Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/CiteFixBot


 * The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Symbol neutral vote.svg Request Expired.

CiteFixBot
Operator: RadioFan2 (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: manually assisted

Programming Language(s): Perl - perlwikipedia

Function Overview: cleanup references. Convert external links in references to use undefined

Edit period(s): Daily, at best, depending on my availability

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

Function Details: This bot will improve footnotes in articles by
 * adding a cite tag to links that consist only of a link or a link and a title. Example FCC Call Sign History would be replaced with
 * Tidy up references by replacing subsequent references with the same content with named ref tags ([per WP:REFNAME)
 * Standardize naming of references section to either Notes or References (per Footnotes)
 * Add a References section to articles lacking one. I know there are other bots that do this but it's a simple enough to add support for this and as long as all are doing it in a consistent way, this shouldn't be an issue.

The intended scope of this BOT is radio station articles currently monitored by WP:WikiProject Radio Stations but this could be expanded at a later date if others find it usefull.

Discussion
Regarding your first point, do note the difference in style between cite web and citation is a point of contention for many people; Bots/Requests for approval/Citation bot 4 recently had this same discussion. Also, you might want to see if ThaddeusB (author of WebCiteBOT) has any tips on detecting other metadata for the template. Anomie⚔ 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Of the four tasks, the first three seem controversial. Manual links vs. templates, repeated refs vs. no repeats, and reflist vs. references are all points of contention. Gimmetrow 06:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Some people actually like having exactly the same reference repeated in the list multiple times? How odd. Anomie⚔ 13:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Tends to revolve around article with just a few refs repeats, rather than articles where the same 5 sources are cited 10 times each. Gimmetrow 01:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

– Quadell (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.