Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Fz29bot

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

Approved.

Fz29bot edit

Operator: Fz-29 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:25, Monday, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

Function overview: For articles under Category:RTT, the tool aims to move reference metadata existing in template:infobox medical condition (new) and template:drugbox to the body of the article.

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: NA (will be updated soon)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Moving_Reference_Metadata_Out_of_Two_Infoboxes

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~1200

Namespace(s): Mainspace -> Category:RTT

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The Medical Translation Task Force faces an issue with respect to Content Translation. The translation tool loses references when the reference metadata exists within template:infobox medical condition (new) and template:drugbox. The issue is described here and it seems the fix for this issue will take time.

To overcome this issue, I'm implementing a bot that will move the reference metadata from the two infoboxes template:infobox medical condition (new) and template:drugbox, to the lead or body of the article in question. This will be done for the ~1200 articles under Category:RTT

An example of what such an edit will look like is this.[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/RTT(Simplified)L

Discussion edit

Thanks User:Fz-29 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (10 edits or 10 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (which ever comes first) this task feels like it could be problematic - but I'd like to see some actual examples to help explore this. My main concern is that an inline citation may be getting added to a statement that is not supported by the citation. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaosflux no new instances of citations are being added by the bot. ONLY the meta data is being moved from one spot to another. Will show you once we have the tool up and running. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: If you look, for example, at Cellulitis, in the infobox you find:

| frequency = 21.2 million (2015)<ref name=GBD2015Pre>{{cite journal|last1=GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence|first1=Collaborators |title=Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015|journal=Lancet|date=8 October 2016|volume=388|issue=10053|pages=1545–1602|pmid=27733282|pmc=5055577|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6}}</ref>

and in the lead you find:

Cellulitis occurred in about 21.2 million people in 2015.<ref name=GBD2015Pre/>

After the bot runs, the intention is that the infobox will read:

| frequency = 21.2 million (2015)<ref name=GBD2015Pre/>

and the lead will read:

Cellulitis occurred in about 21.2 million people in 2015.<ref name=GBD2015Pre>{{cite journal|last1=GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence|first1=Collaborators |title=Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990-2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015|journal=Lancet|date=8 October 2016|volume=388|issue=10053|pages=1545–1602|pmid=27733282|pmc=5055577|doi=10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6}}</ref>

Those are the only circumstances in which the bot will make changes, i.e. moving the full citation definition to the next place in the text where the named reference is invoked. There doesn't seem to be any means of adding a citation to a point where that same citation is not already in place. Hope that makes it clearer. --RexxS (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: thanks - that helps, I've already approved some trial edits to ensure it is following that strategy - this seems fairly straight-forward as a one-time task - just waiting on @Fz-29: to trial and report back here. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please update User:Fz29bot to include a description of your bot task. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:xaosflux here is the first edit which works well.[2] They will run the next 9 tomorrow. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Trial complete. User:xaosflux the run of the first 10 worked very well. Can we get approval to run the rest? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. per usual, awaiting flagging before starting the run. @Fz-29 and Doc James: I'm a (small) bit concerned that the operator is unresponsive here, but this seems technical sound and generally useful. As this is a one-time-run request, once it is done should we expect any additional editing from this account (and can it be de-flagged?). — xaosflux ^Talk 16:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaosflux yes one can expect further edits from this user. Basically (1) I am needing bot and other technical tasks done (2) I do not know how to program (3) I am paying small sums to User:Fz-29 to build these tools. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: thanks, sounds fine - just be sure to get BRFA's filed on future tasks. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.