Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 6


 * 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 keep vote.svgSymbol support vote.svg Speedily Approved.

H3llBot 6
Operator:

Time filed: 10:16, Tuesday June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: No

Function overview: Fill missing archivedate if archiveurl is set and contains identifiable date

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Similar BOTREQ: Bot_requests/Archive_37 The bot is already approved (Bots/Requests_for_approval/H3llBot_4) to convert archive urls in url to archiveurl and archivedate. Bot to take the bot request has withdrawn (Bots/Requests_for_approval/HersfoldCiteBot).

Edit period(s): Periodical (bot is run manually)

Estimated number of pages affected: No idea, not too many I assume.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details:

Quite simple. Fill missing archivedate if archiveurl is set and contains identifiable date:

Smith, John. "Some weird page". Archived from the original on requires (help). Retrieved 2002-05-19.

to

As seen above produces an error when archivedate is not set, but archiveurl is.

Note about date format: The bot respects use dmy dates and similar, and if those are not present, will use the date format as seen in that citation's accessdate or date in that order. It will only match and use these formats: June 7, 2011; 7 June 2011; Jun 7, 2011; 7 Jun 2011; 2011-06-07 [default]. Wrong syntax is recognised, such as, June 7 2011 or 2011.06.07; but the bot will still use correct syntax of that format.

Discussion
This should not be controversial, but I prefer a full BRFA for record. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So is this basically the same code as H3llBot 4 except looking at a Wayback URL already in archiveurl instead of moving it from url? Anomie⚔ 11:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You could say so. The logic is almost exactly the same, the code is just re-written. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Basic expansion of existing task, trusted op. Anomie⚔ 15:04, 8 June 2011 (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.