Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 6

< Wikipedia:Bots | Requests for approval
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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

BU RoBOT 6

edit

Operator: BU Rob13 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 04:12, Saturday, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: Substitute from sandbox for {{Infobox China station}} and {{Infobox Japan station}} as per TfDs.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 1,722 + 5,474 = 7,196

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes, per AWB default

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This task will substitute from the sandbox of both templates to complete the merge into {{Infobox station}}. You can find the sandbox versions at {{Infobox China station/sandbox}} and {{Infobox Japan station/sandbox}}. Testcases are at Template:Infobox China station/testcases and Template:Infobox Japan station/testcases. The sandbox versions (which were created by another editor) appear to work fine, and the task itself is technically trivial.

Discussion

edit

I promoted the China sandbox to live before noticing this BRFA. It's working cleanly on the 25 I substed. Should be no issues. Alakzi did a good job on the rewrite. Bazj (talk) 13:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig talk 05:16, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Earwig: Is there any particular way you want me to divide up this trial? Since it involves substituting two distinct infoboxes, I imagine there should be edits for both. I can just split it 25/25, or if you prefer to see 50 edits of each, I can do that too. ~ RobTalk 19:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Hmm, good point. Let's do 50 each. — Earwig talk 21:01, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Overall went well, but a few notes:

