Operator: Rich Farmbrough ( talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl/AWB
Source code available: AWB/Perl no.
Function overview: Canonicalise clean up tags to enable dating
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A
Edit period(s): Continuousish
Estimated number of pages affected: 0 - this will only be done on pages already being edited.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: For some, most or all maintenance tags (templates) on the page the following will be done:
For clarity maintenance tags excludes infoboxes, cite templates, navboxes, succession boxes, interwiki sister links (commons, wikitionary, wikisources etc.), portal boxes, convert, language, mark-up and formatting templates: to these only the rule 2 above will be applied.
In addition:
To do its dating task properly SmackBot has evolved many additional rules over and above simply inserting "|date=October 2010" inside templates. The importance of these rules cannot be overstated, and indeed many of them have become part of AWB general fixes, whether by knowledge sharing or independently. It is also the case that many minor fixes that are not essential to dating templates have been added, in order to get the most value out of each edit. By and large these fixes, trivial individually though they are, seem to appreciated by the community, or at least non-contentious. Nonetheless a change on 6th of September resulted in some high WikiDrama a few weeks later which readers may be familiar with. For this reason, and because drama knows no reason, nor yet bounds, I have pulled all SmackBot's custom find and replace rules, and fallen back to running on Full General Fixes (less reference ordering) alone, while I BRFA the more useful rules back. Since there are over 5000 rules, BAGGERs may be alarumned, especially if they are also reviewing Femto Bot 4. Have no fear! The urgent set are covered in this BRFA, the bulk of the rest should be in one additional batch: I will then review what is left.
As I said The importance of these rules cannot be overstated : the proof of the pudding is that without them 85% of pages requiring dating of tags fail to be dated. A rapid approval of this BRFA would be appreciated, whilst I am aware there is a lot here, I hope none if it actually causes any problems. Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC). reply
Detailed explanation to Fram
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
This was actually out of date even then, including both false positives excluding real redirects: however a glance will show that this is a very incomplete set.
Here are some possibilities.
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
![]()
<Replacement>
<Replace>{{$1|$2date=October 2010$3</Replace> <Comment>fix nn nnnnn Year specific:Any ISO date or just year to current</Comment> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <Minor>false</Minor> <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> </Replacement>
<Replacement> <Find>{{\s*(Citation[ _]+needed|Facts|Citeneeded|Citationneeded|Cite[ _]+needed|Cite-needed|Citation[ _]+required|Uncited|Cn|Needs[ _]+citation|Reference[ _]+needed|Citation-needed|An|Sourceme|OS[ _]+cite[ _]+needed|Refneeded|Source[ _]+needed|Citation[ _]+missing|FACT|Cite[ _]+missing|Citation[ _]+Needed|Proveit|CN|Source\?|Fact|Refplease|Needcite|Cite[ _]+ref[ _]+pls|Needsref|Ref\?|Citationeeded|Are[ _]+you[ _]+sure\?|Citesource|Cite[ _]+source) *([\|}\n])</Find> <Replace>{{Citation needed$2</Replace> <Comment /> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <Minor>false</Minor> <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> </Replacement>
<Replacement> <Find>{{(Citation[ _]+needed)((?:\|\s*(?:(?:text|reason|category|discuss|topic|1)\s*=[^\|{}]*|[^\|{}=]*))*)}}</Find> <Replace>{{$1$2|date=October 2010}}</Replace> <Comment /> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> </Replacement>
|
How about a 20,000 trial run?
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
5,000?
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
1,000?
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
500?
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
100?
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
20?
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
5?
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
1?
