Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.

Lightbot 12

[edit]

Operator: Lightmouse (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): AWB, monobook, vector, manual

Source code available: Source code for monobook or vector are available. Source code for AWB will vary but versions are often also kept as user pages.

Function overview: Janitorial edits to units of temperature

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
This request duplicates the 'units of measure' section of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3. That BRFA was very similar to the two previous approvals: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot and Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2.

Edit period(s): Multiple runs. Often by batch based on preprocessed list of selected target articles.

Estimated number of pages affected: Individual runs of tens, or hundreds, or thousands.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes, will comply with 'nobots'

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No

Function details:

  1. Edits may add conversions to units of temperature e.g. "64 degrees Fahrenheit" -> "64 °F (18 °C)"
  2. Edits may edit the format or spelling of units of temperature e.g. "18 celcius" -> "18 degrees Celsius"
  3. Edits may remove links to units of temperature in accordance with Wikipedia:Link#What_generally_should_not_be_linked e.g. "64 °F (18 °C)" -> "64 °F (18 °C)"

Discussion

[edit]

To move this BRFA forward, per WP:BOTPOL ("performs only tasks for which there is consensus"; "carefully adheres to relevant policies and guidelines"), please provide link(s) to the relevant policy/guideline/consensus that this task should be both performed and performed by an automated bot. The three BRFAs linked do not provide such links.

Additionally, apologies for posting the same message for all your current BRFAs. I hope you understand the necessity for this from BRFA/BAG/comunity standpoint, given that there are few active BAG members and BAG is too often getting the stick for having approved non-consensus tasks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. I don't mind the repetition, it's inevitable.
A relevant guideline is at:
  • mosnum - Unit symbols "Where English-speaking countries use different units for the same measurement, follow the "primary" unit with a conversion in parentheses."
  • wp:link - What generally should not be linked "Units of measurement which are common only in some parts of the English-speaking world need not be linked if they are accompanied by a conversion to units common in the rest of it, as in 18 °C (64 °F), as almost all readers of the English Wikipedia would be able to understand at least one of the two measures."
The guideline is stable and has existed in various forms for a long time. The three previous successful approvals (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_2, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_4) have successfully done many thousands of edits along these lines. There is also the recent approval (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_5) that converts feet, this request merely seeks to add temperature to the scope. Other editors and I have done many edits along these lines over a long period. I'm sure I could find examples of temperature conversions in contributions list but it would be easier just to demonstrate with new edits.
Please can we move to a 50 edit trial? Lightmouse (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lightmouse above. I think it's time for a trial. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk 22:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Style changes by bot are always dubious; in this case, when a temperature has already been converted once in a paragraph (this is particularly likely to happen with 100°C), it is pure cost to the reader's attention to interrupt again to inform him that that equals 212° F.

  • Therefore, does this bot have a subroutine which prevents it revert-warring with a human editor who disagrees with its choice of conversions or the precision with which to convert?

A similar question applies to the other two proposals above; but if the answer is yes here, the question need not be repeated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • How does the bot decide what is suitable for conversion and what isn't?
  • How does it handle things found within quotations such as Bob said "John, that room is over 150 Celcius, don't go in."?

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1. Suitability for conversion. As the human supervisor, I make the decision within the constraints of mosnum. Temperature conversions can be seen in the Featured Article Kent,_Ohio. I'm fairly certain that I didn't convert them but I'd probably do it like that.
Question 2. How to avoid quotes.
This is a frequent question in bot applications. For some time now, AWB has been able to hide quotes, see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/General_fixes#Text_hiding. It doesn't catch 100% but since it's been introduced I've only seen a handful of quotes that AWB can't cope with. As the human superviser, I've caught these quotes and formatted them correctly (thereby making an incidental improvement to the article for future readers and editors). I wish this feature of AWB were more widely known outside the AWB user community.
I forgot to mention list management. This is also a major feature of AWB. You can't run AWB (as far as I know) without managing at least one article lists. Target lists and whitelists are all routine. Thus I may create a list of Californian city articles (e.g. from a category), purge the list based on a variety of measures, then run the code. Since the list is of similar articles, the peculiarities are all going to be similar. This makes it easier to make bespoke amendments to the code and to spot domain specific issues.
Lightmouse (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, since these are semi-automated changes, here's the deal

