User talk:BenchBot


 * Indented line


 * Bulleted list item
 * Bulleted list item

Big text --69.77.230.32 10:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Small text ==Bug==

Needed tweaks
{{closed|1=Resolved.-- George Orwell III (talk) 22:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)|text=
 * importation is out-of-sync with valid USSCcase template & parameters thereof
 * incorrect capitalization and missing "_" spacers of assigned parameters found in the valid USSCcase template being applied by BenchBot to cases results in the possible missing listing of existing sub-pages.


 * In the case of Utley v. Donaldson of the Waite court, the court opinion {Swayne) is listed fine but the dissent by Strong was not although BenchBot had added the name to the template (see original Bot edit) and created the dissent sub-page properly as well. Same missing dissent listing on Opinion of the Court sub-page occured so USSCcase2 is also subject to syntax mismatch.


 * problem was an invalid parameter was imported = dissentAuthor1            =  Strong


 * corrected parameter is = dissent_author1            = Strong
 * (note the underline " _ " used as a spacer and the lower case " a " in author)

Current and valid USSCcase &  USSCcase2 templates and their assigned parameter designations need to be reflected within the script BenchBot is using otherwise any Concur. or Dissent sub-pages won't be listed when the sub-page indeed exists already.
 * Verified - 2nd & 3rd case with same issue found - Allore v. Jewell/Dissent Strong, Doyle v. Continental Insurance Company/Dissent P. Bradley
 * Diss issue goes way back--all the way to Vol. 27. Instead of editing 5,000+ articles, I just added   and   to USSCcase and {{tl|USSCcase2}}. All the pages with   will still work. Cheers, stephen (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So now there are 2 parameters that produce the same thing? Not cool... but noted (hope it doesn't come back to bite us). George Orwell III (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Replaced /  with  /  in every article in Category:United States Supreme Court decisions and removed the extra parameters from USSCcase and {{tl|USSCcase2}}. Cheers, stephen (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

}}


 * add blank header interlink to wikipedia by default
 * Too many cases with a "yes" or "case name" added by BenchBot using USSCase point to wrong cases of the same name on wikipedia OR  subsequent needed disambiguation applied here breaks a previouisly valid WP interlink.


 * need script to add |wikipedia =  by default in the main header template to make editing/correcting a bit easier.

George Orwell III (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing these out. I'm working on a few updates this weekend, so I'll add these to the list. Meanwhile, I will have BenchBot go back and clean up those missing underscores.
 * Re: link to wikipedia—do we want to add  to both header and USSCcase, or do we want to deprecate the link in USSCcase in favor of header? Unfortunately, there is no simple way to verify that the link to WP is going to the right case. Right now, it merely checks the existence of a WP article with the same name as the case. If that creates too many improper links, I can turn it off entirely, and we can manually add WP links. I guess I underestimated the number of cases needing disambiguation. stephen (talk) 06:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Forgive me - I can't keep track of what-does-what across everything I manage to get mixed up in on WS. I was under the impression the wikipedia parameter in USSCcase[2] only took "yes" or "no" for a value (yes making an automatic WP link same as the BASEPAGENAME here in WS) but after freshening up those template's docs just now, I see I may have been wrong about that. If we can override "yes" or "no" with the matching WP article name manually in the USSCcase[2] template, then I rather we stick to that instead of relying on the standard header template to input that. If not - then I still rather fix USSCcase to accept manual inputs rather than activating the WP link in the common header (last resort). George Orwell III (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You remembered correctly, USSCcase currently does not allow manual WP links, although it can be done easily. The big issue with manual input is that it will remove the wikipedia link on cases that predate BenchBot. stephen (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Scratch all that and go back to the original request to add it --- the deeper I dig the more problematic this WP linkage becomes because of 2nd or 3rd level popular case names (or groups of cases under one popular title) are also being associated more and more with the "traditional" or docket case name as we would normally (the BASEPAGENAME) use here on WS. George Orwell III (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia links
The Bot isn't getting the Wikipedia links correct on subpages, like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce/Concurrence Stevens, which links to Concurrence Stevens, and not Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This was an issue with the application of the template and sub-pages regardless of bot importation or not. Looks like Stephen already modified the template to work around any sub-page application while I was looking at it. Seems to correct for those instances when in use now just fine. George Orwell III (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ Yup, I fixed it by changing the link from to  . All the subpages should be fixed, including those that predated BenchBot. We still need to go add   to the cases that don't have a corresponding wikipedia pages--BenchBot checks for corresponding wikipedia pages as it imports each case.  Cheers, stephen (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
Blocked for a couple of hours to make it stop until you've figured out how to stop it tagging 19th century poetry as Supreme Court case pages. Hesperian 04:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to sort out the discrepance between The Santa Maria and The Santa Maria/Opinion of the Court too. Hesperian 23:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon the intrusion & fwiw... I've left notes for Stephen to insure he is aware of this latest development. I did not want to address the infringement upon the original work until he had a chance to review and reply to your note. I will help try to follow-up on this if need be (or if you happen to be away the next time he happens checks in).George Orwell III (talk)


