Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/mmbot


 * 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 neutral vote.svg Request Expired.

mmbot
Operator:

Time filed: 23:42, Monday February 20, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: Adds missing reference sections ( and the references-tag.
 * 2) When it couldn't find a ref-section and one of the tags and templates in 1A then it makes it's own one named "References" and with the Reflist-template.
 * 3) I could implement that the bot will wait 10 minutes after the last edit of an article.--mmovchin Talk 12:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Those are not the only examples though. There are lot's of others, like "Works cited", "Bibliography", "Published works", etc. I think you should take care to detect those words mentioned in any sections. I know the chances are low and I'm sorta nitpicking, but we need to account for false positives since this is an automated process. For example, it could be "References, notes".
 * 1A) Does it account for Refbegin/Refend or Notelist?
 * 1B) What happens when there are several sections, like both "References" and "Citations"?
 * 3) At least. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be valuable to look at the source code for AWB's module AddMissingReflist. Josh Parris 21:21, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

How are things going? Josh Parris 21:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. This here hasn't appeared on my watchlist.
 * 1) If the bot simply checks keywords, there will be many false inserets. I think we do not have to include references to such sections like "Works cited", "Bibliography", "Published works", etc. If there are given references to an article, but there is no reference list, then the bot adds a section with such a list. So we need to add all capabilities how such a section could be named, otherwise the bot adds his own.
 * 1A) Yes.
 * 1B) Also yes, it does.
 * 2) 1B) "Citations" is not a section to place references there. "References" is preferred. After this there are "Footnotes" and "Notes".--mmovchin Talk 13:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) But that's the problem. The bot could be inserting "References" section when there already is a section for references but it's named (slightly) differently. So if there is "Referenced material" the bot would insert another "References" section. If the bot had a blacklist of words when to leave the article for manual checking, it would not make that edit, because "reference" would trigger a skip. I'm afraid references are a touchy subject on English Wikipedia (notably, WP:CITEVAR) and bots should exercise care when making assumptions about what other may or may not have done. AWB can make mistakes, automated bots shouldn't.
 * 1B) I asked " What happens when there are several sections, like both "References" and "Citations"?"; you replied "Also yes, it does." Sorry, but I'm not sure what you meant. This is a typical case to avoid editing by bot and leaving it for manual checking.

Trial
Anyway, Let's see how it runs. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I answered 1A) two times. I've corrected it now.--mmovchin Talk 13:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so what about "Reference works" and "Reference list" in the same article? My point is that no matter how many section headlines you hardcode, I'll make up a few new ones and the bot would in principle have false positives. :) Which is a good reason to avoid editing articles you are not 99% sure will be correct. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Is it better to analyze whether a section-name starts with "Reference"? But let's see how it works. There were some problems with the crontab on toolserver but know everything should work correctly. I will stop the cron when 50 edits are made.--mmovchin Talk 15:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Due to lack of time, it is to me not possible to solve the problem before 02/05/2012. The reason for this is that I am not at home this week. Once I'm at home, I will fix the problem on the toolserver.--mmovchin Talk 22:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to presume you mean 2012-03-05, next Monday. Noted. Josh Parris 00:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Any news?  MBisanz  talk 02:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this request is gonna have to be marked as expired. The 50 edit trial has not been completed (20 edits only completed) and the bot stopped editing a month ago. No one has replied to the OperatorAssistanceNeeded tag above; the case seems to have gone cold. Now if I was BAG...  Rcsprinter  (rap)  16:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

for now. Feel free to reopen if you get back. — HELL KNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:40, 28 March 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.