  • Fixing overlinking is fine
  • Changing formatting/spelling (18 Celcius to 18 degrees Celcius, or similar) is fine
  • Changing "64 °F" to "64 °F (18 °C)" is something that absolutely needs review per WP:MOSCONVERSIONS. Not everything needs to be converted, and especially not every at instance. Approval here would mean that you're cleared to do a great number of such edits, provided they are reviewed, not that you're cleared to do such edits whenever possible.

Keeping in mind that mistakes do happen, if this reviewing process is at any given time deficient or lacking, or that the bot keeps introducing conversions into articles which are agreed to not require conversions, the bot may be blocked per WP:BOTPOL or WP:DISRUPT respectively until the concerns have been addressed and resolved. With that being said, Approved for trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible false positive: 4169 Celsius. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Trial complete. See Trial edits. Edit summary is 'L12. Janitorial edits to units of temperature' Lightmouse (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It adds a space before the temperature symbol. Lightmouse (talk)
Ah I see it now. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where I add the template, it'll do it by default. I'll update the code to target cases like that where the change is in text. I won't promise 100% hit rate on little short lines. Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can foresee difficulties with delivering acceptable performance on that task. Can I leave it? Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although it would be nice if you included this along the rest. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's on the list of things I'd like to do. Lightmouse (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That's what it should have done. I'll investigate. Lightmouse (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've got a fix for cases like that where editors have failed to say 'degree'. Please can I have another 50 edit trial to try it out? Lightmouse (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Sure. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.Done. See: [1]. Edit summary is L12. units of temperature. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • [2] Could have picked up a minus here. (Just mentioning it as a POI 'cause it's a different case than above)
Thanks. Dashes appear in negatives and in ranges. It's an increase in scope on the wishlist that I'm not ready for yet. After I'm let loose and have more experience with the process and code, I may do a dedicated run for these where the human can watch closely at just one issue. In order to keep things safe and simple for the generic multi-issue process/code, I try to avoid touching them unless adding a conversion or the human is intervening. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [3] Stick to articles.
That was an error. Thanks for picking it up. The scope does need to go beyond articles (e.g. templates, captions in files, captions in categories) but I avoid talk and Wikipedia namespaces. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [4] º should be converted to °
This is similar to the dash issue. It's an increase in scope on the wishlist that I'm not ready for yet. The future solution is likely to be a dedicated run. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [5] Consider inserting non-breaking spaces (example diff, there are obviously zillion cases like this). AWB would.
You brought this up in another BRFA. It's an increase in scope that I'd rather not accept. I don't like nbsp as a method of controlling wrapping. Where the template is used, the wrapping is controlled without nbsp in the article. And, as you say, AWB does it in general fixes so other editors/bots will do it. I hope that's ok. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [6]. Not that I care much about this, but any reason why the convert templates aren't used?
The process and code are designed to avoid adding a conversion where one already exists. I do make frequent human interventions to replace conversions that have problems (e.g. accuracy, precision, format, verbose). Like you, I'm a fan of the template but it hadn't ever occured to me to set out to replace existing conversions with the template. It's not trivial, I'd have to capture two numerica values and compare with the template arithmetic. If there's a difference, I'd have to look up the template parameters to find a match. If there's no match, I'd have to assume the previous conversion was an error. It would require a lot of human oversight just to get started. It could be something for the future. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the responses above make sense. Lightmouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Please be sure to keep the edits within the approval, and also be responsive to any concerns raised by members of the community. --Chris 10:17, 25 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_12&oldid=1073124015"