Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6

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

Denied.

Snotbot 6

Operator: Snottywong (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:21, Wednesday April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikipedia with custom code

Function overview: Replace start dates and end dates in certain templates with {{Start date}} and {{End date}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Previously approved task, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XV.

Edit period(s): One time run. Separate run for each template type. Possible clean-up runs in the future.

Estimated number of pages affected: 100,000+

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Bot will replace start date and end dates with templates that emit the microformat data. I'll be working along with User:Pigsonthewing to determine which templates should be checked, which parameters within those templates should be checked, and which date ranges should be left alone. There is a much more lengthy and detailed description of how these things should work at User:Pigsonthewing/to-do#Date conversions. These changes will cause no visual difference to the dates in the article.

Discussion

Can I say Bad Idea™? need to get clear consensus for this project before doing it. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is a bad idea? The date templates are already widely used; and required by the documentation of all the infobox templates concerned. Without them, the hCalendar microformats in the infoboxes are incomplete, missing the most vital piece of information - the date of the event they represent. Consensus was demonstrated when those microformat were deployed; and when the BOTREQ was previously approved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BotApproved}} Wasn't controversial back then, and don't see why it would be any more controversial now. Operator is trusted to check that this only affect templates which emit microdata, and only the {{start date}}/{{end date}}. Additional ones (like {{duration}}) would required additional BRFAs. The bot should also take care to not only make a whitespace change like {{startdate}} to {{start date}}, although making it along other changes is, of course, fine and dandy. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to

Denied.. Apparently, I've missed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats which happened since the SmackBOT BRFAs. Seems that while there is a desire for microformats and metadata on wikipedia, the "optimal" / "agreed-upon" method for declaring metadata on Wikipedia has not yet been found. Thus, in the absence of clear guidelines about the use of metadata in templates on Wikipedia, the request is premature. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 07:54, 10 May 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.

Review request

There is nothing in the RfC which precludes the completion of this request (which in any case is about improving existing microformats, not deploying new ones). There are already over 54,500 transclusions of {{Start date}}; there is no opposition when such changes are made manually; the vast majority - indeed probably all - of the templates in question stipulate the use of {{Start date}} in their documentation, again with no controversy; as does Wikipedia:WikiProject Microformats; and new or expanded instances of such templates, created by many editors, routinely include it without drama. No cogent reasons for not deploying as proposed have been given. There is currently no alternative method of emitting valid microformat-compatible dates in these templates. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 00:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever reviews this should also pay attention to User talk:SilkTork#Start Date bot changes. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Headbomb's comments. While there may be no alternative method to emitting the microformat, I still would expect to see a discussion that this is the method the Wikipedia community is comfortable using for declaring metadata. i.e. I would expect to see a discussion stating this, not template formatting or instructions. The simple lack of obstruction by the RfC is not sufficient; there must be an affirmative manifestation of consensus in a discussion. MBisanz ^talk 08:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We had that discussion when microformats were introduced to Wikipedia. We had it when {{Start date}} was created. We had it when {{Start date}} was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion (it was a speedy keep). We had it when this BOTREQ was first approved. We had it at the RfC. How any more times? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but can you please link to a discussion on this bot's proposed function where people discussed the proposed task and showed community consensus for it? Again you have merely listed a sequence of events without linking to a discussion on the relevant question. MBisanz ^talk 09:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have given you several places where the discussion leading to this BOTREQ was held; and where it was previously approved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) BAG held a couple lengthier discussions on IRC about the issue and this BRFA. I'm echoing some of that and other editor replies, particularly SilkTrot and Headbomb. The RfC does not preclude microformat emission. But it also does not say how it should be done properly. In fact, it is suggested that it is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Using templates like {{Start date}} for microformats emission has become a fait acompli and does not mean that this is the desired method for microformat emission. For the purposes of the BRFA, these is no appropriately wide recent discussion and consensus that microformats should be deployed via {{Start date}} and {{End date}} to all the listed templates. The above BRFA has not demonstrated any case-by-case reasoning for the task. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: "We had that discussion… when {{Start date}} was created. We had it when {{Start date}} was unsuccessfully nominated for deletion (it was a speedy keep). We had it when this BOTREQ was first approved." As I also said: "There is currently no alternative method of emitting valid microformat-compatible dates in these templates". Do have an alternative proposal? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And where is the IRC discussion available? Why not discuss here? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The default alternate proposal always is to do nothing. There has been an intervening RfC on what appears to be a highly complex and controversial topic since the prior approval showing there may not be community consensus for this proposed implementation. Please provide a link to a current discussion on it or no further action will be taken. I'm basing my actions on the discussion here, not IRC, but if you would like interact on IRC, the channel for these activities has been for over 6 years, #wikipedia-BAG on the Freenode network. MBisanz ^talk 10:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And - I repeat - there is nothing in that RfC which precludes this request. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There must be an affirmative showing of consensus for the task, not a lack of dissent. MBisanz ^talk 11:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative consent was shown in the earlier discussions, cited. Nothing in the RfC overturns that. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned IRC so you know Headbomb did not decline simply on a whim and was informed about the RfC, a link to which the BRFA omitted. Obviously, this only reflects in the end result. I (and I assume MBisanz) do not base arguments on something that happened on IRC; the discussion is here now. I mentioned all the relevant comments above and there is no missing info from IRC. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are the IRC logs available for those who cannot join the channel (for various reasons: corporate firewall, technological limits, accessibility personal preference, whatever) or not? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, Freenode does not allow public logging. As I said, we only gave Headbomb the RfC link which was not included in this BRFA. I did not know IRC had such a "rich" history in the past, so I should have made this clearer. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Please see WP:IRC, while the BAG channel is public and there are several automated accounts run by different individuals in there, it is not logged. Decisions are not made on the BAG channel, it is an optional place for exchanging information in realtime among various operators. MBisanz ^talk 11:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that nothing in the RfC precludes a bot adding or removing metadata templates. However, WP:BOTPOL does preclude a bot adding or removing metadata templates in the absence of a clear consensus for adding or removing them, and the while the RfC does not show consensus to remove the templates, it does not show consensus for the current implementation either.

