The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Request Expired.

Operator: — Hyperdeath^(Talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): PHP

Function Overview: Automatically fix articles where unit conversions are made to a ridiculous degree of precision.

Edit period(s): One time run. (Initially)

Problem to be solved: A vast number of Wikipedia articles are blighted by unit conversions which are quoted to a degree of precision far greater than that of the original quantity. To give one example, 1000 feet is formally equal to 304.8 meters. In many articles (including Trans National Place, Dan Osman, Laurel Creek Gorge Bridge, Newburgh-Beacon Bridge, Ceiling projector, Panama Canal expansion project and Altitudinal zonation) this precise conversion is used. To give a distance as 304.8m, however, implies that the value is highly precise and must lie between 304.75 and 304.85m. For this to be correct, the original figure of 1000ft would have to be accurate to within 2 inches, which is not true for any of the above cases. Therefore overprecise conversions are not just bad style, but a subtle form of error. A casual search will reveal similar errors for almost every unit, including those of distance, area, pressure, temperature and more.

Function Details: UnitBot (which has yet to be written) will automatically search for such errors and correct them. It would:

• Systematically trawl through articles (restricting its activity to off-peak times with low server lag).
• Search for quantities given in multiple units.
• Quit if the unit conversion appears to be a definition. (e.g. "1 meter is equal to 3.2808399 feet.")
• Quit if the quantity appears to be a precisely defined standard. (e.g. "The offical boundary of space is at 100000m (328084ft) above sea level.")
• Quit if the article is about overprecise units.
• Quit if the units appear as part of a quotation.
• Assign a score based on overprecision. (For example 500 meters = 1640.41995 feet would receive a high score, whilst 500 meters = 1640 feet would receive a lower score.)
• Amend the score based on context. For example, use of the adjectives "nearly", "over", or "approximately" to describe the quantity would boost the score, whilst use of "exactly" would reduce it.
• Fix the article if the score was high enough.

I am personally happy to give this a short trial for the following reasons: 1) It hasn't been coded yet, so it's hard to get a feel for how it will work in practice. A small trial will no doubt alleviate concerns 2) Find out if there are any large inaccuracies / impossibilities. Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 17:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should IMO run under supervision. It's possible that the rules used will be build in a way which will not screw up legitimate entry, but due to the wide variety of how things can be written, I doubt it. I don't think 20 trial edits can cover a representative variety of stuff. After the initial 20 trial edits to spot "basic" problems, there should be at least another 100 trials edits (made on random pages rather than a specific category) if this is to run unsupervised.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I don't think this is a very good idea as a fully automatic bot. Wikipedia articles always have 10 times as many weird situations and edge-cases than you plan for. Also, the bot should be using ((convert)). Mr.Z-man 22:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bot should initially run under supervision (with an operator either allowing or rejecting each proposed modification). However, if no anomalous cases were detected, I think a trial run of unsupervised edits equal to the number of supervised edits would be reasonable. After a pause of a week (to give editors a chance to complain if it did mangle an article), a longer run could be executed (followed by another week long pause) and so on.

Alternatively, the bot could operate on a hybrid basis, where it automatically modifies the more obvious cases, but requests approval for the more ambiguous cases.

— Hyperdeath^(Talk) 15:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's start by running your trial of 20 under your bot account, and we'll see how it goes. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Coding is currently underway. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates? – Quadell ^(talk) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coding is still underway. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 18:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this? Mr.Z-man 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coding is still underway. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deadline, so keep this open until you finish or give up. But we will keep bugging you every couple of weeks. No offense. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's that time again. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real life is intruding on my time. The project is still active however. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 13:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real life is still intruding on my time. I'm still going ahead with it though. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 14:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this? (hehe) Rabbit67890 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still underway. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 16:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. – This request was initiated more than four months ago, and the trial still hasn't begun. This request may be re-opened at any time that operator assistance will be more readily available. — madman bum and angel 01:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]