Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HtonlBot

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.

HtonlBot

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Htonl (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 14:58, Sunday July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Here - custom script requiring pywikipedia.

Function overview: Replace {{WikiProject Africa|South Africa=yes}} with {{WikiProject South Africa}}, where appropriate.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject South Africa#Talk page template; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa#WikiProject South Africa banner template

Edit period(s): One-time run

Estimated number of pages affected: Around 10,000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: In the past, WikiProject South Africa tagged its articles with the {{WikiProject Africa}} banner with the parameter |South Africa=yes. We have now introduced our own project banner, {{WikiProject South Africa}}. This bot will traverse Category:WikiProject South Africa articles and, subject to certain conditions, replace {{WikiProject Africa}} with {{WikiProject South Africa}}.

It will only perform such a replacement on pages which:

1. are in one of the Talk, Wikipedia talk, File talk, Template talk, Category talk, Portal talk or Book talk namespaces; and
2. contain {{WikiProject Africa}} (either under that name or one of its redirects), and:
   1. the |South Africa= parameter is set to a non-empty value other than "no"; and
   2. no other parameter is set to indicate the article's association with another African national wikiproject; and
   3. no other task force parameter is set, except those for the protected areas and military history task forces.

When performing the replacement, it will transfer parameter values from the old to the new template as follows:

1. The |class=, |attention=, |auto=, |needs-infobox=, |listas=, and |small= parameters, if they are set, will be transferred unchanged.
2. If |South Africa-importance= is set, its value will be transferred to |importance=; otherwise the value of |importance= will be transferred.
3. With regard to the protected areas and military history task force parameters, the values will be transferred to the corresponding but differently-named parameters. - htonl (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't you just use the existing parameter to trigger a transclusion of the new template? Then you wouldn't have to edit all this pages. I would like to see this question answered before a trial commences. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

No, because there are both articles on which only the {{WikiProject South Africa}} banner should appear (as in the vast majority of articles relating to purely South African topics), and articles on transnational topics on which it should appear alongside the {{WikiProject Africa}} template (for example Talk:Orange River, where the Lesotho and Namibia projects still use the Africa banner). It would also make the coding of the Africa banner considerably more complicated; as WP:RSA adds new task forces it would become, in my opinion, unacceptably so. We would be trying to glom two separate templates into one with a bit of ParserFunctions hackery. - htonl (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In which case, does WP:AFRICA know that it is about to be removed from 10,000 articles? - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 15:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not yet; I'll inform it if you like, though I should point out that it is being removed for exactly the same reason that WP:EUROPE is not included on every article associated with WP:UK, WP:NORTHAMERICA is not included on every article associated with WP:USA, and so on. - htonl (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Notified. - htonl (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProjects are allowed to associate themselves with whichever articles they like. WPBIO is intentionally broad, for example. Anyway, good call on the notification. Best to wait now for a bit. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 08:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Woops, I did not realize it would remove the original banner. That should be decided by the project if it is to be done. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

So, we've gone for a week and there've been no responses from WP:AFRICA (except for NJR and he was already involved). Can I run this for a 50-article trial now? - htonl (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Two weeks now and still no responses on WP:AFRICA. Please can htonl get approval for a 50-article trial. We would really like to start getting the South African articles in shape. --NJR_ZA (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

{{BAG assistance needed}}

Hm? I don't understand the hurry. You have your categories, this request is just to alter the visual display of the template.

I'm still not completely happy about the need, but we can have a technical trial for now Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 17:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Trial complete. - htonl (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Looking over the contribs for this run, I am happy with how this went. I am of the opinion that this bot should be approved. Any other opinions? SQL^{Query me!} 05:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well at least I can outline an alternative:

• All new instances use the new template
• The WP:AFRICA template is updated so that it actually displays as South Africa
• Over time, the number of articles reliant on the kludge is reduced gradually, e.g. by replacing when assessing as part of an assessment drive.

This would increase the WP:AFRICA template burden, but drastically reduce the number of edits required.

- Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 09:37, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion - an implementation like that would just require a further fix down the road. I'd rather get it over with now, and fixed. That being said, are there any objections to approving this bot? SQL^{Query me!} 08:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

To make {{AfricaProject}} do that - basically, to implement the logic that the bot follows, but in ParserFunctions - would be unpleasantly complicated. - htonl (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I am with SQL on this one – a single (relatively) quick bot run and the problem is done, resolved, etc., and we won't have to deal with unnecessary template ugliness or a long-term process that can be resolved with a rather short-term fix. — The Earwig ^(talk) 08:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree about the time issue. New projects usually begin with some sort of (usually one man) assessment drive, and so that may eliminate half the bot burden. WP:PERF and all that, but edits on this sort of scale do have costs. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Although it's not a new project, User:NJR ZA has been doing a sort of one-man assessment drive. But he did a lot of that assessment using the old Africa template before the new template was introduced. I've also reduced the burden somewhat by changing redirects like {{WP South Africa}} to point at the new template; we're down to about 8000 potential bot edits now. - htonl (talk) 12:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how many edits/second are we looking at for this task? SQL^{Query me!} 08:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:BOTPOL prescribes a rate of one edit every ten seconds for non-urgent tasks, so I was planning to follow that. - htonl (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• One edit every 10 seconds sounds perfectly reasonable for this one-time task.  Approved. SQL^{Query me!} 07:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

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.