Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 24

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.

Theo's Little Bot 24

Operator: Theopolisme (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:20, Sunday July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: who do you think i am?

Function overview: Converts publication_date parameter in {{infobox poem}} to use {{start date}}. If unable to convert, adds the page to Category:Poem_publication_dates_needing_manual_review.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): bot request

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Nope

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: For all pages that transclude {{infobox poem}}:

if publication_date is present and actually contains a date:
- parses the date into a datetime object using the dateutil Python module
  - prints this date out into {{start date}}, with df parameter == y if the original format was DD Month YYYY
  - updates publication_date to be equal to the start date template with an html comment saying it was bot generated
if the bot was unable to parse, adds the page to hidden category Category:Poem_publication_dates_needing_manual_review

Discussion

Support as requester. There is clear community consensus for this action. Perhaps need to make the tracking category more generic, for use on other infoboxes in futiure? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to ask why you thought it needed to be more generic when you edit-conflicted me with an explanation. :) Sure, Category:Pages with infobox parameters needing manual conversion to start date... jeez, talk about unwieldiness. Any [more concise] ideas? Theopolisme (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps Category:Infoboxes needing manual conversion to use start date ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sounds like a winner. Theopolisme (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} A trial, perhaps? Theopolisme (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Sorry for the delay. The template has few transclusions, so we'll go for a short trial. — Earwig ^talk 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Trial complete. Edits. The only issue was that, when restarted, it retagged [1] as being unparseable; I fixed this by checking first that the article wasn't tagged. Theopolisme (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two things:
    1. This one looks like you could've parsed it fine with a small change to your algorithm (since you're using mwparserfromhell, add a strip_code() method call to the value of |publication_date= before you run it through parser.parser().parse(), but after you check for {{start date}} or the category, since it will strip those too).
    2. You shouldn't be changing parameter names here. It doesn't matter with {{chess diagram}} since that template seems to ignore those parameters anyway, but in other cases, this would break stuff. Again, looks related to mwparserfromhell; make sure you're updated to at least version 0.2, since it was fixed for that release.
  - Other than that, looks good. — Earwig ^talk 02:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated to the latest version of mwpfh, and modified the algorithm per your suggestion. Theopolisme (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Approved. Looks good. — Earwig ^talk 03:15, 2 August 2013 (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.