Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 49

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.

BattyBot 49

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: GoingBatty (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 15:38, Monday, December 28, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB, User:BattyBot/Date fixes

Function overview: Fix dates in template date parameters

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): Monthly

Estimated number of pages affected: Hundreds

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Use what I learned in working on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 25 to fix date misspellings in date parameters in other templates, for example:

• Infobox templates |birth_date= and |death_date= (example)
• Template:Infobox football biography |club-update=, |nationalteam-update= (example) and |pcpupdate= (example)
• Template:Updated first parameter (example)

The bot will also make any AWB general fixes if needed.

Discussion

My eyes hurt after looking at that page of regexes. :P On the upside, it does look like they're intentionally specific enough to try to avoid any WP:CONTEXTBOT issues. --slakr^\ talk / 03:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Let's make a short test befire any other questions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: Trial complete. - see these edits. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

1. This edit confuses me; shouldn't the bot be avoiding changing dates outside of templates since we don't know if this is a quote? Same thing here.
2. I suggest avoiding Persondata as we're in the middle of getting rid of that. A large number of the bot's edits only touch Persondata, so this would save a substantial amount of time.
3. Regardless of the above, this edit doesn't change anything.
4. Lastly, a link to MOS:BADDATEFORMAT or a related page in the edit summary would be a good idea.

— Earwig ^talk 00:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Thank you for your feedback. Hope you don't mind that I changed your bullets to numbers to make it easier to respond.

1. The bot code only changes in specific templates. The rest is AWB's general fixes, which is designed to avoid changing text in quotes.
2. I included Persondata because Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/KasparBot 3 indicates we are in the middle of "copying the information to a certain database which will be accessible on Tool Labs". However, I don't mind removing Persondata fixed from the bot code if we have some other plan to cleanup the data.
3. Agreed. I will check the AWB box that will skip the edit if it it only changing whitespace.
4. Agreed. Thanks for the idea.

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Cool, cool. I didn't realize that was in genfixes, so no problem there. The thing about the Persondata migration is that KasparBot has essentially created a snapshot of Persondata as it was in November/December, so AFAIK future changes won't show up in that database. I say we should just leave it alone. — Earwig ^talk 09:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@The Earwig: Thanks for getting me up to speed on the bot request - I didn't realize the snapshot has been done. Based on that, I agree that my bot should leave it alone and let KasparBot delete the Persondata template. Therefore, I will remove Persondata from the bot code. I agree that this will substantially reduce the number of edits. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I was going to sit on this a little longer, but I think we're good to go.  Approved. — Earwig ^talk 06:42, 8 January 2016 (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.