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.

[edit] Commonb0t

tasks • contribs • count • sul • logs • page moves • block user • block log • flag log • flag bot

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

[edit] Discussion

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 SQL^{Query 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)

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.. —— Eagle101^{Need 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. SQL^{Query 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.