User:TheCheatBot/approval archive

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Request for bot status: TheCheatBot

  • Bot: User: TheCheatBot
  • Owner/operator: User: Connel MacKenzie
  • Purpose: Fill in plurals, exactly as is currently done manually, without templates of any sort whatsoever.
  • Generation restrictions:
    1. Entry must not already exist.
    2. Root form must link the plural one or two lines after the ===Noun=== heading.
    3. Inflection can be provided by regular text wikification, template:en-noun-reg, template:en-noun, template:en-noun2, template:en-noun-unc, template:en-noun-both, template:en-noun-irreg, or any other template that wikifies terms.
    4. All but the last three two characters of the root form must match the plural form to be auto-generatred in this manner.
    5. Auto-generated only if there is no other inflected form (e.g. Verb 3rd person).
    6. ===Noun=== header of root term must be within an ==English== language section.
  • Name: The cutsie name is in honor of http://homestarrunner.com/sbemail143.html as the character (a stuffed doll) named "The Cheat" became "The Cheat Bot" for this episode, by duct-taping on a box covered with aluminum foil.)


VOTE:
  • For:
    1. --Connel MacKenzie T C 05:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    2. -- Tawker 06:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    3. -- SemperBlotto 08:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    4. -- MGSpiller 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    5. I trust that issues of soundness will be worked out. Davilla 02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    6. Keffy 06:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    7. With all due caution and plenty of checking/testing, please. --Dvortygirl 05:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    8. Vildricianus 09:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
    9. --EncycloPetey 01:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC) (original objection was addressed)


