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

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 Status Unknown.

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

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]

Always good to see a botop with some coding experience - there are so many bots operating using tools like AWB. Also, I clarified the trial template to say 8epm, as the request is still at the old EPM. I apologise if this counts as message editing, remove if it does. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eek, sorry... I hadn't realised that a one-time bot would require a trial, and took MB&A's comment to symbolise approval... I've now run the bot (at <5epm): I manually checked every edit until I was confident that it was working acceptably, and kept an eye on it as it went. Sorry if that's broken protocol! But I can vouch that no harm has been done... Verisimilus T 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's already been used, and wont be used again, does this need full approval? A bot flag is pointless. I'll just archive this, nothing more needed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:55, 4 August 2007 (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.