Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commonb0t


 * 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 delete vote.svg Denied.

Commonb0t
Operator:  S  t  a ff w aterb oy©

'''Automatic or Manually Assisted:Manually (will approve of changes)

'''Programming Language(s):Visual Basic

'''Function Summary:This bot will scan thought wikipedia to see if there are any words that are commonly missed spelled and will correct the the spelling error.The bot will run of a word list that is commonly missed spelled words. Example This is from wikihow.com i will be generating a larger and more accurate list

MISSPELLING

acheive 	achieve adress 	address alot 	a lot athiest 	atheist beggining 	beginning beleive 	believe catagory 	category committment 	commitment concieve 	conceive copywrite 	copyright decaffinated 	decaffeinated decathalon 	decathlon definately 	definitely desireable 	desirable diety 	deity dissapoint 	disappoint dispell 	dispel embarass 	embarrass enviroment 	environment expresso 	espresso extremly 	extremely facist 	fascist Febuary 	February flourescent 	fluorescent fourty 	forty freind 	friend guage 	gauge goverment 	government grammer 	grammar harrass 	harass hemorage 	hemorrhage heros 	heroes hieght, heigth 	height hygeine 	hygiene independance 	independence inate 	innate innoculate 	inoculate it's 	its (possessive pronoun) knowlege 	knowledge lazer 	laser libary 	library lightening 	lightning maintainance 	maintenance managable 	manageable millenium 	millennium mischievious 	mischievous mispell 	misspell mit 	mitt monestary 	monastery monkies 	monkeys morgage 	mortgage mountian 	mountain neccessary 	necessary neice 	niece nickle 	nickel nineth 	ninth ninty 	ninety noone 	no one or no-one noticable 	noticeable occured 	occurred occurence 	occurrence oppurtunity 	opportunity paralell 	parallel pasttime 	pastime pavillion 	pavilion peice 	piece percieve 	perceive perserverance 	perseverance persue 	pursue posession 	possession pertend 	pretend potatoe 	potato preceeding 	preceding pronounciation 	pronunciation priviledge 	privilege publically 	publicly recieve 	receive reccomend 	recommend rediculous 	ridiculous reguardless 	regardless remeber 	remember roomate 	roommate or room-mate rythm 	rhythm sacreligious 	sacrilegious seige 	siege sentance 	sentence seperate 	separate sieze 	seize similiar 	similar sincerly 	sincerely speach 	speech stationary 	stationery (office supplies term) stragedy 	strategy suggestable 	suggestible supercede 	supersede supposively 	supposedly suprise 	surprise thier 	their throughly 	thoroughly tommorrow 	tomorrow tounge 	tongue triathalon 	triathlon ukelele 	ukulele vaccuum 	vacuum vegeterian 	vegetarian villian 	villain Wendesday 	Wednesday weird 	wierd (exception: Weird programming language) writting 	writing

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run)''':Continuous

Edit rate requested: 6 edits per minutes

Already has a bot flag (Y/N):

'''Function Details: Well Fix commonly missed spelled words based off of a word list

Discussion

 * I'm sorry, but, spelling bots (unless they are manually approved edit-by-edit), are very rarely approved here, given that sometimes, context matters when it comes to spelling. I've also changed your &lt;code> block to a &lt;pre> block, I think, that is what you meant to do (it illustrates your list a lot better.) Please see Bots/Frequently_denied_bots SQL Query me!  20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If i make it manual will it increase the chances of making the bot approved?  S  t  a ff w aterb oy© 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no problem with a manually assisted spell checking bot, you may find this page useful. -- Chris  12:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you i will generate a list and resubmit it thanks  S  t  a ff w aterb oy© 16:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it's manually assisted it might make better sense to run it under your normal user account. People might freak when they seen account with "bot" in it doing spell check -- Tawker (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, however, i suppose, running it under an alternate account, if you so wished, to save cluttering your contributions of your main account, would be fine and feasible... —  Reedy  Boy  16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All very true i am still willing to run the bot if able  S  t  a ff w aterb oy© 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case, you may wish to delete these pairs, both words of which are correctly spelled (but different) words: guage gauge, it's its, lightening lightning, stationary stationery; and note that the pair "weird wierd" is reversed, with the incorrect spelling second. Tim Ross   (talk)  22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You should also register if you actually do intend to use this bot in the future, as the zero (0) is easily confused with a capital 'o' (O).  Then simply redirect the user/user talk pages to whichever name you intend to run it under.  Click this link to create a new account while signed in to your bot op account so that it will actually stick an entry in your (and the bot's) user creation log. -- slakr  \ talk / 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Forgive my intrusion, as a non-BAG member, but I was under the impression that spell-checker bots are fundamentally not approved? Surely our spelling has not reached such low depths that an unsupervised measure such as this, which has the potential to wholesale alter words which may, indeed, be correct in context? On a related matter, does this bot have an in-built measure to prevent alterations of words misspelt on a sic basis? AGK (contact) 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat amused as to the number of typos in the Function Details section of this spelling bot. How will this bot be able to not correct intentional misspellings? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The bot would have to have approval inorder to confirm the changes that are going to be made i am hoping that i can use a test run to see how it goes and see if it will work out.

Thanks  Staffwaterboy   Talk ♂ 13:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not an easy task. You have already goofed it up in the topic. I've given this a try myself with User:SpellCheckerBot. There are variations that you cannot forsee, plus you have the issue of quotes, block quotes, and other things. My suggestion to you is to try your wordlist on a bunch of articles and have your bot log what it *would* change. Look at this log (perhaps post it), and go from there. But as bag here says, this is very unlikely to be approved. You can trial it on your own without ever having to edit a thing, just have it load 1000 random articles and have it log what it would change. Don't actually do the changes :) In short you are going to have to provide evidence that 1) you are competent, you won't add words to the list without testing, and 2) evidence that the bot looks for and avoids edge cases. Spelling is not something that is done well automatically. You cannot prefer British english over American anglish for example, you have to use the english style that is in the article you are correcting. That means the corrected misspelling has to be common to all english forms, or your program is able to detect with 99% accuracy, which form of english is in use on a particular article.. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Manually assisted bots do not require approval. Spelling bots may not be run on an automatic basis. I would support declining this request. — Werdna talk 05:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that you at least remove all words less than 5 letters from the list, especially since your tool does not appear to have context sensitivity? I'm thinking of its--> it's particularly here, but in english the likelihood that a misspelling of an english word is valid as used in a quote from another european language increases exponentially as the word becomes shorter. I'm thinking about mit-->mitt here. Destroying correct quotations from non-english languages is a particular problem for a spell bot.AKAF (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further note noone, heros , nickle and alot  should not be corrected. Honestly, if you can't even run your list of misspellings through a more extensive dictionary than that which firefox provides, you haven't provided the evidence of reliability which such a controversial bot requires. I suggest to the BAG that a manual run also be declined at this time. AKAF (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I strongly agree, sorry. SQL Query me! 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.