Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KiranBOT 10

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

Withdrawn by operator.

KiranBOT 10

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

Approval process – How this discussion works
Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon

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

Time filed: 13:04, Saturday, September 7, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: go through Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata, add the coordinates from wikidata to enwiki article, and remove the {{coord missing}} template

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): pywikibot

Source code available: not yet, soon on github, pywikibot script

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): requested at WP:BOTREQ, permalink

Edit period(s): once a month

Estimated number of pages affected: around 19,000 in the first run, then as they come in

Namespace(s): mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no

Function details: the bot goes through Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata, for each article: it reads the coordinates from the wikidata QID of that particular article. adds it to the infobox with | coordinates = parameter. If infobox is not present, then it adds to the bottom on the appropriate location, using {{coord}} template. If the coordinates are added successfully, then the bot removes {{coords_missing}} template. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

this seems to be borderline cosmetic bot, if that's the case would it be possible to run the bot with lower edit rates like one edit per minute, or 1edit/5minutes? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would not fall under cosmetic bot because of the third point in WP:COSMETICBOT: [.. Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as...] the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs (e.g. changing {{citation needed}} to {{citation needed|date=September 2016}}) —usernamekiran (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAG assistance needed}} —usernamekiran (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — The Earwig (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Earwig: Hello. I made around 10 edits, but there were two technical, and another issue. I accidentally ran an older version of the script, which had problem of duplicate entries for coordinates, this has already been fixed. The second issue was of the format of coordinates. The third, non-technical issue is that this task currently does not have a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. But I think this was discussed in the past, and not recently. First I will fix the formatting issue, and then initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Till then, I think this BRFA should be put on {{BotOnHold}}. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked this same question on a duplicate bot request: How are you ensuing that the information you will be publishing satisfies WP:V? — xaosflux ^Talk 00:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: Hello. I apologise, I missed your comment somehow, I saw it a couple of minutes ago. I havent thought about it. Up until now, I was depending on wikidata information, with assumption wikidata information will be correct. If thats not enough, (either-way) I will try to think of something to verify the coordinates. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran it is possible that information on wikidata is referenced and accurate, but it is certainly possible that it is not. I don't think there is a presumption that a claim existing on wikidata equates to it being reliable and verifiable. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. I have been thinking about the verifiability issue. There is no sensible way to achieve that. Even though the program works finely, it fails WP:V. There is also the consensus issue. In case I or someone else comes up with a solution, I might file a new BRFA after gaining consensus. Thank you guys for your patience. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:21, 27 April 2025 (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 Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard.