Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TAP Bot 2

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

Withdrawn by operator.

TAP Bot 2

Operator: Thine Antique Pen (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 14:00, Thursday November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: pyWikipedia

Function overview: Replaces "==Source==" or "== Source ==" with "==References==".

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): none

Edit period(s): Weekly (with a large initial run)

Estimated number of pages affected: unknown

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

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

Function details: Replaces "==Source==" or "== Source ==" with "==References==" in mainspace articles. I expect many of these to be species articles made by Polbot.

Discussion

See this. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there consensus/support for this task? This strikes me as something that people are likely to get all huffy and puffy about. --Chris 14:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People could get "huffy and puffy about" this, but I would say only if it is totally automatic - which it is not anymore as I will check every single edit made by the bot. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how does the bot operate from a technical standpoint? --Chris 14:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I use a local XML dump and pyWikipedia replace.py, with "-ns:0 -xml:[FILE] "==Source==" "==References=="" and "-ns:0 -xml:[FILE] "== Source ==" "==References=="". Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Mostly technical aspect, barring Chris's comments re actual consensus to do this by bot. Do you only change level 2 headers? Do you make sure there isn't a section named that already? Are you are changing the whitespace in section headers? Are you sure all cases are actually incorrect? What about case where "Sources" section lists something other than references, such as notes, or footnotes, or bibliography, where "References" is not the appropriate title. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will only change level two headers and it will only remove the whitespace from that section header - something which I could stop. I've changed it to supervised and I will check every edit after it has been made. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How are you going to stop if from screwing up sections like Protein (nutrient)#Sources, Animal testing#Sources, Ophanin#Source, Batrachotoxin#Source, Bromelain#Source, Ablomin#Source, Piscivorin#Source, etc., none of which have anything to do with bibliographic citations? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
90% of my work at Wikipedia is MOS:APPENDIX cleanup. I highly, recommend this not happen. This is a highly subtle area and where editors may have used "Sources" over "References" for a reason not obvious at first. Plus articles can and do use both section headings. This would cause more trouble than it's worth. Now having a bot change "Source" to "Sources" and "Reference" to "References" is a better idea. Jason Quinn (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a bot anymore if you are going to make a decision regarding every change? Regardless, can you just limit it to Polbot created articles (since those seem to be your target). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As others have commented, doing this to all articles isn't workable. Targeting those articles created by a single bot, with appropriate checks re other headings, heading level, may be useful. Rjwilmsi 19:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. - I may do some with AWB. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:34, 19 December 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.