Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Commonb0t
- 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
Denied.
Operator: Staffwaterboy©
Automatic or Manually Assisted:Manually (will approve of changes)
Programming Language(s):Visual Basic
Function Summary:This bot will scan thought wikipedia to see if there are any words that are commonly missed spelled and will correct the the spelling error.The bot will run of a word list that is commonly missed spelled words. Example This is from wikihow.com i will be generating a larger and more accurate list
MISSPELLING acheive achieve adress address alot a lot athiest atheist beggining beginning beleive believe catagory category committment commitment concieve conceive copywrite copyright decaffinated decaffeinated decathalon decathlon definately definitely desireable desirable diety deity dissapoint disappoint dispell dispel embarass embarrass enviroment environment expresso espresso extremly extremely facist fascist Febuary February flourescent fluorescent fourty forty freind friend guage gauge goverment government grammer grammar harrass harass hemorage hemorrhage heros heroes hieght, heigth height hygeine hygiene independance independence inate innate innoculate inoculate it's its (possessive pronoun) knowlege knowledge lazer laser libary library lightening lightning maintainance maintenance managable manageable millenium millennium mischievious mischievous mispell misspell mit mitt monestary monastery monkies monkeys morgage mortgage mountian mountain neccessary necessary neice niece nickle nickel nineth ninth ninty ninety noone no one or no-one noticable noticeable occured occurred occurence occurrence oppurtunity opportunity paralell parallel pasttime pastime pavillion pavilion peice piece percieve perceive perserverance perseverance persue pursue posession possession pertend pretend potatoe potato preceeding preceding pronounciation pronunciation priviledge privilege publically publicly recieve receive reccomend recommend rediculous ridiculous reguardless regardless remeber remember roomate roommate or room-mate rythm rhythm sacreligious sacrilegious seige siege sentance sentence seperate separate sieze seize similiar similar sincerly sincerely speach speech stationary stationery (office supplies term) stragedy strategy suggestable suggestible supercede supersede supposively supposedly suprise surprise thier their throughly thoroughly tommorrow tomorrow tounge tongue triathalon triathlon ukelele ukulele vaccuum vacuum vegeterian vegetarian villian villain Wendesday Wednesday weird wierd (exception: Weird programming language) writting writing
Edit period(s) (e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run):Continuous
Edit rate requested: 6 edits per minutes
Already has a bot flag (Y/N):
Function Details: Well Fix commonly missed spelled words based off of a word list
Discussion[edit]
- I'm sorry, but, spelling bots (unless they are manually approved edit-by-edit), are very rarely approved here, given that sometimes, context matters when it comes to spelling. I've also changed your <code> block to a <pre> block, I think, that is what you meant to do (it illustrates your list a lot better.) Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Frequently_denied_bots SQLQuery me! 20:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If i make it manual will it increase the chances of making the bot approved? Staffwaterboy© 22:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- I see no problem with a manually assisted spell checking bot, you may find this page useful. --Chris 12:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you i will generate a list and resubmit it thanks Staffwaterboy© 16:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If it's manually assisted it might make better sense to run it under your normal user account. People might freak when they seen account with "bot" in it doing spell check -- Tawker (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, however, i suppose, running it under an alternate account, if you so wished, to save cluttering your contributions of your main account, would be fine and feasible... —Reedy Boy 16:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
All very true i am still willing to run the bot if able Staffwaterboy© 17:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- In any case, you may wish to delete these pairs, both words of which are correctly spelled (but different) words: guage gauge, it's its, lightening lightning, stationary stationery; and note that the pair "weird wierd" is reversed, with the incorrect spelling second. Tim Ross (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- You should also register Commonbot (talk · contribs) if you actually do intend to use this bot in the future, as the zero (0) is easily confused with a capital 'o' (O). Then simply redirect the user/user talk pages to whichever name you intend to run it under. Click this link to create a new account while signed in to your bot op account so that it will actually stick an entry in your (and the bot's) user creation log. --slakr\ talk / 22:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- In any case, you may wish to delete these pairs, both words of which are correctly spelled (but different) words: guage gauge, it's its, lightening lightning, stationary stationery; and note that the pair "weird wierd" is reversed, with the incorrect spelling second. Tim Ross (talk) 22:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Forgive my intrusion, as a non-BAG member, but I was under the impression that spell-checker bots are fundamentally not approved? Surely our spelling has not reached such low depths that an unsupervised measure such as this, which has the potential to wholesale alter words which may, indeed, be correct in context? On a related matter, does this bot have an in-built measure to prevent alterations of words misspelt on a sic basis? AGK (contact) 22:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm somewhat amused as to the number of typos in the Function Details section of this spelling bot. How will this bot be able to not correct intentional misspellings? --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 12:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The bot would have to have approval inorder to confirm the changes that are going to be made i am hoping that i can use a test run to see how it goes and see if it will work out.
Thanks Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 13:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is not an easy task. You have already goofed it up in the topic. I've given this a try myself with User:SpellCheckerBot. There are variations that you cannot forsee, plus you have the issue of quotes, block quotes, and other things. My suggestion to you is to try your wordlist on a bunch of articles and have your bot log what it *would* change. Look at this log (perhaps post it), and go from there. But as bag here says, this is very unlikely to be approved. You can trial it on your own without ever having to edit a thing, just have it load 1000 random articles and have it log what it would change. Don't actually do the changes :) In short you are going to have to provide evidence that 1) you are competent, you won't add words to the list without testing, and 2) evidence that the bot looks for and avoids edge cases. Spelling is not something that is done well automatically. You cannot prefer British english over American anglish for example, you have to use the english style that is in the article you are correcting. That means the corrected misspelling has to be common to all english forms, or your program is able to detect with 99% accuracy, which form of english is in use on a particular article.. —— Eagle101Need help? 23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Manually assisted bots do not require approval. Spelling bots may not be run on an automatic basis. I would support declining this request. — Werdna talk 05:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Can I suggest that you at least remove all words less than 5 letters from the list, especially since your tool does not appear to have context sensitivity? I'm thinking of its--> it's particularly here, but in english the likelihood that a misspelling of an english word is valid as used in a quote from another european language increases exponentially as the word becomes shorter. I'm thinking about mit-->mitt here. Destroying correct quotations from non-english languages is a particular problem for a spell bot.AKAF (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Further note noone [1], heros [2], nickle [3] and alot [4] should not be corrected. Honestly, if you can't even run your list of misspellings through a more extensive dictionary than that which firefox provides, you haven't provided the evidence of reliability which such a controversial bot requires. I suggest to the BAG that a manual run also be declined at this time. AKAF (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid that I strongly agree, sorry. 
Denied. SQLQuery me! 16:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.