Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SoxBot 22

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.

SoxBot 22[edit]

Operator: X!

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: Will release upon request

Function overview: Per BOTREQ, creating books for elements.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Books_for_chemical_elements

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 115 Book, 115 Book talk, ~~115 × 2 articles~~, 115 categories.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Details are located at the botreq.

Discussion[edit]

BTW, you can skip Book:Hydrogen, Book:Helium, Book:Lithium (and the work related to those books) since these exist and they and their articles and categories are already tagged with all the relevant templates. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X! is such a goody two-shoes with his acquiescing to the BAG's desire to regulate the operation of Wikipedia bots. As a new member of this regulatory scheme, I really appreciate it. I've notified the WikiProject Elements and if there is no objection to me doing so, I will approve this bot for a 20-page trial in five or so days. @harej 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? With a new BAG member, I can afford to file all the BRFAs I can now! :D (X! · talk) · @066 · 00:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The bot already has been discussed, and examples of books using the logic have been build. It would be better to let it run from element 3 4 to element 8 9 (rather than 20 pages) so we can see if the bot works as planned and if there's something we overlooked. The delay is unnecessary, IMO. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to run from 4 through 9, because Lithium's already been done? (X! · talk) · @067 · 00:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yes. Brainfart. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a test that included some of the heavier elements tested; iron, copper, gold and uranium have a lot of associated articles that ought to expose weaknesses in the underlying algorithm/specification. Josh Parris 01:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one of the heavier elements would be okay to test, but I can't see how it will make any errors, as it draws entirely from the category. Any errors would result from the members of the category being incorrect. Still, it's not impacting main space or users, the operator's competent, it's got support, and imo, it could have a fairly quick test run of a few more elements. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 03:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that the bot would recurse through the sub-categories. Given this isn't the case, these heavier element articles won't stress anything. Josh Parris 10:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (6 books). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (elements 4-9). Please notify this page when this has been completed. @harej 02:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done 6 books. (X! · talk) · @901 · 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the taggings with the ~~banners~~ and {{Wikipedia-Books}} [only for categories]? Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I found some problems. The books themselves are fine. However, the talk pages are not up to snuff. They should contain

{{WBOOKS|class=book}}
{{WP Elements|class=book}}

but instead contain the same thing as the book itself. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you've deleted Aluminium-27 from the book; does this mean redirects in the category ought not be included, or ought not be included if the redirect target is also in the category? Josh Parris 18:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium-27 was in the book because it wasn't a redirect at the time (I made it a redirect after the book was created). The original request said to not include the isotopes redirects, so the bot worked just fine there. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It includes the isotopes that aren't redirects, I see. I don't see any issues with this bot. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 06:55, 14 January 2010 (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.