  • Against:
    1. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC) (see below)
  • Comments:
  • Now that I have seen what this one does I can be a little less hostile; the description page should match what's above but that is only a matter of housekeeping. I reviewed what TheCheatBot has done, and in the one case where there was a questionable plural, abatiss, that questionable plural was already there in the article. The link to the name justification article didn't work for me, but the name is not an issue for me. It could still be misunderstood by others in the future. There seem to be adequate safeguards to prevent this bot from taking too big a swath.
It would be nice if the bot could double-check, much as a human would do instinctively. The ambiguous spelling rules are: -fs or -ves from single f; -fes (possibly?) or -ves from fe; usually -oes or rarely just -os for long o; -ces or -cs from c; not sure about q. The standard rules are, -ies from y proceded by consonant, or -ys by vowel (not sure about wy); -es from e; -ses from s; -shes from sh; -ches from ch; -zes from z; -xes from x. (Trying to remember if there are any more.) Otherwise just add -s. Davilla 02:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
These should have been checked by humans when they went on the root page for the singular in the first place. The bot should not be trying to analyse ambiguous spelling rules, just copying what's already there. Eclecticology 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
One format issue issue that should be looked at before this goes further is how the resulting line will look. Currently we mostly (including myself) have been using 'Plural of word' Another user suggested to me that word should be italicized or in quotation marks; after considering this I had to admit that he was grammatically correct. Another argument is that 'Plural of' should be italicized and word left in roman face since 'Plural of' is descriptive rather than definitive. These is a stylistic rather than a substantive issue, and I can live with any of these solutions. Are there general preferences? It would be nice to have a broad sense of direction on this. A similar issue will come up with some of the other bots mentioned below. Eclecticology 23:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I very much supporst your idea of italicising descriptive definitions (and accordingly not italicising what usually would be italicised). Ncik 03:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have not strong preference on the formatting of this type of entry. I chose the only prevalent format that exists today for this type of entry. Whatever format is decided upon, it should be consistent. If existing entries are 'bot re-formatted, would that need a separate bot request, or could that full under the aegis of this one? Is there consensus that the descriptive text should be italicized? Would that rule apply to all forms descriptions? --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you just do the italicising if nobody objects here. It has an obvious advantage. Italicising should consequently apply to all descriptions of inflected forms. Ncik 12:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Ncik, standardizing all entries this way would be a good job. Although I've always added these things with only the basic word italicized, the correcter thing to do is the other way round. — Vildricianus 12:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
To summarize - Is it the fundamental consensus that the definition line for words should now be formatted
  1. Plural of word.
and this includes the capital "P", and the full stop? Anyone may reformat a line in that way. If someone sets up such lines in any other way it could be changed, but there would be no penalty unless the guy is being a complete jerk. Eclecticology 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd just like to clarify the first sentence of Eclecticolgy's last comment: We don't want inverted italicising for all definitions, only those that are secondary descriptions. Examples include definitions that say
  • that a word is an inflected form of another, ("dogs": Plural of dog.)
  • that a word is an abbreviation of another, ("abbr.": Abbreviation for abbreviation.)
  • that a word is a spelling variant of another, ("œsophagus": Alternative spelling of oesophagus)
  • that an interjection is used as an expression of something ("ouch": Used to express physical pain.)
WT:ELE needs to be updated. Ncik 21:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The more I see of this, the less I like the idea of superfluous italics. This is a faily major change to the formatting of nearly all Wiktionary entries.
What makes you think this change would affect "nearly all Wiktionary entries"? We don't have many inflected forms yet. And the number of abbreviations (around 3000) and alternative spellings (a few hundred at most, I'd say) is limited as well. Ncik 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Ncik, I don't think there is consensus on your last suggestion for interjections. Actually, while all four suggestions seem reasonable, I don't think there is widespread consensus for 1, 2, 3 or 4. Again, such formatting changes would affect most entires, needlessly. --Connel MacKenzie T C 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I crossed out the interjections. The situation is not as clear as in the other three cases. Ncik 13:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Hrm. OK. Thanks, yes, the interjections were the most problematic of those four. The wording you used was a little misleading; it seemed to me that you were talking about a generic convention for italics for all descriptive text. A convention like that would eventually affect all entries. But since that isn't what you were saying, now I'm left wondering why these cases should be so differently formatted from all the rest of the main namespace entries. That is, I think a definition/meaning line should look like a typical definition/meaning line as much as possible; the italics don't do that. --Connel MacKenzie T C 17:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Problem: If we're going to have a "third person" bot, then there will be duplicate entries for some items. For example, consider that shop is both a noun and a verb in English, and so will have both a plural noun form and a third person verb form. I would vote for this bot IF the bot could somehow work in conjunction with ThirdPersonBot to create combined entries. That is, words that have both a noun and verb entry are treated simultaneously, so that we don't end up with only the plural or only the third person. --EncycloPetey 23:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
    • NotAProblem: At this point in time, I am skipping those. That was the intent from the start, but I had trouble parsing some templates initially. If there is both, that will be handled by a separate 'bot, not this one nor ThirdPersBot. That is, if I ever propose a 'bot again. --Connel MacKenzie T C 02:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
      • That's good. Eclecticology 09:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
        • More importantly that we can find a consensus on one part of your original proposal. Eclecticology 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
        • That I never propose a 'bot again?  :-) --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The description on the bot user page could do with updating (it still refers to the original spec). MGSpiller 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • One step at a time is fine by me. Do the easy stuff (i.e. plurals only, 3rd person only) first then review & go for the harder ones which include both. MGSpiller 01:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly. Thank you for your kind words and support. --Connel MacKenzie T C 18:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
      • No problem, some wise person who's name is buried in some wiki flame war somewhere once suggested that you should try to bring more light than heat to an argument (or something to that effect). I try to keep to the spirit of that suggestion when I can. MGSpiller 02:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
    • What is clear in my mind is that we started with a bot that would do many things. To arrive at a consensus that everyone could live with we may have needed to break these taks down into excruciatingly small bits. Now this one appears as though it will work, and a few of the others are likely to follow suit. That's progress! Eclecticology 01:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Status: Meta request forwarded, approved. Awaiting better resolution on formatting before proceeding. --Connel MacKenzie T C 22:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Meta:

en:wikt:User:TheCheatBot

I request that en:Wiktionary:User: TheCheatBot gets bot flag on Wiktionary:

Thank you. Connel MacKenzie 07:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jon Harald Søby 19:53, 24 March 2006 (UTC)