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.

User:Robert SkyBot 5[edit]

Operator: Robert Skyhawk (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:50, Thursday May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: N/A

Function overview: Changes "Reference" to "References" and "External link" to "External links" in section headers.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Rich Farmbrough's bots, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 1, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archive 2#SmackBot task approval III

Edit period(s): No more than once a month

Estimated number of pages affected: 1300 pages in the first run; much fewer during subsequent runs

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This task is designed to replace Helpful Pixie Bot's first and second tasks. It will correct instances of sections titled "External link" and "Reference" in mainspace to "External links" and "References," respectively. The guideline on external links supports this convention, and similar support can be inferred for "References" sections. The bot obtains a list of pages that need this fix by scanning a database dump for section headers with the wrong names. The most recent scan yielded this list.

Discussion[edit]

Will this change "Refernce" or "Reference" or both? GoingBatty (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Only "Reference"; the former is an unfortunate typo on my part. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 23:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions:

  1. Will it be sure to not change other section headers, such as IQ#Reference charts?
  2. Are you prepared to respond to people continually asking why the bot changed "Reference" to "References" when there is only one reference? ;)

Anomie⚔ 02:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Yes; the bot will look for the exact expression: ==Reference== and change it to ==References==. This will ensure that section headers that have more words than "Reference" are not considered.
  2. I have cited an explicit policy regarding "External link." I suppose since there is no explicit policy regarding the naming convention for References sections, I can expect to see some controversy. If it becomes significant, I am willing to seek broader consensus on the village pump or MoS talk page. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 04:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Good. But what about == Reference ==? Anomie⚔ 10:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. The bot ought to preserve the existing whitespace, which would be pretty easy with Regex. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Very true. Anomie⚔ 10:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't thought of the white space, but as Hellknowz pointed out, this is easily accounted for with a Regex. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 20:35, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. You could refer to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and References, I suppose: "With the exception of 'Bibliography', the heading should be plural even if it lists only a single item". Anomie⚔ 10:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see no reason to object to this given the clarifications above. Be sure to use a clear edit summary. Approved for trial (27 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Anomie⚔ 14:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

((OperatorAssistanceNeeded)) Are you going to make a start yet? Rcsprinter (lecture) 16:16, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, this request had slipped my mind for a bit...real life strikes again. I'll get a trial started today. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 21:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete.. See Special:Contributions/Robert_SkyBot. Note that misspellings in edit summaries did not carry over to the actual edits. Robert Skyhawk (T C) 21:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the edit summaries, don't tick to include find/replace as you have already explained what you are doing with the first bit; end it at "(trial)". However, the edits all seem fine. Previously approved task. Rcsprinter (lecture) @ 11:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I like the detail of what the actual change was. At any rate, the trial seems to have gone well so  Approved. Anomie⚔ 15:01, 7 July 2012 (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.
Category