Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Bots‎ | Requests for approval

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Brandon (talk | contribs) at 06:16, 7 September 2008 (reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lightbot 3

Operator: Lightmouse (talk)

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic

Programming Language(s): AWB, monobook, manual

Function Summary: Janitorial edits mainly to units and dates.

Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous

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

Function Details: The previous request is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot 2, which itself was an extension/clarification of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Lightbot due mainly to the suggestion by some editors that solitary years are not covered by 'unlinking date fragments'. This further request is an extension/clarification due mainly to the suggestion by an editor that centuries are not covered by 'unlinking date fragments' see comment on my talk page.

  • I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing dates in a variety of forms.
    • A 'date' is any sequence of characters that relates to time, chronology, or calendars. This includes but is not limited to seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, fortnights, months, years, decades, centuries, eras, and can be in any sequence or format.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format of dates.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve dates.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify autoformatting. For example, where autoformatting is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers. Struck text replaced with:
    • Edits may add or modify autoformatting. Edits may remove autoformatting where it is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify links to dates.
  • I would like to make it explicit that I will be editing units of measure in a variety of forms.
    • A 'unit of measure' is any sequence of characters that relates to measurement of things. This includes but is not limited to units defined by the BIPM SI, the US NIST or any other weights and measures organisation or none at all. This includes but is not limited to time, length, area, volume, mass, speed, power.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify the metric or non-metric units.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify templates that involve units.
    • Edits may add, remove or modify links to units.
  • I would like to make it explicit that I will make other edits.
    • These will usually be minor improvements that are often done by other editors or are part of general MOS guidance.
    • These will usually be incidental to the main motivation for the bot which is units and dates.


