User talk:Butlerblog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Commodore-64-Computer-FL
User page Talk Library Articles Essays Userboxes Edit summaries

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Category:Pages using infobox film with nonstandard dates[edit]

If your bot needs a new challenge, Category:Pages using infobox film with nonstandard dates. Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: Certainly! I think I can put something together that would take a bite out of that. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It didn't take much to put together an initial bot for this. It can format single dates and should be able to clean up around half of the existing maintenance category. My expectation is that while running, I'll monitor for entries that the regex doesn't apply and see if we can address any additional entries.
ButlerBlog (talk) 17:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I'll also keep watch and see if I find any strange edits. Gonnym (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: While we're waiting on bot task approval, I'm wondering if you might refine the maintenance category a little bit. While I was doing a test run on the bot, I notice the category includes some of the following:
  • Empty |released=
  • |released= containing only a comment (i.e. <!-- {{Film date|Year|Month|Day|Location}} -->)
  • at least a couple entries had no |released= parameter included in the infobox
ButlerBlog (talk) 16:20, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, currently the category is also capturing instances where the date is also missing as that should be added. I might move that to a different category if you think that's better. Gonnym (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be good to have those excluded just to have a more accurate number. But that's just a personal preference. It won't make a difference for the bot task either way. (In other words, only do it if you think there's a benefit and I'll go along with that.) ButlerBlog (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category split. Gonnym (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: the bot task is approved. I'll start running it today. While I was waiting for the approval, I noticed the edit you corrected from the test run. It did have an exception for {{Infobox album}} but that same regex did not skip {{Infobox video game}}. I have since added an exception for that. In my testing, I did not notice any other issues, but if you notice anything wrong during the run, let me know as soon as you can - or trigger the shut off, and I'll address it right away. Thanks! ButlerBlog (talk) 12:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
addendum to the above - I'm pausing for now. I ran through around 700 articles on AWB manual just to be confident. Of those, I manually skipped 14 because it made a change (did not auto-skip as no change) and the change wasn't what it should be. I was able to refine my regexes to eliminate some of those situations, but not all of them. It's still at about a 1% error rate.
Errors that break things I believe I have eliminated - the regex has been refined to only explicitly hit {{Infobox film}} (avoiding any issues as noted previously). What's left are changes that do not completely change the contents of the parameter. In a few instances where there are 3 or more dates, the third and onward are not formatted. There are a couple of odd formatting that I have caught as well where the regex was not able to discern the type of format to apply. In these situations (which is all of what is left in the "errors" category), at least one date is formatted with {{Film date}}, but not remaining dates. My concern on those is that they would likely result in the article being cleared from the maintenance category, but still not fully formatted.
I am going to work with the 9 remaining from my test run log that were manually skipped and see if I can eliminate those from either being changed or to make sure they are fully changed. Most of them are fairly similar. Once I have that refined, I'll do another manual run for review and if the error rate is acceptable at that point, I'll run it completely. (So at least another update to come on this - thanks for your patience) ButlerBlog (talk) 15:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, good job on catching all those! I'll keep on eye on the changes and if I catch something I'll let you know. Gonnym (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked through those manual skips and I could solve all but 2. But that would be a 0.2% error rate,. I'd like it to be zero, but I also think the two that were not picked up are likely "one-offs" where there are not others like them. I'll do another test run manually and see if we're closer to zero and if so, I'll start it automatically. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to watch for and maybe skip is pages with "franchise" or "film series" disambiguation. These are technically not using the correct infobox so I'm pretty sure that the data itself is also not in a style that can work with the film date template. Gonnym (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That may help weed out some of the questionable items. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fix at Asylum (2005 film) wasn't complete. I removed the second date but the festival should have been added to the template. Not a big issue though. Gonnym (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Atlas Shrugged (film series) also didn't work. Gonnym (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll look those over before the next run. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still getting around 1% (or less) that match an existing regex to trigger a change, but are not formatted in the way the regex is expecting, so they get changed but not correctly (and because they match a regex, even imperfectly, they are not skipped). Each time, I add an adjustment to account for these, which of course adds to the level of complexity. So... in "going back to basics" what I'm going to do is take out very exact parts of the existing approved bot and run just for those to get all the "low hanging fruit" as it were. I'm going to start with the "year only" entries, then I'll add back the regex for single dates with no location or reference. That should clear a significant chunk. Then I'll return to the more complex regexes. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds like a good way to handle this. Each time takes us one step closer. Gonnym (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just finishing up the simplified run through. It just did single dates where they were MDY, month year, or year only. That seems to have cleared almost half of the maintenance cat. Keeping with the concept of keeping it simplified, I'll add back one or two steps today and do another run through and see what that gets us. