Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 43


 * 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

SmackBot 43
Operator: Rich Farmbrough

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Remove Template:Unreferenced from year, decade or century articles

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:Unreferenced/Archive 11 and Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 45

Edit period(s): One off to remove historical, then maintenance.

Estimated number of pages affected: 2263

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Remove tag using AWB. General fixes.

Discussion
These pages are tagged "unreferenced" but merely consist of lists of events that are (or should be) referenced in the appropriate articles. Rich Farmbrough 13:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

BAG assistance needed Rich Farmbrough 09:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Tim  1357  talk  03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * . Tim  1357  talk  03:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Rich Farmbrough, 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC).


 * BAG assistance needed Rich Farmbrough, 06:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC).


 * Relevant discussion: Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 45. – xeno talk 21:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about this only addresses the tagging of pages/lists with redundant facts to their respective articles. However, are year/century articles not allowed to have facts/statements not present in any other article? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They are [to the extent that it is not forbidden, though it is unlikely and unwise]RF but they fall under the same verifiability rqts as other facts. Both discussions suggest tagging the individual facts rather than the whole page. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC).

Looking at the both discussions, there are opinions both ways, so for BRFA purposes there is no consensus to do this by bot. That said, SmackBot-added templates are clearly the error by Erik9bot. So removing those should be uncontroversial with several editors supporting this. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

for a one-time run to remove tags added by Erik9bot. There was no consensus to add them. As WP:V says, facts likely to be challenged are to be referenced; and Erik9bot could not have known what needs and what doesn't need to be checked. Individual facts need to be inline cn'ed, not umbrella stamped with a top unreferenced tag. To move this along, I narrowed the approved tasks's scope. Feel free to open additional BRFA/discussion to deal with the general cases. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:42, 13 May 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.