Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClickBot 3

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.

ClickBot 3 edit

Operator: ClickRick

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB, using TheTemplator

Function overview: Further changes for the planned updates to Template:Infobox UK place, specifically in the area of the images. User:ClickBot/TaskList steps 5–8, and Template talk:Infobox UK place#Possible_bot_tasks have more background.

Edit period(s): One-time run.

Estimated number of pages affected: Of the 13,500 transclusions of the template, ~~around a third~~ just over half have an image. i.e. there should be around ~~4,500~~ 7,600 edits.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y (AWB)

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

Function details: Change usage of Template:Infobox UK place to:

recode |static_image=[[File:xxx.jpg|250px]] as |static_image_name=xxx.jpg|static_image_width=250
remove <small> specification in |static_image_caption= (so it can be done consistently in the template)
add an empty |static_image_alt= as a hint to get users to add alt text, per WP:ALT

Discussion edit

These all seem sensible enough. Shouldn't the width be set to 240px per Template:Infobox UK place/doc? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation says "Please set photographs to 240px wide", but allows for different values in exceptional circumstances. I have noticed a lot are set to 250px, which looks odd. The default in the template if no value is specified will be 240, and I've floated the idea of removing the value if it has been specified in the range 150-299, but I'm assuming that that could be contentious so will wait to see what others say on the question.

As an example of an image which is outside that range can be seen on Belfast, which has its emblem at 120px wide. ClickRick (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I personally would support changing it to 240 if it is already set quite close to that (e.g. 30 either way), I think that 150 - 299 may be too wide a range (if it's out by 90, then there is likely a reason for that). But as you say, it is best to see what other users think. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Template talk:Infobox UK place#Bot task: images, please confirm that you will not be changing image sizes, just changing the syntax of the parameters. If so, I think you're ready for a trial. Also, regarding removing <small />, another contributor commented that normal or even <big /> may have been used for a reason; is it likely contributors are using other tags like <big />? If so, you may want to either leave the parameter alone or strip any HTML tags from it. — madman bum and angel 02:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was more discussion on this point, and I've agreed not to remove or change any sizes. If we feel we want to take that step then there are ways of doing it within the template code which would be more easily reversed, so that's a better option for that aspect. As to removing <small />, no-one has shown any reason why one article should have the caption in the normal font but another have it either large or small, so this will standardise the text in all cases, and that appears to have consensus support. OK now to do a trial run? —ClickRick (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the bot operator appears to be spending time discussing with the interested community at the template talk page. In addition the bot operator is making comments showing his concerns about working with the community, rather than solo, or forcing things on the community. I see no problems with this bot and operator, and it seems, to me, that others users are looking over technical issues. That's my opinion. --68.127.233.138 (talk) 04:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. The tasks the bot is going to do now seems to have consensus, and are useful. Lets see how the bot manages. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look pretty good. Would it be possible to get the bot to add correct spacing after parameter names to get the equals signs to line up (e.g. only some line up here, none line up here), no problem if you can't/don't. Either way,

Approved. Bot run by experienced bot op, doing a task which there seems to be a consensus for, no problems here :D. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 02:36, 7 August 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.