 * Thanks for pointing out this issue, and much apologies for the bug. To avoid this in the future, I am adding an extra step to verify if a page exists on Wikisource. There is also a U.S. Supreme Court case named The Santa Maria, so the talk page was intended for that case. I was using pywikipedia's -safe mode to avoid replacing existing pages, but that proved insufficient because it does not ensure that a talk page ends up with the proper article. To avoid this, I am taking an extra step to detect a Wikisource page with the same name when I format the data for import. This function detects the page:
 * If a page with the same name exists, I will disambiguate according to the case's citation: The Santa Maria will be located at The Santa Maria (20 U.S. 490). This new approach has been discussed here, and will avoid future problems with misplaced talk pages. Cheers, stephen (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I am slaporte on IRC in and  during bot operation, if there are any issues. stephen (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I am slaporte on IRC in and  during bot operation, if there are any issues. stephen (talk) 00:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine. Hesperian 00:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Flag request
To discuss this proposal, see the pending flag request in the Scriptorium. Cheers, stephen (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Bot flag approved in August 2010 -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

2,500,000th English Wikisource edit!
Dear BenchBot,

On March 12, 2011, 07:26 (UTC) you added a series of new pages concerning the Supreme Court to Wikisource. It has been determined that one of those edits (probably Magruder vs. Supplee) was the 2,500,000 English Wikisource edit! In honor of this Wikisource milestone you have been awarded a print copy of Wikipedia which will be mailed to you immediately! Congratulations and enjoy your free gift!

Sincerely, ResidentScholar, Administrator, Wikisource ResScholar (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Just kidding, please don't sue me. But it really did make the 2,500,000th edit. ResScholar (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Great job, BenchBot! I will download a copy of Wikipedia and give it to you on ResidentScholar's behalf. Cheers, stephen (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Suggested updates
Gday Stephen. Could I request some logic and text updates for Benchbot and also need for you to look at and fix the last of its contributions.

With the US court cases, I would like for you to consider doing the following
 * Relative links in the style ../ for title of subpages, and ../Blah blah/ for referencing other subpages
 * Converting top level  that point to  Wikisource:Supreme Court of the United States  to
 * Pushing  in the USS.. template and utilise   in header. Probably also worth a look at what we do in the header now since it is going through some renditions since we added plain sister to it.

Last set of edits at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikisource/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/BenchBot show that there is something wrong with the case. Should I delete those pages?


 * No. Legalskeptic will get to tidying up Volume 404 when he gets around to it. The case names are wrong and need to be moved but the content is still correct. Again, none of the regulars are "around" at the moment so its either wait for their "return", wait for me to get around to (not likely) or do whatever it is you feel is needed in order for you to exclude/move past this project/category to your satisfaction on your own. Its not as if I did not suggest more active participation in the overall WS community and better conformity with current practices to avoid just such issues more than a few times already (Fair warning exists). -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You probably did, and I probably did poke my head in, however, there are so many wikisource pockets. The old oil drop on water get one molecule of thickness to determine Avogadro's number doesn't work with humans.

Thanks for the consideration. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry; I cannot offer you any better options than the above for the time being. Hopefully they'll come around sooner rather than later. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Billinghurst, I'm on a wikibreak until August so I can focus on exams, but I will make these changes when I return. Thanks! stephen (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. Found while cruising and needed noting, and if you are not uploading, then the bot's application is not particularly pertinent. Plus they are not wrong, just suggestions anyway.

Kadans v.
Kadans v. is a problem, especially as it redlinks to Kadans v./Opinion of the Court whereas Benchbot placed the subpage at Kadans v. /Opinion of the Court. Hesperian 04:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kadans v., Mahan v. and Elias v. seem to be the extent of the problem.... Hesperian 06:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Amendment request
Hi. When (if) you get back to adding more court decisions, there needs to be a tweak to your code around wikilinking to US constitutional amendments. It is linking as th Amendment as shown at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Lampasas_v._Bell/Opinion_of_the_Court&oldid=2404916. We will get some bots to deal with the existing wikilink, so it would be great that you fix the bot for future additions. At the moment their is an omnibus page Additional amendments to the United States Constitution and I think that we will get some redirects built, so please check what gets done closer to the time. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Status of the import process
Hi. I sometimes do some work with the SCOTUS cases WikiProject on the English Wikipedia. The question of which source to use for case texts comes up a lot, which inevitably leads to a discussion of whether we can use Wikisource (yet). What's the status of the import process of United States Reports volumes? I very much appreciate that the bot has handled what appears to be roughly volumes 1–404. This is great! What about volumes 405–567 covering 1972–2012? Is there anything blocking finishing the rest of the volumes? Is the Python script still available and usable? --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 2 April 2018 (UTC)