Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Aidan9382-Bot

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Withdrawn by operator.

Aidan9382-Bot 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: Aidan9382 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 08:09, Wednesday, March 23, 2022 (UTC)

Function overview: Replace clear-cut cases of improperly used "|format=" in citations

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: ~~Not for now~~ Yes, on GitHub

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~~A couple hundered, as~~ About 435 during a test run. There are about 1200 pages in the related catagory, but ~~only a small amount~~ not all of them are actually clear-cut. (May change as minor edits happen)

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant No: Only edits mainspace

Function details: For now, it will simply replace clear-cut cases of misused format without url (Paperback, e-book, etc.) by swapping the field from format to type. It applies citation-error edits to only mainspace, so i dont imagine an exclusion compliance is going to be needed, but i may be mistaken.

Discussion edit

If there are only a "small amount" that are straight-forward as claimed, this might be better for a quick AWB run, no? Primefac (talk) 12:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Im relatively new to wikipedia, and i wasnt aware about AWB. If you think an AWB run would be better, feel free to reject this and go for that instead. I just didnt feel like doing all the clear-cut cases manually, and didnt realise AWB existed. Aidan9382 _(talk) 17:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aidan9382: What would you consider a "clear-cut" case? Curious the sort of rule set you built for this. Could you give some examples? --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 17:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSandDoctor: Sorry for the late-ish reply, I was having an internal conflict on whether or not to withdraw this (Ive decided against it for now). Im gonna be considering fixing these terms:

e-Book / Google e-Book / Kindle e-Book (You get the point)
Print
Hardback / Paperback
DVD / Blu-ray (I may consider replacing format with medium and not type here. Functionally its the same, but it may make more sense to people)
Novel
Newspaper / Magazine

(I may come up with more later, but these are my main ideas right now)

(Note: The relevant catagory is Category:CS1_errors:_format_without_URL, i just didnt realise how to properly reference when submitting)

If you have any other suggestions, do say, but these are the most common simple mistakes i see when going through the catagory. Thanks. Aidan9382 _(talk) 11:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Source code is now public, so you can see the "clear-cut" list as-is, as well as anything else. (look in /Tasks/ for the file). Ive also updated the estimated number of pages affected after a no-edit test run. Aidan9382 _(talk) 06:48, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that a group where only 1/3 of the pages can actually be fixed by a bot is worth having a bot for, especially when that third is <500 (i.e. it would take about half an hour of clicking at 20epm to do it manually). Will keep thinking about it though. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I understand if your a bit shaky on it. If you want, you can reject it for now (or i might withdraw it myself), as im currently trying to make it fix a bit more than just a bad case of format (Even i realise i may have posted this a little too hastily as it does minimal in its current state) Aidan9382 _(talk) 16:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by operator. Primefac (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2022 (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.