Operator: Jarry1250 ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 12:43, Tuesday September 10, 2013 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): PHP, Peachy framework
Source code available: Yes, though it's not going to win any style awards!
Function overview: Add |commonscat=XXX entries to existing listed building entries. Example
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Use of the commonscat parameter is well established
Edit period(s): One time run, with the potential for smaller incremental runs at a later date
Estimated number of pages affected: ~350 initially
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (though unlikely to be an issue)
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The |commonscat parameter of the English listed building lists provides very useful functionality, not least because Commons often has many images of buildings with only skeleton entries here on the English Wikipedia. Primarily, however, it serves three purposes:
However, so far we have relied on human editors adding these categories, despite the fact that many can be easily recovered programmatically. The code linked to above provides three main recovery mechanisms:
Although strict checks are applied at each stage to minimise the false positive rate, a further two sanity checks are applied late on:
This ensures a low (zero?) false positive error rate, while saving human editors a great deal of time and allowing them to focus on less mundane tasks.
In the process of testing my code, I made some manual edits with identical output: [1] [2] [3] [4]. These form a technical trial of sorts, I suppose -- you can see the code doing what it's supposed to, at least. - Jarry1250 Vacation needed 12:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Approved. No issues that I can see. Low edit rate; uncontroversial task; supervision on any problems; trusted bot op. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 19:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Operator: Jarry1250 ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 12:43, Tuesday September 10, 2013 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): PHP, Peachy framework
Source code available: Yes, though it's not going to win any style awards!
Function overview: Add |commonscat=XXX entries to existing listed building entries. Example
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Use of the commonscat parameter is well established
Edit period(s): One time run, with the potential for smaller incremental runs at a later date
Estimated number of pages affected: ~350 initially
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (though unlikely to be an issue)
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The |commonscat parameter of the English listed building lists provides very useful functionality, not least because Commons often has many images of buildings with only skeleton entries here on the English Wikipedia. Primarily, however, it serves three purposes:
However, so far we have relied on human editors adding these categories, despite the fact that many can be easily recovered programmatically. The code linked to above provides three main recovery mechanisms:
Although strict checks are applied at each stage to minimise the false positive rate, a further two sanity checks are applied late on:
This ensures a low (zero?) false positive error rate, while saving human editors a great deal of time and allowing them to focus on less mundane tasks.
In the process of testing my code, I made some manual edits with identical output: [1] [2] [3] [4]. These form a technical trial of sorts, I suppose -- you can see the code doing what it's supposed to, at least. - Jarry1250 Vacation needed 12:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 19:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC) reply
Approved. No issues that I can see. Low edit rate; uncontroversial task; supervision on any problems; trusted bot op. — HELLKNOWZ ▎ TALK 19:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC) reply