Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MandelBot

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was

Approved.

MandelBot[edit]

Operator: User:J JMesserly

Automatic or Manually Assisted:

Replace.py edits- page at a time, sometimes by cat or trancluded template

Programming Language(s): Python, using the Hooft and Engel's libraries. Conventional libary use is the likely near term usage pattern, but if I do anything fancy, I'll leave a notice on the Bot main page to explain. I have executed very large scale bot runs in the past under a former pseudonym both here and at the wikias. I don't imagine I will be doing anything that scale here, but I do understand server loading issues and will defer runs if there are significant lags in response.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Periodic automatic or fully manual prompted regex replace operation, depending on the complexity of differences of date use.

Bot flag requested: (Y/N): Yes It is anticipated that as particular wikiprojects approve upgrade from old style {{birth date}} and {{death date}} may be switched over to new syntax {{birth-date}}, then edits could number in the thousands. MOSNUM guidelines (discussion) state that the new template is preferred for specifying birth and death dates, but a large number of articles still use older numeric format template.

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

Functions:

Manually assisted replace- usually just to date and location fields of infoboxes. No visual changes to articles, the changes add templates that emit microformat data that allow new functionality like mapping and exporting historical information from wikipedia articles. For more info, see User:J JMesserly/start-date wtf. This date template is approved over the alternative by the vast majority of responders at Manual of style dates and numbers group .
This bot will be used to upgrade an old style template to a new style template in automated mode. EG:
{{death date and age|1864|5|12|1833|2|6|df=y}} becomes

{{death-date and age|12 May 12 1864|6 February 1833|df=y}}

This particular bot has been in operation at Commons- the first run was an approved cat move (compliance with a standard naming convention) affecting 1500 pages with no complaints from users of anomalies. No such large runs are anticipated on wikipedia at this time, and will go through the normal bot process if that changes.

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ST47 (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I am requesting re-approval for trial in automated mode. Note edits above reflecting this change in request[1]. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The concensus opinion from the prior discussion almost universally supported the less complicated syntax of the new templates." Could we have some links please, for the record? - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 19:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those were at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_120#Free_form_way_of_specifying_dates To summarize the respondents:

Gerry Ashton strongly approved based on handling of Julian
Ohconfucius "completely agree"
Tony1 "The community takes a conservative line now on needless complications in date formatting."
Pigsonthewing does not favor deprecation of the old template, but did not make the argument that the old template was preferable over the new template.
MOSNUM enjoys heavy participation, and there was only one in opposition, and this was to deprecating the old template, not opposition to the new template or switching from old to new. The MOSNUM page currently reflects guidance suggesting the new instead of the old template.

With all that said, MOSNUM is insuffcient for any large scale changes as evidenced by the recent arbcom dispute over delinking. Neither it nor Bot requests for approval is the correct place to seek consensus for such changes. For this reason, announcement will be made in advance of changes affecting the wikiprojects touched. EG: I would go to the biography wikiproject and seek concensus of switchover of all articles using Infobox Rabbi and the old date templates. I would not proceed with the change until a few days had passed to solicit any POVs in opposition. I have already manually changed the infobox documentation for all the biography infoboxes suggesting the old template, as well as conducted manual switchover of small numbers of old templates. I received some inquiries (see my talk page) but all appear satisfied with my explanation. The only revert that survives is the wrestler infobox doc but he appears to be willing to live with the change.

-J JMesserly (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This updated bot function summary is

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. under same terms as the previous trial. ST47 (talk) 20:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) The Bot run approved above was delayed due to a controversy I became aware of in March that possibly is an indirect result of passions fanned over the recent arbcom imbroglio over the unrelated but vaguely similar issues of date linking and autoformatting. Anyway, in March MOSNUM discussions, it became clear that the proposal to add dates using natural language was more controversial than the discussion in February (cited above) revealed- at least for a small minority of editors who have posted. I am progressing to eliminate objections on this score, but as can be appreciated, building a solid consensus is exceptionally time consuming. Although the proposed run would have only added the new template to articles that did not use any date template and probably would not have been objected to, I think it best I ask for approval of a new proposal.

New proposal: MandelBot will convert articles using {{Birth-year}} and {{Death-year}} to use the {{Birth-date}} and {{Death-date}}. Birth-year and Death-year were written by myself, and are in reality front ends for Birth-date /Death-date. They are now obsolete, and this conversion is a maintenance procedure. It is hard to imagine how it could be controversial. With approval of this proposal, I can proceed without delay. Sorry for the inaction on the earlier run. Prudence dictated that I not proceed until the controversy was settled. Regards -J JMesserly (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. under the newly-modified proposal. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I assume that was the intent. Yes. I intended to get to this small run last weekend, but with 4 children, sometimes events take a different turn than planned. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BotTrial done. -MandelBot (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Everything looks as expected. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.