Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 34


 * 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

Yobot 34
Operator:

Time filed: 00:12, Thursday, February 2, 2017 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB / WPCleaner

Source code available:

Function overview: Move reference after punctuation per WP:REFPUNCT

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:REFPUNCT

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 1000 pages per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: foo. will change to foo. .
 * Supported punctuation: ,.;:?
 * Supported templates: "Efn", "Efn-ua", "Efn-lr", "Sfn", "Shortened footnote", "Shortened footnote template", "Sfnb", "Sfnp", "Sfnm", "SfnRef"
 * Supported template lists: "Rp", "Better source"
 * Additionally it will clean duplicate punctuation before ref, not for !!, could be part of wiki table
 * if there have been changes need to call FixReferenceTags in case punctation moved didn't have whitespace after it

Discussion
Similar task is done by BG19bot and Menobot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Support a trial to ensure no cosmetic-only edits are made. ~ Rob 13 Talk 00:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * What is the definition of cosmetic-only edits? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * We've been over this so many times and I've explained the definition repeatedly. I'm not continuing this at a new venue. At this point, you either understand the concerns of the community or you do not. ~ Rob 13 Talk 10:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The concerns are different from the definition of "cosmetic edits". I try to explain that it would be better if you avoid this term till the definition is cleared. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy as written has minor potential to confuse those who are not familiar with technical areas. You are familiar with technical areas. Everyone else at BRFA is as well, including the BAG members who will review this request. There's no lack of clarity among those with experience in the area, so I will continue using the jargon because it gets the point across to those around these parts who care to listen. ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The task description does not mention any general fixes being run, and provided they are not enabled this appears to be a fine task for a bot to perform. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Please list all the "punctuation" marks that the bot detects and if it applies special rules to any. What if there is more than one  or mixed   or other characters   or lack of spaces   or multiple refs   /. Does it only change  or   or any of the other variants? — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The punctuation marks supported are: ,.;:? . ! is not supported because it used as in wikitables. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

the details are handled by AWB's source code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the source code of a bot should be determined by the function details, and not vice-versa. Otherwise, how would we be able to tell if there is a bug that makes the AWB source code no longer do the right thing for this bot request? It would be bad idea to have open-ended bot approvals that can change later based on source code changes, which might not even be made by the bot operator. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've already pointed out to the botop elsewhere, we don't approve source code or tools, we approve tasks, which are listed in function details. Anything not listed is assumed to not be part of the task. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I also added the templates supported. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I added more details. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 02:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment looks like this can probably be declined, he's just doing it on his main account. Primefac (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac I would prefer if this done automatically and probably later pass it to the Wmflabs server so it is done on daily basis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I can totally understand that. I was just providing an update to the situation. Primefac (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Primefac I'll continue doing all the tasks done by Yobot from my personal account respecting the restrictions ofcourse. Still, I was asked to re-submit all the tasks (100+) for BRFA. I am doing this but the procedure is slow. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to spend most of the time online right now to keep with the work. Reserving free knowledge for the entire planet needs personal sacrifices still I think some thing can be done by bots to help me and others do other useful staff such as improving code, organising wiki seminars, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magioladitis (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Making sure punctuation comes before the references hardly seems like a world-ending task that must be done immediately or Wikipedia would implode. But hey, you waste your time however you feel best. I'm not one to judge. Primefac (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Primefac there are approx. 1000 new pages per day with this error. The current backlog is 8,000 pages. Today I fixed about 2,000 pages but it took me more than 10 hours(!) of almost continuous editing in front of my laptop screen. This task should be done by bot and not depend on the fact that today I did not leave home. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

SQL Query me! 02:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Was this trial completed, do you have a trial report? — xaosflux  Talk 03:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Xaosflux I just started it. Please take note I am on wikibreak and that the task took 3 months only to get to the trial phase. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

-- Magioladitis (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * can you review? — xaosflux  Talk 11:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Magioladitis (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am taking over at the request of Xaosflux. Can you point me to the edits from the trial?— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

diff of 1,993 edits. (7 additional edits were deleted since the pages in question were deleted since then). There were no complains for these edits that happened in June 20.( 2 months ago). I think the point of making all these edits was to check community reactions. Thanks for taking it over. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Since there is no objection after all this time. I am however making it a requirement that extended trials cannot have genfixes enabled.  My head is steaming from reviewing that.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:25, 21 August 2017 (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.