I also note that the deletion discussion was concerned with overlinking rather than metadata, which is why it ended in a SNOW keep. Again, this does not establish consensus for the start/end date templates to be the ultimate solution with regards to metadata, only that it would be insane to remove/delete them at this point in time. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the comments made in the {{Tld|Start date} TfD, excluding my own and the solitary delete !vote:

Keep: template ... adds the microformat [date] hidden CSS stuff, and considering a bot was recently approved to go through and implement this template in hundreds of film articles and episode lists, its function seems to have consensus.
Keep: This is one of the templates used for adding microformats to thousands of articles.
As stated in my previous comment, the template is being used to help add microformats to articles. In other words, it will enable other software to easily extract specific data from the pages for indexing purposes ... It is a more maintenance/cleanup type of feature that several dedicated editors are adding.
Keep - Template:Start date#Usage explains what the template is for...
Keep Microformats are the future
Keep template ...is used to add microformats.

It's quite clear that the majority and consensus view was that the template should be used because of its microformats function.

Consensus, as explained above, was demonstrated more than once, not least when the BOTREQ was previously approved. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template documentation lists the following microformats that {{Start date}} is compatible with (although the connection is not fully explained):

hAtom, an XML language for web feeds, presumably useful for detecting new content so it may be fed to subscribers
hAudio, a proposed format for audio files and released recordings
hCalendar is representing calendar information about an event. Our iCalendar article says this format allows Internet users to send meeting requests and tasks to other Internet users.
hCard is for publishing contact details, and the relevant attribute that could use {{Start date}} is "bday", a person's birth date.

It seems clear to me that all these microformats are oriented towards current events and living people, with the exception of the hAudio, which could be applied over a period of just over a century. Since Wikipedia covers not just the present day, but also ancient times and the distant future, there is room for discussion about whether Wikipedia should stretch these standards to cover time spans much wider than the designers envisioned, or should we wait for a standard to be identified that is intended to cover great spans of time? Jc3s5h (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you misunderstand, the above microformats are not solely for current events or living people; indeed hCard is for organisations and venues as well as individuals; in which case "bday" is used for the date of the subject's foundation or creation. None of our uses of them is precluded by or in anyway contrary to their specifications. hAtom is not an "XML language". hAudio is not merely a proposal. Furthermore, this request is not to use them, which is already done, but to make the dates machine readable where the microformats are already in use. the proposal only applies to Julian dates; work is ongoing elsewhere to allow microformats to cover dates in Gregorian (and perhaps other) calendars. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Furthermore, this request is not to use them". Can you tell me where that decision is recorded?
"above microformats are not solely for current events or living people". Can you cite any specification that supports the concept that these microformats are intended to cover long spans of time? For example, pre-1800?
"the proposal only applies to Julian dates; work is ongoing elsewhere to allow microformats to cover dates in Gregorian (and perhaps other) calendars." I presume you have reversed the position of "Julian" and "Gregorian". Where is the work you refer to going on; such work could lend support to your contention that the formats are suitable for historical use. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of ODing and numbering your questions for convenience:

That's not a decision; it's a statement of fact, Wikipedia emits over a million microformats. See also the RfC, referred to above.
Yes; for example hCard: "hCard is a simple, open, distributed format for representing people, companies, organizations, and places". No mention is made of a limit on the dates covered, other than that ISO 8601 is to be used. Per ISO 8601#Dates, that "represents years from 0000 to 9999". ISO 8601 is also specified for other microformats which have date parameters, including hCalendar and hAudio.
Yes; I reversed them, sorry. We (humanity) currently use the Gregorian calendar; as do microformats. Extension for Julian-calendar dates is discussed on the WHATWG mailing list and on their Wiki, for example. However, that is irrelevant to this request, which covers Gregorian dates only.

Note also that microformats using valid (in ISO860 terms) historic or future Gregorian dates are also correctly parsed by every microformat parser I've ever seen. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update from 54,500 transclusion of {{Start date}} on 11 may, to 71,070 today. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]