Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MMABot


 * 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 keep vote.svg Approved

MMABot
Operator:

Time filed: 00:53, Tuesday July 5, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic supervised

Programming language(s): Java

Source code available: No (at least not yet)

Function overview: MMABot will edit MMA figher articles, specifically the Infobox and MMA record history table, to comply with several Wikipedia policies, manuals of style, and MMA Wikiproject consensus issues.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Discussion of this bot at the MMA Wikiproject and User talk:MMABot with details of task implementation with other users' comments and suggestions.

Edit period(s): Multiple times per week, initially. Over time, as articles become more consistent the interval may be reduced.

Estimated number of pages affected: 1,571 (based on the numbers from "Category:Mixed martial artists by nationality")

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N

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

Function details:

Discussion
This will be my first bot. I look forward to discussing this bot and addressing any concerns. I've been testing this bot in its sandbox and its recent history will show what all it is doing. As for exclusion compliance, I have answered 'no' above simply because I have not implemented that functionality (and I am unaware of any MMA fighter articles with the bot exclusion tag). If approval requires this functionality, it would be trivial to add it back in (especially since the code is on the information page). --TreyGeek (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandbox edits look good to me. Suggest a 50 page trial or possibly speedy approval since the bot has been run in sandbox and there is ample consensus for these edits. Regards, MacMedtalk stalk 02:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. Regardless of if the decision is a speedy approval, a trial of 50 pages or less, I would take it slow at first.  I'd want to monitor the edits of the bot in the event there are some corner cases I was not expecting.  After all, there could be a number of variations of formatting within the markup that are not accounted for in the two test articles in the sandbox.  I'll likely try some more articles in the sandbox while the approval process moves along.
 * I was wondering if it is too late to modify task 9 above. I describe the task as removing flags from only the nationality field of the infobox.  I was thinking, if possible, to remove all flag icons from the infobox to go more in line with MOS:FLAG.  It would only require a small change to the code and would resolve issues where there are multiple flags scattered throughout the infobox.  (I stumbled across an article with 4 or 5 flags in different parts of the Infobox.)  Thanks. --TreyGeek (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't see any red flags - - I am intentionally not putting a limit on your trial, keep going as long as you need to and are confident that the bot is correct. Then report back. -- Chris 14:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I'll start working on some trial runs in mainspace tonight or tomorrow. A question in the mean time, what is your response to my comments just above about making an alteration to task 9 (remove all flagicons from infoboxes and not just ones in the nationality field).  Thanks again.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I quickly noticed that there are lots of variations on MMA fighter articles. The first 5 on my list are all different and were different from the two I tested with in the sandbox.  I'm doing more testing in the bot's sandbox to account for the different variations.  I have a question in the meantime in regards to the approval request above.  In the function details I broke down all the "little" changes the bot was intending to make to the MMA fight record table to bring it in line with the template and format on the MMA Wikiproject page.  I'm finding additional "little" changes to make (some tables have columns swapped, unneeded formatting, formatting that needs to be added, etc).  Should all of these possible changes be detailed individually in the task list or can I combine them into a single task called "Standardize record history table format"?  Thanks.  --TreyGeek (talk) 05:01, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In more extensive testing in the sandbox I've been through 30 articles in somewhat random order. I've fixed a number of issues the bot was having as well as found other issues with the MMA fight history table that needed correcting.  At this point it seems like the bot will either perform the fixes or gracefully abort the edits and give me a message to let me know to look into it manually.  I suppose the open question at the moment are the additional tasks I mentioned in my comments above and how best to handle that.  --TreyGeek (talk) 22:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can combine them into one "task", but make sure you detail what changes that task makes. That way everyone knows what the bot should be doing and what to expect. As for modifying task 9, yeah, go ahead, as long as you make sure the details of what the bot is doing are up to date then you should be fine. -- Chris 13:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've updated the task list above (and on the bot's user page) to match what the bot is doing now from testing on the various articles in the sandbox.  I'll start (again) slowly running the bot in mainspace and monitoring the results.  --TreyGeek (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been running MMABot in mainspace the last few days and has edited 80 articles thus far (30 of which were the same as what was copied into its sandbox during testing). At this point, other than rare odd-ball formatted articles, the bot is doing everything correctly. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI,on the bot's talk page I had a request not to delink repeated fighter names or locations in the fight history table. The argument not to follow the MOS on this is that because the table are sortable really long tables result in the available link being possibly hard to find.  I think it is a good argument and I can easily comment out the method that performs that function.  So it would remove one things the bot does in task 2.  --TreyGeek (talk) 13:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems like a sensible change -- Chris 12:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The edits I've looked at all seem good -. Just make sure you keep an eye on the bots changes, and are responsive to feedback/problems/criticism etc from users. -- Chris 12:32, 15 July 2011 (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.