Jump to content

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!

To run a bot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get it approved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming, consider asking someone else to run a bot for you.

 Instructions for bot operators
I Before applying for approval
  • Read the bot policy, and check the list of frequently denied bot requests.
  • If your task could be controversial (e.g. most bots making non-maintenance edits to articles and most bots posting messages on user talk pages), seek consensus for the task. Common places to start include WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of the relevant policies, guidelines, templates, and/or WikiProjects. Link to this discussion in your request for approval.
  • You will need to create an account for your bot if you haven't already done so. Click here when logged in to create the account, linking it to yours. (If you do not create the bot account while logged in, it is likely to be blocked as a possible sockpuppet or unauthorised bot until you verify ownership)
  • Create a userpage for your bot, linking to your userpage (this is commonly done using the {{bot}} template) and describing its functions. You may also include an 'emergency shutoff button'.
II Filing the application
  • Enter your bot's user name in the box below and click the button. If this is a request for an additional task, put a task number as well (e.g. BotName 2).
  • Complete the questions on the resulting page and save it.

  • Your request must now be added to the correct section of the main approvals page: Click here and add {{BRFA}} to the top of the list, directly below the comment line.
    • For a first request: use {{BRFA|bot name||Open}}
    • For an additional task request: use {{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
III During the approvals process
  • During the process, an approvals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), and AnomieBOT will move the request to this section.
  • Run the bot for the specified number of edits/time period, then add {{Bot trial complete}} to the request page. It helps if you also link to the bot's contributions, and comment on any errors that may have occurred.
  • AnomieBOT will move the request to the 'trial complete' section by moving the {{BRFA}} template that applies to your bot
  • If you feel that your request is being overlooked (no BAG attention for ~1 week) you can add {{BAG assistance needed}} to the page. However, please do not use it after every comment!
  • At any time during the approvals process, you may withdraw your request by adding {{BotWithdrawn}} to your bot's approval page.
IV After the approvals process
  • After the trial edits have been reviewed and enough time has passed for any more discussion, a BAG member will approve or deny the request appropriately.
    • For approved requests: The request will be listed here. If necessary, a bureaucrat will flag the bot within a couple of days and you can then run the task fully (it's best to wait for the flag, to avoid cluttering recent changes). If the bot already has a flag, or is to run without one, you may start the task when ready.
    • For denied/expired/withdrawn requests: The request will be listed at the bottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
Bot-related archives
Noticeboard
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Bots (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot policy (talk)
19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
29, 30
Pre-2007 archived under Bots (talk)
Bot requests
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87
Bot requests (talk)
1, 2
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
BRFA
Old format: 1, 2, 3, 4
New format: Categorized Archive (All subpages)
BRFA (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Newer discussions at WP:BOTN since April 2021
Bot Approvals Group (talk)
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
BAG Nominations


Bot Name Status Created Last editor Date/Time Last BAG editor Date/Time
DeadbeefBot II (T|C|B|F) Open 2025-05-23, 02:10:50 0xDeadbeef 2025-05-23, 12:18:09 Anomie 2025-05-23, 11:13:54
DreamRimmer bot III 9 (T|C|B|F) Open: BAG assistance requested! 2025-03-21, 04:50:16 Pppery 2025-05-20, 16:02:41 Never edited by BAG n/a
Bot1058 10 (T|C|B|F) Open: BAG assistance requested! 2025-03-07, 17:49:45 Pppery 2025-05-20, 16:03:09 Anomie 2025-03-09, 00:12:51
TenshiBot 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2025-05-19, 21:35:41 DreamRimmer 2025-05-20, 16:27:54 DreamRimmer 2025-05-20, 16:27:54
AnomieBOT 84 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2025-04-11, 00:29:13 Anomie 2025-05-11, 22:31:28 DreamRimmer 2025-04-29, 14:45:51
C1MM-bot 3 (T|C|B|F) Extended trial 2024-12-12, 04:42:12 C1MM 2025-05-15, 13:00:06 DreamRimmer 2025-05-12, 03:34:43
CFA (bot) (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! 2024-12-31, 05:00:34 Pppery 2025-05-20, 16:03:46 DreamRimmer 2025-02-14, 17:06:11
CanonNiBot 1 (T|C|B|F) In trial 2024-12-17, 12:50:01 CanonNi 2025-05-22, 10:14:14 DreamRimmer 2025-02-14, 17:07:41
SodiumBot 2 (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! 2024-07-16, 20:03:26 Sohom Datta 2025-05-20, 16:11:37 DreamRimmer 2025-01-26, 08:10:11
AussieBot 1 (T|C|B|F) Extended trial: User response needed! 2023-03-22, 01:57:36 Hawkeye7 2025-05-20, 18:43:15 DreamRimmer 2025-02-02, 11:19:10
Ow0castBot (T|C|B|F) In trial: User response needed! 2024-11-14, 01:51:38 Pppery 2025-05-20, 16:06:16 Primefac 2025-02-26, 14:33:55
RustyBot 3 (T|C|B|F) Trial complete 2025-03-25, 18:34:23 Rusty Cat 2025-05-10, 23:10:04 DreamRimmer 2025-05-10, 15:59:26

