Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Full-date unlinking 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Withdrawn by operator.

Full-date unlinking bot 2[edit]

Operator: Harej

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: User:Full-date unlinking bot/code

Function overview: Removes links from dates.

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected:

Space	Fully linked date triples	Dates with punctuation errors
Category	142	4
Portal	7,486	1,604
Total	7,628	1,608

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details:' On Wikipedia:Full-date unlinking bot, a consensus was achieved that full dates (a month, a day, and a year) should not be linked to in articles unless they are germane to the articles themselves (for example, in articles on dates themselves). Now that the work – representing the first phase of automated delinking – is complete, I request bot approval to remove links of full dates, as defined previously in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Full-date_unlinking_bot in category and portal space. The details of operation and exceptions are available on User:Full-date unlinking bot.

Requested by: Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:54, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

New articles are created each month by editors who may be unaware of our linking protocols and policies. I would propose a monthly bot run, or to program the bot to patrol recent changes, particularly to delink dates of these recently created articles, and any other articles which may have been linked by editors unaware of our practices Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)struck as withdrawn.[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I ask for a stay on this because as of now, I have a script that relies on linked dates in the MFD archives. It's not a big deal and I'll strike this statement as soon as I fix it. @harej 03:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Harej; however, I still support the principle of Ohconfucius's application. Tony (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Bots cannot discern what users are or are not aware of. Rerunning the bot monthly is equivalent to deciding that full date linking is entirely forbidden. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what about newly created articles? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the proposal were reworded to confine itself to suitable classes of articles that really could be detected by a bot, such as new articles, I would not object. However, I would want to see the proposal thoroughly reworded so its approval would not be seen as a tacit approval to extend its reach into inappropriate areas. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of being able to start processing portal and category space, I have struck the addended request above. It appears that there is no opposition to the primary request. Can I ask for a speedy approval, please? Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy approval is only given out is special cases (e.g. an exact clone of an already approved and uncontroversial bot, interwiki bots etc). Date unlinking has proved controversial in the past, so a speed approval would be a bad idea imo. --Chris 11:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be true that delinking was once controversial, 'once' being the operative word here. The bot's first run did not generate any further noise, so the above comment probably reflects obsolete thinking, IMHO. This request has been open for nearly three weeks, so it's not all that speedy, by any standards. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Regardless of procedural details (i.e. "speedy approved" or not), what else is needed before the bot can be approved for this task? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2010 (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 @ 04:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{OperatorAssistanceNeeded|D}} Any updates? — The Earwig ^(talk) 02:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally honest I'm not interested in this. If someone else is interested in making the necessary code adjustments and then running the bot, let me know and I can hand over the password. harej 03:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. I'll expire this in two weeks or so if no one is willing to take over. — The Earwig ^(talk) 18:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by operator. I have a feeling no one is going to take over this task. If you would like to run the bot, please contact harej. — The Earwig ^(talk) 03:28, 9 March 2010 (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.