Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 24
- 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.
Operator: GoingBatty (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:18, Thursday May 23, 2013 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): AWB
Source code available: AWB
Function overview: Remove invalid |author= parameters from citation templates
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): As needed
Estimated number of pages affected: Hundreds
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: When Reflinks suggests citation templates to be added to articles, users sometimes save the suggestions without first removing incorrect |author= parameters, such as Log in om een reactie te plaatsen. for YouTube. This bot would remove those incorrect values, and perform any other AWB general fixes at the same time. See this edit for an example processed manually.
Discussion[edit]
I have noticed that, perhaps due to misclassification of metadata by site webmasters, Reflinks often populates the |author= with days of the week, dates, timestamps and other similar chaff. It may also include incidental "by" "[newspaper] staff" and "staff reporter", which are not recommended by our guidelines. Will these be targeted for removal? -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- It's not out of the question, but I'll start with the easiest errors to remove first, and get more sophisticated as time goes forward. Your suggestions are always valuable! GoingBatty (talk) 04:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- @Ohconfucius: You inspired me - how does this edit look? GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- However, I won't remove dates, since sometimes the
|date=parameter is empty, and I don't want to accidentally remove a valuable (albeit misplaced) piece of information. GoingBatty (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Like Yes, that's the sort of stuff I often see directly imported via Reflinks and want to remove. It's true there is a fine line between cleanup and loss of valuable information, but that looks like excellent janitorial work. -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 01:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- However, I won't remove dates, since sometimes the
- @Ohconfucius: You inspired me - how does this edit look? GoingBatty (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Trial complete. - see diffs. GoingBatty (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- I only checked a few; looks good. I had no idea there was so much garbage in the templates. Have fun! -68.107.136.227 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Fortunately, we can send in the bots. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- These tasks are totally what bots are designed for, imo; they can remove millions of the types of errors that simply occur because you should have an army of editors more interested in content than tedious details, while the tedious details of uniformity make the articles more automated and easier on the readers. -68.107.136.227 (talk) 03:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Fortunately, we can send in the bots. ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I only checked a few; looks good. I had no idea there was so much garbage in the templates. Have fun! -68.107.136.227 (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
- All looks good to me so
Approved..! ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 09:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC) - 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.
