Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/LivingBot 13

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by operator.

LivingBot 13

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Jarry1250

Automatic or Manually assisted: Supervised fading to unsupervised automatic

Programming language(s): AWB (see below)

Source code available: Probably (unless any hitches) standard AWB.

Function overview: Reflinks for a handful individually selected bare links, each of which has been used many times as a bare reference.

Edit period(s): One time run

Estimated number of pages affected: ~ 20,000 edits, depending on how much effort I put in.

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Whatever AWB is

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

Function details: Processing a recent dump revealed that several URLs were used many times as bare references (either <ref>http://url.com/foo/bar</ref> or with extra square brackets):

   8098    data.gbif.org/species/browse/taxon/13143053
   5377    itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt (seems problematic, maybe something went wrong with the count).
   5118    itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=152643
    254    cne.gob.ve/estadisticas/e016.pdf
    217    planetarynames.wr.usgs.gov
    184    riaa.com/goldandplatinumdata.php?table=SEARCH_RESULTS
    180    corse.culture.gouv.fr/monuments/actions_crmh/carte_tours.gif
    172    rianz.org.nz/rianz/chart.asp
    160    nomen.at/Actia
    128    monstersandcritics.com/books/comics/news/article_1343405.php/Creators_of_Transformers_Beast_Wars_The_Gathering_are_back
    128    ariacharts.com.au/pages/charts_display_singles.asp?chart=1U50
    106    secondthought.co.uk/fsol/
    106    politicalgraveyard.com/bio/clarken-claytee.html
    106    informaworld.com/index/757500068.pdf
    101    bpi.co.uk/

If top-quality cites could be drawn up for these, then many bare urls could be ticked off with little effort and no reliance on automated decision making for drawing up the cite templates.

Discussion

Helpful timestamp. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to take the bare reference and replace it with a proper citation? That sounds very useful. What is the citation format you will use? It seems there would be templates already that do this. It appears to be a basic, bot-appropriate, and useful task in my opinion, but can you add details? --68.127.233.138 (talk) 21:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to use cite web (rather than citation) because citation tends to appear solely on articles people actively maintain. All dates are going to be ISO YYYY-MM-DD, to avoid confrontation. I'll work on the exact citations on the talk page of this page (I've skipped the "bad" one). - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I should mention my forthcoming absence of a week, as I am going on holiday (yay). - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Both this task and the reflinks tool, of which I had not heard before approval of this task was requested, interest me. This task looks like it will both be useful and in the hands of a capable operator. Approved for trial (20 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – optimally, could you try one of each of these fifteen URI prefixes? Thanks! — madman bum and angel 04:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Status? Mr.Z-man 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry guys, must have accidentally unwatched the page. Pray mark it as withdrawn until I get round to looking at it again. - Jarry1250 ^{[ In the UK? Sign the petition! ]} 16:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done, feel free to re-open anytime - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.