Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fti74Bot

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.

Fti74Bot

Operator: Fti74 (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 19:24, Thursday December 9, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually assisted

Programming language(s): shell script thru api.php

Source code available:

Function overview: specific replacement of deprecated infobox person parameters as described in Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters

Edit period(s): when I am available to run it, up to 5 day a week I think.

Estimated number of pages affected: Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters says 28'000 articles. Usually I do not edit much more than a hundred a day and not every day so 28'000 should take about a year.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N):

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details: take a file as input (manually created from Category:Infobox_person_using_deprecated_parameters) consisting of article using deprecated params. For each article :

download current version,
check if change are in the bot's scope,
do changes ,
saves modification using timestamp check,
opens a browser for the user to check that everything's ok

Discussion

I have used this bot for about a month under my main account and while discussing with someone else, I discovered his account was linked to bot accounts. I thought it would be better to segregate my real edits from those. This bot already cleared under my account:

Category:Infobox_islands_using_deprecated_parameters (over 900 articles cleaned)
Category:Unusual_parameters_of_Infobox_train_template (over 500 articles cleaned)

So what this task does is look for |birth date=, |birthdate=, |date_of_birth=, |date of birth=, and |dateofbirth= syntaxes and changes them to |birth_name= syntax? And this applies to |birth_name= |birth_date=, |birth_place=, |death_date=, and |death_place= fields. What do you do for conflicting cases, for example, both |birth date= and |birth_date= are used? Are there going to be any other changes to the page? Also any reason this cannot be fully automated? Are there any "special" cases that need human attention? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Task: Yes, the job is to replace deprecated parameters by non deprecated ones. No other change is supposed to happen. Before editing, a check is done to ensure the non deprecated param is not present (i.e. check there's no |birth_place= if there's |place of birth=).

Also please note that nothing is done regarding |birth_name= and parameters alike as it is not flagged as deprecated (which is IMHO a bit inconsistent with other deprecated ones). My purpose is not to edit the template itself but rather to standardize its use and allow people brave enough to change a template used by thousands of articles to do their job more easily. So I stick to the definition of deprecated parameters.

Why half automated: The job is half automated for two reasons.

Firstly just because I know from my professional experience that even carefully written code can sometime have bugs. So for the time being, as I did for the previous month when I ran the bot under my account to clean Island infobox and Train infobox (over 1400 articles cleaned)) I prefer running it and manually check for the consistency of it. I don't want to have to retro edits hundreds of wrong edits. That's also why I hardly do more than 1 edit per minute, just no to keep with the bot pace)

Secondly, while looking at article I sometimes feel the need for extra edits. For instance, I switched the gauge description in Train infobox campaign from plain text to {{RailGauge| template and during the Island infobox campaign I transformed at times plain text measurements using convert template (i.e. 20km into {{convert|20|km|abbr=on|0}}).

Need for human expertise ?: To my knowledge, in the Person infobox there's no case where human expertise should be required. The job is quite simple.

Regards Fti74 (talk) 16:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You mention feeling the need for "extra edits", please just remember that part of the reason for having a separate bot account is to separate the contributions (so the human is not cluttering their contributions with bot-like or bot edits). So the bot should only make edits which come under approved tasks (per bot policy), making other edits from the bot account is confusing and difficult to spot. You are of course free to make them from your own account. Apparently, this change doesn't actually change the page output (before, after). The infobox template can cope with people using the supposedly "deprecated" parameters. So please explain why this is a benefit (bearing in mind that this is a lot of edits, so they need a good justification). Also, please leave a note of this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your remarks. Extra edits would be made under my own account, my bot account would only do what it is supposed to do: switching away from deprecated params. As for the impact of the bot's work: you're 100% right, it is not supposed to have any user noticeable impact on the edited articles. I supposed the task would be useful to the template maintenance team so they can focus their work away from a wide range of various params. That's why I think they created the Person infobox category page. That's also why I did exactly the same for two other templates : Category:Infobox_islands_using_deprecated_parameters and Category:Unusual_parameters_of_Infobox_train_template.

In the present case, the number of articles (>28'000) means that without a bot, the situation will never be settled. I can not see any further justification as I am in no way responsible for those parameters being deprecated.

Anyway I can fully understand your point. If you feel that so much edits are not worth it, so be it. I can cope with disappointment ;-)

Fti74 (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs wider discussion. Alright, so the way I see it there is no actual discussion or consensus that all the deprecated fields are to be replaced by bot while being the only change to the article. As far as I understand, using a deprecated field does not break the template, so renaming the fields does not alter the output. Not actually changing the output is by default against bot usage unless the community thinks it should be done. Which brings me back to that I don't see any actual discussion on this. This may be better suited for AWB genfixes or sub-task of another task. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment, "Not actually changing the output is by default against bot usage unless the community thinks it should be done.?" Link? You seem to be implying that "deprecation" of templates is not done by the community? How are templates deprecated otherwise?? Why would the bot have to do anything besides replace deprecated templates? Standardization of 28,000 articles is the type of task that should be done by bots all of the time. It will be more error-free, and it can possibly be done to all articles, while allowing human editors to make the types of edits that require human input. No one is going to manually, or AWB-assisted, correct multiple deprecated templates in 10s of thousands of articles. Using a variety of templates, deprecated, non-deprecated, makes articles harder to edit. Standardized templates across areas of articles makes it easier for editors to get used to editing wikipedia articles, they recognize the sample parameters in similar articles. This task appears to be designed for a bot to do.

~~I don't agree with the call for more input, though. Anyone who feels that more input is needed should always request it. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

This is not template, but individual field deprecation. I never implied this is not done by community. I implied this should not be done by bots as the only edit to the page. Unless there is at least rough consensus that this should be done. Even template redirects aren't usually bypassed unless there are other changes to the page. Another BAG member expressed this concern and suggested posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes, but it seems no discussion was initiated. Bot tasks must adhere to policies, and if there is no policy directly relevant to the task, then a discussion is in order. That's what I implied. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Posted an invite to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Infoboxes#Bot to rename deprecated Infobox person fields. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be better left to AWB genfixes or to a subtask of another bot. But it definitely should not be the only change made to pages. -DJSasso (talk) 13:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Djsasso. Just because something is deprecated does not mean that it must be removed, it just means that its use should not be continued. Unless there's a good reason why this needs to be done quickly, I think the "cosmetic changes" section in WP:BOTPOL applies here. Mr.Z-man 22:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. After a month's time it has not been demonstrated that the bot adheres to the relevant policies. In this case: WP:Bot policy "Cosmetic changes should only be applied when there is a substantial change to make at the same time." Three BAG members and another editor have expressed this concern. Operator and another editor expressed the usefulness of this task. However, per "[bot] performs only tasks for which there is consensus", rough consensus is against the implementation of this task. The lack of broad input even after wider discussion request and subsequent publicizing leads to believe there is no necessity for quick action. On the other hand, no arguments were given against the task per se. Therefore, the operator is free to reopen this request as a minor change that would be performed together with another substantive edit. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:03, 9 January 2011 (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.