Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 7


 * 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.svg Approved

H3llBot 7
Operator:

Time filed: 10:46, Thursday June 9, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: No

Function overview: While doing task 4 remove invalid publisher, work, format and partially fix title referencing Wayback (and Webcite when implemented)

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 4

Edit period(s): Manually run

Estimated number of pages affected: Unsure, not that many

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details:

Basically, I found that editors in addition to using archive.org for main url, also sometimes treat other fields as if the citation is to Wayback. That is only fine for material made/published by Wayback (hence this is done only with task 4). But when an archive url is used and is then bot-moved to proper field, I found that I need to clean up too many pages.

So: When moving archive url from url to archiveurl, also:


 * Remove publisher, work or change title field that contains a reference to Wayback archive in a form similar to "Wayback" "xxxx (Wayback)", "Wayback: xxxx" or "xxxx – Wayback", where "xxxx" is some text and "Wayback" matches a RegEx of reference to Wayback archive
 * For title field only do such edits if a partial title will remain
 * Remove format field that contains "archive" or "wayback"

Example cases. Will be expanded if/when I find new cases.

Discussion
Task is both reasonable and desirable. A 50 edit trial should bring up any kinks in the code. Then we'll see if it's ready for glory. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Any diff with "Removed incorrect Wayback usage from citation field" is under this task. All bugs/parsing fails so far were reverted and fixed. I'm going to keep an eye on most of the edits, as I expect to run into some more cases I hadn't anticipated. But so far it looks good. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The edits done seem alright, but since there may be some strange cases the current code doesn't account for, would be better to do an extended trial first. So: -  EdoDodo  talk 20:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

D Any updates?  MBisanz  talk 14:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I could say All edits marked with "Removed incorrect Wayback usage from citation field". I've been checking each one and repairing false positives as I go. I've been out of the city though since then, so I haven't run the bot. —  HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Trusted botop, uncontroversial task -- Chris  11:32, 24 July 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.