Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


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.

Polbot[edit]

Operator: – Quadell (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted

Programming Language(s): Perl, and with perlwikipedia

Function Overview: Create new articles for U.S. federal judges by pulling data from the Federal Judge Center

Edit period(s): one time run

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

Function Details: The FJC gives biographical data for all U.S. federal judges, e.g. John Baynard McPherson. The project Wikipedia:WikiProject Law/United States federal judges lists all these judges, and editors have been manually creating articles based on this data, e.g. John Bayard McPherson. Polbot would create these new articles automatically. (This is very similar to Polbot's original task, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/polbot, which created articles on U.S. Senators and Representatives.)

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (10 article creations). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Looks like a good task for a bot, let's see how it goes. Richard0612 18:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks! Now I just have to write the bot. :) Bear with me... – Quadell (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The script has created ten articles, listed at User:Polbot/fjc. Yes, it still has a few bugs. I'm working on those. – Quadell (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hope it's okay if I pop in. Would it be possible, per Mos Num, not to link the dates? Per WP:DASH there should be an ndash (–/–) between dates. It would be nice if the bot could add Person data to the article, I filled one out for Marcus Wilson Acheson as an example. Looks pretty neat! §hep • Talk 22:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh wow, WP:MOS has changed since I retired! Yes, all three of these suggestions sound good. I've listed them at User:Polbot/todo, and I'll implement them before my next test-run. – Quadell (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, would it be possible to have the bot sign its Talk: page messages? §hep • Talk 01:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, I've now made that change. Once everything at User:Polbot/todo is done, I'll ask for a second trial. – Quadell (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay! I'm done fixing all the bugs and making all the requested changes. What do you say? – Quadell (talk) 13:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On your todo list, is the use of mdash a typo or genuine error? It should be a spaced ndash IIRC. §hepTalk 21:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (another 10 article creations). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - if you're confident you've fixed all the bugs, another (small) trial can't hurt, can it? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 20:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I have done another ten. There are only a few quirks, which I'm working on fixing now. – Quadell (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to append a references section, similar to what I have done at Robert Peter Aguilar? §hepTalk 22:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any empty one? Well sure, I could... but would that be a good thing? I can't tell whether that's an improvement or not. – Quadell (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally you could add an inline ref after the first sentence or so; but that might be to complicated to get into a citation template. I think it would make it easier for someone to add an inline ref without having to add the extra content, but that might just be me. §hepTalk 01:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious, so unless someone else chimes in to say they think that's a good idea, I'm going to leave the empty reference section out. – Quadell (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've made the few changes needed, and I'm ready to go again. Another test, or the full green light? – Quadell (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be too careful, Quadell, especially with article creations. I think it would be best to leave it another 24 hours, to see if §hep or others would like to comment further, and then re-evaluate. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to see how the bot has been updated to fix this and this, by having it do a new upload on those? Also, have the things like those seen in this been fixed? John R. Adams is broken in formatting as well, and has something going on with a wikilink. This might just be me being an idiot...but here he "was a Private practice". Is that correct grammar? If it is, sorry for asking. Thanks, §hepTalk 21:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All those problems are now fixed, and I have used the bot to recreate the pages you link to: Lance M. Africk, G. Steven Agee/fjc, John R. Adams, and Jesse Corcoran Adkins. (It's a good thing you asked though, since those kinks had turned out to be not-completely-worked-out until I double-checked. Jerry1250 was right: patience doesn't hurt.) Anyway, the "was a Private practice" thing was fixed a while back. It still messes up the grammar sometimes, and 100% isn't attainable, but I think it's good enough to make a nice start for humans to work with. All the best, – Quadell (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only found 2 issues, both in Jesse Corcoran Adkins. Everything else looks good. §hepTalk 03:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: User:BD2412 made a suggestion for improvement on my talk page. It concerns saying "was a federal judge" when the person is dead, and "is a former federal judge" when the person is alive but no longer active. I think this is a good idea, and I'll be implementing it shortly. Once this is working, I'll let you know. At that point, I think I'll be ready, unless someone has more suggestions. – Quadell (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all requested changes have been made. So far as I can tell, she's ready. – Quadell (talk) 03:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still ready... – Quadell (talk) 14:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I know this must be a little frustrating but, Approved for trial (another 10 article creations). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. The idea is that if these 10 go without a hitch, we'll let you loose with the lot, fair's fair. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're such a bot-tease! Okay, I'll run another batch of ten when I get home. – Quadell (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I ran the test: the most recent ten listed at User:Polbot/fjc. I also redid William Marsh Acker Jr. and a couple other old ones under the newest code. Compare and contrast. Bueno, no? – Quadell (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and it appears someone has already gone through and reviewed the changes. No apparent problems. – Quadell (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think we're all clear now.  Approved. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 07:54, 4 March 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.


The above doesn't address the issue that the bot is also creating subpages in article namespace. This feature was retired a long time ago, see Wikipedia:Subpages#Disallowed_uses. The policy would need to be amended to allow this. -- User:Docu

Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Polbot_10&oldid=1138382564"