Current requests for approval

DeadbeefBot II

Operator: 0xDeadbeef (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 02:10, Friday, May 23, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Rust

Source code available: https://github.com/fee1-dead/usync

Function overview: Sync userscripts from Git(Hub/Lab) to Wikipedia.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 9, User:Novem Linguae/Essays/Linking GitHub to MediaWiki

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: All pages that link to User:0xDeadbeef/usync

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: The bot scans and parses the list of user scripts at Special:WhatLinksHere/User:0xDeadbeef/usync, and they must start with the following header format: 

// [[User:0xDeadbeef/usync]]: LINK_TO_REPO REF FILE_PATH

so for example: 

// [[User:0xDeadbeef/usync]]: https://github.com/fee1-dead/usync refs/heads/main test.js

And will start syncing from the Git file to the on-wiki script.

Any user script author intending to use the bot must (1) insert the header both on-wiki, and on the Git file themselves, serving as an authorization for the bot to operate. (2) Create an application/json webhook in their Git repository pointing to https://deadbeefbot.toolforge.org/webhook (URL does not work yet; have not deployed it) to notify the bot of new commits that have occured on the file.

The bot will then make edits using the commit message and author information to update the user scripts.

Currently, it only supports js files in the User namespace, but its scope could be trivial expanded to cover more formats (CSS/plain wikitext) depending on usage.

This is an improvement upon the previous DeltaQuadBot task: Auditability is achieved through linking on-wiki edits to GitHub/GitLab URLs that tell you who made what changes. Webhooks are used instead of a periodic sync. Authorization must be given on-wiki to allow syncs to happen.

The code is currently a working demo. I'm planning on expanding its functionality to allow Wikimedia GitLab's webhooks, and actually deploying it. I will also apply for Interface Administrator perms as this bot requires IA permissions. Will also request 2FA on the bot when I get to it.

Discussion

  • Just so we are aware of the alternatives here: bd808 suggested on Discord of an alternative solution to this problem which does not involve an IntAdmin bot, where script developers can create OAuth tokens and submit those tokens to a Toolforge service, and the Toolforge service would use those OAuth tokens to make edits as the script author (0xDeadbeef/GeneralNotability/etc.) instead of having the edits coming from a single bot account. There are different trade offs. I think if we're okay with a bot having IA permissions, then this solution is more convenient to setup, as the OAuth one requires going through the extra steps of creating a token. This bot also makes those edits in a centralized place when people want to inspect which scripts are maintained using this way. beef [talk] 02:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a risk here in having a bot blindly copy from the github without any human verification. Interface editor rights are restricted for very good reason, as editing the site's js would be very vaulable to a potential attacker. By introducing this bot, we now also have to be concerned about the security of the github repo's the bot is copying from. Something which is external to Wikipedia. We have no control over who might be granted access to those repos, and what they might do.

In fact, it may actually hinder development of tools/scripts. Currently, as a maintainer, one can be fairly liberal in who you add to your github repo, knowing that you can review any changes when you manually move them from the GitHub to on-wiki. With this change, anyone you add to the repo, realistically should be someone the community would trust with interface admin rights. --Chris 09:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot task is more aimed at user scripts than gadgets. You don't need to be an interface admin to edit your own scripts. Being an opt-in system, script maintainers who don't wish to take on the risk can choose not to use the system. As for security, it should be the responsibility of the script author to ensure that they, and others who have been added to the repo, have taken adequate measures (like enabling 2FA) to secure their github/gitlab accounts. – SD0001 (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, there are already people doing this kind of things to their own userscripts, such as User:GeneralNotability/spihelper-dev.js. However, they were never done with a bot because the bot would need to be interface admin. So they just store BotPasswords/OAuth tokens in GitHub and write a CI job that uses that to edit on-wiki.
Being someone with some fair bit of the open source process, I don't see why someone who wants to personally review any changes themselves should choose to add people liberally to the GitHub repo, and then choose to use this bot if it gets approved. They should try to move the development/approval cycle onto GitHub, appropriately using pull requests and protected branches, or just keep doing what they are doing. beef [talk] 10:22, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Script maintainers might be happy to take the risk of automatically copying scripts from an external site to become active client-side scripts at Wikipedia, and they might be happy with the increased vulnerability surface area. The question here is whether the Wikipedia community thinks the risk–benefit ratio means the procedure should be adopted. Johnuniq (talk) 10:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User scripts are an "install at your own risk" already, so feel free to avoid installing user scripts that do any automatic syncing. If the community doesn't like a bot that does this for whatever reason, I can also be fine with a "store OAuth tokens that give a toolforge service access to my account" approach which requires no community approval and no bots to run, just slightly less convenient to setup.
All I am saying is that the increased vulnerability surface area remains to be proven. WP:ULTRAVIOLET and WP:REDWARN have been doing this for years. Whether approval for code occurs on-wiki or off-wiki shouldn't matter. beef [talk] 11:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a discussion establishing community consensus for this task, per WP:ADMINBOT? I don't see one linked here, nor one from Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeltaQuadBot 9. The community might also decide whether the OAuth route is preferable to the interface-admin route. Anomie⚔ 11:13, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I'll post a summary to WP:VPT soon. beef [talk] 11:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Syncing user scripts from an external Git repository to Wikipedia beef [talk] 12:18, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DreamRimmer bot III 9

