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

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

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

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.