Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 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.
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, unsupervised
Programming language(s): Perl
Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/TagDater.pm
Function overview: Date maintenance tags.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:BOTREQ#Undated Articles
Edit period(s): Continuous
Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on how often people leave maintenance tags undated, and whether other bots beat AnomieBOT to it.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: Date maintenance tags in articles listed in first-level subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance categories sorted by month.
- For templates in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates and their redirects:
- If a recognizable date exists in
|1=or certain other parameters, move it to|date=. - If the date is an incorrect format (e.g. MDY, DMY, YMD), correct it to the Month Year format needed by the templates.
- If all else fails, add the current Month Year as
|date=. This will be done directly using the bot's local clock in UTC, not using {{subst:CURRENTMONTH}} {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}, to avoid the known problems with using the substs.
- If a recognizable date exists in
- For {{multiple issues}} and redirects:
- For each parameter besides "article", "section", "expert", "text", and numbered parameters, correct the date format or fill in the current date as above.
- For {{as of}}, {{update after}}, and their redirects:
- If a
|date=exists, remove it or move it to|1=if necessary. - If
|1=contains a recognizable date instead of having the date specified with year in 1, month in 2, and day in 3, correct it. Supply the current year if necessary. - If no
|1=is found or|1=is "today", "now", or certain other keywords, add the current date.
- If a
Discussion[edit]
User:SmackBot currently handles this task when it can manage to remain unblocked. User:Yobot has been doing it lately, but Magioladitis is uninterested in continuing it long-term. KarlsenBot 6 was denied as the operator was blocked by ArbCom. AnomieBOT will not be bypassing redirects or changing the capitalization of redirects, or applying any other AWB general fixes (since AnomieBOT does not use AWB). Anomie⚔ 00:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Of course, I would prefer if you were bypassing the redirects too to reduce problems with overlaping bots, etc. The most we do in one run the best. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, they don't ru to just bypass redirects. At least as far as I know. But for example, some times I try to fix checkwiki errors in a list, a bot doing a similar job has just came by and then my bot ends up only bypassing a redirect making some people upset seeing the second bot just doing nothing. And, yes, it's a side effect for AWB bots. I like you method with loading all redirects though. I don't have strong opinion anyway. I m just proposing it in order to mix significant edits (dating undated templates) with insignificant (bypassing redirects) in a nice proportion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- It's verging on the insane that such a simple, useful task has become unstuck. Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.; I mean, the consensus for such a task had clearly not changed, only quibbles over operators. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 19:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Trial complete. [1] Anomie⚔ 20:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good (particularly the date correction function, which seemed to work). I'm just left with this feeling if you're going to be editing anyway, and you can reliably test that, then you should be bypassing redirects for the templates you're dating... but then, maybe that's just because that's how it's been done in the past. Still, that's no quibble against this BRFA, since they are so cheap.
Approved. verging on "speedy" - it's a time sensitive thing for which consensus has already been established. - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 21:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Looks good (particularly the date correction function, which seemed to work). I'm just left with this feeling if you're going to be editing anyway, and you can reliably test that, then you should be bypassing redirects for the templates you're dating... but then, maybe that's just because that's how it's been done in the past. Still, that's no quibble against this BRFA, since they are so cheap.
- It's verging on the insane that such a simple, useful task has become unstuck.
- No, they don't ru to just bypass redirects. At least as far as I know. But for example, some times I try to fix checkwiki errors in a list, a bot doing a similar job has just came by and then my bot ends up only bypassing a redirect making some people upset seeing the second bot just doing nothing. And, yes, it's a side effect for AWB bots. I like you method with loading all redirects though. I don't have strong opinion anyway. I m just proposing it in order to mix significant edits (dating undated templates) with insignificant (bypassing redirects) in a nice proportion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2010 (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.
