Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic.
Programming Language(s): PHP
Function Summary: Update US city and town infoboxes per 2007 Census estimates.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily until complete
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: This is a request for new functionality for a now inactive bot. The new task I am proposing is a one-time run of all articles for US cities and towns to ensure the population figure shown in the infobox is updated to match the 2007 official Census estimates, as a number of articles are either outdated or rely on unofficial sources. Additionally, the bot will add the proper source citation for this information. The bot will be easily modifiable to repeat this task on an annual basis when new figures are released.
Note that the bot's existing (already approved) task was largely similar (it involved editing the whole infobox rather than just a few lines) and thus for the most part re-uses the same code. A few test-runs in user space are available by checking the bot's last few edits.
This sounds like something that needs to be done, and if it already does something similar then I don't see any problems with it. It would be a good idea to test-run it on a database dump or something similar beforehand, and have all of the changes in one place for easy review. - The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 06:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I brought this up for discussion as stated above - the discussion at the VP got a couple concerns over whether or not Census estimates qualify as "official" per the USCITY guidelines. Unfortunately, requests for comment on the matter from both Wikipedia:CITY and the talk page of the Wikipedia:USCITY page itself resulted in 0 responses, so while no one is saying they shouldn't be used, no one is saying that they should. Not sure how to proceed, although I will note that a large majority of US City articles use (relatively) updated Census estimates as official figures, anyway. Sher eth 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems good to me, but all those trial edits were for relatively unproblematic towns. What would it do to Louisville, Kentucky, which already has footnotes and separate figures from competing sources? – Quadell ( talk) 23:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Temporarily on hold - there is some discussion regarding a potential alternative (and more permanent) fix to the issue of population figures, so I'm temporarily suspending the development of this bot as is. It will still be needed, to perform a similar task - but it would update the cities' FIPS/GNIS codes rather than the population figure, with some modifications to the template to use this number to automatically display the population based upon a table stored independently of the article. If discussion on this concept goes nowhere, I will go ahead with the bot as is, but otherwise I'll have to modify it to change a different field. Sher eth 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Approved. You're good to go. – Quadell ( talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic.
Programming Language(s): PHP
Function Summary: Update US city and town infoboxes per 2007 Census estimates.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Daily until complete
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y
Function Details: This is a request for new functionality for a now inactive bot. The new task I am proposing is a one-time run of all articles for US cities and towns to ensure the population figure shown in the infobox is updated to match the 2007 official Census estimates, as a number of articles are either outdated or rely on unofficial sources. Additionally, the bot will add the proper source citation for this information. The bot will be easily modifiable to repeat this task on an annual basis when new figures are released.
Note that the bot's existing (already approved) task was largely similar (it involved editing the whole infobox rather than just a few lines) and thus for the most part re-uses the same code. A few test-runs in user space are available by checking the bot's last few edits.
This sounds like something that needs to be done, and if it already does something similar then I don't see any problems with it. It would be a good idea to test-run it on a database dump or something similar beforehand, and have all of the changes in one place for easy review. - The Prophet Wizard of the Cray on Cake 06:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
I brought this up for discussion as stated above - the discussion at the VP got a couple concerns over whether or not Census estimates qualify as "official" per the USCITY guidelines. Unfortunately, requests for comment on the matter from both Wikipedia:CITY and the talk page of the Wikipedia:USCITY page itself resulted in 0 responses, so while no one is saying they shouldn't be used, no one is saying that they should. Not sure how to proceed, although I will note that a large majority of US City articles use (relatively) updated Census estimates as official figures, anyway. Sher eth 17:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Seems good to me, but all those trial edits were for relatively unproblematic towns. What would it do to Louisville, Kentucky, which already has footnotes and separate figures from competing sources? – Quadell ( talk) 23:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Temporarily on hold - there is some discussion regarding a potential alternative (and more permanent) fix to the issue of population figures, so I'm temporarily suspending the development of this bot as is. It will still be needed, to perform a similar task - but it would update the cities' FIPS/GNIS codes rather than the population figure, with some modifications to the template to use this number to automatically display the population based upon a table stored independently of the article. If discussion on this concept goes nowhere, I will go ahead with the bot as is, but otherwise I'll have to modify it to change a different field. Sher eth 15:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Approved. You're good to go. – Quadell ( talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC) reply