Operator: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 04:50, Friday, March 21, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: User:DreamRimmer bot III/Task9.py

Function overview: Disable content categories on drafts per WP:DRAFTNOCAT.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 87#Drafts in categories

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: 5-6 per day

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: It will go through Category: All content moved from mainspace to draftspace to check for any content categories on drafts, and if found, it will disable them. It will not touch any draft categories and will only disable content categories.

Discussion

If I see this right, all this does is change [[Category:Test]] to [[:Category:Test]] and leaves the ones inside {{Draft categories}} alone due to the and not inside_template. I don't think this is controversial that needs more discussion (especially since that didn't really work as Bearcat said). Nobody (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bot1058 10

Operator: Wbm1058 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 17:49, Friday, March 7, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): PHP

Source code available: User:Bot1058/mishyphenation.php

Function overview: Bypass mishyphenated links, to remove pages from User:Wbm1058/Reports/Linked mishyphenations

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:wbm1058#R from incorrect hyphenation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect#Wiped/reinstated template?

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: ~2,100 on the initial run; varies on subsequent runs

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This is the second in a series of tasks for this bot, which will run on the Toolforge and use a database report as the basis for its edits to correct errors in links on mainspace pages. Task 9 bypasses bad piped links to link directly to the title displayed to readers; this task will bypass mishyphenated links. I view edits to add or remove a horizontal line, or adjust the length of a horizontal line, as sufficiently cosmetic to be safely made in automated fashion by a bot.

I created Category:Redirects from incorrect hyphenation on 5 November 2023, to separate incorrect hyphenations from misspellings, as a lower priority for gnomes to fix than actual a–z misspellings. Misspellings need more scrutiny, as vandals can replace correctly-spelled words with a different, misspelled word. We need to avoid endorsing vandalism by correcting the spelling of the incorrect word rather than reverting back to the correct word. We continue to have an imbalance between "executive editors" declaring words to be misspelled or mishyphenated, and gnomes following their directives to correct these errors; my bot tasks are an effort to restore more balance between the executives and the gnomes.

I've built in a safeguard to ensure that this task's edits have community approval. The bot won't make edits when the redirect page triggering the edit has been edited within the past seven days. This will stop edit-warring over what the "correct" form of hyphenation should be, from causing the bot to edit war with itself over a short term. Editors may watchlist User:Bot1058/mishyphenation pending fixes if they want to monitor these pending edits before they're made.

Examples of edits that this task will make:

For consistency, the bot will make similar changes outside of wikilinks when it determines it's safe to do so:

  • the term is in plain text
    • surrounded by spaces
    • leading space and ending period, comma, or semicolon
    • in (parenthesis)
    • in "quotes"
    • leading space, followed by an "s" (plural form)
    • led by a pipe (|), assumed to be a table element
    • led by an equal sign (=), assumed to be a parameter

The bot will explicitly avoid changing filenames, to avoid breaking image links.

It will also avoid changing links when the link is part of a longer linked title. This will avoid the bot creating red links; these will be left for human review.

The bot will leave anything not explicitly determined to be "safe" for human review. The initial run of this task is expected to leave about 120 pages for human review.

The bot will not make changes when more than two characters in a link are changed, leaving these for human review as well. One of the changes will be to a hyphen, dash, or space. A second accepted change may be to uppercase a character or put a diacritic on a character.


