Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FrescoBot 10

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.

FrescoBot 10

Operator: Basilicofresco (talk · contribs)

Time filed: 23:00, Thursday May 5, 2011 (UTC)

Automatic or Manual: Automatic unsupervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: Standard pywikipedia

Function overview: it separates footnotes from external links creating a new "References" section where necessary.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): not necessary, already defined in Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember and Wikipedia:Inline citations#References/Notes section

Edit period(s): montly or less

Estimated number of pages affected: 1400

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: if footnotes tags (eg. <references/>) or templates (eg. {{reflist}}) are found within the "External links" section and a "Reference" section does not exist, then a new "Reference" section is created and these tags are moved there. Example: [1].

Discussion

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 02:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. From now on it will also skip pages with a "Notes" section. In the meantime, can I also fix unwanted spaces in front of references tags/templates? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 05:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, better not to, that's a cosmetic change (see WP:BOTPOL), can you set it to skip if whitespace only is changed please? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in this example the references tag wasn't within the External links section, they were in a level 1 notes section. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similar thing here. Obviously in both examples the article prior to the bot edit was wrong, but they're still wrong even after the bot has edited. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 10:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, these wrong whitespaces do not actually affect the appearance of the page: I will perform this correction only in conjunction with a substantial edit. I also changed the regex in order to take into account level-1 sections and skip these articles. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 16:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, and what articles are you editing? (e.g. what's the source for the list of articles you check through?) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obiouvsly the dump file. I will edit any article in ns0 with the above problem. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 11:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to "Notes", do you have a list of other section names and mark-up "things" that will make the bot ignore the page. For example, section names containing any of the words, "References" as in "References for material"; "Notes" as in "Notes and footnotes"; "Bibliography", etc. Or <references> tags while {{reflist}} itself is used for content notes or similar but not named "References" per se, etc. Since you have an estimated page number, have you looked through it for other possible positives? I can only speculate here, but there are pages with some very weird referencing/section naming. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Yes, in order to be on the safe side, it will skip any page with a section containing the words "notes" or "references". I just added also "Bibliography". It will look only for <references/> tags in order to skip exotic <references>...</references> syntax. It is unlikely that a {{reflist}} within the "External links" sections can contain anything but (online) references. In order to tune the bot I made some read only test runs and in my opinion it looks ready. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 07:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you need a second trial run? {{BAG assistance needed}} -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Sure, go ahead. Do post a perma-link to contribs for easier review, please, as your bot is running other tasks too. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded}} Any updates on the trial? No hurry if you're still working on it. MBisanz ^talk 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. Sorry for the delay, I wished to add a small improvement before the last trial, but I had almost no time during last weeks. Here are the edits -- Basilicofresco (msg) 15:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Any chance of coding something in to flag stuff like this? I'm going to approve regardless, just checking if there is a way to look for that. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can trace them back and fix them manually. It's the safest way. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 23:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 01:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.