Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MOSNUM Bot 2: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) →Discussion: lean in favor |
m Fix Linter errors. |
||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
<noinclude>[[Category:
#DEDACA; margin:2em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at [[WT:BRFA]].'' The result of the discussion was [[File:Symbol oppose vote.svg|20px|alt=|link=]] '''Withdrawn by operator'''.<!-- from Template:Bot Top-->
==[[User:MOSNUM Bot|MOSNUM Bot 2]]==
{{Newbot|MOSNUM Bot|2}}
Line 47 ⟶ 49:
'''Function details:'''
*It ensures uniform presentation of dates within any given article in compliance with [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)]]. As such, general fixes include delinking all dates and date fragments, including day-month strings, days, months, decades (per [[Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hmainsbot1]])
**universally remove instances of '&nbsp;' from within date strings (such as '18<
**universally remove superscripting tags (<nowiki><sup><</nowiki>/sup>) for ordinal numbers
**due to the (I believe) very low risk of false positives, linked dates, including year-in-x [[WP:EGG|easter eggs]], in full configuration (e.g. <code><nowiki>[[January 18]], [[2012]]</nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki>[[January 18]], [[2012 in music|2012]]</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>[[January 18]]</nowiki></code>) that occur <u>anywhere in the article</u> may be unlinked and 'flipped' into the prevailing format of that article in the first instance
Line 56 ⟶ 58:
*Changes include:
**remove days of the week, and times of day
**remove ordinal suffixes and constructions such as '5<
**remove leading zeroes (e.g. November <
**add commas where necessary (e.g. February 28 2001)
**remove redundant commas (e.g. July<
**"{{para|date}}", if containing only a 4-digit number falling into the range 1000–2099, will be changed to "{{para|year}}"
** remove or otherwise substitute date formats not compliant with MOSNUM
Line 84 ⟶ 86:
:*I think I'd prefer leave the 'clutter' discussion for elsewhere. Anyway, from a technical standpoint, I don't know how I would move the template to the bottom of the article. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 02:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
*Is your bot exclusion compliant? Because of the nature of the task, I believe it critical that pages can have the choice to reject your bot.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower</span>]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat</sup>]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 03:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
**Yes, it will be. (I have amended the above accordingly) --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 04:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
**:Thank you.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower</span>]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat</sup>]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 13:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
*Can you give some examples of "certain templates that have [spelt-out] dates as parameters"? Ideally, such list would be publicly available, given the number of potentially affected pages. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<
**What comes to mind immediately (because I have been editing ships articles), in addition to the ones above in [[Template:Infobox aircraft]], would include {{para|Ship laid down}}, {{para|Ship launched}}, {{para|Ship commissioned}}, {{para|Ship decommissioned}}, {{para|Ship struck}} in [[Template:Infobox ship career]], and {{para|released}} (in [[Template:Infobox album]]). I have in mind also to include any date strings within reference sections that are preceded by the words 'Retrieved (on)' ''or'' 'Accessed (on)'<s>, but these are not yet in the body of the request</s>. I am sure there will be others I do not know about but would want to add – would all these need to be o stated in this request? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 02:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
***No need to list all, as long as other follow a similar pattern to the examples. — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<
*As the BRFA currently reads, the bot will convert ''all'' citation dates to {{tl|use xxx dates}} -- both publication dates and access/archive dates. It was my understanding [[Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Consistency|MOS#CONST]] specifically says those two can be in different formats. As far as I can see, {{tl|use xxx dates}} is used for prose/publication dates (i.e. for national ties, etc.). Am I understanding this right? — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<
** I intend for the bot to abide by [[MOS:DATEUNIFY]] as much as possible without turning any ISO dates into the prevailing style, whether dmy or mdy. The <nowiki>{{use xxx dates}}</nowiki> does not apply exclusively to prose or publication dates, but is meant to indicate the prevailing style. I think it would be pure nonsense and waste of time and resources to run this bot but ''not'' to change instances of non-compliant (whether in terms of MOSNUM or in terms of the prevailing date style) dates. If, say, the given reference section of a {{tl|dmy}} article has a mixture of several date styles (such as dmy, mdy, ISO, dd-mmm-yyyy, dd/mmm/yyyy), the bot will reduce it to just two – dmy and ISO – which is in accordance with my reading of MOSNUM. Given the nature of wikipedia and the limits of automation, I cannot technically manage the unification of all dates of a single type (publication, access, archive) within a given article without causing false positives or false negatives. I feel that the request as currently framed would strictly limit false positives; furthermore, it will respect the existence of [[ISO 8601|ISO dates]]. