| Revision as of 08:50, 21 October 2008 editLightmouse (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers148,333 edits →Discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:38, 21 October 2008 edit undoShereth (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,865 edits →Discussion: commentNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| I am aware of the problems of date syntax. In fact, I have improved on ], you might want to replace that with the vastly superior (I think) ]. I also have several variants of AWB code that can be made available to you. Feel free to contact me at my talk page. ] (]) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | I am aware of the problems of date syntax. In fact, I have improved on ], you might want to replace that with the vastly superior (I think) ]. I also have several variants of AWB code that can be made available to you. Feel free to contact me at my talk page. ] (]) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Don't be so dramatic, Lightmouse. I never said I would block you. What I did say is that I would block the bot if it resumed delinking them ''without consensus''. MOSNUM does not mention solitary year links. I understand that, in your point of view, they are low-value links (and I am inclined to agree), however it is a perennial issue where editors are complaining on various notice boards about bots unlinking these years without any kind of mandate to do so. Let me make it clear - I do not oppose de-linking years using a bot, but I ''will'' take action to prevent its operation until such a mandate has been established. Given the scope and recurring nature of the complaints, the consensus of a small group of editors (such as those watching MOSNUM or the BAG) is insufficient to demonstrate any kind of mandate. For what it is worth, I support the above proposed bot as-is. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:38, 21 October 2008
Cleanbot
Operator: Lightmouse (talk)
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic
Programming Language(s): AWB
Function Summary: Delink dates except for solitary years.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Continuous
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): No.
Function Details:
- Its primary target is 'autoformatted dates', for example "] ]" will become "19 October 2008".
- Secondary targets include errors such as "]" and date elements/combinations that are not solitary years.
- It will not delink solitary years. For example "happened in ] and ... " will be unchanged.
- It will not delink anything that contains a non-date term that is visible to the reader. For example "]" will be unchanged.
Guidance at wp:mosnum says: The linking of dates purely for the purpose of autoformatting is now deprecated..
Guidance at wp:context also deprecates such links.
Featured Articles, Featured lists, Good Articles, Peer review, and wikiprojects are implementing the guidelines. I suspect that the bots that were adding links to date elements have stopped and many editors are removing date links. Some people are not yet comfortable with a bot delinking solitary years, therefore solitary years are specifically excluded from this bot request.
The code already exists and has been well tested on manual edits.
Discussion
- Is linking to a specific day of the year like in your second example always an error? --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You may be aware that delinking is already taking place on quite a large scale by multiple editors using manual methods. As far as I am aware, the suggestion that you make has not been an issue. There was a discussion about a day+month link being valid because it is a significant annual event but the response seemed to be that annual events should link to the relevant article (e.g. Guy Fawkes Night) rather than the date. Lightmouse (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- In the first line of Guy Fawkes Night, there's a link to November 5. Do you consider this an error? --Carnildo (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am not sure. What do you think? Lightmouse (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's fine, and that your bot shouldn't automatically remove standalone day+month links. --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Only a tiny fraction of articles describe annual anniversaries and it is relatively easy avoid those. I note you used the phrase "standalone day+month links". Are you implying that you would support a bot that removes day+month+year links? Lightmouse (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm all for this task, but why aren't you delinking solitary year links as well? I don't see any added value with them either. And can you make the source code for this bot available? Parsing out date syntax is a bit trickier than you might realize. There are all sorts of edge cases that are valid syntax that require special handling. For instance, here is only a partial implementation in JavaScript. The regular expression approach proved to be too limiting, so you'll really need to use a full-on grammar parser. In particular, the linked script does not handle properly delinking dates that are followed by a word beginning with the same letter as the name of any month, because it only uses single character look-ahead. --Cyde Weys 15:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I agree with you that solitary years are still a problem. I am not delinking solitary years because Shereth said that he/she would block me if I did. See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lightmouse&oldid=244095391#Bot_stopped
I am aware of the problems of date syntax. In fact, I have improved on User:Cyde/monobook.js/dates.js, you might want to replace that with the vastly superior (I think) User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js. I also have several variants of AWB code that can be made available to you. Feel free to contact me at my talk page. Lightmouse (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Don't be so dramatic, Lightmouse. I never said I would block you. What I did say is that I would block the bot if it resumed delinking them without consensus. MOSNUM does not mention solitary year links. I understand that, in your point of view, they are low-value links (and I am inclined to agree), however it is a perennial issue where editors are complaining on various notice boards about bots unlinking these years without any kind of mandate to do so. Let me make it clear - I do not oppose de-linking years using a bot, but I will take action to prevent its operation until such a mandate has been established. Given the scope and recurring nature of the complaints, the consensus of a small group of editors (such as those watching MOSNUM or the BAG) is insufficient to demonstrate any kind of mandate. For what it is worth, I support the above proposed bot as-is. Shereth 13:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)