Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval
All editors are encouraged to participate in the requests below – your comments are appreciated more than you may think! |
New to bots on Wikipedia? Read these primers!
- Approval process – How these discussions work
- Overview/Policy – What bots are/What they can (or can't) do
- Dictionary – Explains bot-related jargon
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 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bot-related archives |
---|
Bot Name | Status | Created | Last editor | Date/Time | Last BAG editor | Date/Time |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
VWF bot (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2025-01-28, 12:27:18 | Vanderwaalforces | 2025-01-28, 16:32:10 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
HilstBot (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2025-01-27, 15:58:39 | Hilst | 2025-01-27, 15:58:39 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
UrbanBot 3 (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2025-01-26, 18:15:06 | Urban Versis 32 | 2025-01-27, 21:15:24 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
Jlwoodbot (T|C|B|F) | Open | 2025-01-13, 03:01:53 | Jlwoodwa | 2025-01-13, 07:01:51 | Never edited by BAG | n/a |
Tom.Bot 8 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-12-27, 09:33:39 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 13:25:52 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 13:25:52 |
RustyBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-09-15, 15:17:54 | Rusty Cat | 2025-01-02, 04:19:44 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 14:02:29 |
AnomieBOT 83 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2025-01-24, 23:34:19 | Anomie | 2025-01-26, 13:10:04 | DreamRimmer | 2025-01-26, 08:16:12 |
DreamRimmer bot II 3 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2025-01-17, 12:44:00 | TheSandDoctor | 2025-01-20, 01:11:16 | TheSandDoctor | 2025-01-20, 01:11:16 |
Bot1058 9 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2025-01-18, 21:16:24 | Wbm1058 | 2025-01-24, 16:51:26 | SD0001 | 2025-01-18, 22:09:40 |
KiranBOT 14 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-12-26, 23:47:23 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 13:30:16 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 13:30:16 |
CFA (bot) (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-12-31, 05:00:34 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 13:24:09 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 13:24:09 |
CanonNiBot 1 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-12-17, 12:50:01 | Primefac | 2024-12-23, 12:35:47 | Primefac | 2024-12-23, 12:35:47 |
KiranBOT 10 (T|C|B|F) | On hold | 2024-09-07, 13:04:48 | Xaosflux | 2025-01-01, 18:01:09 | Xaosflux | 2025-01-01, 18:01:09 |
SodiumBot 2 (T|C|B|F) | In trial | 2024-07-16, 20:03:26 | DreamRimmer | 2025-01-26, 08:10:11 | 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 | 2024-12-23, 20:12:37 | Primefac | 2024-12-23, 12:46:59 |
C1MM-bot 3 (T|C|B|F) | Trial complete | 2024-12-12, 04:42:12 | JarJarInks | 2025-01-23, 19:21:21 | Primefac | 2025-01-01, 13:34:44 |
Current requests for approval
Operator: Vanderwaalforces (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 12:27, Tuesday, January 28, 2025 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: User:DreamRimmer/commonsfileusage.py
Function overview: Bot tracks usage of AI images in English Wikipedia articles.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_track_usage_of_AI_images_in_articles, User_talk:Belbury#Bot_to_track_usage_of_AI_images_in_articles
Edit period(s): Weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: 1
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Bot gets the usage of files in c:Category:Upscaling and c:Category:AI-generated media (including subcategories) on English Wikipedia and update the report at Wikipedia:WikiProject AI Cleanup/VWF bot log.
Discussion
Operator: Hilst (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:58, Monday, January 27, 2025 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available: Coming soon, will be based on EnterpriseyBot's source code
Function overview: Archive Wikipedia:Goings-on every week.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/APersonBot 6, Wikipedia talk:Goings-on#Archival bot
Edit period(s): Weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: 1
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Every Sunday, this bot will archive Wikipedia:Goings-on to a new week subpage, following the instructions at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Goings-on. This task is a duplicate of EnterpriseyBot's task 6. EnterpriseyBot has not ran this task since February of last year. GO is frequently backlogged, so a new bot doing archivals would be welcomed.
Discussion
Operator: Urban Versis 32 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 18:15, Sunday, January 26, 2025 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Manual
Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot)
Source code available: Main repository for UrbanBot's code Source code file for task
Function overview: Task is to mass-add short descriptions to pages that don't have one.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/UrbanBot_2, Wikipedia talk:Short description#Proposed bot to mass-add short descriptions to pages in categories
Edit period(s): Runs when bot operator runs script
Estimated number of pages affected: Any page in a category lacking a short description may be edited by UrbanBot. This is not to say it will try to add short descriptions to every page lacking one.
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): No
Function details: Before operating the bot, the operator will check the category to ensure it is suited for editing by the bot. Suitable categories would include Category:SES satellites and Category:Churches in Telemark. Unsuitable categories would include Category:Alumni of Lancaster University.