Discussion

I'm concerned that the "changes outside of wikitext" would get into WP:CONTEXTBOT territory. You seem to be explicitly stating that you're going to alter direct quotes, which we usually take pains not to modify, and may not be able to correctly identify things like hyphenated compound modifiers. Anomie⚔ 13:48, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, regarding this:
Generally, a compound modifier is hyphenated if the hyphen helps the reader differentiate a compound modifier from two adjacent modifiers that modify the noun independently. Compare the following examples:
  • "small appliance industry": a small industry producing appliances
  • "small-appliance industry": an industry producing small appliances
Redirects should only be tagged as "incorrect" if they are always incorrect under all contexts. If there are contexts where they are correct, then they should be tagged as valid alternatives. My bot only edits to correct things that are incorrect in all contexts. Some editors have been over-prescriptive, tagging things are incorrect when there are contexts where they are correct. When I find these mislabeled redirects, I correct them, e.g. age-of-consent laws, where I corrected TARDIS Builder. This is why I created User:Bot1058/mishyphenation pending fixes – to allow time for reversions of mislabeled redirects. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're relying on every editor to use your definition of "incorrect", or at least some human reacting to every other definition quickly. That does not seem like a very reliable assumption to me. Anomie⚔ 00:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking only about that example, I tagged it as incorrect because someone searching "age of consent" is almost certainly looking for it as a term (noun) rather than as an adjective. As well, the article it points to talks about the concept as a concept, not as a descriptor.
I disagree with your assertion that redirects need to be incorrect under all contexts to use that template; I could probably comb through my own history and find examples where that's not true and you would still agree that the choice of template was appropriate.
I think nuance & judgment matter. Correct category depends on the redirect and the target article.
Thanks for creating it, I'm glad it's there.   — TARDIS builder✉     ★       06:33, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is all about linked misspellings, not searched terms. From the article Adolescent sexuality,
"Sexual interest among adolescents, as among adults, can vary greatly, and is influenced by cultural norms and mores, sex education, as well as comprehensive sexuality education provided, sexual orientation, and social controls such as age-of-consent laws."
@TARDIS Builder: You were requiring the link to be piped [[age of consent|age-of-consent]] laws to avoid the "mishyphenation". This is bad, especially in the future, if someone were to write a separate article about the adjective, as a distinctly different concept from the noun. You can also tag age-of-consent with {{R from adjective}}, which I just did. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:30, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand what you're getting at with this example. I can see that it is an alternative hyphenation in some cases.   — TARDIS builder✉     ★       01:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that you did correctly tag Age of consent reform, Age of consent reform in Canada, and Age of consent reform in the United Kingdom. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SIC states that "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected." I'm assuming that shortening or lengthening a hyphen/dash would be an acceptable silent correction. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anomie, i created User:Wbm1058/Reports/Linked mishyphenations/by changes, manually organizing the pages listed on User:Wbm1058/Reports/Linked mishyphenations based on my bot's console output.

I believe the context issues are limited to those that call for replacing a hyphen with a space – specifically where the redirect consists of one word (no embedded spaces) which is not a proper noun (the letter following the hyphen is lower case). I've highlighted the four that meet these criteria – showing examples here where the hyphen is appropriate in context:

Not sure about African-Americans, which has over 500 links. African-American was tagged as an adjective, and then as alternative hyphenation, but it's hard to imagine the plural form being used as an adjective, so this is probably OK to go ahead with the bypass-corrections.

I can modify my algorithm to skip the pages that meet these criteria and report them on the console as likely-valid alternatives in some contexts.

I'm OK with running this on an as-needed or on demand basis rather than daily, in a hybrid between automatic and supervised, where I make a dry run with the $objwiki->edit commented out, and review User:Wbm1058/Reports/Linked mishyphenations and the console report for any issues needing to be addressed before running it in automated mode. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hyphenation Expert: any help you might contribute with determining the algorithm for deciding whether a hyphenated form is correct in some contexts (and thus automated correction should be avoided) versus always incorrect (and thus automated correction is safe) would be appreciated. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For compound modifiers, determining "hyphenation correctness" is very case-by-case basis; per Hyphenated compound modifier: Major style guides advise consulting a dictionary to determine whether a compound modifier should be hyphenated ... Not normally hyphenated: Compound modifiers that are not hyphenated in the relevant dictionary or that are unambiguous without a hyphen. So for example, Fatty-acid could be appropriately {{R from incorrect hyphenation}}: Fatty acid synthesis, Fatty acid metabolism are unambiguous.
Only with proper names do I see straightforward "100% incorrect" scenarios: Aaron Taylor Johnson, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, "case-by-case" is precisely what {{R from alternative hyphenation}} is for, and I do not intend for my bot to make any case-by-case determinations.
Mrakia frigida §Membrane lipid composition: There is a positive correlation between the growth temperature and the degree of fatty-acid unsaturation of the cell lipids of Mrakia frigida.
The need for a hyphen, or not, is a judgement determination individual editors may make – not this bot. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the rare event that this bot might get the context wrong, the solution is easy. Change the offending redirect's Rcat from {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} to {{R from alternative hyphenation}}, and revert the bot. We don't expect perfection from human editors, who all make occasional mistakes, nor should we expect 100% perfection from bots, as long as their mistakes are not too frequent or cause intolerable harm. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A previously approved bot, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 54, handled the related task of correcting links to Full rigged ship. I just tagged that as an {{R from incorrect hyphenation}} so that this bot will handle new cases of this usage. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of a member of the Bot Approvals Group. Once assistance has been rendered, please deactivate this tag by replacing it with {{t|BAG assistance needed}}. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bots in a trial period

TenshiBot 2

Operator: Tenshi Hinanawi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 21:35, Monday, May 19, 2025 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: [1]

Function overview: Notifies AfC reviewers of drafts that are still marked as being reviewed after 48 hours, and returns the draft to the AfC queue after 72 hours if no action is taken.

