Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PascalBot
- 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
Approved.
Operator: Pascal666
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): AWB
Function Overview: Fix template parameters
Edit period(s): As needed
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):
Function Details: Users often accidentally type template parameters incorrectly. Unfortunately MediaWiki provides no method for a template to find if it has been passed a named parameter it does not recognize. The most common error users make is in parameter capitalization (most template parameters are case sensitive). I have been using database dumps to locate pages with template calls with parameters those templates do not recognize. AWB general fixes can fix many of these automatically: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. I just pulled a report for the cite templates, and now have a list of over 3000 articles that need to be fixed. I would like to use AWB in bot mode to fix those that it can, and I will then make a manual pass to fix stuff like this. --Pascal666 08:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Sounds both interesting and useful. Out of interest, are you just going to be running AWB genfixes or writing custom regexes? Also, have you come across any scenarios where the parameter was merely changed from one wrong value to another wrong value, or worse still, from a good value to a bad value? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I will start with genfixes, then depending upon the consistency of what is left, write custom regexes, submit bug reports/feature requests for AWB (and then run it again), and do the rest manually. I have never seen AWB change one wrong value to another (though I'm sure it does on occasion) mainly due to the nature of these fixes primarily being capitalization. AWB changing a correct template to an incorrect one is actually where this project grew out of. Versions of AWB before rev 4382 were consistently corrupting {{Article issues}}. I ran into several instances of bots or people breaking large numbers of articles using AWB. I have since gotten the AWB bugs and articles fixed and would now like to apply the same to other more often used templates. I fully expect AWB to make mistakes as part of this project (as it has everywhere else it has been used) and take full responsibility for correcting those mistakes and submitting bug reports to avoid them happening again. --Pascal666 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- A laudable attitude. Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 15:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Trial complete. Reviewing the changes the only concern I have is over capitalization of the DEFAULTSORT added to three articles. I have left a comment here to determine if this is consistent with policy. I will not continue until this is resolved. Hopefully this is irrelevant to approval. --Pascal666 06:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- A laudable attitude.
- I will start with genfixes, then depending upon the consistency of what is left, write custom regexes, submit bug reports/feature requests for AWB (and then run it again), and do the rest manually. I have never seen AWB change one wrong value to another (though I'm sure it does on occasion) mainly due to the nature of these fixes primarily being capitalization. AWB changing a correct template to an incorrect one is actually where this project grew out of. Versions of AWB before rev 4382 were consistently corrupting {{Article issues}}. I ran into several instances of bots or people breaking large numbers of articles using AWB. I have since gotten the AWB bugs and articles fixed and would now like to apply the same to other more often used templates. I fully expect AWB to make mistakes as part of this project (as it has everywhere else it has been used) and take full responsibility for correcting those mistakes and submitting bug reports to avoid them happening again. --Pascal666 04:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Approved. The edits look great, and the bug is not a bug at all. – Quadell (talk) 01:51, 1 June 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.