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another easy fix is converting start date like in Ballistic Kiss. And maybe also one date with country like in Ballet Mécanique. Gonnym (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was originally on my list. However... That's one that's a little tricky. There are some instances where there is another infobox that has |released= and depending on the formatting of the film date's released param, I've had instances where the first occurrence is skipped and it tries to change the second instance (which is the wrong infobox). But that will get worked back in at some point (when I can work out my regex to ignore the occurrences that I know it should be ignoring). ButlerBlog (talk) 12:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I just discovered the "in template call" rule. That must be new (or "newer"). I know they've been working to update the program and I have installed a couple of updates the last few months after being behind for awhile, so I think that's a new option. Anyway, knowing that's there now is a major shift in what I can do (starting wtih this start date change). ButlerBlog (talk) 14:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing another complete run-through now with some additional (from the original) regex patterns. Cleaning up {{start date}}, DMY, MDY, and year only. The previous run was looking for some DMY and MDY that were similar, but this picks up additional patterns. It also hits some year only entries that the previous run excluded (the ones that had HTML comments, which I'm actually removing because they are not necessarily consistent). ButlerBlog (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, this is editing about half of the remaining articles. If that holds true through the remainder, we should get this down to less than 9k remaining. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It ended up more like 2:1 edits:skips, so we got it down to around 6k to go. ButlerBlog (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, great job! I tried finding an easy pattern left in those 6k but so far didn't find any. Gonnym (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like Jayam Manade (1986 film), Jeepers Creepers (1939 animated film), Jeet (1949 film), Jeeva (1986 film), In the Blood (1923 film), The Hypnotist (1957 film) should have been easy fixes for the bot. Any idea why it didn't catch these? Gonnym (talk) 11:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those all fit patterns that I haven't actually done a full run through with yet. Some of the single date with something after it (location or ref) patterns I haven't done a run through with yet. Most of what ran through completely so far is single dates with nothing after it, although I did do some of the more complex patterns attended while the unattended version was running - but I think I stopped at titles starting with "C". I've got a few more simple patterns that can run through yet which I'll do today. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I'm working through it again today, I remember why I wasn't doing ones like Jeepers Creepers (1939 animated film). The same regex that changes that would pick up Between Us (2011 film) incorrectly - at least the way I currently have it. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some additional refining and I'm doing another unattended run with some additional simple patterns. Still don't have MDY & DMY with locations/refs quite refined enough to run unattended yet. There are a lot of entries that fit that, but what my patterns still get wrong is that my single date patterns still pick up entries that have two dates and locations - essentially grabbing the end of the second date as part of the first. Until I get that worked out (which I will eventually), I'm holding off on those. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I was able to work out a regex pattern that picks up the single date with locations (i.e. 11 December 1911 (South Africa)) while ignoring similar results that have two dates. I think that will allow me to do another full run. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update to all(?) of the above: I reviewed and refined a number of patterns based on the above. Articles like Jeet (1949 film) & Jeeva (1986 film) were still not getting picked up, which I could not seem to figure out because I had a specific regex pattern for {{Start date|YYYY|MM|DD|df=y}} which is what they had. Turned out to be a closing parenthesis in the wrong place - it didn't throw an error, it just produced a different result. So that was corrected. I also reworked the patterns that handled single dates with refs (previously was only doing year only to see how that went). All of these I was able to get down to a zero (or near zero?) error rate, and it should pick up everything that is a simple single date. In working through these, I learned a few new features in AWB as well as improved my regex knowledge - both of which will be well served when I go back to refine the original tv infobox date bot (I think I can simplify some of the more complex patterns based on what I did here). My next step will be working on some of the straight-forward multiple dates. (Also, I need to add in a pattern for {{start date}} if the value includes a reference or location) Thanks for bearing with me! ButlerBlog (talk) 11:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great job! Regarding the ref, this didn't fix it with the |ref1= parameter which causes the ref to be on a different line. Again, not a big issue and other editors will eventually fix it. Gonnym (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, nuts! I didn't realize that put the ref on a different line. There are a bunch of those. Unfortunately, with the {{Film date}} change, it removes them from the maintenance cat. Would it be possible to create a maintenance category for articles using {{Film date}} that have the ref outside the template? Then I could go back and fix those. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the moment, no. Infobox film does not use my complex behind the scenes validation and I don't see me creating that anytime soon, so the best there is just a check if it uses film date or not, not how it is used. But I don't see this as a big issue and that is a small cost to pay for the 36k page mess that was before your bot run. Gonnym (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK - well, I've adjusted it for anything going forward from here. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can use the "user contributions" setting to build a list of the bot's edits in AWB to go back over what I did so far and fix those. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TV category[edit]

