Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Hazard-Bot 32

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  Approved.

Hazard-Bot 32

• (BRFA
• Approved BRFAs
• talk
• contribs
• count
• SUL
• logs
• page moves
• block log
• rights log
• flag)

Operator: Hazard-SJ (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 03:43, Wednesday, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: GitHub

Function overview: replaces {{start date}} with date in {{singles}} and {{episode list}}

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): bot request

Edit period(s): one time run

Estimated number of pages affected: I can't really guess this but it's definitely more than 3200 from an initial check

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Replaces {{start date}} from the date parameters of {{singles}} and from |AltDate= of {{episode list}} with an appropriately formatted date (it takes |df= of {{start date}} into account, along with other things).  Hazard SJ  03:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Approved for trial (30 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. (each template) — Earwig ^talk 07:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Trial complete. The first set of edits were messed up (I was substituting {{MONTHNAME}}, but I had to change my approach, so I ended up expanding the value of it before making the edits), but the corrected edits are here.  Hazard SJ  19:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Just right off the bat, can you change the edit summary to briefly explain why this is necessary? — Earwig ^talk 10:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Should I simply say that it should only be used once in a template that emits microformats (which many probably don't understand), or should I get into more specific detail?  Hazard SJ  01:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That, and link to the template docs, I suppose. Nothing too extreme. — Earwig ^talk 02:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a bug (also here). I noticed that the code will replace {{start date}} in |AltDate= even if no |OriginalAirDate= is present; technically this does not need to be done per {{Episode list}}'s documentation, but it seems fine to me since an "alt date" is inherently going to be an other, secondary date. Maybe the documentation should be changed? I don't see any other issues. — Earwig ^talk 06:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I did think of such cases before programming, but per the secondary date thing, along with the slight possibility that someone might add |OriginalAirDate= at some later point (for whatever reason). It would be nice if the template's documentation was more detailed, I agree, but I don't see where this could be an issue.  Hazard SJ  18:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• [1] -- "1995 02".
• Could you update the task description about what you are doing with |AltDate=?
• What about stuff like |Aux2= e.g. [2]? Probably a corner-case.
• Agree with above about better summary with some link to explanation.
• Otherwise, didn't see any issues. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

  @Hellknowz:

  • I believe that's intended, per Template:Singles/doc#Usage: "The date of single release. If full date is unknown, just use YYYY MM or YYYY. Do not use the  () template in this field."
  • I'm not sure what you mean.
  • I could do |Aux2= (and perhaps others), but then there's no certainty about what kind of data that parameter will contain... it's "general purpose".
  • Yes, that can be fixed, or, well, improved.
  • Good

   Hazard SJ  03:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  I also pointed out the YYYY MM thing above, I guess it was missed that time? Anyway, we should preserve the original format as best as possible. {{start date|2015|12}} produces December 2015, so the bot should do the same. 2015 12 looks really odd in article text and is not MoS-supported. The docs might need updating. — Earwig ^talk 03:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  I did see it, but I guess I forgot to comment on it. I do agree that it looks strange, but I can definitely use the December 2015 format.  Hazard SJ  04:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  See commit 9b3fae8.  Hazard SJ  05:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

  Re task description, it seems there is no extra stuff needed since logic with |AltDate= is already as expected. Other fields are likely up to manual fixing. Anyway, looks good to me. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

   Approved. — Earwig ^talk 04:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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.