Operator: EdoDodo ( talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (using Pywikipedia)
Source code available: A first draft, lacking error checking, splitting into functions, etc. but demonstrates the functionality of the bot.
Function overview: The basic function of this bot is to complete a template of the editcount of a user, for use by other templates and userboxes that take the editcount of a user as a parameter, thus creating automatically updating editcount userboxes.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The bot will be making non-controversial edits, so discussion is not necessary. Ongoing discussion
here.
Edit period(s): Runs to update all the edit counts at non-peak times (Frequency open for discussion, daily? weekly?)
Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on how many users wish to have an edit count kept update, initially probably only a few userpages.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Function details:
The basic function of this bot is to complete a template of the editcount of a user, for use by other templates and userboxes that take the editcount of a user as a parameter, thus creating automatically updating editcount userboxes.
There are plenty of userboxes that use the editcount of a user, such as:
One example of a user that would have liked such a bot can be seen here (found by accident while I was searching to see if such a bot already existed).
I have provided a first draft of the code, this is currently lacking error checking and still has a few bugs when functioning under certain non-regular conditions (automatic editcounts for different users on the same page), but it shows the basic functioning of the program. - EdoDodo talk 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
{{
User:EditCountBot/Count|PleaseStand}}
would call {{
User:EditCountBot/Count/7|PleaseStand}}
.{{
User:EditCountBot/Count|PleaseStand}}
with {{
User:EditCountBot/Count/a|PleaseStand}}
.I'm going to go ahead and declare that I'm opposed on the grounds that it encourages editcountitis. Sorry, I appreciate there is a purpose to it, but I think it's better not to do it. Rd232 talk 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I actually think that if anything this would discourage continuous checking of edit count – if you know that yours userbox/ service award will automatically be updated it becomes unnecessary to check your edit count continuously. But that's just my opinion. - EdoDodo talk 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, article-space edits are what matter. The MediaWiki API's edit count, used for the purpose of autoconfirmation, does not care about namespace. If you want to get article-space edits only, I think you would need a Toolserver account. PleaseStand (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with the editcountitis issues. Note that using a big #switch just shifts the load around. Rather than making one edit to update a hardcoded value or a simple template, the servers have to parse some massive template every time they parse each userpage that uses it. If this is done, it should run rather infrequently, weekly at most. While it may only be a few users initially, it could easily grow to several hundred, if not thousand. Mr. Z-man 02:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd just rather it not turn into something like Template:Toolserver which has nearly 20k revisions because people are lazy. Q T C 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with Rd232 and oppose the introduction of a bot that helps to encourage the view that it is better to make five similar edits to an article, rather than one edit with the five similar changes. If people want a "my edit count" userbox, fine. It's also sort-of fine if people want a significant portion of their edits to be updates to their user page. But it's not fine to provide bots that may be interpreted by some as an endorsement of the practice. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This reeks of the ill fated User:StatusBot. Which as you would recall was blocked by the developer's for being a waste of system resources. This bot seems to follow the same principle (i.e. making edits solely so that other can have a conveniently updated status/edit count on their user page). I move the bot be declined on both the previous precedent set by status bot and the extra issue that it encourages editcountitis. -- Chris 08:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by operator. Okay, well after discussion with other editors it seems clear that this bot does not have consensus and I too am leaning towards agreeing that this would put too much weight on edit counts, so I am withdrawing my request. -
EdoDodo
talk
20:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
reply
Operator: EdoDodo ( talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (using Pywikipedia)
Source code available: A first draft, lacking error checking, splitting into functions, etc. but demonstrates the functionality of the bot.
Function overview: The basic function of this bot is to complete a template of the editcount of a user, for use by other templates and userboxes that take the editcount of a user as a parameter, thus creating automatically updating editcount userboxes.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The bot will be making non-controversial edits, so discussion is not necessary. Ongoing discussion
here.
Edit period(s): Runs to update all the edit counts at non-peak times (Frequency open for discussion, daily? weekly?)
Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on how many users wish to have an edit count kept update, initially probably only a few userpages.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Function details:
The basic function of this bot is to complete a template of the editcount of a user, for use by other templates and userboxes that take the editcount of a user as a parameter, thus creating automatically updating editcount userboxes.
There are plenty of userboxes that use the editcount of a user, such as:
One example of a user that would have liked such a bot can be seen here (found by accident while I was searching to see if such a bot already existed).
I have provided a first draft of the code, this is currently lacking error checking and still has a few bugs when functioning under certain non-regular conditions (automatic editcounts for different users on the same page), but it shows the basic functioning of the program. - EdoDodo talk 18:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
{{
User:EditCountBot/Count|PleaseStand}}
would call {{
User:EditCountBot/Count/7|PleaseStand}}
.{{
User:EditCountBot/Count|PleaseStand}}
with {{
User:EditCountBot/Count/a|PleaseStand}}
.I'm going to go ahead and declare that I'm opposed on the grounds that it encourages editcountitis. Sorry, I appreciate there is a purpose to it, but I think it's better not to do it. Rd232 talk 20:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I actually think that if anything this would discourage continuous checking of edit count – if you know that yours userbox/ service award will automatically be updated it becomes unnecessary to check your edit count continuously. But that's just my opinion. - EdoDodo talk 21:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
In my opinion, article-space edits are what matter. The MediaWiki API's edit count, used for the purpose of autoconfirmation, does not care about namespace. If you want to get article-space edits only, I think you would need a Toolserver account. PleaseStand (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with the editcountitis issues. Note that using a big #switch just shifts the load around. Rather than making one edit to update a hardcoded value or a simple template, the servers have to parse some massive template every time they parse each userpage that uses it. If this is done, it should run rather infrequently, weekly at most. While it may only be a few users initially, it could easily grow to several hundred, if not thousand. Mr. Z-man 02:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I'd just rather it not turn into something like Template:Toolserver which has nearly 20k revisions because people are lazy. Q T C 05:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
I agree with Rd232 and oppose the introduction of a bot that helps to encourage the view that it is better to make five similar edits to an article, rather than one edit with the five similar changes. If people want a "my edit count" userbox, fine. It's also sort-of fine if people want a significant portion of their edits to be updates to their user page. But it's not fine to provide bots that may be interpreted by some as an endorsement of the practice. Johnuniq ( talk) 07:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
This reeks of the ill fated User:StatusBot. Which as you would recall was blocked by the developer's for being a waste of system resources. This bot seems to follow the same principle (i.e. making edits solely so that other can have a conveniently updated status/edit count on their user page). I move the bot be declined on both the previous precedent set by status bot and the extra issue that it encourages editcountitis. -- Chris 08:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Withdrawn by operator. Okay, well after discussion with other editors it seems clear that this bot does not have consensus and I too am leaning towards agreeing that this would put too much weight on edit counts, so I am withdrawing my request. -
EdoDodo
talk
20:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
reply