Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Helpful Pixie Bot 48


 * 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 Symbol delete vote.svg Denied

Helpful Pixie Bot 48
Operator:

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Add missing ref sections and parameter blanks to language articles containing

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot requests/Archive 47

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 3378

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Will add a references section, per request, which will be populated when the infobox is changed. Will also add one or two parameters to the infobox if they are missing, depending on whether the language is classed as extinct. (Revised details.) For all articles containing
 * 1) Ensure that the relevant parameters specified in the bot request are present.
 * 2) Ensure the parameters of the infobox are in the order shown on the documentation page.
 * 3) If there is no reference to Ethnologue 16th edition, and a suitable page exists on Ethnologue, add the reference, using the parameter "ref=e16"
 * 4) Add a references section if needed, there is none, and a matching page exists on Ethnologue (that is, if there is an iso3 or lc1 parameter)
 * 5) Add a  template if needed
 * 6) Re-write the article form the point of view of language cladistics interpreted via Sapir-Worf.
 * 7) Remove obsolete param "date' " and any preceding line break: change:   &rarr; a space (merging data with the preceding "date" field). [this will eliminate almost all instances. the few remaining ones will be cleaned up manually.]
 * 8) Delete any other obsolete/unsupported params if the field is empty. If the field is not empty (an example may be "state", which is a frequent error for "states"), they will be tagged with category:unsupported language infobox fields [or other wording of your choice], and possibly moved to the end of the template, where they will be cleaned up manually. Delete 'll# = none' (where '#' is any \d or \d\d number), as it has no effect; this was agreed to in a previous bot request, but never implemented.
 * 9) ? People have been removing flags from lang infoboxes per the MOS. Is that the consensus? Maybe s.t. we could do while we're going through them anyway?

Discussion
Trivial.Rich Farmbrough 15:12, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Code written,testing. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Seems sound. Rich Farmbrough, 19:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Not really sure what is being asked... do you have an example edit (done manually or by the bot in a sandbox?) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Except there is no reference... adding the section would be misleading and make the article much uglier. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:50, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes the point is in the description "Will add a references section, per request, which will be populated when the infobox is changed." AIUI the infobox will generate at least one reference, which would otherwise be left causing an error. Please see Bot requests/Archive 47. Rich Farmbrough, 00:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Some of the changes in the test edits violate the bot operator's edit restriction by making cosmetic changes that AWB does not make, such as: These should be turned off before the task is approved; there is no need for the bot to make such changes in order to accomplish the task that as described. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing the capitalization of the first letter of templates
 * Replacing &lt;references/> with reflist . This is particularly strange because the task refers to missing ref sections, so if there is a ref section then it does not need to be changed for this task.


 * WP:COSMETICBOT only says that such edits should not be performed on their own, there is no restriction on bundling cosmetic changes alongside non-cosmetic changes (although capitalizing templates is frowned upon, especially with stubs and citation templates, so that should be turned off). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:54, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not referring to cosmetic changes in general; those made by AWB, for example, are fine. However, this testing edit had no effect on the rendered page at all. Since there was already a reference section, the task should not be run at all on that page. I agree about the capitalization, I think that interwikis are also typically not capitalized. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 23:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The former is not a red herring, it is a significant issue with the test edits for this task, and I hope that the BAG reviewers will take it under appropriate consideration. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * They have not been submitted as test edits for this task. This is the sample edit. Now, shhh, I'm working. Rich Farmbrough, 01:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Just to be clear, that means that the actual bot will not change the capitalization of first letters of templates, nor edit pages that already have reference sections that display footnotes? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear here, while the various concerns raised by CBM are unrelated to this task, they are valid concerns in general and the bot (and you, per that editing restriction) need to abibe by WP:COSMETICBOT. One cosmetic change here and there is not the end of the world, and you should not be crucified for the once-in-a-bluemoon failure, but Helpful Pixie Bot is not exempt from WP:COSMETICBOT policy, and can/should be considered as malfunctioning / editing outside of approval if its failures are systematic. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's as maybe. But they are unrelated to this task. I don't go to every place CBM posts and insert insidious innuendo. This is a pathalogical behaviour and needs to stop. Rich Farmbrough, 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

Now concerning this task, is there any evidence that the community thinks it's a good idea to add empty reference sections to articles? Because this mind could easily be applied to all stubs, and I highly doubt there is consensus for adding them. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a bot request related to this. They will be changing "infobox language" to include a reference, or adding a reference to all the instances, but the articles need to have the ability to display footnotes to avoid the big red error message when the infobox is changed. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding the section when there is a ref is fine, but not as a placeholder. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So we let the error happen first, then fix it? Not a problem, I already have approval for that. If you wish to restrict this BRFA to merely adding the new fields,we can get it done before sunrise. Rich Farmbrough, 04:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC).

