Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/KaldariBot
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Approved. I see that Jura1 is still not totally convinced, however, we need to move forward. Ryan, please be extra careful, and if there are complaints about the execution of the task, please stop the bot and discuss.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
KaldariBot edit
KaldariBot (talk • contribs • new items • new lexemes • SUL • Block log • User rights log • User rights • xtools)
Operator: Kaldari (talk • contribs • logs)
Task/s: Replace instances of country (P17):Antarctic Treaty area (Q21590062) with country (P17):novalue, per these three discussions.
Code: https://github.com/kaldari/wikidata-fixes/blob/master/fix.php
Function details: This bot takes all items that currently have the claim country (P17):Antarctic Treaty area (Q21590062) (i.e. places in Antarctica), removes their existing country claims, and adds the claim country (P17):novalue. It waits 2 second after each edit (to prevent database lag). --Kaldari (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm quite sure you can change the target of the claim in one edit. Multichill (talk) 09:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed possible with the used API:
setMainSnak( new PropertyNoValueSnak( PropertyId::newFromNumber( 17 ))
. Mbch331 (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]- @Multichill, Mbch331: I was thinking it would be safer to remove all the country claims first as many locations in Antarctica are claimed by multiple countries. Otherwise we might end up with multiple 'country:novalue' statements (if we're just changing the existing claims). I'm open to doing it either way though. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Multichill, Mbch331: Does my explanation above make sense, or would you prefer that I just change the existing claims? Kaldari (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We are still discussing the best approach on Property talk. Beyond to what people like or dislike or are used to see, we found a definition to which some of us agree and a reference for the current approach. As we are exploring alternatives and seeking references for these, it seems premature to do any change for now.
--- Jura 04:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]- @Multichill, Mbch331, Jura1: I've updated the script to add a new claim for located in the administrative territorial entity (P131):Antarctic Treaty area (Q21590062) per the discussion at Property talk:P17. Kaldari (talk) 19:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Multichill, Mbch331, Jura1: Any reaction to keep this going?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We still haven't sorted it out.
--- Jura 07:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]- I believe everything is sorted out now. Jura: Any objections to moving ahead with this? Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1:?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Multichill, Mbch331: Regardless of Jura's opinion, there is a strong consensus to implement this change. Jura is the only person who has expressed opposition to it. Five other people have supported it. There is no reason we should delay this task indefinitely due to 1 person blocking consensus. Kaldari (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can close this as not done. The consensus developed last year seems the preferable solution. There isn't really any benefit of adding statement relative to the US view of the 1970s (see reference on talk page provided by proposer after weeks of research). The reference provided seems insufficient and contradicts the NPOV view of enwiki.
--- Jura 09:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jura1:?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe everything is sorted out now. Jura: Any objections to moving ahead with this? Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We still haven't sorted it out.
- That is indeed possible with the used API:
- @Ladsgroup: I haven't been able to get any response from Multichill or Mbch331 since July. Any chance you could take a look at this? As you can see at Property talk:P17#Proposal for solution I, there is a consensus to implement this small bot task. I just haven't been able to get anyone to give me the go ahead to do it. Kaldari (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari: Hey, Per Wikidata:Bots#Approval_process, you need to do around 59 tests edits and once it's done I check and then I approve. Amir (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ladsgroup: Did a test run of 58 items: Special:Contributions/KaldariBot. I had to set the pause between each insert to 20 seconds in order to not hit the rate limit. Do you know what the actual maximum rate is? Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari: Sorry, I meant 50. The edits look okay. Last time I checked it was 60 / min. The important thing is that you define a reasonable maximum. I hereby approve your request (and we need a 'crat to give the right to your bot) but don't forget to make bot flag for each edit and also never make edit using your bot account. (Your mention came from your bot account) Amir (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ladsgroup: Did a test run of 58 items: Special:Contributions/KaldariBot. I had to set the pause between each insert to 20 seconds in order to not hit the rate limit. Do you know what the actual maximum rate is? Kaldari (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kaldari: Hey, Per Wikidata:Bots#Approval_process, you need to do around 59 tests edits and once it's done I check and then I approve. Amir (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- We still haven't found a satisfactory reference for this change.
--- Jura 10:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]- The reference for this change (if you need one) is the Antarctic Treaty (as well as the secondary source already provided). Regardless, consensus has already been established for running this task. Kaldari (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- It's even malfunctioning ..
--- Jura 07:59, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]