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 02:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*** So, in short, {{tl|use dmy dates}} converts all mdy -> dmy and {{tl|use mdy dates}} converts all dmy -> mdy. ymd (ISO) are untouched. Sounds fine by me then. (I'll refrain adding my thoughts on utility of those templates...) — <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<
*Great idea for a bot; in longer articles with dates in multiple format, the utility of having the dates is lost in the chaos of varying formats. I hope you start on sciences articles. Operator appears to be able to converse with other users and communicate.--[[Special:Contributions/64.134.221.141|64.134.221.141]] ([[User talk:64.134.221.141|talk]]) 00:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*Will it leave the date in the {{tl|Infobox football biography}} which has the timestamp generated by use of <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> in the update fields? It may also be worth looking at the date info incorrectly placed in the {{para|author}} field of cite templates. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
**<nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> seems to render as "<code>14:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</code>". The bot as currently configured will ignore such a string. This is probably not a problem when it is on a {{tl|use dmy dates}} article, but perhaps could be flipped for mdy articles?<p>As to the misplaced data, it already gets treated when using [[WP:Mosnumscript|my MOSNUM script]], of which this bot is a stripped down version. Although in my experience, the {{para|author}} field invariably duplicates date information already populated to {{para|date}} (although the format may vary quite considerably so the script doesn't catch all instances), I'm concerned that data will be lost if this date data is not already populated should I set the bot to remove it systematically. Thoughts? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 14:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)</p>
***Often it is present in the date field but not always, so if it cannot be moved then may be just generate a list for manual attention. May be worth tracking down the tool that adds it and get that to stop adding new instances. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|talk]]) 17:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
*****I believe [[WP:Reflinks]] may be 'responsible' for much of this misplaced data, though I don't know to what extent it's due to faulty metadata insertion up the line ([[GIGO]]). The ''real'' problem is when people run Reflinks and then leave as completed without casting an eye over the output. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 03:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 106 ⟶ 108:
**That is exactly why the script is a script, and the bot is a bot. I would refer to the text and explanations above wrt to bot, in which it has been I believe clearly elaborated on the treatment of yyyy-mm-dd/[[ISO 8601]] dates. As Gimmetoo seems also to be [[User:Gimmetoo/vector.js|adept at scripting]], I would invite same to evaluate and make suggestions regarding the bot source code. If that is not possible for whatever reason, there is a mirrored version in script form at [[User:Ohconfucius/test/test.js]] available for test running. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 11:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
*** I'm asking because, in the descripton above, you say "bot will align dates within '|date=', '|accessdate=' and '|archivedate=' to the prevailing style", but you appear to do something different with the script. So there are two issues. One is the implementation of the bot - is it different from the script? The second is its use - will it be ''used'' differently from the script? And your statement about 'date strings preceded by "\s(?:Accessed|Publish|Retrieved|Archived)( on|: |)\s"' is incomplete in your description (it's a sentence fragment following a semi-colon). So it's unclear what exactly you intend to do. [[User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] ([[User talk:Gimmetoo|talk]]) 14:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
****This is a BRFA, and we are talking here ''only'' about the workings of the proposed bot. The script, although now quite sophisticated, is not entirely error-free, and its different component modules require users' discretion and judgement to activate, and will as such never pass muster as a fully automated device. So, without being at all facetious, the answer to your question about how it will be ''used'' differently from the script, I think, is more likely to be found in [[WP:Bots]] if not already cited above. As a side note, I would say that the process of writing and testing this bot has given me ideas for improving the mosnum script. <p>I re-iterate that, in terms of functionality, the bot is a stripped down version of the script. Thank you – I have now amended the apparently incomplete sentence in the section above. Also, once again, as it seems to be your [ahem] "major concern", I copy from above, and put it IN BOLD: '''{{xt|''[[ISO 8601|ISO dates]] (yyyy-mm-dd) are to be unlinked but will not be converted into any other format''}}'''. I trust that clarifies any ambiguity that was in your mind. Regards, --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)</p>
***** Perhaps