Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 10


 * 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 The result of the discussion was Symbol oppose vote.svg Withdrawn by operator.

H3llBot 10
Operator:

Time filed: 11:19, Thursday January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic (though if there's very few I'll probably check them all anyway)

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: No

Function overview: Convert bare text inline problem tags into their respective templates, such as [citation needed] →

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): very old BOTREQ, should be non-controversial

Edit period(s): when bot is running and comes across the issue

Estimated number of pages affected: no idea, I think very few, may be a dozen or so per 100k pages

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Y

Function details:

The match syntax is one of:


 * citation needed →
 * [citation needed] →
 * (citation needed) →
 * (or any other italic/bold combo) [citation needed] →
 * (or any other italic/bold combo) [citation needed] →
 * citation needed →
 * [citation needed] →
 * [citation needed] →
 * [citation needed] →
 * and similar mix&match from above
 * and similar mix&match from above

Additionally it will fix (double) superscripted inline problem tags:
 * undefined →
 * [] →
 * [] →

Note that all new templates or previously undated ones will be dated with current month and year.

In the above TEXT, TEMPLATE, and LINK are one of the entries in the full list below:


 * [citation needed] -- Citation needed -- Citation_needed
 * [cite this quote] -- Cite quote -- Quotations
 * [clarification needed] -- Clarify -- Please_clarify
 * [examples needed] -- Examples -- Please_clarify
 * [list membership disputed] -- List fact -- Citing_sources
 * [not specific enough to verify] -- Nonspecific
 * [page needed] -- Page needed -- Citing_sources
 * [full citation needed] -- Full -- Citing_sources
 * [page needed] -- Page needed -- Citing_sources
 * [season & episode needed] -- Season needed -- Template:Cite_episode
 * [volume & issue needed] -- Volume needed -- Citing_sources
 * [better source needed] -- Better source -- NOTRS
 * [dead link] -- Dead link -- Link_rot
 * [not in citation given] -- Failed verification -- Verifiability
 * [need quotation to verify] -- Request quotation
 * [self-published source?] -- Self-published inline -- V
 * [unreliable source?] -- Verify credibility -- Identifying_reliable_sources
 * [verification needed] -- Verify source -- Verifiability
 * [when defined as?] -- Definition -- Manual_of_Style
 * [dubious – discuss] -- Dubious
 * [jargon] -- Technical-statement -- Explain_jargon
 * [original research?] -- Or -- No_original_research
 * [peacock term] -- Peacock term -- Avoid_peacock_terms
 * [neutrality is disputed] -- POV-statement
 * [quantify] -- Quantify -- Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29
 * [chronology citation needed] -- Chronology citation needed -- WikiProject_Timeline_Tracer/Chronology_source_needed
 * [undue weight?] -- Undue-inline -- Undue_weight
 * [vague] -- Vague -- Vagueness
 * [weasel words] -- Weasel-inline -- Avoid_weasel_words
 * [when?] -- When -- Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29
 * [who?] -- Who -- Avoid_weasel_words
 * [by whom?] -- By whom -- Avoid_weasel_words
 * [according to whom?] -- Whom? -- Neutral_point_of_view
 * [dated info] -- Update after

Discussion
-- Chris 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a sandbox example with different borked up syntaxes: . — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are some edits on the pages I had stored: contribs. A couple edits made double tags because there were misformatted tags present; I'll tell it to not add same tags twice somehow. Anywho, the edits don't happen very often so it'll probably be a while until I get more. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Three more . — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you fixed the double tag problem evidenced here, here, and here? (The last one was not caught.) If so, I'll approve. &mdash; madman 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ready to approve as soon as you get to madman's questions.  MBisanz  talk 15:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, there's lots of different cases, so I'm coding it up slowly. General cases work, but I realized I need to know all tags and redirects just to check for duplicates. Real life's a bit in the way, so hopefully it's OK the BRFA lingers a bit. I don't want to claim it works 100% before I know it works 99.9%. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'm going to switch this to so I can remember why it's hanging around (my memory's not the best). Cheers! &mdash; madman 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Question from entirely unqualified editor: will this lead to the new citation needed tag being dated February 2012? Is so, are we happy to accept the dating of new tags with the current date? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a big deal. The alternative is that I leave them undated. There is no easy, reliable way to parse the page's history, though that could be possible. If they are left undated, another bot will date them very shortly afterwards anyway. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will just create a bulge in the backlog that will go down over time.  MBisanz  talk 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And a rather tiny bulge, given how rare these cases are. In fact, I'm pretty confident no one will ever notice. :) — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As mentioned here, and the corresponding bot request, could this bot expand to include "(citation needed)" (and perhaps some other variations similar to what you've mentioned above, like "(citations needed)", "(citation needed)" and "(citation needed)", though, compared to the bare form, I don't know how common these are). Mark Hurd (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it more or less catches everything from those syntaxes now, including duplicates: . Now, just links and plain text as described above. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just my 2¢: Leaving the templates un-dated would be silly, because User:Smackbot goes around adding dates to those types of templates anyways. In response to Mark Hurd's comment, there aren't many instances of "(citation needed)" or its variants. Grep says there's only 150.
 * -- Tim 1357  talk


 * Any update Hell?  MBisanz  talk 03:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ha-ha, what do you mean? I'm going for the longest open BRFA here! But I do need to simplify my uber-parser, which is getting so inefficient I can't run it anymore without miles of hacky code. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Haha. Noted. Let us know when you are streamlined.  MBisanz  talk 02:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How's development progressing? Josh Parris 02:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I semi-fixed the parser, but I'm trying to get the main archiving task working again. This is stalling other work. I do have a feeling though that additional processing time of this task is not worth it and I should do more meaningful stuff... — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You can mark this as withdrawn. Messing with syntax is too messy and the main task is taking all the time. Plus real life. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:49, 12 April 2012 (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.