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Drafts_Marked_as_Being_Reviewed_but_Forgotten, Wikipedia:Bot_requests#A_auto-message_bot_for_AfC_reviews?

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: <5

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No

Function details: Bot goes through Category:Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now and checks if 48 hours have passed, and notifies the reviewer if so. Where the reviewer has been notified and 72 hours have passed, the bot will mark the draft as pending again.

Discussion

Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:27, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT 84

Operator: Anomie (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 00:28, Friday, April 11, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Create missing language categories

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Perl

Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/LanguageCategoryCreator.pm

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): WP:Bot requests#Language tracking categories

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Depends how often people use templates like {{lang}} with new languages.

Namespace(s): Category

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes


Function details: The bot will look for missing language tracking categories generated by templates such as {{lang}} and {{in lang}}, and will create them if they are not empty.

Discussion

Additional information:

--Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: The lack of a template for Category:CS1 uses Russian-language script (ru) makes supporting that one a little difficult. Probably the best thing to do would be to make one, similar to {{CS1 language sources}}. Any objection? Anomie⚔ 22:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (28 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits for this trial should show up here, i.e. with summary "Creating non-empty language category". Anomie⚔ 18:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

C1MM-bot 3

Operator: C1MM (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 04:42, Thursday, December 12, 2024 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available:

Function overview: Adds or modifies election templates in 'Results' section of Indian Lok Sabha/Assembly constituencies

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):

Edit period(s): One time run on a category of pages.

Estimated number of pages affected: ~4000

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: This bot modifies the results sections of Indian Lok Sabha/assembly constituencies. It takes the 'Results' section and for the most recent two elections with published data it adds in all candidates with vote percentages above 0.9% and removing candidates with vote percentages under 0.9%. It does not edit candidate data (i.e. hyperlinks are preserved) except to correctly capitalise candidate names in all upper case. 'change' parameter is only filled if there is no elections which take place between the two data.

Candidates are sorted by vote totals and the subsections are sorted by election years in descending order (most recent election comes first). If a 'Results' section does not exist, it is placed in front of the 'References' section and the results from the two most recent elections are placed there.

