Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43

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

Approved.

SmackBot 43

Operator: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Remove Template:Unreferenced from year, decade or century articles

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 11#Internal References and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 45#Verification of lists

Edit period(s): One off to remove historical, then maintenance.

Estimated number of pages affected: 2263

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Remove tag using AWB. General fixes.

Discussion

These pages are tagged "unreferenced" but merely consist of lists of events that are (or should be) referenced in the appropriate articles. Rich Farmbrough 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{BAG assistance needed}} Rich Farmbrough 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Tim 1357 ^talk 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. Tim 1357 ^talk 03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [1] Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} Rich Farmbrough, 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 45#Verification of lists. –xeno^talk 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The discussion about this only addresses the tagging of pages/lists with redundant facts to their respective articles. However, are year/century articles not allowed to have facts/statements not present in any other article? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are [to the extent that it is not forbidden, though it is unlikely and unwise]^RF but they fall under the same verifiability rqts as other facts. Both discussions suggest tagging the individual facts rather than the whole page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Looking at the both discussions, there are opinions both ways, so for BRFA purposes there is no consensus to do this by bot. That said, SmackBot-added templates are clearly the error by Erik9bot. So removing those should be uncontroversial with several editors supporting this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for a one-time run to remove tags added by Erik9bot. There was no consensus to add them. As WP:V says, facts likely to be challenged are to be referenced; and Erik9bot could not have known what needs and what doesn't need to be checked. Individual facts need to be inline {{cn}}'ed, not umbrella stamped with a top {{unreferenced}} tag. To move this along, I narrowed the approved tasks's scope. Feel free to open additional BRFA/discussion to deal with the general cases. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:42, 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.