  • The sandbox versions as they stand add a lot of empty parameters. I consider this to be a positive thing, personally. The Japan/China station infoboxes have evolved over time and have not always had functionality to include many of these parameters. I do not believe alt names were an option under these templates, for instance. By adding in the empty parameters, it encourages editors to fill in relevant information that isn't currently present. I can edit the sandbox versions to take out empty parameters if you'd like, but I think that's a net negative considering we lose nothing but a few bytes of storage space by keeping them in.
  • {{Infobox China station}} had in-template categorization by administrative district, which appears to violate WP:TEMPLATECAT. Alakzi's solution when creating the sandbox version was apparently to have the previously automatic categories be inserted after the new infobox. This violates WP:ORDER. The order issue can't be fixed by genfixes, because AWB doesn't receive the output of the substitution before running the genfixes. It's possible to handle that part with AWB instead and then enable genfixes to fix the order issue. I'll look into that later today or tomorrow, as time permits.
  • When this bot task is approved, either template protection or full protection should be placed on both sandboxes. Any vandalism that occurred in the middle of the bot run would be automatically substituted onto potentially thousands of articles, which is a huge risk that doesn't have a very easy fix (mass rollback, I guess). Please don't place that protection yet, because I don't have the template editor permission and I'll need to remove a few lines if the categorization is handled by AWB instead of the sandbox version. ~ RobTalk 22:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've written regex to handle categorization in AWB and tested it. It works as expected. It was needed in the China station template, where Alakzi had created a piecemeal solution, but also in the Japan station template, where the automatic categorization was missed. Let me know if you want an extended trial on this; it probably wouldn't hurt. As a side note, both sandboxes are ready for template or full protection now. ~ RobTalk 02:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some things I noticed (so far):
  1. Weird category placement — A few of these had that dangling category (e.g. Category:Railway stations in Shanghai). This then encourages a followup bot edit, which is less ideal. Is that what you're saying you've already addressed?
  2. Template-merge formatting — Somewhat less of a bot issue and more of a template issue (possibly), but already a few editors have added {{Nobold}} to presumably make things easier to read. It might be an idea, if this is a reasonable problem with merging the two templates, to either account for this in the template or potentially just use it pre-emptively while merging. I don't truly know if this applies (as I'm not a fluent speaker or reader of either Japanese or Mandarin), but examining the before-and-after versions does lead me to see why the bolded headers might be problematic when it comes to reading these languages (e.g., pre-merge version vs post-merge version of the subtitle, whereby the post-merge clearly looks more difficult to read, at least in my browser on my platform).
--slakr\ talk / 00:59, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The categories are already fixed, yes. Basically, the problem was that the templates used to automatically categorize articles, which is against guidelines. The editor who created the wrapper that I'm substituting handled these in a way that caused the weird category placement. I've taken that part of his code out and replaced it with additional find and replace rules in AWB which will handle this better. General fixes will need to be turned on for my fix, by the way.
  2. I'll discuss this with WikiProject Japan. The easiest fix, in my opinion, is to make use of the {{Nobold}} template within templates such as {{Nihongo}}, which should contain all instances of Japanese text. I can't imagine any circumstance where bolded Japanese text would be desirable, but maybe they'll have a different take on this. ~ RobTalk 01:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Link to the WikiProject Japan discussion is here. I've also alerted the accessibility WikiProject, as this concerns them. I don't believe bolded Japanese text can be considered to be accessible to those with visual impairments, which would certainly violate the spirit of WP:ACCESS and the word of the WMF's non-discrimination policy. ~ RobTalk 01:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The replacement template has a lot of differences from the original (at least for the Japanese ones that I looked at), some subtle and some more glaring. In Hakata Station, for example, the image size gets mucked up and we lose the Station/駅 text. The layout is also slightly different – I guess we're going with the {{Infobox station}} standardized form, but honestly I prefer {{Infobox Japan station}}.
  • In the few examples I looked at, the empty parameters didn't concern me. Will need to look at more, but this isn't like the baseball player task where a lot of the added parameters would never apply, so I don't think we need to worry about that too much here. — Earwig talk 06:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Earwig: I've fixed that issue with the station. This task is a bit tricky for me because I'm inheriting the wrapper from an indefinitely blocked user, so I'm unable to consult them in how they put it together. In this case, it appears they left out if statements that are present in the original template. I've re-added them. If Station (or the Japanese character for it) appears in Infobox Japan station, it will now also appear in Infobox station. The merge discussion did not address stylistic uniformity within this template, and that can be achieved at a later date if anyone cares enough to get consensus on it. I doubt anyone will. ~ RobTalk 08:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13 and The Earwig: A couple of things about {{Infobox Japan station}}:–
    • Alakzi removed the image size parameter, probably without taking into account the portrait images used in the infobox (landscape is near-universally used in {{Infobox station}}); this is because the parameter can only pixels for size, whereas images with size of a multiple of upright (which evidently he prefers) scale according to user preferences.
    • I removed "駅" and "Station" because typically in {{Infobox station}} and the other remaining railway station infoboxes, with the exception of Singapore only the station name (e.g. "Great Victoria Street" (Belfast), "Charles de Gaulle – Étoile" (Paris), "Corrientes" (Buenos Aires), "München Ost" (Munich), "Pacific Central" (Vancouver), "Central" (Sydney), "Shanghai Hongqiao" (Shanghai), "34th Street – Hudson Yards" (New York), "King's Cross" (London), "Seoul" (Seoul)) is shown in the header. I personally think it should be removed for consistency, but I don't particularly mind if it's kept.
  • Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviewing more edits, it looks pretty good. The Chinese infobox seems to have been modified to transclude the main template already, so it's hard to tell if there are meaningful visual differences there, but I don't see hints of anything too problematic. Did you manage to fix the nobold issue with the Japanese infoboxes? I see the Chinese ones have the same issue, in case that wasn't noticed (1). Jc86035 presents a good case for leaving "Station" out, but I'm not entirely sure, since it has been the standard in this group of articles until now. (Singapore was brought up as an exception—is that for a particular reason for that or could we consider China/Japan exceptions too?) Perhaps we should consult the relevant WikiProject(s). That just leaves the image size bug, which I admit I don't understand fully. Any other concerns? — Earwig talk 07:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image size isn't a bug; there was previous consensus that {{Infobox station}} should have a larger default image size than is typical. We can debate whether that consensus was a good idea (it wasn't), but until a discussion about that is started, we should stick with the default for the merge target. To do otherwise would be to ignore the consensus there. I've corrected the nobold issue in the wrappers. The discussion taking place at the Japanese WikiProject shows no opposition to making these non-bold, and a more general solution (using nobold as the default for templates like {{Nihongo}}) does not affect this bot task. ~ RobTalk 07:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted about image size; the reason I brought it up is because we are dropping that parameter regardless of its value (although the station infobox doesn't even have an image size parameter, so I guess we have no choice there). Maybe I misunderstood, but doesn't {{Nihongo}} already apply the no-bold effect? (That's what I gather from reading its source.) — Earwig talk 14:28, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: Please, please do not add templates like {{nobold}} through the wrappers which are going to be substituted; add them in {{Infobox station}} as something like {{#switch:{{{native_name_lang}}}|zh-Hans={{nobold|{{{native_name}}}}}|ja={{nihongo|{{{native_name}}}}}|{{{native_name}}}}}. This makes it easier to remove if for some reason we decide we don't want it anymore. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jc86035, if you'd like to code it that way, go ahead, and we can place this on hold until you make the necessary edits. My activity level has dropped off a cliff the past week, and I don't have time to do it myself. I think it's a non-issue since the WikiProject Japan discussion appears to conclude that bold in these subheadings is not desirable for the Japanese characters, and the Chinese characters are very similar. ~ RobTalk 15:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that we should keep the nobold/nihongo invocations out of the individual transclusions, but is there really no more general way of doing this than special cases for each language code? — Earwig talk 19:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Earwig and BU Rob13: Alternatively we could have a style template for each infobox (like {{Amtrak style}} or {{TTC style}}), since {{Infobox station}} already has a parameter (|style=style template; e.g. "Amtrak") for calling these like {{S-line}} does, and then change {{Infobox station}} so that it calls something from the switch parser function of the style template:
| 2 = {{#if:{{{native_name|}}}|<span class="nickname {{#if:{{{style|}}}|{{{{{style}}} style|native_name_class|{{{style2|}}}}}}}" {{#if:{{{native_name_lang|}}}|lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}" xml:lang="{{{native_name_lang}}}"}} style="{{#if:{{{style|}}}|{{{{{style}}} style|native_name_format|{{{style2|}}}}}}};">{{{native_name}}}</span>}}
(Additions to actual template shown in bold.) Then {{Infobox station}} will call native_name_format from the style template. The addition to the class declaration makes {{Nihongo2}} unnecessary, since all Nihongo2 does is add the class declaration class="t_nihongo_kanji" and the ja language code. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 14:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc86035: That sounds like a good idea to me. Are you or BU Rob13 willing to implement it? — Earwig talk 03:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it not more complicated to go that route than to just put in a nobold switch that works for all languages and all styles? Nihongo/nihongo2 are used outside of this template, so doing away with them here isn't really simplifying the template space. I don't really care what the final implementation looks like, to be honest, but this seems particularly messy to me. My time has disappeared for the coming weeks, as I'm trying to rush to finish my thesis around half a year ahead of schedule so I can send it off to potential grad schools as part of my application package, so I unfortunately couldn't code anything much more difficult than a nobold switch. ~ RobTalk 05:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. You know, I think you might be right; it seems like the style templates are used for a different purpose than this and the |native_name_lang= is most closely related to what we're trying to do here. I'll let the final implementer do what they think is best. Don't worry about your free time; we'll get this stuff sorted out and you can run the bot when you are able. Hope the thesis goes well. — Earwig talk 05:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: I thought it seemed very oddly specific to make a style parameter simply for giving the local name font-weight: normal, when we already have style templates which are much less arbitrary in what styling one could apply. Additionally, except for |style= and |custom_header=, there are currently no other options for styling, and adding something like |native_name_nobold= just adds complexity to the template as a whole. Again, adding this change would be helpful for other style templates for the rest of the 20,000 stations which {{Infobox station}} is used on. @The Earwig: I cannot apply this change to {{Infobox station}} without administrator or template editor assistance, although if it can go ahead I will experiment in the template sandbox. However, I will be unavailable to edit for much of the next week. Jc86035 (talk • contribs) Use {{re|Jc86035}} to reply to me 10:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been mentioned repeatedly here, and, though it is unclear to me why Rob was "unable to consult with [me]", as I'd emailed him twice previously - and he'd responded the first time - I thought I'd make a note of the following:

