Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/H3llBot 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

H3llBot 10

Operator: H3llkn0wz (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 11:19, Thursday January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic (though if there's very few I'll probably check them all anyway)

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: No

Function overview: Convert bare text inline problem tags into their respective templates, such as <sup>[citation needed]</sup> → {{Citation needed}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): very old BOTREQ, should be non-controversial

Edit period(s): when bot is running and comes across the issue

Estimated number of pages affected: no idea, I think very few, may be a dozen or so per 100k pages

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details:

The match syntax is one of:

Additionally it will fix (double) superscripted inline problem tags:

Note that all new templates or previously undated ones will be dated with current month and year.

In the above TEXT, TEMPLATE, and LINK are one of the entries in the full list below:

Discussion

Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --Chris 17:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a sandbox example with different borked up syntaxes: [1]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some edits on the pages I had stored: contribs. A couple edits made double tags because there were misformatted tags present; I'll tell it to not add same tags twice somehow. Anywho, the edits don't happen very often so it'll probably be a while until I get more. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Three more [2][3][4]. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you fixed the double tag problem evidenced here, here, and here? (The last one was not caught.) If so, I'll approve. — madman 06:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Ready to approve as soon as you get to madman's questions. MBisanz talk 15:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes, there's lots of different cases, so I'm coding it up slowly. General cases work, but I realized I need to know all tags and redirects just to check for duplicates. Real life's a bit in the way, so hopefully it's OK the BRFA lingers a bit. I don't want to claim it works 100% before I know it works 99.9%. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm going to switch this to Approved for extended trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. so I can remember why it's hanging around (my memory's not the best). Cheers! — madman 19:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question from entirely unqualified editor: will this lead to the new citation needed tag being dated February 2012? Is so, are we happy to accept the dating of new tags with the current date? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a big deal. The alternative is that I leave them undated. There is no easy, reliable way to parse the page's history, though that could be possible. If they are left undated, another bot will date them very shortly afterwards anyway. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:29, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will just create a bulge in the backlog that will go down over time. MBisanz talk 22:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And a rather tiny bulge, given how rare these cases are. In fact, I'm pretty confident no one will ever notice. :) —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned here, and the corresponding bot request, could this bot expand to include "(citation needed)" (and perhaps some other variations similar to what you've mentioned above, like "(citations needed)", "''(citation needed)''" and "(''citation needed'')", though, compared to the bare form, I don't know how common these are). Mark Hurd (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it more or less catches everything from those syntaxes now, including duplicates: [5]. Now, just links and plain text as described above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just my 2¢: Leaving the templates un-dated would be silly, because User:Smackbot goes around adding dates to those types of templates anyways. In response to Mark Hurd's comment, there aren't many instances of "(citation needed)" or its variants. Grep says there's only 150.
--Tim1357 talk
Any update Hell? MBisanz talk 03:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha-ha, what do you mean? I'm going for the longest open BRFA here! But I do need to simplify my uber-parser, which is getting so inefficient I can't run it anymore without miles of hacky code. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha. Noted. Let us know when you are streamlined. MBisanz talk 02:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How's development progressing? Josh Parris 02:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I semi-fixed the parser, but I'm trying to get the main archiving task working again. This is stalling other work. I do have a feeling though that additional processing time of this task is not worth it and I should do more meaningful stuff... —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can mark this as withdrawn. Messing with syntax is too messy and the main task is taking all the time. Plus real life. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator.

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/H3llBot_10&oldid=1145883089"