The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA. The result of the discussion was  Approved.

DannyS712 bot 15[edit]

Operator: DannyS712 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 08:34, Saturday, March 16, 2019 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): JavaScript

Source code available:

Function overview: adding ((Germany district OSM map)) to the 'map' parameter of ((Infobox District DE)), where QXXXX is the Wikidata ID of the German state the district belongs to

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#OSM location map for German districts

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: <400

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Using the API, retrieve the wikidata wikibase_item for a page, and then add the corresponding parameter to ((Infobox District DE)).

Discussion[edit]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. @DannyS712: I thought I'd done this last night, but apparently not. Anyways, approved for trial. As usual, please post the diffs here when done and take all the time you need. --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Trial complete. see the 49 edits made at [1]. @Underlying lk: I didn't see any errors, but I also am not as familiar with the template and its use as you are. Can you take a look? --DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
parent_subdivision should be the QID of the state, for instance Lower Saxony (Q1197) for Hildesheim (district) and all the other districts in Niedersachsen; see this diff.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Underlying lk: hang on, so its not the QXXXX of the page itself? Then how do I find what page it is for? I'm rolling back the edits, since they were all wrong then. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: This query can be used for that.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Underlying lk: so just to confirm, the actual Q value to be added is the one listed under "located_in_the_administrative_territorial_entity", for each page labeled "rural_district_of_Germany". Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: Correct.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Underlying lk: So I should use User:DannyS712 test/infobox3.json instead of User:DannyS712 test/infobox2.json for the source? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: seems right to me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Underlying lk: in that case, @TheSandDoctor: would you be willing to approve an extended trial? I'll check the first bunch of edits the bot makes to ensure that it links to a correct map. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (25 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. @DannyS712: --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: shouldn't this be ((BotExtendedTrial))? --DannyS712 (talk) 03:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: You're right, it was a case of "thought I did one thing, but did another." Fixed --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: Trial complete. 25 edits made [2]. Code is at User:DannyS712 test/Map bot.js, actual list of pages to edit is at User:DannyS712 test/infobox4.json (infobox3 but removing pages that don't exist on enwiki). So of those listed won't be edited because they have to map parameter to replace. @Underlying lk: I looked, and don't see any errors. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Edits look fine to me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few more, and all the maps seem to be working. --DannyS712 (talk) 17:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no error on this, and the (limited) response seems positive, and no one objected after about 2-3 weeks,  Approved.. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at WT:BRFA.
Category