Operator: KuduIO (talk · contribs)
Time filed: 22:30, Friday September 9, 2011 (UTC)
Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised
Programming language(s): Python, regular expressions
Source code available: Standard pywikipedia
Function overview: The bot will check for articles using ((Geobox)) where the map_locator
paramater is "Ontario", and replace its map
parameter by Canada Ontario location map 2.svg.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to update map parameter values for Geobox used with articles in Ontario
Edit period(s): One-time run
Estimated number of pages affected: ~300
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Am I to understand correctly that this cannot be fixed with addition of some internal template logic? I'm unfamiliar with geoboxes and how they choose which image to display. Is it always manually specified and any file change requires a manual update? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
map
and map_locator
, and reduce it to just one, map_locator
. This would ensure that, even if the called Geobox locator templates had their images changed at some point in the future, no changes would need to be made to articles using Geobox. Of course, I am not well-versed enough in template coding to be able to evaluate if such a coding change to Geobox is tehcnically feasible or worth whatever coding effort that would be required. May I also suggest that this aspect of the discussion is separate from the immediate bot request: it is about the Geobox template itself, and might be better hosted at the talk page for Geobox? I am certain whatever expertise the commenters here have would be welcomed there. It would also allow commenters there who are more familiar with the Geobox template code to offer their insights.--papageno (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Alright, it seems this is currently th best way to do it even if hypothetical improvements exist. I wouldn't mind someone with expertise commenting though, but that may be beyond this BRFA's scope. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Approved. Edits look fine. Please use a more descriptive edit summary. P.S. This approval is for a one-time run though, not any number of future similar runs. I would want to see a proper discussion first about automatically (by bot) changing maps this way or at least some explanation that this is the best way to do it. It probably is, I'm just being on the safe side. No problem in having additional runs with a note at WT:BRFA. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]