  • WP:THUMBSIZE is the policy which states that images should not be specified in pixels without very good reason. Portraits can be scaled down using |image_upright=, if there are any. The |image_size= parameter was removed from the target infobox a few months prior, as a means to put a stop to its proliferation. (Images can still be specified in pixels using regular image syntax, but don't tell anybody.)
  • I do not believe that I removed any other information; at least, not intentionally. The "station" suffix was chopped off by Jc86035, IIRC.
  • The Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias use bold text for headings and titles, and infobox headers. Native speakers have got no trouble parsing emboldened characters, presumably. At any rate, this has got wider implementations, and should be discussed at a more proximal location.
  • Yes, a successive edit would've been required to reorder the cats. If the categorisation can be reliably reproduced using AWB, then by all means.
  • I don't recall why I left the cat out for the Japan station infobox, but there must've been a reason. Perhaps the Japan station articles are already placed in all of the relevant categories? Perhaps the categorisation was unreliable, or the categories non-diffusing?

Well, I shall now retreat back to the shadows. Good luck with the replacement. Alakzi (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Alakzi. I was considering asking for your input on this, but given all that's been going on lately, I didn't want to burden you with even more things to deal with. I believe the only two outstanding concerns are regarding the "Station" suffix and the bolding issue. For the former: I like keeping the templates as similar as possible to their pre-merge states, in which case we should be preserving the suffixes (I note this is how jawiki displays them, for what it's worth), but I believe wider discussion may be warranted here. For the latter: based on the WPJapan discussion, I think we should be making the text non-bold. I'll repeat Rob's comment there, which says "The Japanese wiki sidesteps this by making their default font size larger than ours", as a response to "The Chinese and Japanese Wikipedias use bold text for headings and titles, and infobox headers". — Earwig talk 08:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated {{Infobox station}} so that if you use {{Infobox station|native_name=plain text|native_name_lang=ja or zh}}, text will be unbolded. So, just be sure the bot adds native_name_lang=ja (for japanese) and leaves the text for the parameter normal (e.g., "native_name=博多") and it should automagically work. The end result, html-wise, is a bit redundant as far as prettiness and nesting goes, but it should work (e.g., like this). --slakr\ talk / 05:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made a couple tweaks to the substitution sandboxes. "Station" suffixes are removed, and slakr's change is supported now; the bot should add |native_name_lang= correctly and it should all work without per-template {{nobold}} invocations. Another trial to check over everything would be good. Rob, it does seem you are busy at the moment, so please take your time with this. I don't think you need to do anything aside from running the bot. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — Earwig talk 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Earwig: Big thanks for stepping in and helping out with this. I'll run the trial probably in late November, after my first round of applications go out. I'm in crunch mode until then. Again, thanks for your help! ~ RobTalk 02:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Started the trial, but there were some issues with the regex. I need to consider a better way to handle the "open" dates. We want categories to be created for "railway stations opened in 1988", but not for "railway stations opened in December 19, 1988", which means I need more specific regex here. I'll think on this more and have another go with better regex. ~ RobTalk 22:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I went through the bot's original trial edits with AWB and updated the templates to use the new system. — Earwig talk 11:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to withdraw this for now. It's just clogging up the BRFA queue at the moment, and if I'm being realistic, I'm not getting to this within the next month. It won't take long, but it's near the bottom of my priorities with everything else going on. I'll pick it back up if the task hasn't been done by someone else at a later date (January?) ~ RobTalk 20:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. I'll give it a shot: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/EarwigBot 20. — Earwig talk 04:46, 1 December 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_6&oldid=693223246"