Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RWHbot

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 Request Expired.

RWHbot - church[edit]

Operator: RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 2011 February 11, Friday 17:10 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: source code

Function overview: Perform this edit on pages that use template:oscoor within Template:Infobox church.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): No objections raised in Template talk:Infobox church during the last ten days. A positive response near the bottom of this discussion. Several mods done manually with no objections.

Edit period(s): One time run, probably less than an hour.

Estimated number of pages affected: 370 - those classified edit type 4 in this list

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No - I believe that, none of the pages involved carry exclusion tags.

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details:

Discussion[edit]

Why is this preferable to modifying the template so the two flags call the same subroutine? One could add a note to the documentation that oscoor is now superseded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you explain your proposal more clearly please? — RWHbot (talk · contribs) 17:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please edit from your main account. Thanks! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs wider discussion. Per WP:BOTPOL, please provide a link to policy/guideline/discussion about the necessity of converting plain oscoor value to the template. Additionally, 2 editors is insufficient in determining consensus to run this task by bot. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as with my support for the windmill task. This sort of repetitive, technical information, should be added and/or updated by bot, since automated tasks are much less prone to error. Items which contain series of numbers, as coordinates do, are especially prone to human error (it's just the nature of humanity...).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is not adding any information, which is being added now; it is changing which template is used to format the addition, within a master template. That can be done by changing the arguments used to call the master template, each time it is invoked; or it can be done by editing the master template and finishing the job. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from SpinningSpark if an editor informs you that they think your bot has made a mistake, what action will you take? SpinningSpark 17:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 20:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RWHbot - windmill[edit]

Operator: RHaworth (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 2011 February 21, Monday 11:51 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: source code

Function overview: Perform this edit to articles using parameter location_of_mill in template:infobox windmill.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): A reasonably positive response by one of the chief creators of windmill articles here. Several mods done manually during the last five days with no objections.

Edit period(s): One time run, probably less than an hour.

Estimated number of pages affected: 220 - those marked edit type 'a' in this list

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function details:

Discussion[edit]

Unexceptional, move to more standard approach, should be speedy trialled. Rich Farmbrough, 17:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

  • This is unexceptionable? Use of bots to impose one editor's stylistic preferences is most undesirable; at least, somebody who holds the presentist view that degrees, minutes, and seconds of arc are outmoded should have to go through as much work as any editor who disagrees with him will have to to revert this. A single comment (which actually describes the change as "the only problem I can see") is not enough to make sweeping changes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sure you would agree that a uniform presentation of co-ordinates is desirable and the changes applied help to do that. As to editorial convenience, it is perfectly possible to add alternative parameters to template:infobox windmill which will accept dms coords. As to display preference, this is best controlled by the user's own css - see these instructions. Or for, non-logged in users the template could be changed if there was a consensus. — RWHbot (talk · contribs) 17:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, actually, I don't agree.
      • I object most strongly to the line of reasoning "we must all do it MY way so we can all be uniform." Uniformity on picayune details is not worth very much - and would be equally well attainable by conversion into degrees, minutes and seconds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Needs wider discussion. Similar to the first BRFA, per WP:BOTPOL, please provide a link to policy/guideline/discussion about the necessity to convert coordinate field to oscoor field. Also, similarly, a single response from project coordinator is insufficient in determining consensus to run this task by bot. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great bot task (PMA's unthinking, ideological response above notwithstanding). I support approval.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the personal attack here; I thought for some time about both the substantive change proposed, and about the propriety of employing a bot. Upon reconsideration, I retain the position that the change is valueless but controversial. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question from SpinningSpark if an editor informs you that they think your bot has made a mistake, what action will you take? SpinningSpark 18:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz talk 20:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any news? MBisanz talk 01:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any news? MBisanz talk 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request Expired. Without prejudice to a later BRFA. MBisanz talk 23:14, 19 June 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/RWHbot&oldid=1073123699"