Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Infobox Journal Update Bot

Infobox Journal Update Bot

Operator: Verisimilus

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted

Programming Language(s): Perl

Function Summary: Update articles using {{infobox Journal}} to new syntax.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): One time

Edit rate requested: < 1 edit per second (As fast as they can be approved)

Function Details:

Removes tags that are now redundant (e.g. name, in some cases)
Simplifies ISSNs
Sorts links and re-enters appropriately

Discussion

A quick decision would be welcomed as some instances of the template look a bit messy (unintended consequences...): I've edited quite a few by hand but it's quite a considerable task! Verisimilus, 19:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Added to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval by Mets501 at 20:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a requested edit rate... Does it really need to be so high? Or would something such as a more reasonable 4-6 per minute be ok? Reedy Boy 22:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To operate at less than 1 a second, you would need a VERY fast internet connection. Also, speaking as a person who knows MediaWiki well, it would not cope. ~~No more than 50epm on critical tasks, and this isn't critical, so you probably want a max of 20/30 epm.~~ Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to high Wikimedia database server load, we tend to set a limit of about 15-20 epm for extremely time critical tasks. No higher than this. For your task, the maximum rate will be 9-10epm, because it isn't time critical by any standards. Martinp23 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I misunderstood something. 9-10epm for this task, as Martin said above. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you just use AWB for this task? It's a one-time task, and <600 pages transclude {{Infobox Journal}}. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 00:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I hadn't realised that this was a high edit rate. I'll change the limit to 8epm - which will probably be difficult to attain anyway, as I'm manually checking each correction.

As to why not use AWB: I'm relatively new to coding and am keen to get some useful experience in the world of bots (and there's nothing like the satisfaction of having done something yourself!)

Verisimilus T 08:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —METS501 (talk) 04:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]