Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Sambot 6

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval


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.

Sambot 6

edit

Operator: [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP, using Pillar

Function Overview: Per request, create and populate categories for ships by year.

Edit period(s): Once

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

Function Details:

Source code available here.

Firstly, create each category page between 1850 and 2009 (except 1900, 1906, 1911, 1912, and 1986, which already exist) and the associated talk page, with {{cathead ship year|year}} and {{WikiProject Ships}} respectively.

Then, for each page that uses {{Infobox Ship Career}}, get the "Ship launched" parameter. If it does not exist, add this page to User:Sambot/Tasks/Ships. If it is present, follow the following logic:

The category will be added to the end of the existing categories or appended to the bottom of the page if no categories exist.

[[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 22:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • The code looks pretty straightforward, and the scope was pretty well defined in the request linked above. My thumb is up. – Quadell (talk) 19:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: does the code look at the field "Ship completed" if "Ship launched" is empty? — Bellhalla (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It didn't; it does now. Sorry, I missed that in your request. As Quadell said, though, thanks for your excellent request -- very easy to program from! Incidentally, if someone is going to give a trial here, can it be more than the normal 50? The first ~300 edits of necessity are the very simple category/category talk creation edits (if they aren't done first, pages will be added to non-existing categories). Thanks! [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 23:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. : All categories, and 25 edits outside of the category and cattalk namespaces. – Quadell (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an FYI, it looks like another editor has also ready created Category:1898 ships and Category:1899 ships. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.. No problems creating the category pages (I had already programmed it to skip existing pages). The only problem with the main namespace edits (of which I made 19 -- I think that's enough!) was five edits with broken edit summaries (e.g. this), until I caught it. [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 17:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions. This edit added Category:1984 ships, and the article already contained Category:1984 introductions. Should the bot remove the introductions category when it adds the ships category? And should it place each "xxxx ships" category in an "xxxx introductions" category? Also, I see that the bot skipped Soviet submarine K-219; should the date in "commissioned" be used? – Quadell (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not aware of the "NNNN introductions" category, so I would say yes to replacing "NNNN introductions" with "NNNN ships" in articles. I've already added to {{cathead ship year}} to include each "NNNN ships" category in the appropriate "NNNN introductions" category, so replacing it will just be further refining the categorization.
  • For the second, the consensus at WP:SHIPS was that launch date (or completion date if launch not available) was to be used, and not commissioning date. This parallels the disambiguation schema which uses launch/completion year as the disambiguating term.
  • Otherwise, the test looks great from this end. Now, just a few thousand more to go, right? — Bellhalla (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The introductions categories will now be removed. I don't think there are many pages in them. I think Quadell's question was whether we can use "commissioned" if "launched" and "completed" were both unavailable... [[Sam Korn]] (smoddy) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I didn't get that across clearly, but don't use a commissioning date if it doesn't have either of the other two. Just put it on the "no date" list, please. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Approved. Looks great, go for it. – Quadell (talk) 12:55, 10 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Sambot_6&oldid=405752011"