Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 37

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

Request Expired.

SmackBot 37 edit

Operator: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Use as date things that were almost certainly date

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough/Archive/2010Oct#Smackbot_comma request from User:Sladen

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: small backlog and maybe 1 per day

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Changes would be for default parameters:* {{Clean up|October 2010}} => {{Clean up|date=October 2010}} Generic parameters

{{Clean up|reason = October 2010}} => {{Clean up|date=October 2010}}
{{Clean up|comment = October 2010}} => {{Clean up|date=October 2010}}

Oddities

{{Clean up|reason = date= October 2010}} => {{Clean up|date=October 2010}}
{{Clean up|comment = reason = October 2010}} => {{Clean up|date=October 2010}}

and the usual mis-spellings, mis-formatting etc, as and when they can be implemented.

Discussion edit

This is something that has been requested/suggested many times. I have previously turned it down, arguing that people might actually mean "reason= October 2010". Moving from default parameters is already covered in a previous BRFA I think, but I include it here for completeness.Rich Farmbrough 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes an editor means to space out parameters for readability, for example:

{{Undated |date=October 2010}}

{{Unwritten |date=October 2010}}

{{Unmaintained |date=October 2010}}

{{Uncited |date=October 2010}}

I would argue, you should preserve spacing as much as possible. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I respect that concept for infoboxen and the like, but there should really never be more than 2 or 3 clean up templates together, and the dates are only (I would submit) relevant to the system, and to me as the guy that clears up the .5% that SB can't. If the above were real boxes they should be consolidated into {{Multiple issues}}. And we are talking about 1 edit a day, to an already broken template. Lets not get into minutiae of minutiae.Rich Farmbrough, 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I was just giving some input since noone else is. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it is appreciated. All this stuff needs thinking about. I'm checking a database dump now, to see if there are examples of what you suggest using the "unreferenced" tag (looks like there aren't, so far) so I also take the suggestion seriously. Even if a discussion at BRFA results in no change to a spec, it does serve to show that the bot community is serious and thoughtful. Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Rich Farmbrough, 14:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various questions:

What tags is this task going to touch? Only maintainance templates (top, inline, section, bottom), I presume (i.e. probably those in Category:Cleanup templates)?
What do you mean by "the usual mis-spellings, mis-formatting": Only incorrect parameters that were still likely intended as a date, or anything else as well?
How are your rules going to transform the following, noting that {{Clean up}} redirects to {{Cleanup}} or ({{cleanup}} for those in Team Lcfirst), and neither is listed at WP:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects:
1. {{ Clean_up |reason = October 2010}}
2. {{ clean _ _up |reason = October 2010}}
3. {{ Cleanup |reason = October 2010}}
4. {{ cleanup |reason = October 2010}}
5. {{cleanup
  | comment = Foo!
  | reason = October 2010}}

Amalthea 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've got a little list.
Yes, and see below.
Typically there will be a rule like so:

{{\s*(Cleanup|Attention[ _]+$on[ _]+talk[ _]+page$|Clean|Cu|CU|Tidy|Cleanup-quality|Cleanup-date|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+$article[ _]+page$|Attn|Attention[ _]+see[ _]+talk|Attention|Attention[ _]+needed[ _]+$talk[ _]+page$|Clean[ _]+up|Cleanup-because|Clean-up|Cleanup-reason|Cleanup-since|Ugly|Cleanup-Pitt|Improve|Quality|Clu) *([\|}\n]) => {{Cleanup$2

Followed by a rule something like

followed by

(Cleanup|templatename2|tempaltename3|... templatename570)\|\s*reason\s*=\s*(\d+)\s+(Janaury...October...)\s*(\||}) =>$1|reason=$3 $2

etc etc...

As for the multi-line, they are scarce with almost all tags but it's a check box in AWb and careful choice of rex-ex bits to make that work. Not sure that I'd worry about it though.

Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Trial complete. here Minor problem with Battle of Mons Grapius which is corrected, otherwise straightforward. Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Second trial edit

In the interests of moving things forward, and given that there have been no substantive objections to the task itself, Approved for extended trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 11:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Has this trial been completed? Mr.Z-man 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Any updates? MBisanz ^talk 10:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. MBisanz ^talk 08:28, 13 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.