Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 20

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.

Yobot 20

Operator: Magioladitis

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic, supervised for most of the edits

Programming language(s): AWB

Source code available: On request. Simple F&R

Function overview: Replace superscripted text with normal.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): The Manual of Style reads:

The ordinal suffix (e.g., th) is not superscripted (23rd and 496th, not 23^rd and 496^th). Moreover, dates should not have "th" on them. See also: Wikipedia:BOTREQ#Superscripted_text

Edit period(s): One-off to clean the backlog and regularly in the future.

Estimated number of pages affected: 10k per database scan

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Y

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

Function details: Yobot, using a custom AWB module will cleanup results given by latest database scan replacing th with th. Text in quotes, etc. will be excluded. Edits will apply AWB general fixes where (and only where) other edits are taking place.

Discussion

I see no issues with this task, what edit summary will you be using to identify this task? --Admr Boltz 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my few test edits I used something like "The ordinal suffix should not superscripted per [[WP:ORDINAL]] + [[WP:GENFIXES]], replaced: th → th". -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit wordy. Maybe "Rm ordinal suffix superscript per [[WP:ORDINAL]] + [[WP:GENFIXES]], replaced: th → th" --Admr Boltz 02:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I like yours more than mine. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment - dates shouldn't have "th"s but there's always exceptions in names like the film 23rd March 1931: Shaheed and the Party Workers' Liberation Front 30th of May (and potential gotchas for careless regexes like 22nd Marching Regiment of Foreign Volunteers). I don't know what the policy is when it comes to superscripting names like that, but certainly in the sort of countries that name streets after liberation days the "official" name seems to use a superscripted "th". Not likely to be a biggy but enough for care to be needed in overseeing the operation of the bot? Likewise the names of books, it might be an idea to exclude everything in ref tags? Le Deluge (talk) 11:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I 'll exclude refs too. Everything that Hide (images, interwikis, nowiki) and HideMore (refs, templates, link targets, headings) hides will be hidden. I am open in any list of exceptions too. Btw, your examples don't have superscripted text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — The Earwig ^(talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete.'Permanent link to the edits'. Some examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15].

I checked them all. They look fine.

I didn't touch "n^th" because I guess they have to be fixed to "n-th" and not "nth". I also didn't touch "1^st", "2^nd" and "3^rd" which I 'll do seperatelly. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While still excluding refs by default, citations like {{cite book}} can have their |edition= field fixed. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct though. Edition field should follow the rules of WP:ORDINAL like dates do. I exclude the citation title. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please clarify what "Automatic, supervised" means. Either it is automatic or it is supervised. Supervised means you constantly monitor the bot's changes and react to problems promptly. If it is supervised for some time/edits and not others; then the way this is currently phrased would allow the bot to run unsupervised, i.e. automatically. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I try to check every single edit done and I fix the problems almost immediately. With "automatic" refer to "autosave=on". I don't revise the edits before done but after in blocks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the MoS apply to quoted text as well (because it does not exclude it in the phrasing)? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes. But if not feeling sure you could post a not in the MOS page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you post a note? MBisanz ^talk 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User_talk:H3llkn0wz#superscripted_text_in_quotes. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Asked on Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Superscripted_text_in_quotes, feel free to elaborate there. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would 34^th in Ordinal_indicator#English get false positived? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I 'll excluded. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "I also didn't touch "1st", "2nd" and "3rd" which I 'll do seperatelly". Do you plan to do that under this task's approval or separate, or non-bot manually? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mention dates shouldn't have the superscript, but how is it handled, like "November 23^rd, 1968" in La_source_(Balanchine)? Does it replace or remove, and if so, by what rules? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can perform a database scan to see how many they are with "nd" and "rd". IF they are few I can fix them manually. Otherwise under this task's approval. My method fixes the "November 23^rd, 1968" but in the second phase (i.e. when I fix nd and rd). -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Approved.. Do look at the list of articles being edited and pick out the ones where it is obviously intended (such as Ordinal indicator. Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 10:04, 10 May 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.