Operator: GreenC (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:52, Tuesday, April 24, 2018 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): BotWikiAwk
Source code available: accdate.awk
Function overview: The proposal is for 'accdate bot' to remove |access-date=
from citations in the tracking category Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL using targeted strategies.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Clearing Category Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL - also CS1 documentation which supports use of |access-date=
for |url=
only.
Edit period(s): one-time run during first pass as standalone bot; then semi-continually as part of a module of WaybackMedic
Estimated number of pages affected: 25,000 (57% of 43,719)
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details:
Of the Category:CS1 errors, the tracking category with the most entries is Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL (43,719). There is no silver bullet solution to clearing the cat, so this will break it down by targeting known types of problems within that category. There have been many discussions about it over the years.
The proposal is for 'accdate bot' to remove |access-date=
from citations in the tracking category Category:Pages using citations with accessdate and no URL using the following strategies:
|accessdate=
in CS1|2 templates that don't have a |url=
but do have a value assigned to any of the various 'permanent-record' identifiers. Excluding templates ((cite web))
, ((cite podcast))
, and ((cite mailing list))
. Normally |isbn=
would be excluded from the identifier list, but if a ((cite book))
it would be included.|accessdate=
in ((Cite book))
, ((Cite news))
and ((Cite journal))
with no |url=
. Per the documentation, "Access dates are not required for links to published research papers, published books, or news articles with publication dates." If a publication date is provided, remove |accessdate=
.
|access-date=
is a common source of confusion, what it's for and why exists. -- GreenC 04:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply] Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Since no one from BAG seems interest in this, I'll take it despite having been involved in the discussion a bit. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GreenC: In edits like these [1] (and I could pick several examples), the bot also removes empty |url=
parameters, and I do not see the wisdom in doing that. This discourages finding free URLs and makes it (slightly) harder to add them. Empty parameters should be left alone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|url=
have actually created some of the problem this bot is attempting to resolve. There is no evidence empty arguments encourage users to fill them in (nudge theory); there's no way future editors can know why the empty argument exists: did it once have something and was deleted? Was the citation copy-pasted in with other empty args and lazily the empties were kept? Was it always empty? There's no nudge factor because there are so many possibilities of why it exists. If the empty |url=
included a wikicomment saying "A URL might exist; please fill me in, or delete this notice and empty arg" that would be more clear. Do we want to do it? It seems like it would be true for any citation without a |url=
and goes down the rabbit hole of trying to direct users what to do. -- GreenC 18:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]|url=
have actually created some of the problem this bot is attempting to resolve." Removal is relevant to the purpose of the bot, and it's limited to the citation it edits as a secondary - it doesn't seek out other empty arguments in other citations. To nudge the community to do things with signals of encouragement is not the bot's intention. OTOH removal of |url=
within the citations its edits is relevant to the bot's purpose. -- GreenC 19:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
((BAGAssistanceNeeded)) To be clear I'm recusing myself from making the final call here. I have listed some objections above, but I'll note for the record they are not a personal deal breaker for me, simply a concern I have. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]