Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 17

Article spelling

Can someone make a bot that can 'read' through an article and decide what spelling it appears to be using? For example if it mainly uses British spellings of words, one would conclude that the article is using British English and place such a tag at the top of the article (see my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (spelling)#A proposal to make spelling use clearer). It could give the percentages of words using each spelling as an output. It's difficult for a human to do this because reading takes time, and it's hard to find words that indicate the spelling being used. A list of most such words would be necessary for creating the bot, of course (see e.g. WP:MOSS for a short list), which I'm sure would be available somewhere. Just a British/American version would be a good start, as those are the main two varieties when it comes to spelling (and most familiar; if I said an article was written in New Zealand English many wouldn't know whether that was closer to British or American). Richard001 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a Free/Open source dictionary I'd be willing to give a try to add to the readability tool. —Dispenser (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about FLOSS dictionaries unfortunately. I thought there might be something at the spelling differences article, though I can't see anything relevant. What about the one Firefox uses though, wouldn't that be a free one? The Google results I'm getting don't look very good either, and I'm not sure I'll know if I have the right thing if I find it, so it's probably best left to someone else. Richard001 (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat similar, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SpellCheckerBot which makes use of the aspell library. I'll look into seeing if that provides dialect differentiation. —Dispenser (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I got something running which uses ispell. It and Firefox use the same dictionaries as they are incorrectly identifying spelling. Example from spelling differences shows: barmy, quin, grotty, and haulier are incorrectly British spellings, grody, filet, and boogeyman are invalid American spellings, and the charivari does not exist in the language. I had pondered if we could have wiki lists for the different spellings, but that's of the point of wiktionary. However, they aren't classifying words as well as we need. Its using categories but many words lack categories, words like mum and mom have links to each other using the {{wikt:template:qualifier}} with the region but no categories indicating that. With these issues it looks like this wont be happening at least now. Though it would be cool to see graphs indicating colloquial, informal, and language (loanwords) usage in articles. —Dispenser (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:CFDS

Resolved

I realize that there are multiple bots already performing tasks on this page, but I was wondering how the BAG feels about one more. Basically, I have already been moving categories using AWB, and after clicking "save" 100-200 times, it gets a bit repetitious. Since AWB has the necessary functions already programmed in, I would not have to do any programming (good, considering I know nothing more than some VB.NET, not enough to make a bot). Obviously there may be room for another bot, as if there weren't, I (a non-bot) would not have been able to get in an edit. My ultimate question, what is the likelihood of the BAG giving a bot flag to such a bot account? --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 22:29, 12 January 2008

see WP:CFDW β^_command 04:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is that WP:CFDW is fully protected! Thus, only admins can get the bots to do the work? And for me, that would mean bugging an admin to getting it posted every time there is a change (daily). --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

talk to an admin who is involved with CFD as they are willing to do that too. β^_command 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

...so...user posts on WP:CFDS, another user posts for admin to move, admin (being busy, as admins are) takes a while to get around to it, posts it to WP:CFDW. Bot turns on, and makes the move. 4 steps....or...User posts on WP:CFDS, I run AWB in bot mode, and make the move. 2 steps. My question is not how to do it under the current system. I know that. I can read policy pages. My question is "what is the likelihood of getting a bot approval for this?" I wouldn't want to rush into a Request for Approval without knowing first that there is a good chance of getting approved. So far, I have only had the answer of an IP address, whose (no offense) only edit has been that reply. --Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 02:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You would not get approved, just ask an admin to make CFDS part of the daily CFD updates. User post to CFDS, admin closes and posts to CFDW. end of story. β^_command 03:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I really don't mean to seem like I am pestering, but I must ask, why? Wouldn't this fall under WP:IAR? Why would the BAG not want a simple semi-automated bot, doing something that I've done several times already, in an ever so slighty easier way, without affecting the nature of the process, et cetera, et cetera. WP:CFDW has not seen much action over the past few days, and I am not the only one who has done these edits themselves using AWB. As I see it, my proposal would solve these problems. The only change would be me not clicking the "save" button 100 times. What ever happened to WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY? I like to do as much as I can by myself, and so, to me, it wouldnt feel right to bug an admin to do tasks for me, when it would seem easier for me to do them myself (and mediawiki software does not restrict me from doing so). So then, maybe my question is, "why not?" Sorry if I seem pestering, but the more I think of it, the more it seems trivial, considering the number of AWB bots out there already.--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 04:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Plain and simple, CFDW is the proper place to handle the issue. there are already plenty of bots that do CFD work. there is a reason that CFD is protected. its a bot control center. we dont want people messing with the bots. Like I said just ask an admin who is involved with CFD to add CFDS to their daily task. (its no big deal. admins are glad to handle this). β^_command 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the place for requesting others to run a bot. But yes the answer to your question is highly likely. 207.6.245.26 (talk) 05:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"This is an appropriate place to simply put ideas for bots" (quote from top of page).--Vox Rationis (Talk | contribs) 15:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A search request

I'm pretty sure this is work for a bot. I was wondering if a bot would be able to search Category:Green Bay Packers articles by quality to see which pages have {{dyktalk}} on them and then give me a list of those articles. I think there is only about 6 or 7 articles that do but there are 960 articles in the category and it would be a lot of work to search by hand. Thanks in advance!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Ade Schwammel, Talk:Merv Pregulman, and Talk:Jack Clancy. Mønobi 00:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

WPCHINA

Is it possible for someone to assess Category:Unassessed China-related articles (tagged {{WPCHINA}}) by both class and importance? Thanks. Maork (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mexico tagging request

Request that {{WikiProject Mexico|class=|importance=}} be added to the talk page of all articles not currently containing it from the following categories.

This is annoying and uncalled for. Please use a WikiProject sub page to list categories and discuss the details of a particular request. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This page was revised earlier to state that subpages shouldn't be used anymore, so I followed that guideline which is still in place above. Personally, given the length of the proposal, I would have kept it as a subpage myself, but this page currently says to list them directly on the page. The categories chosen were all specifically relevant to the nation, although I can't be sure how big many of them were. Those categories which dealt with content involving other states I didn't list and went through item-by-item myself. I have no doubt there was a lot of overlap, but the staggering number of categories made the possibility of going through them all problematic. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you do; I was working on that. SQL^{Query me!} 03:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I got the full list from history, and, I'm running the requested task. SQL^{Query me!} 04:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)