Operator: Green Cardamom ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:49, Friday, June 17, 2016 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Nim and AWK
Source code available: WaybackMedic on GitHub
Function overview: User:Green Cardamom/WaybackMedic 2
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot - first revision approved and successful completed.
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: ~380,000 pages have Wayback links as of July 20 2016
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot is nearly the same as the first bot ( User:Green Cardamom/WaybackMedic), with these differences:
Most of the edits will be URL formatting fix #2. Fix #4 will impact somewhere around 5% of the links (based on stats from the first run of WaybackMedic). The rest of the fixes should be minimal 1% or less.
Approved for trial (250 edits or 15 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —
xaosflux
Talk 03:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
WM will process in batches of 100 articles each, but some articles may not need changes so the number of edits will vary within each batch.
@ Xaosflux: Sorry if you don't mind me asking, what is the rationale for a second trial? The bot has been tested extensively on 100,000 articles already. The point of the request was to extend the number of articles to the whole site, and some minor changes which are working. -- Green C 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If I may suggest an additional feature, for future runs: there may be articles in which |archiveurl=
has a functioning WBM link but |archivedate=
is empty or missing. It would be nice if this bot could fix this issue but extracting the archive date information from the WBM url. --
bender235 (
talk) 19:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
|archivedate=
contradicts the actual date from the WBM url (imagine, for instance, the editor thought he should put the date when he added the archive link to Wikipedia rather than when WBM archived the page; or, even simpler, typos). Cases like these could be fixed/corrected based on the WBM url archive-date information. --
bender235 (
talk) 00:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
|archivedate=
matches the date in the wayback URL and if not change |archivedate=
. There is one exception: if the |archivedate=
is in dmy format, and the page doesn't have a {{
use dmy dates}}
or a {{
use mdy dates}}
it will leave alone. The reason is editors often forget to use the dmy template and I don't want the bot to undo proper formatting (bot defaults to mdy). Note: This was not a big change to the code, I've tested every combo I can think of on a test case, every change is being logged, and when the first batch runs I'll keep a tight eye on it. I don't think it will be a very common occurrence. --
Green
C 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
Operator: Green Cardamom ( talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:49, Friday, June 17, 2016 ( UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Nim and AWK
Source code available: WaybackMedic on GitHub
Function overview: User:Green Cardamom/WaybackMedic 2
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/GreenC bot - first revision approved and successful completed.
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: ~380,000 pages have Wayback links as of July 20 2016
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot is nearly the same as the first bot ( User:Green Cardamom/WaybackMedic), with these differences:
Most of the edits will be URL formatting fix #2. Fix #4 will impact somewhere around 5% of the links (based on stats from the first run of WaybackMedic). The rest of the fixes should be minimal 1% or less.
Approved for trial (250 edits or 15 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. —
xaosflux
Talk 03:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
WM will process in batches of 100 articles each, but some articles may not need changes so the number of edits will vary within each batch.
@ Xaosflux: Sorry if you don't mind me asking, what is the rationale for a second trial? The bot has been tested extensively on 100,000 articles already. The point of the request was to extend the number of articles to the whole site, and some minor changes which are working. -- Green C 15:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC) reply
If I may suggest an additional feature, for future runs: there may be articles in which |archiveurl=
has a functioning WBM link but |archivedate=
is empty or missing. It would be nice if this bot could fix this issue but extracting the archive date information from the WBM url. --
bender235 (
talk) 19:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
|archivedate=
contradicts the actual date from the WBM url (imagine, for instance, the editor thought he should put the date when he added the archive link to Wikipedia rather than when WBM archived the page; or, even simpler, typos). Cases like these could be fixed/corrected based on the WBM url archive-date information. --
bender235 (
talk) 00:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
reply
|archivedate=
matches the date in the wayback URL and if not change |archivedate=
. There is one exception: if the |archivedate=
is in dmy format, and the page doesn't have a {{
use dmy dates}}
or a {{
use mdy dates}}
it will leave alone. The reason is editors often forget to use the dmy template and I don't want the bot to undo proper formatting (bot defaults to mdy). Note: This was not a big change to the code, I've tested every combo I can think of on a test case, every change is being logged, and when the first batch runs I'll keep a tight eye on it. I don't think it will be a very common occurrence. --
Green
C 14:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
reply