Wikisource:Bot requests

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Bot requests
This page allows users to request that an existing bot accomplish a given task. Note that some tasks may require that an entirely new bot or script be written. This is not the place to ask for help running or writing a bot.

A bot operating performing a task should make note of it so that other bots don't attempt to do the same. Tasks that are permanently assigned or scheduled for long-term execution are listed on Persistent tasks.

See also

Unassigned requests[edit]

Use of Match and split[edit]

Is it normal for the Match and Split Phe-bot to not be running, and how does one get it going again?Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

It is not normal for it not to be running (especially as I was trying to match-and split a page when I found it wasn't running). As @Phe-bot is run by @Phe, I believe pinging them should do the trick. -Einstein95 (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@Phe, @Phe-bot: the bot is not running again (or still not running) — "match_and_split robot is not running. Please try again later." —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Header to Template:Translation header[edit]

We have a situation that I am parking here for broader consideration, especially as it is not one that I have the best familisarisation. We have moved numbers of main ns works to the Translation namespace due to their being Wikisource-sourced translations. Numbers have been moved and not converted to use {{translation header}}. They take a little bit of manipulation based on knowledge of the works, though that should be evident from the language of the work. We need to review https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Header&namespace=114&limit=500 and automate those that can be automated, and either manual update the remainder, or look to populate with information that allows for automation. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Masss subst: request[edit]

Mass subst of {{Statute table/titles/footer}} to enable templates removal. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This only works if a new line is left in the footer: "\n|-\n|}", I wonder if it is a robust solution, as a the first new line might be stripped for some reason, see [1]. Can this be made more robust?— Mpaa (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Replace {{blank line}} with {{nop}}[edit]

The template {{blank line}} is deprecated and is slated for deletion per WS:PD, but it is used on nearly 2000 pages, and needs to be replaced before deletion can occur. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

One comment: replacement should be done according to recommended usage of nop (used at the end of a paragraph in the PAGE: namespace where the paragraph terminates the page). So if blank line is at the beginning of a page, it should be inserted at the end of the previous page.— Mpaa (talk) 17:04, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I have tested it, and it appears to work correctly with nop at the top of the page. If the bot can be made to put it at the bottom of the previous page, that would be great, but I do not think that is necessary. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
It is deprecated usage, not wrong usage. Why are we bothering? Can't we live with it? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd think so, but several people indicated a preference to delete at WS:PD and nobody opposed until today. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:18, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to note that "blank line" is a (wacky) span template, and "nop" is a div template. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Use of template:Ellipsis[edit]

I do hate these experimental templates that are left in place, then used and used and used. This template was set up for a specific use where there was a clear typographic reason to format an ellipsis as a string with a look. We currently have nearly 3000 uses of the wretched template, where many are not in line with our style guide.

I would like for us to run a bot through and convert the template to utilise a true ellipsis, OR actually replace the content of the template with an ellipsis, though having rescued those works that require the use a typographic ellipsis to a new template. Whichever preferred tasks requires a bot.

@EncycloPetey: I recall that you had a specific work or two that you believed required the typographic ellipsis, are you able to identify such works so that they are not caught in any remedial work if undertaken. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have used this template in several works for the reasons you mention. In prose fiction, especially in dialogue, the template is warranted, I believe, to preserve the pacing of speech. The template aso allows for four or five dots, instead of simply multiples of 3. Therefore, I would suggest we stop calling this template "experimental" and make it a normal part of our functioning. There isn't a suitable alternative that would preserve the original text, in many cases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with EncycloPetey in each reason. Also, I don't think the style guide is a sufficient reason for a mass substitution or a template edit which will significantly alter the appearance of many works. Reasonable derogations from it are accepted as long as they are consistent in a work. For example, Use typewriter quotation marks (straight, not curly) is a stronger instruction than Ellipses of omission should be entered as the actual character, yet if a user opts consistently for curly quotes in a book they alone are working on, who cares? BethNaught (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
For what it's worth I also agree with EncycloPetey. I was just trying to explain my thoughts on the matter on my talk page when I was alerted to the discussion here. Here is a page I proofed before I knew about the template. Looking back on it now I see it would look much nicer, and more like the original to use the template: She dreamed. . . . Suddenly she heard voices and laughter. Not that I'd want to go back and change it now, but I'd prefer to continue using {{...}} for similar cases in the future. Mudbringer (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Assigned requests[edit]


