Time filed: 21:01, Tuesday March 13, 2012 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl
Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/ShowByDateSubster.pm
Function overview: Replace or remove instances of templates that "expire", as appropriate.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 46#Removal of redundant date templates, Template:Show by date/doc
Edit period(s): More or less daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Depends how many use {{ show by date}}. Current backlog is 31 pages.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: Certain templates, such as {{ show by date}} or {{ citation needed by}}, "expire" after a period of time and should be replaced or removed. The bot will go through transclusions of these templates, calculate the expiration date, and if the date is past replace or remove the invocation of the template as appropriate.
Current target templates are:
Other such templates may be added as needed.
While I have no problem getting rid of old "show by date" via bot, I'm not sure removing material via bot is all that good an idea. Seems that it could very-easily be abused/gamed or something. At the very least, any bot removing content should not do it while using its bot flag (so the edit shows on watchlists), and the edit should not be marked as minor, and the edit summary should explicitly ask editors to review the edit.
I'd like some other BAG input on this before going forward with a trial. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see any effort to detect if a citation is provided (still tagged, in error). Is it worthwhile checking, or is that a warren we ought not be going down? Josh Parris 13:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
<ref>
but didn't remove the {{
citation needed by}}? Which would have resulted in something along the lines of "text.[1][citation needed]" in the article? I'm not sure what exactly the bot can do about that, and note that in the current configuration the text will already have been hidden for 2 weeks.
Anomie
⚔ 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
{{
citation needed by|2012|6|5|This sentence is not referenced!}}
, later an editor added a reference: {{
citation needed by|2012|6|5|This sentence is not referenced!
[1]}}
, then the template expires and two weeks later the bot removes it. Yes, the problem would have existed for two weeks as the reference was hidden, but the page might not be watched closely and the problem is recoverable; in that situation, I should think the bot could just check for "<ref" within parameter four and skip or flag the page. It's an edge case, to be sure, and perhaps a paranoid one, but it can't hurt to cover it. —
madman 18:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Failing dissent, Approved.
Josh Parris 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Time filed: 21:01, Tuesday March 13, 2012 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl
Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/ShowByDateSubster.pm
Function overview: Replace or remove instances of templates that "expire", as appropriate.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 46#Removal of redundant date templates, Template:Show by date/doc
Edit period(s): More or less daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Depends how many use {{ show by date}}. Current backlog is 31 pages.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): Yes
Function details: Certain templates, such as {{ show by date}} or {{ citation needed by}}, "expire" after a period of time and should be replaced or removed. The bot will go through transclusions of these templates, calculate the expiration date, and if the date is past replace or remove the invocation of the template as appropriate.
Current target templates are:
Other such templates may be added as needed.
While I have no problem getting rid of old "show by date" via bot, I'm not sure removing material via bot is all that good an idea. Seems that it could very-easily be abused/gamed or something. At the very least, any bot removing content should not do it while using its bot flag (so the edit shows on watchlists), and the edit should not be marked as minor, and the edit summary should explicitly ask editors to review the edit.
I'd like some other BAG input on this before going forward with a trial. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 00:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
I don't see any effort to detect if a citation is provided (still tagged, in error). Is it worthwhile checking, or is that a warren we ought not be going down? Josh Parris 13:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC) reply
<ref>
but didn't remove the {{
citation needed by}}? Which would have resulted in something along the lines of "text.[1][citation needed]" in the article? I'm not sure what exactly the bot can do about that, and note that in the current configuration the text will already have been hidden for 2 weeks.
Anomie
⚔ 16:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
{{
citation needed by|2012|6|5|This sentence is not referenced!}}
, later an editor added a reference: {{
citation needed by|2012|6|5|This sentence is not referenced!
[1]}}
, then the template expires and two weeks later the bot removes it. Yes, the problem would have existed for two weeks as the reference was hidden, but the page might not be watched closely and the problem is recoverable; in that situation, I should think the bot could just check for "<ref" within parameter four and skip or flag the page. It's an edge case, to be sure, and perhaps a paranoid one, but it can't hurt to cover it. —
madman 18:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
reply
Failing dissent, Approved.
Josh Parris 13:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
reply