Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DrilBot 2

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. The result of the discussion was Approved.

DrilBot 2

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

Operator: Drilnoth

Automatic or Manually Assisted: Automatic; unsupervised.

Programming Language(s): AutoWikiBrowser

Function Overview: Add DEFAULTSORTs to fix capitalization per WP:CAT#Using sort keys

Edit period(s): When I find a category that really needs it or on request for a specific category.

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

Function Details: Wikipedia:Categories#Using sort keys states that the first letter of each word in a DEFAULTSORT should be capitalized and the rest lowercase. Right now, some categories have incorrect alphabetization because this guideline wasn't followed... see, for example, Category:4-4-0 locomotives. With this specific category, DrilBot already added a DEFAULTSORT to one article as a part of AWB's general fixes while it was going through the WP:CHECKWIKI lists; this resulted in one article being listed in the correct place, but in a different place from similarly named articles. When there is a category like this which has a large number of articles and where the sort key makes a significant difference (e.g., putting "GW" after "Go" rather than before it), it would probably be beneficial to run the bot through to add proper sort keys so that everything is correctly alphabetized. While doing this I'd also like to apply the standard WP:CHECKWIKI fixes that my bot already does... this would mainly just be a different way of getting the article list, and the error looked for would be different. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

I know that it hasn't been very long since my last request for approval, but I didn't see any time limit or anything which restricts this. My apologies if I missed anything; this is mainly just a request to allow the use of a different list-generation method, but I wanted to be sure if there was approval for it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be simply running the same previously-approved bot functions on a different list of articles: one manually seen to not cohere to MOS, rather than found in the Checkwiki lists. As such, I'm inclined to speedy, unless someone objects. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedily Approved.. I concur with Quadell. Just likely to attract unnecessary controversy just sitting here for ages. - Jarry1250 ^{(t, c)} 15:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.