I'm mistaken, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ohconfucius/Bot_modules/dmy&oldid=534842505 your code] appears to take dates in the format 2013–01–25 (with dashes) and change them to dmy or mdy. Why not simply replace the dashes to hyphens, if dashes are not allowed in such formats? Would that not be more in accord with retaining the existing style? Likewise, it appears to change dates in the format 2013-1-25 (omitting a zero) to dmy or mdy. Why not just add the 0 if its needed? [[User:Gimmetoo|Gimmetoo]] ([[User talk:Gimmetoo|talk]]) 17:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
****** No, you're not mistaken. I'm glad you spotted that, but [[ISO 8601]] states that the only valid format has 2-digit months and days, and the only valid separator is the hyphen. Thus neither 2013–01–25 (with dashes) nor 2013-1-25 (with missing leading zeros) are "valid" styles; and I think that it is only a trite more reasonable than to argue that other all-numerical formats like 25-01-2013 or 1/25/2013 should also be replaced by 2013-01-25 (with hyphens) because this would be more in accord with retaining the existing style. After all, a person can't be "just a little bit pregnant" ;-) Another consideration as to what WP:RETAIN would suggest doing is the prevalence of ISO dates vs dmy or mdy in the reference section. If a human were to do it, it's a judgement call. For a bot, I think the 'correct' thing to do is to go by the prevailing format in th case of misformatted dates. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 18:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Line 116 ⟶ 118:
************No, I'll be honest here and say it's symptomatic of the animosity between you and me, and the stress I feel when you are around. The reason this bot is simple as it is (compared with the script) is an aim to avoid errors; the model you propose is likely to be too complex to produce no errors. As to controversy, I recall the saying that one nightingale doesn't make it spring. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 16:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
*I have now amended the proposal to the effect that the bot will render ISO-compliant formats such as 2013–01–25 (with dashes) nor 2013-1-25 (with missing leading zeros). --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 05:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
*I think the community support question should be had at the MOS dates community, wherever that is. Making reference sections internally consistent increases the readability of the article. It appeared this was all the bot was doing for certain types of reference sections.with.specific mangled date styles. Maybe what the bot does can be settled elsewhere. --[[Special:Contributions/166.137.210.16|166.137.210.16]] ([[User talk:166.137.210.16|talk]]) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)▼
**Please define "mangle", and if possible, please supply a diff that illustrates same. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 04:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
***Non-uniform. Since it is your bot proposal to make "uniform presentation of dates within any given article in compliance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)," if "non-uniform" is not good enough, then please define "uniform." --[[Special:Contributions/68.99.89.234|68.99.89.234]] ([[User talk:68.99.89.234|talk]]) 06:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
****Interesting that you choose to throw the question back at me in that manner. You still haven't defined "mangle" or supplied a diff to illustrate what you mean.<p>In practice, this will mean only "greater uniformity" based on the removal of formats not consistent with the prevalent date style. No automated process is going to render the entire article completely compliant with MOSNUM, so I'm programming the bot to do the best it can under the constraints laid down. Thus, for the purposes of this request, "uniform" means replacing all ISO-like dates that are template parameter data with ones formatted in accordance with [[ISO 8601|ISO dates]], and all other non-compliant date formats (ie dates that are not dmy, mdy nor ISO) also parameter data within templates be replaced with dates that are in line with the tagging (whether {{tl|use dmy dates}} or {{tl|use mdy dates}}) in the article concerned.</p><p>Such date formatting treatment as proposed, and as amended, has already long enjoyed strong consensus at MOSNUM, and I fail to see how you can assert this needs to seek further consensus. I don't see Gimmetoo challenging this any more since I amended the proposal. BAG should simply decide to accept or refuse a trial run for this request. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 10:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)</p>
*****You asked "please define mangle," and I replied, "non-uniform," now you say I still haven't defined it. You're now arguing because you don't like my response? Or are you trying to engage me in a back and forth like with the other user above, just to consume time? I think your communication is going to be a problem with you running this bot task, and your reply here and odd obsession with the word choice of "mangle" just prove my point. Editors may use synonyms you don't like, side-tracking to your picking at another editor over their word choice will make your running this bot a problem. Seeing how you can interact with the larger community seems more important now than ever. -[[Special:Contributions/68.99.89.234|68.99.89.234]] ([[User talk:68.99.89.234|talk]]) 14:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
*Does the community support this task?