I wonder what the fuss is here.
 * No, we're not capitalizing the template, we're decapitalizing it, to bypass the redirect. But not on its own as a trivial cosmetic change, only when the template is already being changed anyway. Like ticking it as 'minor' in AWB and then ignoring minor changes in preparse mode, which I do already. Similarly with . With this bot request, all we'd have to add is the  and the  . When you're going through hundreds of articles, that makes a huge difference is the time expended.
 * The point of this bot request is to make it as easy as possible to add refs, in order to encourage people to do so, and to make a project-wide effort as painless as possible. Many of these articles have been to all appearances unref'd for years now. — kwami (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All fine with me, except that we do not want empty reference sections added. In the steps I described in the addition, the ref code is added by the bot ( in my example), but the ref creation is silenced temporally in the template (so no false refs are generated, and surely not the red warning). After a manual check of all pages, with removal of the ref code or adjusting wrong ones (that are not e16)). Only then a truly required ref section is added by the bot, and the template is changed to create the reference as expected. So the page check you describe is performed, but with a negative (deleting) edit. The words all pages might make this proces undesired though, since it is a sort of deadline requirement to finish the manual sweep some time. Of course, this is just one procedure we could do, one can prefer an other. -DePiep (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Are you saying we should remove the refs currently in the articles? Also, the info box has no control over the ref section, so I don't see how your proposal could work. But this isn't the place for new proposals: better on the project page. — kwami (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Retry: First we change : when is entered, then no reference output is returned (blank), but a hidden tracking category is added. Then, all pages Language pages that currently do not use  in the template (article page), the bot adds  to the page (some ~3000 pages). Then Project Language members can manually check each page in that category: what ref to use? If eth16 (for e16) is OK, then no edit. Otherwise: change into appropriate reference like 'e15', or delete the ref input. When all pages are checked (weeks?), the bot does this: if a ref= is used on a page, then make sure there is a ===reference section===. After this, we change  into normal: produce the reference, when input . When we save this edit, all template transclusions will show the reference correctly. eth16 is added for this process, and in the end does exactly the same as e16. -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What he's suggesting is this:
 * Phase 1: add eth16 to all articles (auto) but suppress the display
 * Phase 2: check and remove 20% that are invalid (manual) (this being less editing than adding the 80% manually
 * Phase 3: add the ref section where needed (auto)
 * Somewhere the referencing would need to be turned on, though. Either before phase 3, which woudl give the big red errors, or after which would give transitional empty parameters.
 * It's basically a good idea as far as it goes but I'm not sure that the actual editing is the work, I think it's the checking. I also think that getting on with it would clarify the situation. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Correct. Of course turning the referencing on is done right after the bot has added reference sections where needed. This prevents red error texts ("ref section needed").
 * Note: if we want to prevent a permanent second code eth16 for its equal e16, we could turn off 'e16' referencing for the checking period, but that would leave current correct references blank. Better idea: the new code should use capital-E: . First we check for the capital (checking period, will fill the category), but in the end we treat them E16=e16 giving the reference.
 * Note: adding and sorting parameters can be done as requested, in the first bot run.
 * Question to kwami: Switching on the reference production for the template (the final step), can only be done when all ~3000 pages in the tracking category are manually checked (because it will produce a reference on the article page. That ref may be false/unchecked = bad). You think that sweep can be done in overseeable time? -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Updated spec
New spec. Not trivial, but not hard either. Rich Farmbrough, 00:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC).


 * Agree. -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1. The spec says that reference sections will be added "if needed". Does that mean that if an article can already display footnotes (via reflist or &lt;references/>) that parts 4 and 5 will be skipped? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2. The spec does not mention general fixes of cosmetic changes. Does this mean that only the tasks specifically listed will be performed? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. There is no plan to add a second references section.
 * Not at all. No opportunity to improve the encyclopedia will be missed.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 16:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC).


 * re 1: can you confirm that no empty or &lt;references/> will be added by the bot? -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


 * re 2: "no opportunity" is too vague to possibly be approved by BAG, since it could encompass almost anything, and there would be no way to tell if it had approval. Will the task at least be limited to changes that would be made by the most recent version of AWB? Why isn't this mentioned in the task spec? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 16:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you are asking me to solve the halting problem. Rich Farmbrough, 21:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC).


