Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JCbot 4

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.

JCbot 4

Operator: Juliancolton

Automatic or Manually assisted: Manual, supervised

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: AWB

Function overview: General uncontroversial style and grammar fixes on US road articles.

Edit period(s): One time probably, or whenever it becomes an issue again.

Estimated number of pages affected: 5k?

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes.

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

Function details: The bot will hopefully preform general yet crucial fixes for WP:USRD articles; including, but not limited to, changing "north-south" (or similar things) to "north–south" and editing section headers to confirm to the MOS guideline.

Discussion

Not sure if you folks want every task listed, but I can do if needed. Cheers. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty straight forward, competent and responsive bot owner. Probably do list all types of edits the bot will be making. Can help others to see what's being done, also make sure all tasks are per MOS. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. The following are currently on the list; will add more if I come up with other fixes.

Changing, for example, "north-south" to "north–south"; otherwise adding en dashes where appropriate as per WP:MOSDASH and associated guidelines.
Changing "north/south" or "east/west" to "north–south" or east–west".
Changing "Route Description" to "Route description".
Changing "Major Intersections" to "Major intersections".
Changing "Exit List" to "Exit list"
Removing whitespace.
Preforming any of AWB's pre-programmed automatic general fixes.
More; Changing "Junction List" to "Junction list".
Changing "Route summary" to "Route description"

–Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the estimated pages under this task's purview is probably conservative. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me, all tasks per MOS, all routine tasks, doing numerous fixes all at once, useful and appropriate in my opinion. Make sure you discuss with the project, imo, so you do get the maximum number of fixes at once processing the pages; other editors may contribute with details you miss. You might try a slightly larger trial run, just to make sure you get all permutations on the north/south, but I don't know if that would really matter. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been discussing this off-wiki with other project members, and we haven't been able to come up with much of anything else that can be done without advanced coding and regex. I think the current list is fairly comprehensive, at least for the most basic tasks. Thanks for the feedback! –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then post this list, please, at the wikiproject for those you're not discussing it with off-line; useful imo. I assume you've posted a notice there about this RFAB, if not, that also. I don't see any concerns with this bot, though. IMO, one of the tasks that a BAG member could give a quick trial to, run through test results, then approve. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, posted. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 24 hours and there have been no objections and no further additions. Trial is probably appropriate by now. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. also just making sure this doesn't run afoul of AWB's discouragement of minor edits? MBisanz ^talk 10:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, but even if these edits were individually too minor to justify running AWB, combined they're probably considered a reasonable task. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't label bot edits minor. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error in edit summaries, just fyi (preforming rather than performing). Is this edit intended to remove the reference to the article itself? You capitalized major in this article for some reason. Otherwise the edits look fine. I think this is very useful. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made the necessary adjustments; thanks. I noticed the issues with the 14th Street article, but they appear to be related to AWB's pre-programmed genfixes, so I've just turned those off. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Sounds good. In particular, though, you're not labeling any bot edits as minor? Bot edits should come up as bot edits in a watchlist. I almost always turn off minor edits, but never turn off bot edits. --IP69.226.103.13 19:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll approve tomorrow unless someone yells loudly before then. MBisanz ^talk 00:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, approval seems appropriate to me, no coding errors, responsive to input, community directed and watched changes, bot operator checked own trial, also. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approved. MBisanz ^talk 22:38, 3 January 2010 (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.