▲I think the community support question should be had at the MOS dates community, wherever that is. Making reference sections internally consistent increases the readability of the article. It appeared this was all the bot was doing for certain types of reference sections.with.specific mangled date styles. Maybe what the bot does can be settled elsewhere. --[[Special:Contributions/166.137.210.16|166.137.210.16]] ([[User talk:166.137.210.16|talk]]) 22:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
==== Yes ====
# I really don't think the task should be done. But if it means you won't damage articles by using your script, I'm for it; it seems ''now'' to properly fall within the consensus at MOSDATE. — [[User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] [[User talk:Arthur Rubin|(talk)]] 10:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
#As it stands, I don't see how this can do any harm, and it will clean up a large number of articles making them more compliant with the Manual of Style. [[User:Skinsmoke|Skinsmoke]] ([[User talk:Skinsmoke|talk]]) 07:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
#It seems to me that this task has been carefully considered to improve what it can, allow for the udse of correctly formatted ISO dates per options in MOSNUM, and leave alone what a bot can't reliably improve. [[User talk:Rjwilmsi|<span style="color:darkgreen;">'''''Rjwilmsi'''''</span>]] 18:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
#It does appear to be a useful and well-written bot designed to implement an appropriate task. However, the back and forth between the bot operator and Gimmetoo suggests, to me, that this bot task should be decided by a wider community, then brought back to RFBA. --[[Special:Contributions/68.99.89.234|68.99.89.234]] ([[User talk:68.99.89.234|talk]]) 05:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
==== No ====
#
----
*<s>{{BAGAssistanceNeeded}} I think we can give this a 50 edit trial.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower</span>]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:red;font-family:arnprior">Chat</sup>]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:red;font-family:arnprior">Offline</sub> 16:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)</s> There are some concerns being raised and I am retracting my recommendations.—[[User:C678|<span style="color:green;font-family:Neuropol">cyberpower</span>]] [[User talk:C678|<sup style="color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Chat</sup>]]<sub style="margin-left:-4.4ex;color:olive;font-family:arnprior">Online</sub> 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
:I disagree. This bot task seems to be appropriate, well thought out, and useful. But there appear to be community issues with another member of the Wikipedia community that suggest more input and a firm community consensus should come from outside RFBA, the larger Wikipedia community, before approval, and the bot owner has ignored my comments about this. I do not see any need for a trial with a bot owner who is not willing to communicate with the community, a require for running a bot on en.wikipedia. -[[Special:Contributions/166.137.210.25|166.137.210.25]] ([[User talk:166.137.210.25|talk]]) 02:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
*'''Request withdrawn'''. I know a dead horse when I see one. I'm self closing and archiving it. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#ffffff"> Ohconfucius </span>''']]</span></small><sup>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|''ping / poke'']]</sup> 02:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at [[WT:BRFA]].''<!-- from Template:Bot Bottom --></div>
| |||