Discussion

What is the source of the election data being used by the bot? – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ECI website: eci.gov.in (it is geoblocked for users outside India). It has reports for every Parliamentary and Assembly election in India since Independence, and the ones after 2015 are in PDF form and those after 2019 have csv files. C1MM (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I have used data from eci.gov.in for my bot task, and it is a good source. I tried searching for results data for recent elections, but I only found PDFs and XLSX files; I did not find any CSV files containing the full candidate results data. Perhaps I missed some steps. I will try to provide some feedback after reviewing the edits if this goes for a trial. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I convert XLSX to CSV (it is second-nature to do it now for me so I forget to tell sometimes). C1MM (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Is the source code for this publicly available somewhere if I want to take a look at it? – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:44, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be good reasons to keep a candidate's data even if they get less than 0.9% of the vote. I'd say that if the candidate's name is wikilinked (not a red link), then the bot should not remove that row.
Also, consider "None of the above" as a special case, and always add/keep that data when it is available. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I forgot to mention I did treat 'None of the above' as a special case, don't cut it and in fact add it in where it is not in the template. I also add 'majority' and 'turnout' and when there is no election in between the two most recent elections for which I have data I also add a 'gain' or 'hold' template.
How do you check if a page exists and is not a disambigution? I say this because a lot of politicians in India share names with other people (example Anirudh Singh) so I would rather only keep people below 0.9% of the vote if they are linked to an article which is actually about them. C1MM (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are using Pywikibot, you can use the page.BasePage class methods, such as the exists() method, to check whether a wikilinked page exists on the wiki. It returns a boolean value True if the page exists on the wiki. To check whether this page is a disambiguation page, you can use the isDisambig() method, which returns True if the page is a disambiguation page, and False otherwise. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the suggested changes and the pages produced look good (I haven't saved obviously). I unfortunately don't know how to run Python pywikibot source code on Wikimedia in a way that accesses files on my local machine, is this possible? C1MM (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that you have stored CSV files on your local machine and want to extract the result data from them? Let me know if you need any help with the source code. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I figured this problem out. I would now think a BAG member should probably come and give their opinion. C1MM (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{BAG assistance needed}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1MM (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please do not mark these edits as minor. Primefac (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[2] Here are the contributions asked for. I think there are a couple of issues: I haven't actually added a source technically for these contributions and also for a certain party (Peace Party) I added the disambiguation links by mistake. I also accidentally made the replacement headings 3rd level instead of 2nd level, which I have now fixed. C1MM (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also go back and manually fix these 50 edits for the problems that you've noticed. Additionally, if you could also use the {{formatnum}} template for all the votes figures it would be great. The other parts of the edits look good. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've done what was asked. C1MM (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to use the {{Bot trial complete}} template to bring this to the attention of somebody from the BAG. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Noticed this went stale after completion. JarJarInks (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please fix the code to avoid repeating the same issues. Also, please link this BRFA in the edit summary and do not mark these edits as minor. – DreamRimmer (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy tag @C1MM JarJarInksTones essay 21:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, unfortunately I am busy in real life and don't have the time to work on this much at the moment. I am trying to add functionality to automatically add the correct references for templates I add which currently don't have references. C1MM (talk) 04:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you're able to open source I'd be willing to debug and add that functionality. Then you could come back and do the trial when you have the time. JarJarInksTones essay 14:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trial complete. Special:Contributions/C1MM-bot last 50 edits. I need to fix references: sometimes reference name is duplicated and sometimes it has an accidental "ref name = ref name =", so that needs to be fixed. Unfortunately open sourcing is a little difficult, although definitely not impossible. I have several previous files I need to run to get the election data into a wikitemplate format. One to save candidate information from PDF in a CSV, another to process CSV data, another to combine the PDF with CSV data so that vote percent changes are correctly added and finally the one which edits the current Wikipedia page by filling in missing information and reformatting. I would appreciate any help with getting this open sourced although I am still busy in real life. C1MM (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@C1MM I unfortunately have a wrist injury and won't be able to do too much, but if you batch upload the files to a cloud service, and email me the link, I can try and link it all together cohesively. What environment do you typically run in? JarJarInks٩(◕_◕)۶Tones essay 12:00, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to check if you had fixed the code for the issues from the first trial. However, you made extended trial edits to the same pages as the initial trial. Since those pages had already been manually fixed, there are no changes to review. I apologies if my extended trial approval was unclear; I intended for you to edit different pages so that we could verify whether the code has been fixed for the original issues. Also, we requested that these edits not be marked as minor, yet the code was not updated to prevent this. You also mentioned encountering problems, such as occasional duplication of reference names and instances of accidental 'ref name ='. Have you addressed these problems? I am giving you another extended trial. For this trial, please edit pages different from those edited during the first two trials. Ensure these edits are not marked as minor. Also, please resolve the reference name duplication and any other code issues before proceeding with these edits. Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:18, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your patience. Unfortunately I have been very busy in real life but I have fixed the referencing issues and this should be ready to use now. I just completed the 50 edit trial which is available at Special:Contributions/C1MM-bot. C1MM (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked a few of the latest edits at random and found a couple of minor issues:
  • In [3] a "-->" seems to have been added after the 2022 section title.
  • The insertion of the formatnum template isn't always done for the votes param e.g. [4]
  • Looks like the ECI results pdf is wrong on quite a few of the percentage numbers, but your script gets it right. e.g. [5]
Everything else seemed good in the smattering of edits that I checked. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The --> was present before I edited the page, it was part of an incomplete comment.
I only add the formatnum template for templates I edit substantially, I don't want to change too much of templates which I don't have a source for.
As for the last point, I noticed that too, and I think it is only when the PDF numbers agree with the correct numbers that you see the script get it correct. I changed the script to calculate the percentages manually when processing the results PDFs. C1MM (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being told multiple times, you have still marked all edits as minor. This gives the impression that you are not reading BAG comments before making changes. – DreamRimmer ◆ 03:34, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I realize the issue now. Very sorry about that: I didn't realize they had changed how minor edits were displayed recently. I've fixed the issue in my script so that the edits are no longer marked as minor. C1MM (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CFA (bot)

Operator: CFA (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 19:59, Tuesday, December 31, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: Removes articles from Category:Wikipedia requested images of biota if they have an image

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: No, but it can be if necessary

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Uncontroversial

Edit period(s): Weekly

Estimated number of pages affected: ~3-6k first run; likely no more than 10/week afterwards

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details:

Discussion

Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Status of trial? – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CanonNiBot 1

Operator: CanonNi (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 12:49, Tuesday, December 17, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: A replacement for tasks 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, and 15 of FastilyBot (talk · contribs), whose operator has retired

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): Rust (mwbot-rs crate)

Source code available: Will push to GitLab later

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): See this

Edit period(s): Daily

Estimated number of pages affected: A couple dozen every day

Namespace(s): File:

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Near identical functionality of the previous bot, just rewritten in a different (and better) language. All are modifying templates on File description pages, so I'm merging this into one task.