Discussion

  • Lightmouse has proved himself to be an excellent bot-manager in his awareness of editorial sensitivities, his polite interactions with editors who query the workings of the bot, and his prompt and efficient responses to feedback on possible issues with the functions of the bot. He appears to be entirely motivated by a wish to improve the formatting of Wikipedia's article text, and therefore of its appearance and readability; he has applied his detailed knowledge of and respect for the Manual of Style and the other style guides and policy pages that make WP a cohesive force on the Internet. In my opinion, he has already performed an invaluable service to the project in the running of this bot. Please note that this request has been made in response to an editor who explicitly takes no issue with the removal of square brackets around "20th century", inter alia, but has a concern for procedural correctness. I support both that concern and this request for approval. Tony (talk) 12:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request seems far too broad. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may appear like that but please look at the previous two approvals and the 140,000 bot edits. The main problem has been that people have complained that the first and second approvals were too narrow. The key issue relates to linking of dates that will autoformat (commonly termed 'full date') and dates that will not (commonly termed 'date fragment'). The first approval for Lightbot mentioned 'unlinking date fragments' on the basis that it would unlink dates that will not autoformat. So the 140,000 edits included delinking solitary years and centuries. The second approval was sought because somebody complained that solitary years were not given as an example in the first approval, so rather than debate the Wikipedia meaning of 'date fragment', it was easier just to give solitary years as a specific example. This third approval is being sought because of an almost identical complaint: namely that centuries were not mentioned. So rather than debate the Wikipedia meaning of 'date fragment', it is easier to reword the whole thing.
I did not want to have to come back and get further approval for each type of 'date fragment' just because there is occasional misunderstanding of the term. I decided to abandon the term 'date fragments' and explain it in bullet points with repeated phrasing so that there should be no doubt. I hope that helps. Lightmouse (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Approving this would be giving you a blank cheque to change anything related to dates and units. BJTalk 10:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the whole proposal is too broad, per BJ above. In particular, the date section, which specifically says that it may remove date auto-formatting, which is a particularly contentious issue. My current understanding of MOS:NUM is that auto-formatted dates are neither required nor encouraged, nor are they prohibited. Granting this bot approval allows Lightbot carte-blanche to remove auto-formatted dates, which is a decision best left to the editors of each article rather than to a bot. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On another note, my past interactions with Lightmouse (here and here) indicates, to me at least, that this sort of wide-ranging power would not be yielded with the necessary restraint. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bellhala, MOSNUM says that the use of autoformatting is "deprecated". Can you be specific about this feeling that the application of the bot would be "too broad"? In what ways? And please explain why the application of our Manual of Style to articles should be thought with suspicion, rather than as a service to editors as a whole. Tony (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lightbot already removes autoformatting where it is invalid (e.g. date ranges), broken (e.g. [[December 25|25]] or breaks a date for readers. You will see plenty of evidence of removing invalid autoformatting or autoformatting error fixing in the existing 140,000 Lightbot edits. This approval does not seek approval for Lightbot to remove valid autoformatted dates. I would be happy to make this clearer by replacing:
  • Edits may add, remove or modify autoformatting. For example, where autoformatting is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.
with:
  • Edits may add or modify autoformatting. Edits may remove autoformatting where it is invalid, broken or itself breaks a date for readers.
I hope that makes it clearer. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this too, per Tony's reasons. I would support it just as much if it did include removing the autoformatting links, but since it doesn't, that isn't an issue for here.--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would invoke WP:BURO here but the entire bot approval process is entirely too bureaucratic. To not further the problem I dislike these "clarification" requests. We aren't here to argue over semantics, WP:MOS is the place for that. If an editor feels that the bot isn't operating within the spirit its request they can bring it up on the bot owners noticeboard and consensus can be (not) reached there. BJTalk 12:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give an expanded explanations of the following bullets? I don't want voice my concerns based on any assumptions:
  1. Edits may add, remove or modify the metric or non-metric units.
  2. Edits may add, remove or modify the sequence or format.
Thanks, —MJCdetroit (yak) 16:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, I used the term 'add, remove or modify' for all instances of things that Lightbot does.I presume that you are fine with 'add' and 'modify' but worried about 'remove'. Let me state that I have no intention of mass removal of units.
As far as sequence is concerned, I have in the past corrected sequence to put source data first. As far as format is concerned, the convert template often uses a different format to raw text. For example, somebody might write Sq.Ft but the convert template uses 'sq ft'. The word 'remove' makes no sense when it comes to format, the word is just there because I was using a standard phrase.
I think we know each other's editing well enough. There is no hidden agenda here. Tell me your concerns and feel free to suggest modifications of the text. If you want me to remove the word 'remove' from both those lines, I can do that. Lightmouse (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are very few times when a conversion should be removed (e.g. in direct quotes), so it may be better to do any removals manually and drop that part of the bullets. As far as 'sequence' is concerned, I think that swapping the order of units (if I am understanding that correctly) is a little tricky and should be left to manual edits. An example of what I am thinking of is when the article is/should otherwise be metric units first (or vise vera) but because of sources U.S. and/or imperial units are listed first. If you swap something like that, an editor's note (<!-- -->) should be left indicating which was the source unit. Also, will your bot be providing conversions from metric units to U.S./imperial units? Other than those concerns, I think you're on the right track and could get on board with this. —MJCdetroit (yak) 01:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you that removal of conversions is rare so I would be happy to drop that option. I simply cut and paste the all-encompassing 'date' section to create an all-encompassing 'unit' section and so I would not have thought about sequence. So I would be happy to drop that option too. As to non-metric units, I have occasionally added them so that is why I want the option but it is not my thing. You will see me doing modifications e.g. 'MAF' -> 'million acre feet' or 'gal' -> 'US gal'. Thanks for your support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightmouse (talk • contribs)