 * re2: genfixes and cosmetic changes are generally permitted, although cosmetic changes are sometimes discouraged for readability. Rich has however editing restriction to perform cosmetic changes other than AWB genfixes. I'm OK to give a trial with AWB genfixes only. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Back to reference section discussion then . — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, just clarifying what "needed" means, since people have been misreading it as meaning "even if not needed". — kwami (talk) 09:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So does "iso3 or lc1 parameter" always produce an automatic reference? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is an  field, then when you enter 'e15' or 'e16' under , the   field will be used to locate the corresponding page at Ethnologue, and place it in a footnote in the ref section. That is, the appropriate Ethnologue page has already been identified, and a ref to it can be automatically generated. However, if there is no   field, then   produces a generic Ethnologue reference. A   field means that the info box already links to at least one page at Ethnologue, but there may be several, and the template can't know if one is more important, so an generic Ethnologue ref is appropriate; however, if there is neither   nor a   series, then we have no covert reference to Ethnologue in the info box and there's no reason to think one would be appropriate as a footnote. It's possible that some day we'll want to generate footnotes for the other refs in the box (linglist, etc.), but we're not set up for that right now. — kwami (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * As for (2), this is more than just a cosmetic change. I had a problem with an article just last night where I added an alternate name to the template and it wouldn't display. I had composed a request for help at the tech desk and was just about to hit 'save' when I realized that it was because there already was an (empty) alt name param in the template, down at the bottom and out of order so that I hadn't seen it. That wasted 20 minutes of my time, and nearly wasted the time of the people at the help desk as well. I would appreciate it if all the params were ordered according to the template documentation. Failing that, at least the ones we're working on should be in their expected order. — kwami (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Added request (7) for deleting an obsolete parameter but keeping the data in it (merging w the preceding field). This will affect 284 articles. If not approved, I'll finish up w AWB (already started).
 * If we're going to put all the params in order, then we should have some way to handle params that are not supported by the template documentation. I suggest these be ordered at the end and that an error template be added, so that they can be cleaned up manually. Adding as part (8). — kwami (talk) 01:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So...? — kwami (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * re Function Details 8 and 9: adding the tracking category can (and should) be done in the template code. Checking for obsolete/misspelled parameters used too, if one knows the parameter name. So for these no bot operation is required. I suggest we continue this on Template talk:Infobox language. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you want to add temp code to the template to catch parameters that are 'none of the above', great; I don't think I know how to do that. There shouldn't be too many, because I cleaned it up last year. But flags: that's a simple bot operation. — kwami (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggest closure because Rich and Helpful Pixie Bot have been blocked for a month because Rich violated his editing restrictions. Link to block.  Rcsprinter  (shout)  11:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We don't have an appropriate closure tag and this BRFA isn't really "closed", just delayed; so I took the BRFA off the main list until the bot operator returns to this BRFA without prejudice to continue. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So, Rich is the only one running bots on WP?
 * But why close? Are we approved to run once Rich gets back? Or will we simply postpone having a bunch of people think up why we shouldn't process a simple bot request? — kwami (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kwami, this bot page is about Helpful Pixie Bot 48, which is run by Rich Farmbrough. He picked up the initial request. At the moment RF cannot discuss here, so it has to wait. I don't know about correct procedure in this, but maybe you can ask this BRFA to be declined for this reason, and ask another botoperator to pick up the original request (adjusted). -DePiep (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Understood. Sorry, I forgot where I was. — kwami (talk) 23:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * So the new specification is complete. Summary we have consensus.  Next step should be a trial. Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Did you address the issue that was raised about adding empty references sections?
 * The spec says nothing at all about changes other than 1–9. That should mean that no other changes will be made to the articles, right? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes we have said that empty reference sections will not be added until a reference is added.
 * No the bot will perform any other tasks that it is authorised for simultaneously, and also make changes in line with WP:COMSETICBOT.
 * Rich Farmbrough, 02:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Re #1: if no reference section is added, what is the benefit of performing the rest of the task (7 and 8)? Those seem like just cosmetic edits.
 * Re #2, that seems quite vague. What changes exactly will be made? Will they all be changes that are part of the latest version of AWB? The request needs to be as complete as possible - and at the moment it does not mention any cosmetic changes at all. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re #1 it seems like you oppose the task if it does add a ref section and opposed if it doesn't yet you are willing to offer to do it yourself. This leaves me somewhat confused. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Actually it was Headbomb who opposed it if the reference section was empty. I offered to do it under the assumption we could also add the reference at the same time, but then the person who requested the edits said that wasn't possible, so I backed out due to Headbomb's comments. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than the previously mentioned concerns I think number 9 seems a bit vague. Other than that I would suggest that if HPB is there editing the article anyway, it should be allowed to perform other approved general edits (such as dating maintenance tags). Other than CBM trying to pick holes in the BRFA I see no valid reason why approved tasks should not be allowed. Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * per Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rich_Farmbrough, with no prejudice on the task being carried out by another bot operator, or by RF if the editting restrictions are lifted. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.