Task details (copied from WP:BOTREQ)
Original task Description
1 Replace {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}, for local files which are already on Commons, with {{Now Commons}}.
2 Remove {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} from ineligible files.
7 Replace {{Now Commons}}, for local files which are nominated for deletion on Commons, with {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}.
8 Replace {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}}, for local files which have been deleted on Commons, with {{Deleted on Commons}}.
9 Remove {{Nominated for deletion on Commons}} from files which are no longer nominated for deletion on Commons.
15 Remove {{Now Commons}} from file description pages which also translcude {{Keep local}}

Discussion

  • Thanks for stepping up to help! For easier review and tracking, could you please list all these tasks and their descriptions in the "Function details" section? You can use a wikitable for this. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (120 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please perform 20 edits for each task. Primefac (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Operator assistance needed}} Any update? – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that - I've been inactive for the past three months or so. (probably should've got this thing done before disappearing, my bad) Will get those trial edits done soon! '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:14, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SodiumBot 2

Operator: Sohom Datta (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 20:03, Tuesday, July 16, 2024 (UTC)

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Python

Source code available: https://github.com/sohomdatta1/npp-notifier-bot

Function overview: Notify previous reviewers of a article at AFD about the nomination

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Initial discussions on NPP Discord + previous BRFAs surrounding AFD notifications

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: 1-2 per day (guessimate?)

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No, on enwiki, yes, for other wikis on other tasks

Function details:

  • Use the eventstream API to listen for new AfDs
  • Extract page name by parsing the AfD wikitext
  • Identify previous reviewers of page at AFD
  • Notify said reviewers on their talk pages with a customised version of the existing AfD notification message

Discussion

AussieBot 1

Operator: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:57, Wednesday, March 22, 2023 (UTC)

Function overview: Mark unassessed stub articles as stubs

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic

Programming language(s): C#

Source code available: Not yet

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 84#Stub assessments with ORES

Edit period(s): daily

Estimated number of pages affected: < 100 per day

Namespace(s): Talk

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Go through Category:Unassessed articles (only deals with articles already tagged as belonging to a project). If an unassessed article is rated as a stub by ORES, tag the article as a stub. Example

Discussion

{{BAG assistance needed}} This has been waiting for over 2 months since the end of the trial, and over 4 months since the creation of the request. Given the concerns expressed that the bot operator has since fixed, an extended trial may be a good idea here. EggRoll97 (talk) 05:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have been very busy. Should I run the new Bot again with a few more edits? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{Operator assistance needed}} It has been more than a month since the last post, is this trial still ongoing? Primefac (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wrote the bot using my C# API, and due to a necessary upgrade here, my dotnet environment got ahead of the one on the grid. I could neither build locally and run on the grid nor on build on the grid. (I could have run the trial locally but would not have been able to deploy to production.) There is currently a push to move bots onto Kubernetes containers, but there was no dotnet build pack available. The heroes on Toolforge have now provided one for dotnet, and I will be testing it when I return from vacation next week. If all goes well I will finally be able to deploy the bot and run the trial at last. See phab:T311466 for details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{Operator assistance needed}} Primefac (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Work was done in January and some changes made on Toolforge. Will resume the trial run when I get a chance. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: any update on this? If it's a bit of a medium-term item and not actively worked on, are you happy to mark this BRFA as withdrawn for the time being? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My technical problems have been resolved. A new trial run will be conducted this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[9][10][11][12][13][14] etc Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One important change: Liftwing is being used instead of ORES now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{Operator assistance needed}} Courtesy ping to make sure this is still proceeding. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The trial run was successful. The problems with the new Packbuild environment were resolved. I can run some more trials but would prefer permission to put the job into production. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for extended trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) What is the status of this request? Has the extended trial happened? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh. Forgot all about it. Will run the trial this week and report back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ow0castBot

Operator: Ow0cast (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 01:50, Thursday, November 14, 2024 (UTC)

Function overview: Replace external links to wikipedia with wikilinks

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised during trial, automatic afterwards

Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot)

Source code available: Yes, upon request

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): I do not believe that discussions are required for this action, as this is the entire point of wikilinks

Edit period(s): Continuous

Estimated number of pages affected: Large burst at approval/during trial, then 25/day at the highest afterwards.

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: The goal of this task is to replace "external" links to wikipedia pages with the proper wikilinks.

  • Watch Special:RecentChanges for edits containing "https://[*].wikipedia.org/wiki/[*]", then replace the external link with a wikilink.

Example: "Python https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_(programming_language) is cool" → "Python is cool."

