Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot 12

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.

GreenC bot 12[edit]

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

Time filed: 14:34, Tuesday, March 12, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): GNU Awk and Botwikiawk framework

Source code available: User:GreenC bot/Job 12/source

Function overview: Add Template:Austria population Wikidata to infoboxes

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time

Estimated number of pages affected: 2100

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Example edit - it replaces existing hard-coded data with the template that displays it dynamically pulled in from WikiData.

Discussion[edit]

@GreenC: my reading of the TFD does not match the request's interpretation. From the TfD you linked: The population should either be directly placed on the page or stored in WikiData., from the request you linked: deleted with a consensus that they (the old templates) should be replaced by WikiData figures. A far as the example edit goes, you are replacing "directly placed" and cited values with a template. Are you validating that the template's values are more recent and even that they actually contain data? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by what eh bien mon prince requested be done and what looks like the obvious best solution even though there is not a huge amount of discussion it didn't seem like something that would be controversial. I assume the data exists in WikiData (I asked eh bien mon prince in the Bot Request page for "a WikiData query listing names of articles on enwiki that are ready to use the template" and that query works but it is only verifying one of the fields not all five). The bot is currently not polling WikiData to verify data existence. eh bien mon prince do you think that is necessary, or did you load the data into WikiData yourself and confident it is there? Or can we make a more comprehensive query to verify all five exist for each? -- GreenC 16:37, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concerns are that this could result in less total, cited, or accurate data being presented in our articles - and how we are going to ensure that is avoided. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is a valid concern. Will wait to see what eh bien mon prince thinks in terms of where the WikiData data came from and if it is up to date and accurate compared to on-wiki. -- GreenC 18:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a stricter query that checks for area, population and verifies that the date matches the one from the source. I uploaded all the figures myself, from the website of the Austrian statistical office, everything is sourced directly to them. Note that the 'directly placed' stats are 2 years out of date, because the metadata templates were deleted before the move to Wikidata was carried out.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The data looks complete (sorting on the columns show they all contain something) so it would be redundant to code a Wikidata check in the bot. It sounds like the Wikidata info is at least or more up to date than the static in-wiki. BTW eh bien mon prince, I noticed some entries in the 'municipality_of_AustriaLabel' column do not match up with the Enwiki article name (like some on enwiki have a "(Austria)" trailing disambig for example Raiding (Austria)). Is there a way to show the enwiki article name? If not, it will log whatever it misses. -- GreenC 20:22, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try this: query.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That will work, thanks! -- GreenC 20:35, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The bot ran successfully offline, ready for live trials. -- GreenC 00:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: what do you mean "ran successfully offline"? --DannyS712 (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyS712: The framework I use/wrote allows to see diffs without posting. You could do the same with AWB just press "skip" instead of "save" on a batch of articles to make sure it is working. -- GreenC 13:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} -- GreenC 13:47, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. @Underlying lk: Diff - the last 20 (the last 2 and the second page) had a minor whitespace problem and were reverted and redone. Otherwise seemed ok. -- GreenC 16:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They all look fine to me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 01:06, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. Task approved. With special note this is (as requested) to be a one-time run only. The test edits all support the premise that the editor provided local data is out of date, and that there is more recent reliable data available from wikidata. That premise may not hold true indefinitely, and for any reason local editors may of course continue to make local edits as appropriate that will overwrite this change. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 24 March 2019 (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.