Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CountyBot

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

Denied.

CountyBot[edit]

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

Time filed: 10:24, Friday, June 25, 2021 (UTC)

Function overview: Semi-automatic editing of UK place templates using WP:AWB

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual

Programming language(s): N/A

Source code available: N/A

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bot already granted bot flag on Wikidata.

Edit period(s): Ad hoc.

Estimated number of pages affected: < 25,000

Namespace(s): Main

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Addition/editing of historic_county field in articles using Template:Infobox UK place

Discussion[edit]

Note: This request specifies the bot account as the operator. A bot may not operate itself; please update the "Operator" field to indicate the account of the human running this bot. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the objections to adding this field automatically, this seems likely to be controversial. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Furthemore, can you please specify exactly what the bot task will do? Saying "edit parameter X" without further detail doesn't give us enough information to judge things. firefly ( t · c ) 12:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there are a clear number of cases where the data from Wikidata is simply wrong, any automatically added fields would be a really bad idea. There are also some issues with obvious redundancy that adding this field to places where it's the same as the current county that haven't really been resolved. Although there is a consensus that this information can be added to infoboxes, I'm not convinced that there is any actual consensus for doing so in an automated way or, even, for doing so on all articles using the infobox - which is a lot of articles. Thanks to Nikkimaria for notifying the template talk page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This will not be pulling data from Wikidata, but using the co-ordinates in the place template to assign the field directly. For interest, please could you provide examples of where the data in Wikidata is "wrong"? There is also a misunderstanding about what the data actually refers to. There is no such thing as a "current county", there are three things in the ONS Index of Place Names that are all current. This will just be a way to speed up the process of manually assigning and adding the field. Owain (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your point of view. There are two kinds of county that are 'current'. The 'historic county' exactly what it says on the tim: historic. The fact that it is given in a current source doesn't make it current. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what "historic" means. "Historic" means "with a lot of history", not "in the past", which is described by the word "historical". In any case, whether I believe it or not is irrelevant, the ONS Index of Place Names lists all three as current entities quite explicitly in their User Guide. Owain (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, in this case, "historic" means "the boundaries immediately prior to the Local Government Act 1888". Where I live is in Buckinghamshire and has been so since the Normans called it that 12th century. All that has changed is some redefinitions around the edges, bits of it given away as dowries or bits received from other counties. Boundary revisions and renamings have gone on for centuries, there is nothing sacrosanct about the one that happened in 1888. That is the real history. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Examples where it appeared to be wrong: Thetford, Outwell, Stowmarket, Donisthorpe, at least some of the other ones listed at List of places formerly in Derbyshire. It's also missing from some places. I imagine that, from a quick look at Thetford and Outwell this is due, in the main, to the coordinates being in the one historic county but not in the other. I think that means your methodology is flawed - I would strongly suggest that you need to look at every case by hand (I'm not joking or trying to be awkward). A lot of these boundaries are complex. We need to get this right and trying to do it based on anything other than actual research is massively flawed I'm afraid. As an extension of this argument, I seem to often find there are significant issues with coordinates that were put in a long time ago being a bit crap.