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
Moderately long explanation about template name diffusion
|
---|
Clearly some of these names are more likely than others (about 91 possibilities are in use), however the key factor here is that people tend, quite reasonably, to replicate the tag names they have seen: both literally and by analogy. If all a given editor sees is "One source" they will tend to replicate that: they may of course use "One Source" or "Onesource" (especially if they have been exposed to run together words in other template names) or even "OneSource": this is all well and good except when they get red links{*} and get frustrated. It is, for this reason, perfectly wise and helpful to these editors to create a small array of redirects - it would be better and more efficient if, for example we knew that of 100,000 attempts to enter "One source" there were 10,000 "Onesource" and only one "OneSource", we would probably create the first redirect and not bother with the second - or at least it would inform our decision on a similar template that is only expected to be used 10 times. - but we haven't much data on that as far as I know, although I have gathered a little on template name-space diffusion and consolidation, relating to the template redirect {{ Infobox actor}} and its former redirects. A problem arises, however, if we leave these template redirects languishing in articles forever. The sample editors are seeing is now, let us say, the six actaul redirects to One source (excluding T:SINGLE and T:ONES.
plus maybe our OneSource and One Source. At this point an editor who is used to seeing spaced templates and recalls {{ 1source}} or {{ Oneref}} is likely to enter "1 source" or "One ref" or even 1-source... We now have the position where instead of dealing with redirects that are one step removed ( Coding theory if anyone is interested) from our canonical name, we have to deal with items two, three and more steps away. The further this goes
Therefore replacing template redirects in articles, while not being a pressing problem, seems worthwhile at least where it can be built into another, ideally bot, edit. (*) Example at Talk:Dachau_massacre#Changes, first bullet of second list. |
{{
BAG assistance needed}}
Rich
Farmbrough 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
Irrelevant stuff
|
---|
This edit [12] was obstensibly for this trial but:
The edit summaries for bot trials must be specific to the trial, if anyone is supposed to be able to tell what is being tested! — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
|
{{
BAG assistance needed}}
Rich
Farmbrough 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
I think, unfortunately, that Rich sometimes attracts drama, which is of course why we are reading this BRFA in the first place. If, however, we look specifically at his ability to run this bot task, it would be a massive leap (not to mention a mistake) to render this anything other than Approved.. -
Jarry1250
Who?
Discuss. 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
reply
Operator: Rich Farmbrough ( talk · contribs)
Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl/AWB
Source code available: AWB/Perl no.
Function overview: Canonicalise clean up tags to enable dating
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): N/A
Edit period(s): Continuousish
Estimated number of pages affected: 0 - this will only be done on pages already being edited.
Exclusion compliant (Y/N): N
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function details: For some, most or all maintenance tags (templates) on the page the following will be done:
For clarity maintenance tags excludes infoboxes, cite templates, navboxes, succession boxes, interwiki sister links (commons, wikitionary, wikisources etc.), portal boxes, convert, language, mark-up and formatting templates: to these only the rule 2 above will be applied.
In addition:
To do its dating task properly SmackBot has evolved many additional rules over and above simply inserting "|date=October 2010" inside templates. The importance of these rules cannot be overstated, and indeed many of them have become part of AWB general fixes, whether by knowledge sharing or independently. It is also the case that many minor fixes that are not essential to dating templates have been added, in order to get the most value out of each edit. By and large these fixes, trivial individually though they are, seem to appreciated by the community, or at least non-contentious. Nonetheless a change on 6th of September resulted in some high WikiDrama a few weeks later which readers may be familiar with. For this reason, and because drama knows no reason, nor yet bounds, I have pulled all SmackBot's custom find and replace rules, and fallen back to running on Full General Fixes (less reference ordering) alone, while I BRFA the more useful rules back. Since there are over 5000 rules, BAGGERs may be alarumned, especially if they are also reviewing Femto Bot 4. Have no fear! The urgent set are covered in this BRFA, the bulk of the rest should be in one additional batch: I will then review what is left.
As I said The importance of these rules cannot be overstated : the proof of the pudding is that without them 85% of pages requiring dating of tags fail to be dated. A rapid approval of this BRFA would be appreciated, whilst I am aware there is a lot here, I hope none if it actually causes any problems. Rich Farmbrough, 22:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC). reply
Detailed explanation to Fram
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
This was actually out of date even then, including both false positives excluding real redirects: however a glance will show that this is a very incomplete set.
Here are some possibilities.
