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 Request Expired.

Operator: Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs)

Automatic or Manually assisted: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl/AWB

Source code available: AWB, yes; Perl no.

Function overview: Remove duplicate tags

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#SmackBot_duplicate_tags_feature_request

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: maybe 1 per day

Exclusion compliant (Y/N): Yes

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

Function details: Any sequence of successive tags will be examined for duplicates, and the later dated, or an undated will be removed.Examples (in line tags)

• ^{[citation needed][citation needed]} => ^{[citation needed]}
• ^{[citation needed][citation needed][year needed][page needed][citation needed]} =>^{[citation needed][year needed][page needed]}

Will naturally divide into

1. top tags,
2. section tags
3. in-line tags
4. bottom tags.

but the functionality is the same.

Simple in principle, should be non-contentious.Rich Farmbrough 15:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any major problems with this; seems straightforward. What do you do with |reason= field? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most, if not all templates ignore it. One of the things SmackBot does - or rather doesn't do is date tags with invalid parameter names - the exceptions are "reason", "comment" and possible one other. In usual operation, where SB is fixing 99.5% + of undated tags, theses are easy for me to pick up with the other cruft - subst'd stuff, "custom" usage, etc.. Of course right now SB is running at 5% of new tags and about .25% daily so the 10k + undated, while they can wait til 30 Sept with no problem also maska bunch of problems that will need sorting. - bit of a tangent ther - Rich Farmbrough, 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Approved for trial (5 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. MBisanz ^talk 23:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I need to find 5 examples! Rich Farmbrough, 12:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

((OperatorAssistanceNeeded)) whats the current status of this request? ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No luck finding examples to test. Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

If it helps I noticed a couple linking to the template BLP unsourced recently. In fact if you can link to my contributions for the last couple days you should find a couple. --Kumioko (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll give that a go. Thanks. Rich Farmbrough, 04:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified)

Any luck finding examples? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request Expired. Operator should feel free to re-open at any time - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 03:09, 31 March 2011 (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.