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[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: 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[edit]

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.