Could I suggest you start with a single county - one that's not too tricky like Norfolk, say, and work around those borders using the maps. How many would you get "right"? There aren't that many tricky ones - it tends to be West Norfolk where the problems are - the stuff in east Norfolk is dead easy: St Olaves is the only vaguely odd one there (well, Newton, Norfolk is quite odd but doesn't need an infobox) Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what the problem is -- the data from the ONS uses the Definition A data from the Historic Counties Trust which disregards detached parts, and hence places Donisthorpe in Leicestershire. Stowmarket] on Wikidata correctly lists Suffolk, so not sure how that could have come out wrong if the WikidataIB module picked it up from there? I will deal with the split places (Thetford, Outwell, etc.) first. Owain (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bits of ~~Stowmarket~~ were in Cambridgeshire - the article literally makes a big deal of this (which is part of the problem). I thought it had Cambs as the HC, but I might be wrong - is certainly didn't show both. Follow those maps closely - places like Brandon, Suffolk had a very small part taken out of Norfolk, so need both putting in (tbh it's in both now as well). And, as I say, Norfolk's relatively straightforward. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an idiot btw - I meant Newmarket, Suffolk. I'm clearly getting old. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this fails WP:CONTEXTBOT, given the objections at the template talk page. Also, who is the actual operator? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that applies, as this is merely a pre-emptive bot request as suggested by the AWB documentation: "Don't edit too fast; consider opening a bot account if you are regularly making more than a few edits a minute." Owain (talk) 16:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer is not disinterested or neutral: they take the view that every place in the UK must have a populated historic county field, that editors should not have discretion on whether or not its use is appropriate or whether the question is just 'complicated'. This view is disputed. They have been invited to open a new RFC to propose that change: in the meantime the proposal is premature. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I disagree with you that certain fields must be hidden if other fields have the same value, I have agreed to go along with that for now. None of my edits will add the historic county if it coincidentally has its name borrowed by a lieutenancy area or county council area. That was what you wanted, right? Owain (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What I believe should happen is that infobox should only show the historic county if the boundary has moved across the settlement, otherwise it is just chaff. For Slough it is wheat, for Aylesbury and Reading it is chaff. Repetition is not so much the issue as the test of necessity and sufficiency. So ignoring the framing of your question, the answer is yes. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that for Yorkshire you are going to put in the appropriate riding as well which is more appropriate than just using Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I second that. To show the (current) shire county as North Yorkshire but the historic county as "Yorkshire" looks very odd (did the place move from Yorkshire to North Yorkshire?), and I can't see that it helps anyone. Whereas to say that the historic county was the West Riding of Yorkshire or the North Riding of Yorkshire would be really useful - e.g. to family historians who use WP a lot to find out about places where their ancestors lived.--Mhockey (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, that can be done. I think pretty much all Yorkshire places are categorised now, so I can pick this up in a second sweep. Owain (talk) 07:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As the East Riding of Yorkshire duplicates the present county 95% of them can be removed altogether. Keith D (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I also raise the issue of wards of the City of London (e.g. Aldersgate, Billingsgate, Bishopsgate, Cornhill, etc), which Owain is insisting are in the historic county of Middlesex. No doubt Owain will point out that the ONS places them in Middlesex, which I see on investigation is the case, but which I think is blatantly wrong. The City has always (since the Norman Conquest, at least) been regarded as a unit of itself, distinct from Middlesex. It's excluded from the Middlesex portion of Domesday Book, and was recognised as a county of itself (county corporate) from c.1130. London and Middlesex shared a sheriff until 1888, but were always regarded as possessing their own distinct identities, with neither subordinate to (or part of) the other. Even our article on Historic counties of England includes a map of the historic counties with the footnote "Not shown: City of London", implying that the City has its own quasi-county status. There have, of course, been periodic minor boundary changes, when small areas of Middlesex have been absorbed into the City, but that shouldn't affect the point at issue. It's thoroughly misleading to inform readers that these wards are in the historic county of Middlesex. GrindtXX (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such errors should be reverted on sight. If this is the effect of manual updating, how can a bot request be taken seriously? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:49, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear on the extent to which Owain's recent spate of activity is manual or automated, but in the case of Bishopsgate, which is where I first encountered the issue, I have now twice removed the mention of Middlesex, but both times have been reverted by Owain without comment or explanation. GrindtXX (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denied. The scope is ill-defined, the operator seems to be making manual changes without regard for being rolled back on similar edits to what the bot would be making, and in general the tone here indicates that this would not be a welcome task. If there is a demonstrated consensus that these changes are wanted and can/should be automated for ease of use, there is no prejudice against a new task, but this one currently has very little chance of passing given all that has been said above. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2021 (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.