Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Tuonela
- The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was
Approved.
Operator: Teo64x
Automatic or Manually Assisted: Manually assisted, supervised
Programming Language(s): Python
Function Summary: Redirect fixing, tag date adding, spelling corrections.
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run): Weekly
Edit rate requested: 5 edits per minute
Already has a bot flag (Y/N): N
Function Details: This bot will make use of PyWikipedia framework in order to: fix double redirects, add dates to tags that should have a date (but do not) and correct some spelling mistakes.
Discussion[edit]
Spelling corrections are a BIG no-no, as there is a chance of a false positive. We already have a few double redirect bots, but nothing against another, and can I have a few examples of templates you plan on working on? ST47Talk 14:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- I'm aware that spelling correction can be a nuisance, but I'm planning to do this carefully and in a manner that it won't harm correct pages. Here's an example of what I think should be corrected, which has no chance of false positive. Examples of templates I'm talking about are: {{fact}}, {{specify}}, {{dead link}}, {{more sources}} {{Original research}} and others. Teo64x 15:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about playdoh? ST47Talk 20:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good point but a false positive here can be avoided if the bot looks for a space before and a space or comma after the word (to make sure it is a complete word). This might exclude some actual mistakes, but it will avoid "correcting" already correct expressions. Of course, if the spelling correction is considered dangerous even under these circumstances, it can be excluded from the bots' functions altogether. But I still think that with a careful implementation, it will work fairly well. Teo64x 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about if [1] got an article? The point is that there are virtually no 100% reliable spelling bots. —METS501 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, there are no totally reliable bots for spelling corrections, so that's why it's not going to run as an automated and scheduled bot, but as a human-assisted one. In fact, I can check the pages that are about to be corrected (using Google) and see whether these cases are indeed mistakes or are spelled like that on purpose. Then, if the spelling is a mistake in all cases, I will use the bot to make the corrections quickly. Also consider the fact that I will be supervising the bot's changes, just in case. However, I repeat that if you really think that, despite the fact that I'm going to use it carefully (and after I consider everything that has been said in this discussion), the bot still shouldn't make spelling corrections, it's very simple for me not to have it make them. Teo64x 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't generally comment here... but just one small issue: are we sure you will always (or an acceptably large proportion of the time) get the spelling right? Do you, for example, know all the regional varieties of English spelling? (British, American, Australian, South African, Indian, etc?). English has some ridiculous and non-intuitive spelling - it's only human to sometimes get it wrong... Mikker (...) 13:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good point. Well, I'm not going to "correct" things I'm not completely sure are wrong. Teo64x 17:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed, there are no totally reliable bots for spelling corrections, so that's why it's not going to run as an automated and scheduled bot, but as a human-assisted one. In fact, I can check the pages that are about to be corrected (using Google) and see whether these cases are indeed mistakes or are spelled like that on purpose. Then, if the spelling is a mistake in all cases, I will use the bot to make the corrections quickly. Also consider the fact that I will be supervising the bot's changes, just in case. However, I repeat that if you really think that, despite the fact that I'm going to use it carefully (and after I consider everything that has been said in this discussion), the bot still shouldn't make spelling corrections, it's very simple for me not to have it make them. Teo64x 09:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about if [1] got an article? The point is that there are virtually no 100% reliable spelling bots. —METS501 (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's a good point but a false positive here can be avoided if the bot looks for a space before and a space or comma after the word (to make sure it is a complete word). This might exclude some actual mistakes, but it will avoid "correcting" already correct expressions. Of course, if the spelling correction is considered dangerous even under these circumstances, it can be excluded from the bots' functions altogether. But I still think that with a careful implementation, it will work fairly well. Teo64x 22:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about playdoh? ST47Talk 20:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
- Approved for trial. Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. to get this moving for all requested tasks (automated) and spelling corrections (manually supervised). Come back when you're satisfied with its operation, say 50 edits per task. ST47Talk 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know when you will be trialing this? — xaosflux Talk 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Tuonela was blocked from editing before it was approved. I felt like waiting a little to see if an administrator would remove the block, so that it could start working at last. It seems that until now nobody has taken any action, so I guess I will have to contact the blocking administrator. I'm extremely sorry for being too late, it's the first time I encounter a block, so I don't really know the correct procedures :) Teo64x 16:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Do you know when you will be trialing this? — xaosflux Talk 15:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.