Discussion

Many articles contain external Wikipedia links to templates, policy pages, and discussion, usually added as comments. On average, about 20 of these kinds of links are added per day, with 95% of them as commented-out text. Replacing these links would only lead to cosmetic changes, which should be avoided per WP:COSMETICBOT, as commented-out text are not visible to readers. For the remaining 5%, using a bot isn't a good idea, as these minor edits can be easily handled by a human editor. Currently, over 62,000 pages have these types of commented-out links, and none need replacement based on your criteria. This suggests that these types of external links are fixed regularly. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to pile-on, but for "en.wikipedia" this task wont be much useful like DreamRimmer explained above. However, in case the link is to some other wikipedia eg "de.wikipedia" (german), or "es.wikipedia" (spanish), this task would be useful, but again, the occurrences are extremely low, and they are generally handled/repaired by editors as soon as they are inserted. Also, bot operator is new (not extended confirmed), so this might get denied under WP:BOTNOTNOW. But this is actually a sound request, my first BRFA was outright silly. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DreamRimmer, I think CheckWiki #90 would probably be more useful for finding the number of pages affected by this; at the moment it's sitting at ~4500 pages so this probably does require some sort of intervention. Primefac (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ow0cast: Given there are around 4500 pages, this is indeed a useful task. Would you be able to program it to handle the subdomains? Similar to the example I provided above? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: Yes, I should be able to make it handle subdomains. /etc/owuh $ (💬 | she/her) 20:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Primefac (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should I run it on Special:RecentChanges or the pages listed at checkwiki? /etc/owuh $ (💬 | she/her) 22:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ow0cast: pages listed at checkwiki would be the optimal choice. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
{{operator assistance needed}} I see the bot made some successful edits, but then stopped. Are you still working on the task? —usernamekiran (talk) 20:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be completely honest, I stopped working on it after getting stumped on people using wikipedia as a ref, then completely forgot about it and wikipedia (lot of family related things happened, plus exams and holidays) until I saw the notification. I probably won't be working on this again, but if I do, I'll just have it modify files on my PC and copy them to wikipedia manually, unless you (or someone) else want my terrible code to implement into another bot. /etc/owuh $ (💬 | she/her) 03:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{BotWithdrawn}} I am marking this as withdrawal for the time being. If you plan to continue, you can either file a new request or reopen this one—whichever works best for you. Just make sure to request a new trial if you decide to reopen it. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC) Reopened at the user's request. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Requesting a new trial. /etc/owuh $ (💬 | she/her) 13:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to continue. Primefac (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should I continue with the number of edits from the previous trial? /etc/owuh $ (💬 | she/her) 14:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you have changed your backend code, then yes, please start again. Otherwise, you can continue where you left off. Primefac (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) What is the status of this? * Pppery * it has begun... 16:06, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bots that have completed the trial period

RustyBot 3

Operator: Rusty Cat (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)

Time filed: 18:34, Tuesday, March 25, 2025 (UTC)

Function overview: Tag pages listed at User:Alex 21/sandbox/No episode table with {{convert to Episode table}}

Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic

Programming language(s): Pywikibot

Source code available: [15]

Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): [16]

Edit period(s): OTR

Estimated number of pages affected: 5,000

Namespace(s): Mainspace

Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes

Function details: Tags pages listed at User:Alex 21/sandbox/No episode table with {{convert to Episode table}}.

The bot uses multiple regular expressions to try and place the template in the correct location per MOS:SECTIONORDER (as a maintenance tag), falling back to prepending it at the beginning of the article. If there is a {{multiple issues}} template present, the bot will group the template into the multiple issues at the beginning; it does not place a multiple issues on the page if it is not already present.

Discussion

Thanks Rusty Cat! Tagging the pages on this list created by User:Alex 21 will help speed the conversion of the tables which then benefit the pages they're on with better MoS conformability and maintenance. Pinging also User:Favre1fan93. --Gonnym (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will the bot detect if the existing wikitables have in fact already been replaced with episode tables? Mdann52 (talk) 17:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It does not currently do so, but I can add a check for the template being transcluded on the page. ~ Rusty meow ~ 19:22, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the bot needs to do that. It's not set up as a monitor to check on progress, it's just an on request bot that adds the banner to lists generated from the report. Gonnym (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer (talk) 18:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trial complete. [17] ~ Rusty meow ~ 20:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Gonnym (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate templates were added on some pages. I see you have fixed those edits, but did you update the code to prevent duplicates from being added? Also, in Special:Diff/1286585473 and Special:Diff/1286585751, it caused issues with the hatnote templates. Have you addressed this problem? – DreamRimmer (talk) 11:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer: I updated the code to prevent duplicates from added and am looking into how to prevent issues with templates. ~ Rusty meow ~ 00:14, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusty Cat: Did you fix the code for template issue? – DreamRimmer ◆ 15:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DreamRimmer: I did some rewriting, but haven't gotten around to testing it yet. ~ Rusty meow ~ 23:10, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Approved requests

Bots that have been approved for operations after a successful BRFA will be listed here for informational purposes. No other approval action is required for these bots. Recently approved requests can be found here (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.



Denied requests

Bots that have been denied for operations will be listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. No other action is required for these bots. Older requests can be found in the Archive.

Expired/withdrawn requests

These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks are not authorized to run, but such lack of authorization does not necessarily follow from a finding as to merit. A bot that, having been approved for testing, was not tested by an editor, or one for which the results of testing were not posted, for example, would appear here. Bot requests should not be placed here if there is an active discussion ongoing above. Operators whose requests have expired may reactivate their requests at any time. The following list shows recent requests (if any) that have expired, listed here for informational purposes for at least 7 days before being archived. Older requests can be found in the respective archives: Expired, Withdrawn.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval&oldid=1291734825"