Substituting out diacritic templates for the actual diacritic[edit]

I have started to substitute diacritic templates for the actual diacritic. Sample edits can be sen in my contribs. If there are no objections, I am going to continue the clean-up. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 14:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Some more done as User:MpaaBot--Mpaa (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Done.--Mpaa (talk) 09:43, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Excuse me, but as a noob I don't understand. The templates like {{ae}} are not marked deprecated, and I know I read somewhere (sorry, I've read a lot of help files in the last week) that the templates should be used. Therefore I've been using them. Where is this policy explained? Sorry for posting this on this page. Laura1822 (talk) 19:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In general, these might be replaced anytime: Category:Diacritic_templates, see top line. But you're probably right about {{ae}} and similar. As I have applied this list Category_talk:Templates_that_can_be_substituted, I think some instances might have been substituted. That list should be fixed if we do not want {{ae}} & co. to be replaced in future.
TBH, I do not know if this feature is still on: "support functionality for automatically turning on and off the display of ligatures". Comments welcome also from others.--Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
So as a proofreader, should I use the template or insert the ligature directly? It's certainly easier to do the latter. Yes to some but not to others? What is the point of the template(s)? Laura1822 (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I can't remember too well, but I think it was a compatibility issue. Some displays couldn't render the ligatures, so to avoid a person seeing a little box, the template would break it into the "ae" or "oe" letters instead.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Template purpose is to assist in the entering of diacritics, see Help:Templates#Character_formatting. IMO, both ways are OK.--Mpaa (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Laura1822: for some they didn't know how to do the ligatures, so we just made templates available. You are welcome to use the templates or the actual characters. Every (not) so often, I run a bot through and do a replacement. It is neither here nor there on the frequency, and in many cases it is not overtly necessarily, though for a number of edge cases too many templates on a page is problematic. So in the end, it is just worthwhile running a bot through to do the work. Thanks for the question, it is worthwhile, and if you can think of some help pages where you see that it is of value to add the information, then we can look to do that. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! For what it's worth, on the Help page Mpaa linked above, I had completely missed the explanation that it was optional, since I was looking at the tables (probably looking for something else at the time). If the usage of the templates is somewhat obsolete, or intended only for use by proofreaders who can't see them for some reason, then I think that could be clarified. It would help for the templates themselves to have an explanation, or at least a statement that they are optional. Thanks! Laura1822 (talk) 13:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I have improved template pages for Diacritics with doc page.--Mpaa (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
This point is still not clear to me: is this feature still used: "support functionality for automatically turning on and off the display of ligatures (see {{ae}})" or we can substitute {{ae}} as well?--Mpaa (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Removed the closing statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

{{uc}}[edit]

Can your bot do {{uc}} as well? It puts the text uppercase, and it seems to be more efficient to have the ACTUALL UPPERCASE TEXT instead of using the uc template to do that. JustinCB (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Can, but I feel this was most likely discussed before and for some reason discarded.— Mpaa (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
FYI, {{uc}} on lowercase will still copy-and-paste as lower case (i.e. the text is still really lowercase, it's just being messed with using CSS to appear uppercase). I would say that using it to produce uppercase is generally incorrect, in the same way that using {{sc|text}} as a shorthand for {{smaller|TEXT}} is. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Follow up to that - that's not to say it's never right - judicious use of {{uc}} and {{sc}} can make sense (for example it's a way to do drop-initial-followed by caps paragraph starts with sentence-case copy-paste). Even so, using {{sc}} are probably a mistake when you find yourself writing {{sc|lord sidcup}} rather than {{smaller|LORD SIDCUP}} or even {{smaller|{{uc|Lord Sidcup}}. If you're using {{uc}}, you should probably still be capitalising sanely, as that's going a) copy-and-paste better and b) that's what get's indexed by Google. TL;DR, these are not templates that simply let you avoid the shift-key. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
JustinCB: It is purposeful to have uppercase as a font variant, not force with mediawiki UC. This is a community decision to be this way, and you will find that discussion in Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

As a note. We size adjusted displays of AD/BC and AM/PM. Style guides and dictionaries that I have checked state that AD/BC are capitals, so they, and their variations, should be as capitals and displayed, using {{smaller}} or whichever size adjustment suits. Whereas for am/pm they are cited as being lower case, so they should be reproduced using {{smallcaps}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)