Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ThreeBot

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

Request Expired.

ThreeBot[edit]

Operator: Doncram (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 18:52, Wednesday December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Neither, this is about mass generation of article drafts which are placed in Talk-space subpages of NRHP list-articles. Editors can cut-and-paste these into new and old mainspace articles.

Programming language(s): I think not applicable.

Source code available: I think not applicable.

Function overview: I think not applicable.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Each batch is a one time paste-in.

Estimated number of pages affected:

5 pasted-in batches so far, with material available for 500 or so wikipedia articles.
Approximately 55,000 NRHP articles that are yet to be created (redlinks on the system of NRHP list-articles List of RHPs, could potentially be created by editors making individual edits drawing from many more of these batches of drafted articles.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): I have no idea

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No, and i think seems not applicable

Function details: I think not applicable.

Discussion[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass article creation, I see that i am supposed to get Bot approval for a project i am doing for/within WikiProject NRHP. What i am doing is using my own database software on my own PC, outside of Wikipedia, to generate batches of draft articles for NRHP-listed places, for posting in Talk subpages. Editors can manually cut-and-paste from these to create new Wikipedia articles or to improve existing articles. I'm calling the current version "NRHP batch generator 3.0", relating to version number of my program. This is not a bot, but it has helped to generate 20-50 articles so far, so technically it may meet "Mass article creation" criteria and require approval here.

The initial proposal, begun by my vaguely asking for a real bot, was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places#just do it by bot now. Vocal opposition to a real bot that would go out and start articles was heard, then there was some helpful discussion, then I proceeded with pilot testing of a couple batches, each having a "NRHP pretty-good request" banner making a request to editors not to abuse the privilege. There are now 5 batches of drafted articles, for 4 counties in 4 states, which may be found what-links-here-to-the-NRHP-pretty-good-request.

One commentator concerned about monitoring the editors using material from the batch generator pointed out the Recent Changes feature might be used. So I included a Recent Changes link from each of the batch pages, e.g. click on Recent Changes link from the top of Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Tolland County, Connecticut/drafts. I think this is a neat way to assist any group working on an article improvement drive.

I'd be happy to receive advice, and to address any questions. What more can I explain? --doncram (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand this correctly: you have a database from which you are generating new article templates and then posting these templates to relevant talk pages so that someone may start an article off these templates?Smallman12q (talk) 20:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The database i'm drawing from is the public domain NRIS database of the U.S. National Register of Historic Places. This has been used for several years, for 25,000 or so articles, by Elkman's NRHP infobox/article generator (some info about it here) and it was used by an NRHPbot during 2006 or 2007. Elkman's system just serves up one draft article at a time, and never went through any central approval process AFAIK. But it has received lots of scrutiny in use. I'm doing it in a way that potentially could assist editors starting more articles faster though. There are about 55,000 potential articles to create. This batch approach could assist in creating them in small batches, but requires manual edits for editors to actually make the articles. --doncram (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you intending to use User:NRHP batch generator 3.0 account for this? If so, you need to register it and mark it as your bot account. Discussions seem to indicate that all these articles is something the community wants created (eventually at least). The method chosen seems to be non-intrusive and relies on human discretion. One concern though, should these be posted on talk pages? I rather see the batches organized in bot's userspace. This would make the approval much more lax. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not planning to create or use User:NRHP batch generator 3.0 account, but rather just my own account. This bot approval request system required me to give a name for a bot, while this is not actually a bot approval request, there is no real bot involved. I dunno, i could create an account if that would be helpful for holding the batches of generated articles.

But, about where the batches of generated articles should be located, I was thinking that having them close to where they would be used is most natural. E.g., for a batch associated with one given architect say "Firstname Lastname (architect)", placing them all at "Talk:Firstname Lastname (architect)/drafts", or for an NRHP list-article named "National Register of Historic Places listings in COUNTY, STATE", placing them at talk subpage "Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in COUNTY, STATE/drafts".

I didn't mention yet that there is an associated page, a corresponding /draftnames page, which provides a correspondence between NRIS "refnums" and the actual wikipedia article names (often not the same as an official NRHP name in NRIS database). I generate a first draft of this /draftnames file, paste it to mainspace, then use DabSolver tool and otherwise edit it, then bring a copy back to my personal computer, which i then use in generating the /drafts. This /draftnames is meant to be edited by multiple editors, and to serve another purpose, that of supporting the Recent Changes report which will be routinely provided at the main Talk page. I am thinking such a /draftnames file will be a natural complement to many, perhaps all NRHP county or city list-articles, to support a Recent Changes report accessible from each of their Talk pages, whether or not i have also created a /drafts batch of generated articles. I consider the /draftnames to be pretty closely tied to the list-article they are associated with, and would want editors from WikiProject STATE or WikiProject NRHP or unaffiliated to feel free to update it to keep it useful.

