Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BogBot

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.

BogBot[edit]

Operator: Boghog2

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manually assisted

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: here

Function overview: Reformatting enzyme pages (see proposal here)

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~3000

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Merging partially overlapping {{enzyme links}}, {{enzyme references}}, {{GO code links}}, and {{CAS registry}} templates into the single {{enzyme}} template.

Discussion[edit]

Is there a talk page discussion or other record of community consent for the merger? MBisanz ^talk 14:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to the proposal in the function overview; however, this task does probably need more consensus. — madman bum and angel 22:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also see the discussion here where user Arcadian expressed support for the template merger. Boghog2 (talk) 09:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far a total of four editors have commented. Narayanese didn't express approval or disapproval, but made a good suggestion which I have implemented. The other three editors that have responded have all expressed approval (Arcadian, ClockworkSoul, and AndrewGNF). The first two are administrators. The third has been the organizing force behind the Gene Wiki project and the operator of the ProteinBoxBot, a closely related project that has created ~9,000 gene/protein pages. The single person's opinion that would probably carry the most weight is TimVickers since he is the director of the WP:MCB project and was personally involved in creating many of the involved enzyme pages. I have left a message asking him to comment here, but unfortunately he has not responded. Boghog2 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also left a message on the Template talk pages of the templates that are to be deprecated, both inviting comment and letting contributors know that they may be deprecated in the future. — madman bum and angel 19:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea and thanks for adding the messages to the respective talk pages. ~~However the last template, {{CAS registry}}, has uses in addition to enzymes, so that particular template definitely should not be depreciated.~~ Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right; I removed my comment. So you will only be removing transclusions of that template on enzyme-related articles? What are your criteria for enzyme-related articles? — madman bum and angel 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. Spoke too soon. The CAS template in principle could be used in non-enzyme articles, but apparently it is not (see here, the names of all the articles that use this template end in "ase" which are enzymes). So the CAS template would be depreciated by this proposal. Sorry for the confusion. My criteria for enzyme related articles are those articles that transclude the four templates mentioned above. I have not yet done a thorough comparison of the four "what links here" lists, but it appears that the four lists are identical or very close to identical. I will do a through comparison and generate some statistics. Boghog2 (talk) 20:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you're sure those four templates aren't transcluded in any non-enzyme articles, that sounds fine to me. And while there hasn't been a lot of discussion, I think this task should be pretty non-controversial and is useful.

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — madman bum and angel 20:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As requested, I will do some careful checking to make sure that these four templates are not transcluded into any non-enzyme articles before I start. Boghog2 (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your instructions, I have completed a trial run on 20 articles (see here for the log). I have also carefully checked which articles the four templates are transcluded into. Below is listed the templates and the number of articles each is included:

{{enzyme links}} – 3055
{{enzyme references}} – 3043
{{GO code links}} – 2798
{{CAS registry}} – 2549

Templates #2-4 are all contained in articles which also contain template #1. Of articles that transclude template #1, 3051 of 3055 of the article names end in "ase" which indicates that these are enzyme related articles. The remaining four (acetylacetone-cleaving enzyme, glycogen branching enzyme, sulfiredoxin, trypsin) are also clearly enzyme related articles. Hence the scope of the proposed merger is all articles that transclude the {{enzyme links}} template. I await your approval to proceed with processing the remainder of the 3055 enzyme related articles. Boghog2 (talk) 21:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{BotTrialComplete}} Boghog2, this does look like an extremely useful task, and it was well-executed. The only issue I have with the trial run is that an External links section header was left in all articles when the external links had been removed. It may be a bit more work, but I would try to detect if there were any further external links in an unordered list below the External links section header and if not, remove it. It looks like all references and external links are translated to the infobox; however, what happens to the PUMA2 entry? Thanks, — madman bum and angel 13:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful feedback Madman. You are right about the "External links" section heading. I will add some code to check if there is any text besides that produced by the {{enzyme links}} template in the external links section. If not, the bot will remove the heading. Concerning the PUMA2 link, as mentioned here, "PUMA2 is not being maintained or updated by Argonne National Laboratory and will be taken down in the near future." I asked the community if anyone would object to removing this soon to be obsolete link and no one objected. The PUMA2 link uses the same EC number that most of the other links use. So if for some reason we would want to restore that link in the future, this could easily be done by uncommenting the PUMA2 link that is included in the {{enzyme}} template. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything sounds good to me; I had seen that PUMA2 was no longer being maintained when gauging community consensus, but I had forgotten, and that we can allow for reinstatement should it once again be maintained is excellent.

Approved for trial (10 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete., just to make sure the External links issue has been fixed. Cheers! — madman bum and angel 16:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the code to check for external links and if there are none, the header is removed. I then ran a new test (see here for the log). The header is now removed however this last test run uncovered another small bug. I was getting the enzyme name from the go code name, but not all article have go codes. I have modified the code to use the article name instead of the go code name if the later is missing. So I think everything is now in order.

Trial complete. Of course, there may be some unforeseen problems with special cases. My intention is to continue to run in relatively small batches checking the results as I go along to make sure there are no additional surprises. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:23, 6 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.