Also, if you have a chance, can you run the bot on the TV category (notice that it's logic has expanded to the additional date parameters) so I can see what pages remain that need manual fixing? Gonnym (talk) 10:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For sure! I've had it on hold for the time being because I need to make adjustments based on what's in there currently. ButlerBlog (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have your expertise?[edit]

Hi, could you tell me what caused you to revert these edits?
Someone asked a question about one edit at ANI (which is the wrong place to ask questions but, eh) and that edit was made by a similar IP who even edited one of the articles you reverted (the first one they edited): Special:Contributions/50.49.98.45.
There was also a previous IP that was blocked for disruptive editing (for 31 hours), who edited one of the other articles they edited, but I don't really understand, what is it that I should be watching out for in their edits? – 2804:F14:80C8:4701:3C07:6F36:D6F6:97FF (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of a range of IPs that has a pattern of problematic and disruptive editing. The issues for these IPs generally are excessive "see also" links (too much overlap or too broad), oversimplification of language, unnecessary links in article text, never uses edit summaries, and doesn't communicate via talk pages. Those things by themselves don't necessarily warrant broad-based reversion, and ordinarily, reverting those types of edits would involve some type of communication with the editor involved. However, in this particular case, the editor already knows this, doesn't communicate with other editors, and seems to just not care. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:43, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rifleman two sources[edit]

I added two sources to replace the citation needed, I believe having both is sufficient to remove citation needed. Please check! :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vajzë Blu: Actually, no, that's not sufficient. Before continuing to work on sourcing/citing, I would recommend a solid review of what makes a reliable (citable) source: WP:SOURCES. In looking at the list of qualifications there, ask yourself, "How does the source I am using qualify as a reliable source per Wikipedia's guidelines?"
You have to look at what your source is and where it comes from in order to answer those questions. What you've used in this instance is published via a "feed" from trend-chaser.com. That would not meet any of the criteria necessary to be considered a reliable source per our guidelines. It is a source, but is it a "reliable source"? ("No" is the correct answer.) If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right - right?
To support the content of the paragraph in question, I have found three sources that would qualify as sufficiently reliable sources. Take a look at them in light of what is required by WP:SOURCES and see if this starts to make more sense to you. If you truly can't see what was wrong with the citations you provided, please ask for more clarification and I will try to explain it better. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thank you! :) Vajzë Blu (talk) 04:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Butlerblog&oldid=1223336457"