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
![]()
<Replacement>
<Replace>{{$1|$2date=October 2010$3</Replace> <Comment>fix nn nnnnn Year specific:Any ISO date or just year to current</Comment> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <Minor>false</Minor> <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> </Replacement>
<Replacement> <Find>{{\s*(Citation[ _]+needed|Facts|Citeneeded|Citationneeded|Cite[ _]+needed|Cite-needed|Citation[ _]+required|Uncited|Cn|Needs[ _]+citation|Reference[ _]+needed|Citation-needed|An|Sourceme|OS[ _]+cite[ _]+needed|Refneeded|Source[ _]+needed|Citation[ _]+missing|FACT|Cite[ _]+missing|Citation[ _]+Needed|Proveit|CN|Source\?|Fact|Refplease|Needcite|Cite[ _]+ref[ _]+pls|Needsref|Ref\?|Citationeeded|Are[ _]+you[ _]+sure\?|Citesource|Cite[ _]+source) *([\|}\n])</Find> <Replace>{{Citation needed$2</Replace> <Comment /> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <Minor>false</Minor> <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> </Replacement>
<Replacement> <Find>{{(Citation[ _]+needed)((?:\|\s*(?:(?:text|reason|category|discuss|topic|1)\s*=[^\|{}]*|[^\|{}=]*))*)}}</Find> <Replace>{{$1$2|date=October 2010}}</Replace> <Comment /> <IsRegex>true</IsRegex> <Enabled>true</Enabled> <RegularExpressionOptions>IgnoreCase</RegularExpressionOptions> </Replacement>
|
How about a 20,000 trial run?
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
5,000?
Rich
Farmbrough, 20:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
1,000?
Rich
Farmbrough, 23:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
500?
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
100?
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
20?
Rich
Farmbrough, 17:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
5?
Rich
Farmbrough, 22:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
1?
Rich
Farmbrough, 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC).
reply
Moderately long explanation about template name diffusion
|
---|
Clearly some of these names are more likely than others (about 91 possibilities are in use), however the key factor here is that people tend, quite reasonably, to replicate the tag names they have seen: both literally and by analogy. If all a given editor sees is "One source" they will tend to replicate that: they may of course use "One Source" or "Onesource" (especially if they have been exposed to run together words in other template names) or even "OneSource": this is all well and good except when they get red links{*} and get frustrated. It is, for this reason, perfectly wise and helpful to these editors to create a small array of redirects - it would be better and more efficient if, for example we knew that of 100,000 attempts to enter "One source" there were 10,000 "Onesource" and only one "OneSource", we would probably create the first redirect and not bother with the second - or at least it would inform our decision on a similar template that is only expected to be used 10 times. - but we haven't much data on that as far as I know, although I have gathered a little on template name-space diffusion and consolidation, relating to the template redirect {{ Infobox actor}} and its former redirects. A problem arises, however, if we leave these template redirects languishing in articles forever. The sample editors are seeing is now, let us say, the six actaul redirects to One source (excluding T:SINGLE and T:ONES.
plus maybe our OneSource and One Source. At this point an editor who is used to seeing spaced templates and recalls {{ 1source}} or {{ Oneref}} is likely to enter "1 source" or "One ref" or even 1-source... We now have the position where instead of dealing with redirects that are one step removed ( Coding theory if anyone is interested) from our canonical name, we have to deal with items two, three and more steps away. The further this goes
Therefore replacing template redirects in articles, while not being a pressing problem, seems worthwhile at least where it can be built into another, ideally bot, edit. (*) Example at Talk:Dachau_massacre#Changes, first bullet of second list. |
{{
BAG assistance needed}}
Rich
Farmbrough 23:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
Irrelevant stuff
|
---|
This edit [12] was obstensibly for this trial but:
The edit summaries for bot trials must be specific to the trial, if anyone is supposed to be able to tell what is being tested! — Carl ( CBM · talk) 11:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC) reply
|
{{
BAG assistance needed}}
Rich
Farmbrough 23:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
reply
I think, unfortunately, that Rich sometimes attracts drama, which is of course why we are reading this BRFA in the first place. If, however, we look specifically at his ability to run this bot task, it would be a massive leap (not to mention a mistake) to render this anything other than Approved.. -
Jarry1250
Who?
Discuss. 17:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
reply