Hence, i currently think these are best placed in Talk subspace. I am not aware of any wikipedia performance issues that might be relevant. If there are across-language-translation issues, i would think keeping the /draftnames close to the list-article would be better, but i dunno if this feature would be translated over. There are more NRHP list-articles translated to the German de.wikipedia than anywhere else so far, i think. But, are there other considerations for the Talk vs. WikiProject NRHP vs. user subspace locations of these /drafts and /draftnames ? I'll ask at the NRHP discussion for others to comment here. --doncram (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should create an account just to avoid confusion and to have the edits separated from your main account. It shouldn't take too much effort. Someone should flag it as confirmed though to create pages. I am uncertain but this may also help ease attribution problems.

There are no significant relevant performance issues with Talk: vs. User: namespaces. I think you can safely post this as you suggest.

Approved for trial (10 /draft batches and associated /draftnames). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Although the current batches look good. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created account User:ThreeBot and will try to use that going forward, at least for big edits laying in the batch-generated type material. --Doncram (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress? Anomie ⚔ 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. As contributions for ThreeBot currently shows, ThreeBot has not yet made any edits. User:ThreeBot reports on past draft paste-in edits by User:doncram that would in future be made by ThreeBot, and itemizes improvements to be addressed gradually. Next batch of drafts under discussion at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in Albemarle County, Virginia (in new WikiProject Albemarle County) and will be done by ThreeBot. Not sure whether this will include the NRHP coordinates available from those KML pages that you helped me about, Anomie, or not, though I would like to include them. --do ncr am 17:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} It's been 2.5 weeks, and there seems to be no activity at the linked page. Is this still going anywhere? Anomie ⚔ 03:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have new commitments in real life that have prevented me from making progress here, and there's been a problem with my outside software which I use to generate the /drafts (problem will be resolved by a reinstallation soon). I do intend to continue with this, as i see it as important and valuable, though I can't make specific commitments as to when i will lay in new batches which would reach a total of 10 cumulative trials. If there isn't any urgency, i would like for this to just be kept open. --do ncr am 15:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any updates? No urgency, just checking in. MBisanz ^talk 10:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still plugging along on copy-pasting the bot-like /drafts into individual mainspace articles, and developing the articles somewhat, for the runs so far set up. Particularly am nearing completion of National Register of Historic Places listings in Grand Forks County, North Dakota, with some dull roar of comments about some of the starter articles. I plan to ask for general review of this county's work at wt:NRHP when i am complete.

One update is that the trial is bust in terms of getting anyone else besides me to perform that copy-paste step to move a /draft into mainspace. Once an article is in mainspace, it attracts attention and is developed as intended. I requested User:Pubdog, an unusual editor who was creating many articles, to start by copy-pasting from /drafts instead for one New York county, and he tried it for a few, but preferred to go back to his other well-honed approach to generating many stub articles. New York is not the best-suited to the /drafts, because the NRHP documents for New York are provided at a non-standard site using different code numbers that I do not have available in any database form to use in composing /draft articles. So, for some future version of this bot, I will probably want to avoid the copy-paste step and just provide the /drafts to the mainspace articles directly.

Question: MBisanz or other, is there any way I could provide /drafts to another bot operator who would do that application of pieces to the many separate mainspace articles within one county or other batch of NRHP articles-to-be-created? Or, is there some starter information for me to see about programming that myself? --do ncr am 13:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find someone to handle the /drafts, then you can do it, just check around WP:BOTREQ for active people. As far as starter info, I don't know of any good manuals, but if you ask at BOTREQ, someone probably will link you. MBisanz ^talk 02:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any news? MBisanz ^talk 23:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram is not able to respond right now, because his account is currently blocked. --Orlady (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that now. I'll wait for him to respond when it expires. MBisanz ^talk 23:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Operator has been unblocked for a few weeks. Are there any new developments with this request? SQL ^{Query me!} 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a notice on the operator's talkpage asking for an update on this request. SQL ^{Query me!} 08:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Thanks for your attention. Please consider this active, though a bit slow. There are some programming issues i want to address in new sets of /drafts relating to newer version of NRIS database being different, and there's feedback in some discussions, including one in which i promised to try, for one editor, a different approach for at least one batch of /drafts. I'll switch my programming over to a different computer that I have with me more often, so that i can make progress. Thanks. --do ncr am 13:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for getting back to me. Just wanted to make sure that this request is still active. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram has been blocked again for three months. This bot is likely never to get up and running by him. I fear eventually he will be blocked indefinitely.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as expired for now, bot is yet to make a single edit. Even if the user gets unblocked sooner, 3 months is a bit too much for a stale BRFA filled in December. No prejudice to reopening. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:33, 3 August 2011 (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.