have been blocked for a month because Rich violated his editing restrictions. Link to block. Rcsprinter (shout) 11:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have an appropriate closure tag and this BRFA isn't really "closed", just delayed; so I took the BRFA off the main list until the bot operator returns to this BRFA without prejudice to continue. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Rich is the only one running bots on WP?
- But why close? Are we approved to run once Rich gets back? Or will we simply postpone having a bunch of people think up why we shouldn't process a simple bot request? — kwami (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kwami, this bot page is about Helpful Pixie Bot 48, which is run by Rich Farmbrough. He picked up the initial request. At the moment RF cannot discuss here, so it has to wait. I don't know about correct procedure in this, but maybe you can ask this BRFA to be declined for this reason, and ask another botoperator to pick up the original request (adjusted). -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. Sorry, I forgot where I was. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kwami, this bot page is about Helpful Pixie Bot 48, which is run by Rich Farmbrough. He picked up the initial request. At the moment RF cannot discuss here, so it has to wait. I don't know about correct procedure in this, but maybe you can ask this BRFA to be declined for this reason, and ask another botoperator to pick up the original request (adjusted). -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So the new specification is complete. Summary we have consensus. Next step should be a trial. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Did you address the issue that was raised about adding empty references sections?
- The spec says nothing at all about changes other than 1–9. That should mean that no other changes will be made to the articles, right? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes we have said that empty reference sections will not be added until a reference is added.
- No the bot will perform any other tasks that it is authorised for simultaneously, and also make changes in line with WP:COMSETICBOT.
- Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Re #1: if no reference section is added, what is the benefit of performing the rest of the task (7 and 8)? Those seem like just cosmetic edits.
- Re #2, that seems quite vague. What changes exactly will be made? Will they all be changes that are part of the latest version of AWB? The request needs to be as complete as possible - and at the moment it does not mention any cosmetic changes at all. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re #1 it seems like you oppose the task if it does add a ref section and opposed if it doesn't yet you are willing to offer to do it yourself. This leaves me somewhat confused. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Actually it was Headbomb who opposed it if the reference section was empty. I offered to do it under the assumption we could also add the reference at the same time, but then the person who requested the edits said that wasn't possible, so I backed out due to Headbomb's comments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the previously mentioned concerns I think number 9 seems a bit vague. Other than that I would suggest that if HPB is there editing the article anyway, it should be allowed to perform other approved general edits (such as dating maintenance tags). Other than CBM trying to pick holes in the BRFA I see no valid reason why approved tasks should not be allowed. Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it was Headbomb who opposed it if the reference section was empty. I offered to do it under the assumption we could also add the reference at the same time, but then the person who requested the edits said that wasn't possible, so I backed out due to Headbomb's comments. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re #1 it seems like you oppose the task if it does add a ref section and opposed if it doesn't yet you are willing to offer to do it yourself. This leaves me somewhat confused. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Denied. per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough#Rich Farmbrough prohibited from using automation, with no prejudice on the task being carried out by another bot operator, or by RF if the editting restrictions are lifted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 15 May 2012 (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.