Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ReferenceBot 2
- 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
Approved.
Operator: A930913 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 10:13, Friday December 13, 2013 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python/Pywikibot
Source code available: On request.
Function overview: Add more categories to ReferenceBot.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_57#New_REFBot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/ReferenceBot, User_talk:A930913#ReferenceBot:_please_add_more_categories_.28and_a_documentation_suggestion.29
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: ~30/day?
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (Pywikibot)
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: I'm quite busy, so can someone check the additions made by Jonesey95 and approve them before I go away in a few days? Thanks, 930913(Congratulate) 10:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]I'm not clear what this BRfA is asking for. Also, please provide source code. Josh Parris 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- This BRfA is asking to expand the scope of activity for ReferenceBot (link to original BRfA). ReferenceBot notifies editors when they make a change to an article that adds that article to a reference error category. In general, this means that the editor introduced a reference syntax error to the article. Here's the summary of the original request: "Daily, check the categories, Pages with broken reference names, Pages with incorrect ref formatting and Pages with missing references list, for new pages, and messages the user that placed it there, asking them to fix it." This BRfA expands the number of categories in which this bot operates. To be specific, these categories will be added:
- CS1 errors: ISSN
- Pages with citations having wikilinks embedded in URL titles
- Pages with citations using conflicting page specifications
- Pages with citations using translated terms without the original
- Pages with citations using unnamed parameters
- Pages with DOI errors
- Pages with empty citations
- Pages with OL errors
- Pages with URL errors
- This BRfA is asking for permission to add more reference error categories to the bot's scope. It will notify editors, for example, if a change they make to an article results in that article being added to Category:CS1 errors: ISSN.
- The above categories are all subcategories of Category:Articles with incorrect citation syntax. The reason that the above categories have been chosen is that all of the article errors in those categories have been fixed (Pages with citations using unnamed parameters gets about 10-15 new articles a day and hasn't been cleaned out in about a month, in anticipation of this bot becoming active). Because the categories have been cleaned out for a while, we know that reversions of recent edits will not cause an article to be added to one of those categories. This will reduce the likelihood that a reverting editor will be blamed for adding erroneous citation syntax to an article.
- New articles are added to the above categories at a rate of about 20-30 a day; the purpose of this bot would be to reduce that rate by notifying editors within a day of the edit that causes a page to be put in the category. Sorry if this explanation was too long. I tried to explain thoroughly, and in doing so may have introduced some redundancy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- P.S. The question of source code was responded to in the original BRfA. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I re-iterate the desirability of publishing your sources, in whatever state they are in. I see the task as incremental increase in scope of an already approved task, one that does not appear to have generated any angst in the community.
Approved. Josh Parris 08:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I re-iterate the desirability of publishing your sources, in whatever state they are in. I see the task as incremental increase in scope of an already approved task, one that does not appear to have generated any angst in the community.
- 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.
