Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 2
- 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.
Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 07:18, Thursday, August 27, 2015 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Partially supervised (see below)
Programming language(s): AWB / Lua
Source code available: AWB / Module:Infobox gridiron football person/convert
Function overview: Split deprecated teams/years parameters such as playing_teams/playing_years into new numbered parameters to comply with WP:VLIST.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Use of inaccessible markup in gridiron football infoboxes is widespread
Edit period(s): One-time run
Estimated number of pages affected: 3,996
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The pattern "\{\{\s*([Ii]nfobox [Gg]ridiron football person|[Ii]nfobox AFLactive|[Ii]nfobox Areana Football League player|[Ii]nfobox Areana Football League player \(active\)|[Ii]nfobox CFL player)"
will be replaced with "{{subst:#invoke:Infobox gridiron football person/convert|main|"
with the edit summary "Split teams/years using Module:Infobox gridiron football person/convert". AWB genfixes will be off.
The script (created by Alakzi) splits *_teams and *_years parameters at <br> (and all variations). If the teams and years are uneven, the script will fail gracefully and leave the infobox for human attention. If the teams and years are even but any field is blank, the script will make the conversion and leave a comment for human attention, as it's possible the conversion will not have been done properly. The latter case should affect a very small number of articles. Typically, only players who have played multiple sports would encounter that problem due to the use of line breaks to create headings by sport.
The edits will be partially supervised. As the script is running, I'll check the articles that contain the text "Template:Infobox gridiron football person conversion error"
. This will catch mistakes made due to blank fields, which display oddly in this template.
A similar task was approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Abotzi. The module being used here is based on that script.
Discussion
[edit]- Please use
{{subst:#invoke:Infobox gridiron football person/convert|main|
(note the trailing pipe), or the script will barf on HTML comments (with thanks to Frietjes for spotting that). Alakzi (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Corrected. ~ RobTalk 11:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked a simple question and got a response. Let's drop this before it gets out of hand. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
What is even more absurd is that you expect to be put at ease. If I've got a suspicion about another person I can't substantiate, either I let it slide, or I do my own research in private. I don't go off suggesting that they are sockpuppets in public, and then announce that I'd presume them to be guilty if they are to refuse my probing. You should be thoroughly ashamed. Alakzi (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete.. The edits are the most recent 50 in Special:Contributions/BU RoBOT. Through spot-checking, I found no blatant errors where the script operated in an unintended manner. Only one edit resulted in an error where the script failed gracefully. It was caused by the presence of a footnote in the playing_teams parameter which caused the teams/years to be of unequal lengths. I moved the footnote where it belongs and ran the script again, which was successful the second time around. See [2].
- One "side effect" of this script that wasn't intended was the removal of deprecated parameters that were already removed entirely from the template. In the edit linked above, PFR was removed, as the module only passes through parameters that are currently in use. I consider this a happy accident, as it's performing useful clean-up of parameters that no longer serve any function. If necessary, I can seek consensus that this is a useful secondary purpose for this task. I don't expect it will be hard to come by. ~ RobTalk 18:51, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} ~ RobTalk 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: All of the edits I checked seem fine. I'm a bit confused as to why we're adding lots of blank fields, though. Is that necessary or useful? Pinging @Alakzi: as the module author. — Earwig talk 02:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the blank fields should be filled out for all or almost all players. Things like name, image (because we do want to encourage the addition of images), height, weight are basic things that all players should have. I spot-checked, and the only thing that probably shouldn't be added would be the parameter "NFL" and everything related to the CFL and NFL draft (CFLDrafted..., NFLDrafted...). Everything else is a field that should have information in almost all articles (or, in the case of death stuff, an expectation that information will eventually become available). ~ RobTalk 03:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is exactly my point. I agree with name and image, but something like this adds a lot of unnecessary bulk – CFL/NFL are not things we will have for all players, for obvious reasons. I think making those groups of four parameters optional is a good idea, although maybe we can add e.g. the NFL stuff if
|NFL=
is given. — Earwig talk 03:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]- @The Earwig: Hey, I just realized I know some Lua from modded Minecraft. I feel old; that was a long time ago. All the parameters we discussed (including CFL/NFL) are now optional, as are high_school, college, and CIS, which may not all be present for some players (CIS and college are generally mutually exclusive, for instance). The drafted parameters will all pass through if any one of the set is present, since NFLDraftedYear should never be present without NFLDraftedTeam for instance. Can I have a 50 edit extended trial to verify this is working correctly? I don't expect any issues, but best to be safe. ~ RobTalk 03:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good.
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig talk 04:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good.
- @The Earwig: Hey, I just realized I know some Lua from modded Minecraft. I feel old; that was a long time ago. All the parameters we discussed (including CFL/NFL) are now optional, as are high_school, college, and CIS, which may not all be present for some players (CIS and college are generally mutually exclusive, for instance). The drafted parameters will all pass through if any one of the set is present, since NFLDraftedYear should never be present without NFLDraftedTeam for instance. Can I have a 50 edit extended trial to verify this is working correctly? I don't expect any issues, but best to be safe. ~ RobTalk 03:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that is exactly my point. I agree with name and image, but something like this adds a lot of unnecessary bulk – CFL/NFL are not things we will have for all players, for obvious reasons. I think making those groups of four parameters optional is a good idea, although maybe we can add e.g. the NFL stuff if
- Most of the blank fields should be filled out for all or almost all players. Things like name, image (because we do want to encourage the addition of images), height, weight are basic things that all players should have. I spot-checked, and the only thing that probably shouldn't be added would be the parameter "NFL" and everything related to the CFL and NFL draft (CFLDrafted..., NFLDrafted...). Everything else is a field that should have information in almost all articles (or, in the case of death stuff, an expectation that information will eventually become available). ~ RobTalk 03:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @BU Rob13: All of the edits I checked seem fine. I'm a bit confused as to why we're adding lots of blank fields, though. Is that necessary or useful? Pinging @Alakzi: as the module author. — Earwig talk 02:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- {{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} ~ RobTalk 22:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. From spot-checks, this is working exactly as intended with significantly less blank parameters compared to the previous trial. ~ RobTalk 04:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Earwig: Forgot your requested ping, and here's the link to the edits. ~ RobTalk 04:45, 10 September 2015 (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.