Support.—MJCdetroit (yak) 13:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightmouse knows exactly what he's doing and what he's doing is improving Wikipedia. He is very responsive to requests and suggestions. I'm confident that he's not about to go setting his bot off to do work not supported by consensus and common sense. Calls of "blank cheque" and "too broad" should be weighted against Lightbot's contribution history: Lightmouse has earnt that broad blank cheque and will spend it wisely. JIMp talk·cont 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to repair about 5 to 10 edits by lightbot that affected articles on my watchlist. I believe the modification of incorrect autoformatted dates should be approved, but the modification of units should be a manually aided process rather than an automatic process. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been using the script and I must say it has been quite helpful/useful, but I am still getting the hang of things. I think the bot is a good idea, but I am just not so super experienced with it all yet to strongly support, though I certainly do not object. Cirt (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's happening with piped links like 1939? Hiding T 10:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piped years frequently break autoformatting. I believe that linking piped years is a side-effect of linking solitary years and linking solitary years is a side-effect of autoformatting full dates. I can already see a decline in both. Piped/hidden/camouflaged/easter-egg links to years are now beginning to be more noticeable and some users/projects say that they should not be used (e.g. music project, film project - possibly). Others still like them. Your example was [[1939 in comics|1939]], Lightbot specifically avoids 'years-in-comics' and some others. I hope that clarifies it for you. Lightmouse (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What noises are the film project making? Do you have a pointer? Hiding T 21:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The topic was raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Film_years. Regards Lightmouse (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of these beliefs is always true; for example, years of creation are uniformly linked in articles on peerages, apparently on the grounds that context will add value to the article, by giving the reader information on what King, and what Government, created the title - and their political circumstances. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this intended to automatically delink years before 1582? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting into interesting detail but I am not sure if it is too much detail. I do not understand what you mean about articles on peerages. I looked at Thomas Thynne, 1st Marquess of Bath, Marquess of Bath, John Carteret, 2nd Earl Granville, Earl Granville, Duke of Hamilton, and Baron Carteret and all the years links looked like solitary years. I might have missed whatever 'year-in-something' you are talking about. Can you be more specific?
I don't know why you ask about delinking years before 1582. Can you be more specific?
Lightmouse (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do mean solitary years; if your generalizations are not intended to apply to them, I misunderstand what you say.
  • I bring up 1582 because there has been a suggestion to delink all dates before 1582, as a way of solving the problem of what happens if they are auroformatted into ISO. I oppose that, as unnecessary and likely to cause trouble; I do not want to see it included in the vague language of this proposal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is my turn to be confused. As I understand it, the '1582' suggestion only applies to autoformatted dates because autoformatting can turn full Julian dates into non-compliant ISO. I am not aware that anybody had suggested applying the '1582' suggestion to anything other than autoformatted full dates. Can you give me a link to where this was suggested? Lightmouse (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite to clarify, with examples, exactly what you want to do, and why you need a bot to do it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some experimenting with date and time preferences. A day and month will not, and cannot, be transformed into ISO 8601 format, because that format must have a year. In principle, a month and year could be transformed back and forth to ISO 8601 format, but that does not seem to happen. So if I did my experiments right, and if the code is stable, there is no harm in using autoformatting on a month and day (such as July 4), nor is there any harm in using it on July 1776 ( but in the latter case, it doesn't do much good, either). --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lightbot will delink solitary years and other date fragments because that is its job. Look at any of the 140,000 edits and the three approval applications. It does not delink valid autoformatted dates. I know that there are lots of people talking about the year 1582 at MOSNUM and elsewhere but that is for them, it simply is not relevant to Lightbot. Lightmouse (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then what are you asking for, if you're going to run the bot anyway? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not very familiar with the system, but this looks like an extension–formalisation of the robot's mandate. Personally, I agree with Kotniski: I'd prefer to see the date links gone as well, but even without this function I am perfectly happy to support this 'bot. It's doing good work that improves, in simple little steps, article style and presentation on a wider scale than human editors ever could; with a 2,500,000-article encyclopaedia, we sure need it. Waltham, The Duke of 20:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to endorse and support the efforts of Lightmouse, and accept this Lightbot3 proposal. This bot will be a welcome addition to the automated tools at the community's disposal, taking out the drudge in compliance with WP:MOS. I believe that there are sufficient safeguards in the two Lightbots, and the third will no doubt have the same in addition to Lightmouse's commitment to rectify any systematic faults which are brought to his attention. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this request. Teemu Leisti (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is an RFA. Do you have an argument to make, or reasoning to share with us? SQLQuery me! 05:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would urge Lightmouse to be much more specific in his proposal. It is generally undesirable to force enforcement of anything which is not a policy, and the MOS is a guideline which has less than full consensus, most specially because there are too few general editors who have contributed to it. The problem with such a bot is that it can end up trampling on anyone who doesn't agree. I think that a good example of this recently is lightbot's conversion of acres to km^2 (instead of hectares). In this case Lightmouse strongly defended his right to do so, which I agree with in manual editing cases, but not when a rather arbitrary decision is being bot-enforced. I would firstly urge Lightmouse to stop considering the MOS as a policy, and secondly to be conservative in the editing tasks selected.AKAF (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a link to the edit that you are thinking of? Lightmouse (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have an argument, or, other line of reasoning to share with us, or, some other form of value to add to the discussion? SQLQuery me! 05:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Although date autolinking has been deprecated on MOSNUM, it is NOT (at this time) the case that there has been consensus approval for the mass deletion of existing links. Accordingly, it should not be so used until there is such consensus. Askari Mark (Talk) 00:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Askari Mark: This approval does not seek approval for Lightbot to remove valid autoformatted dates. You will see on this page that I have said so more than once. I am happy to say it again. Lightmouse (talk) 08:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with AKAF but it appears that I am too late because Lightbot is already doing its thing, going rapidly down the alphabet (at "C" now). When did this discussion end so that Lightbot could be turned loose? Also, it appears that Lightmouse himself is removing autoformatted dates (even if Lightbot is not). Tennis expert (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbot has two approvals for its work and has done over 140,000 edits. You are being invited to comment on this third approval request. This does not seek approval for Lightbot to remove valid autoformatted dates. You will see on this page that I have said so more than once. I am happy to say it again. Lightmouse (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support --John (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an RFA, please come back with a coherent argument. Frankly, I feel as many above, that this request is a little too broad, and, would politely request, that the requesting user refine this (into multiple parts if needed for clarity), into what you actually plan on doing. SQLQuery me! 05:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lightbot has proven that it is a bulldozer that runs over everything in its path and puts human editors in the almost impossible position of undoing its thousands of edits whenever it, intentionally or not, ignores consensus. And the ability for any editor to "Stop" Lightbot is meaningless, too, because Lightmouse just undoes the "Stop" within minutes of it being added. Aside from all those problems, I agree with SQL completely. Tennis expert (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't approve requests by counting (unlike RfA *cough*), the support/oppose prefix isn't necessary. BJTalk 06:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Lightbot_3&oldid=236809821"