Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 78


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at Bots/Noticeboard. The result of the discussion was

BattyBot 78
Operator:

Time filed: 04:20, Sunday, November 12, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Remove url-access info from citation with dead URL

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Source code available: AWB

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 91, Template:Cite_web

Edit period(s): One time run per domain

Estimated number of pages affected: 1,827 for higbeam.com

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: For citation templates with dead domains (e.g. www.higbeam.com), remove the url-access parameter (e.g. this edit) and/or subscription required template (e.g. this edit). Will also run AWB's general fixes. GoingBatty (talk) 04:20, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion
There was discussion of this at Help talk:Citation Style 1, and this does appear to be the correct thing to do; the parameters are useless/confusing when the domain to which they pertain is dead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Am I reading your comment here right in that you and other editors would object to this task? I don't have very strong feelings about this, but I can see value in indicating an archived URL requires a subscription; even if said subscription is no longer available, the full content remains unaccessible at the archive URL. —&#8239; The Earwig (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, during discussions 3 or 4 editors objected. There were actually two threads, the first was Help_talk:Citation_Style_1. The more we know about the original source the better it is to verify. If the source was subscription, it can be assumed the archive version won't have the full (or any) content which makes it a higher-value target for editors doing verification work. Particularly in the future, when AI can help with verification. --  Green  C  22:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it's helpful information as well. Easier to know when the source was accessed in the past. I don't think it should be removed at least. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @PARAKANYAA: This bot task would NOT remove the access-date parameter which contains the value to know when the source was accessed in the past. This task is to remove the access-date parameter and/or subscription required only in those cases where there no longer is a registration/subscription option to view the source. GoingBatty (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To me this sounds like it requires more discussion. Primefac (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Formally putting this on hold until the above gets replies and/or traction can be indicated. Primefac (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)


 * as no further comments here. Feel free to reopen (or create a new BRFA) if a discussion elsewhere indicates general agreement for this. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:08, 20 February 2024 (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 Bots/Noticeboard.