Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 3

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.

Snotbot 3

Operator: Snottywong (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 15:07, Tuesday March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Pywikipedia

Function overview: Replace level 2 heading of ==Plot synopsis== with ~~"==Synopsis=="~~ "==Plot==".

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests#Change .22.3D.3D Plot synopsis.3D.3D.22 to .22.3D.3D Synopsis .3D.3D.22 Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_34#Proposed_bot_to_change_section_headings_from_.22Plot_synopsis.22_to_.22Synopsis.22

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: 1,585

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): No

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes

Function details: Bot will comb through all articles listed at User:Chris the speller/synopsis, search for the text "==Plot synopsis==" and replace it with ~~"==Synopsis=="~~ "==Plot==".

Discussion

Hi SW. I see you listed the Bot Request discussion in the "relevant discussion" section, but that (currently) it is a conversation between you and Chris the speller. I think you should get more community input before allowing a bot to edit this many articles. Perhaps try the film wikiproject talk page, or the MOS talk page (you can even try WP:VPR, if those previous two don't give you much response). Drop a few links here to the discussions. Tim 1357 ^talk 23:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought. I've asked Chris the speller to start a discussion somewhere and will post a link to the discussion when/if a consensus is established. —SW— ^yak 23:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion at WT:FILM. Chris the speller (talk) 04:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the WT:FILM discussion reaches a consensus that "Plot synopsis" should be changed to "Plot", then I agree that Snotbot should be used to make the change. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't seem to be any opposition to the idea at the discussion. Can we call that consensus and get started? —SW— ^confer 19:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. —SW— ^chatter 23:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits look good. Will leave this up for a few days in case someone comments. Also, you should link the edit summary to this BRFA instead of just plain text to aid navigation of interested editors. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. —SW— ^spout 15:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if the TV editors would have a different take than the movie editors, but looking at WP:MOSTV, they have a heading "Plot section", and no mention of "synopsis", so now I don't expect much screaming from them when we let it rip. Chris the speller (talk) 16:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} It's been about a week, no complaints, and none of the trial changes have been reverted. Are we good to go? —SW— ^confess 23:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a matter on which we have no need for uniformity, and on which the risk of false positives is not negligible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what evidence are you basing your judgement that the risk of false positives is not negligible? In what situations would a heading of "==Plot synopsis==" be correct and/or desired? —SW— ^spout 17:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What precautions have you taken against the occasional article where ==Plot synopsis== would be correct? This might arise in several ways, most obviously having a synopsis be itself part of the plot.

In the fringe case you outline above, where a synopsis is part of the plot, there would most likely be a subsection of "===Synopsis===" within the larger heading of "==Plot==". If you can show us one example of a real article where part of the plot itself involves a synopsis, and there is a heading of "Plot synopsis" which shouldn't be changed, then I will concede and agree that we should delay running this process. Otherwise, I feel that you are dreaming up fringe cases which almost certainly don't exist in order to hold up the improvement and standardization of thousands of articles. —SW— ^converse 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a separate point, the consensus is to alter to "Plot". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what your point is with that statement. The bot currently changes "==Plot synopsis==" to "==Plot==", per the consensus. Have you looked at any of the trial edits? —SW— ^converse 18:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, opposition from one editor does not negate a consensus. Chris the speller (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially when the opposer has some kind of vendetta against any bot request I make. Can someone let me know if I'm ok to go ahead with this or if I should wait? —SW— ^prattle 22:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (150 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (edit conflict) Seeing no false positives so far, and there being general consensus (except one oppose), and over a week with no reverts; let's see a bigger patch of this done, so BAG can actually check for false positives instead of speculate on probability. (P.S. don't forget better edit summary) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Done. I worked on the next 150 on the list, six of them had already been manually changed by other editors, so I think I made 144 additional edits. —SW— ^yak 23:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose What is the need for this bot? There's no need for uniformity in this area, especially when the difference is so slight. Setting up bots like this kills the possibility of experimentation in the community. We have reviews to ensure things like this are in order. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what type of "experimentation" is discouraged as a result of correcting grammatical mistakes and standardizing section headings in similar articles? —SW— ^talk 17:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Plot synopsis" contains an element of semantic redundancy, though I wonder if it is so bad as to require a bot. Changing every section heading to "Plot" actively ~~discourages~~ the use of other valid headings. There is no reason or requirement that all articles be consistent in this way. I've argued elsewhere that "Synopsis" or "Plot summary" are superior titles to simply "Plot", this bot will destroy any chance to try them or demonstrate their efficacy, thus wikipedia will be stuck at an inferior equilibrium. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed action for this bot will not affect any articles that contain headings named "Synopsis" or "Plot summary", and will not prevent anyone from creating those sections. Please read this project page thoroughly before raising objections. Although WP:PURPOSE says nothing about fostering creativity and experimentation, this bot will not kill anything, but it will clean up quite a few headings that make WP and its editors look stupid. But since "Plot synopsis" (apparently) doesn't look stupid to you, continuing this discussion is not likely to produce anything useful. Chris the speller (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also keep in mind that this bot is not intended to run continuously, it will be a one-time run. If someone doesn't like the change that it makes, all they need to do is revert it. The bot will not come back and force the article into any particular state, nor will it cause all of Wikipedia to be stuck in an over-dramatic, inferior equilibrium. —SW— ^converse 17:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the opposition to the task. To me it reads like we should not make a small improvement just because it is potentially possible to make a bigger improvement. Mind you, it is the operator that is dedicating his time to this and BAG who are making sure no false positives/bad edits arise. And even if the change is small, that is no reason to disallow the task that otherwise conforms to all policies/guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at trial edits, here are some comments:

The bot should not rename section if there is already a "Plot" section, i.e. [1]
The bot should not rename sections with just one shortish paragraph, e.g. [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Basically, it can argued whether it was intended to be "Plot" or "Plot summary/Synopsis". Rather than start debates, I suggest leave these alone.

All other edits look fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your first comment, and that should be pretty easy to implement. I'm not sure I understand the motivation behind the second comment, though. "Plot" seems like an appropriate section heading for all of the articles you linked to above. —SW— ^soliloquize 15:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(It seems this request has stalled...) {{BAG assistance needed}} —SW— ^express 18:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:55, 10 May 2011 (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.