1. The bot operator will first enter a category name from the English Wikipedia. This category will be used to group articles lacking a short description which will all have the same short description added to them.
2. The bot operator will enter the short description to be added to the articles in the Wikipedia category.
3. The code will check the short description entered to ensure that it does not exceed the character limit.
4. The bot will follow through these steps for each page in the category:
4a. The bot will check if the page in the category is an article, as opposed to a template, category, or user page. If the page is an article, the bot will continue to the next steps.
4b. The bot will check if the article already has an applied short description.
4c. If the article does not already have a short description, the bot will query the operator if it should add the specified short description into the page.
4d. If the operator decides to add the description to the text, the bot will write the short description specified by the bot operator in step 2 into the article.
4e. The bot will loop through to the next page in the category and run all steps in step 4 again until every page in the category has been scanned.
5. The bot will output statistics on the number of pages scanned, number of articles edited, etc.
Note: This bot was originally submitted a year or so ago (request is listed in relevant discussions) but was denied. I made some changes to the code, so now it is fully manual instead of supervised. This will ensure that the bot does not add short descriptions to articles in the category that don't match the operator's specified description in step 2.
Discussion
- I have some concerns about this proposal that I have raised at Wikipedia talk:Short description#Proposed bot to mass-add short descriptions to pages in categories. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
This BRFA seems like a rehash of the first one, with little change. It makes me nervous that the proposer uses the word "page" and "item" instead of "article", when it is likely that "article" is meant. In operating bots, details like that are important. Also, in the previous BRFA, the closer recommended: If there are indeed some categories in which all pages have been checked and fit a single short description, please file a BRFA limiting the scope to those categories specifically.
Where is that list? A second question: does "fully manual" mean that every proposed edit will be inspected by human eyes before it is published? – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will reword the proposal to be more concise as recommended. The list of potential categories is too numerous to be able to come up with a single list, but I outlined some examples in Wikipedia talk:Short description#Proposed bot to mass-add short descriptions to pages in categories. Lastly, yes, every bot edit will be inspected by the human operator before published (this is changed from the previous proposal in which the bot was supervised). Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 23:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- BAG members, please see the discussion at the link above. I have nothing but doubts about this proposed task. Also, the proposer has modified the proposal above without using del/ins markup, so my initial response above may not make sense; you'll have to look at the initial proposal to see the inattention to detail that I was referring to (I also fixed a mis-formatted category link added by the proposer above). – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- My mistake. I didn't know you had to use special markup when amending the draft for clarity; I thought you just needed to change it. Thanks for the clarification! Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 21:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- BAG members, please see the discussion at the link above. I have nothing but doubts about this proposed task. Also, the proposer has modified the proposal above without using del/ins markup, so my initial response above may not make sense; you'll have to look at the initial proposal to see the inattention to detail that I was referring to (I also fixed a mis-formatted category link added by the proposer above). – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure adding shortdescs is a good task for a bot. Shortdescs are recommended but not required (classed as should in the guidance), and many articles will already have autogenerated shortdescs transcluded from d:. Autogenerated shortdescs typically fall into one of the buckets: fine, pointless, misleading. Rarely do they meet WP:SDPURPOSE, particularly the bit about disambiguation ... from similarly titled subjects.
The inattention to detail
mentioned above is noted. The main value I could see a bot adding in this sphere is reducing suggestions to add short descriptions aimed at inexperienced editors using one of the mobile apps, whose judgement may be worse than a bot's. At minimum I'd like to see the bot run against the suggested categories in the header – Category:SES satellites and Category:Churches in Telemark – with the output written to a standalone report rather than altering the shortdescs in situ, so that people can see what sort of edits it wants to make. Folly Mox (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
Operator: Jlwoodwa (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 02:59, Monday, January 13, 2025 (UTC)
Function overview: For species articles (under a binomial name title) in a genus category, adding the specific epithet as a sortkey.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Supervised
Programming language(s): AutoWikiBrowser
Source code available: Find & Replace in AWB.
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): It's common practice to add these sortkeys, but I can't find it discussed anywhere. I've started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life § Sortkeys for genus categories just in case, but I really don't expect any opposition. More generally, the WP:SORTKEY guideline says that sortkeys can be used to exclude prefixes that are common to all or many of the entries
.
Edit period(s): Open-ended (as long as I keep finding genus categories without sortkeys)
Estimated number of pages affected: I expect to edit no more than about a thousand articles each day.
Namespace(s): Mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes (AWB is exclusion compliant by default)
Function details: In AWB, I generate the list of articles in a genus category and filter out all titles not of the form ^Genus .*
. Then I use the Find & Replace option, from [[Category:Genus]]
to [[Category:Genus|{{subst:remove first word|{{subst:PAGENAME}}}}]]
. I am willing to turn off genfixes if this is preferred.
Discussion
Operator: Tom.Reding (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 09:33, Friday, December 27, 2024 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): C#
Source code available:
Function overview: Process pages in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters (57,243)
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Template talk:WikiProject banner shell#December update
Edit period(s): OTR
Estimated number of pages affected: ~900,000
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: Migrate the |living=
parameter to |blp=
for {{WikiProject banner shell}} in Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters (57,243) (currently @ 874,604), and piggyback WikiProject-template standardizations.
Discussion
- Not sure if non-bureaucrat, non-bot experts are permitted to opine, but that's a huge number of articles on BLPs that have lacked the standard BLP notice at the top of the talk page since 14 Dec -- which provides a lot of links to important policies and, I think, forms an important part of education of new editors and possibly also people who have a Wikipedia article about themselves; not a good situation to leave the articles in. ETA: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Creating the need to make 400,000 unnecessary edits is another discussion about the template change that led to current the problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tom, make sure the bot is using the tag
Talk banner shell conversion
when doing this task. --Gonnym (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)- I'd like to know how to do that, but I'm not sure how/if it's possible via the AWB module. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Needs wider discussion. Given the ANI complaint linked above, I think the nearly 1 million edits proposed here need wider discussion than one template's talk page with discussions only a handful of people seem to have participated in. Template talk:WikiProject banner shell/Archive 11#Why we should choose between blp or living, for example, had only three people involved. Anomie⚔ 16:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'm more than happy to have the template change that has caused this problem undone, but I don't think we should sit around talking about the best way forward for months, as all the BLPs in the nearly a million talk pages affected are currently lacking any obvious link to BLP policy. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- If this bot is going to be approved, there needs to be consensus, probably on one of the Village pump pages. Reverting the problematic edit until that discussion can happen would probably be a good thing for the reasons you note, but that isn't something that can be decided here alone either. Anomie⚔ 16:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
- On hold, pending resolution of the above. Primefac (talk) 13:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- If this bot is going to be approved, there needs to be consensus, probably on one of the Village pump pages. Reverting the problematic edit until that discussion can happen would probably be a good thing for the reasons you note, but that isn't something that can be decided here alone either. Anomie⚔ 16:05, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Operator: Rusty Cat (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 15:17, Sunday, September 15, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: Categorize and create redirects to year pages (AD and BC).
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Python (pywikibot)
Source code available: Will provide if needed
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 86#Articles about years: redirects and categories
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected: about 1000-2000 year pages, so assuming we have to create 3 redirects for each, maximum 6000
Namespace(s): Main
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: For each number 1-2000, the bot will operate on the pages "AD number" and "number BC".
On AD pages, the bot will append Category:Years AD to the page if it does not already have it.- The bot will create redirects "ADyear", "year AD", and "yearAD" to AD pages, and "BCyear", "BC year", and "yearBC" to the BC pages.
Discussion
- Support as requester. Note that the AD year articles are, in the main, currently not categorised other than by number (e.g. Category:98 for AD 98). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I just checked and realized that the number categories are subcats of the Category:Years category. Does that mean that the bot does not need to put the page into the AD Years category? Rusty 🐈 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I'd missed that. I guess so. I'll start a separate discussion about subdividing Category:Years into BC and AD sub-cats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- It was suggested to use categories like Category:Years of the 19th century instead, so I'm applying those now, using Cat-a-lot. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I'd missed that. I guess so. I'll start a separate discussion about subdividing Category:Years into BC and AD sub-cats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I just checked and realized that the number categories are subcats of the Category:Years category. Does that mean that the bot does not need to put the page into the AD Years category? Rusty 🐈 14:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
- Which "R from" templates, if any, will be placed on the new redirects? I'm seeing one on AD 812 and a different one on 79 AD. Is there a systematic way of using them? – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that {{R from year}} is what should be used here, as it states "This is a redirect from a formatted year title to the related year article."
- And "AD" isn't a disambiguator in the parenthesis sense. Rusty 🐈 14:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Separate question: I am seeing both AD 128 and 152 as year pages, but the task description says that the bot will operate only on "AD pages", or, in a separate specification, "AD number" pages. How will the bot task know the correct target for its redirects? Is there a systematic numbering method of these pages? – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95:
- I didn't know about the existence of 152 previously, thanks for bringing that to my attention.
- I believe it will not be as straightforward to find all the year pages only beginning with a number; assuming the year pages are correctly categorized, the bot should check for a subcat of Category:Years on the page, and if so, assume it is a year page.
- If the "AD number" page exists and it is not a redirect, we assume that page is the year page for that year. Otherwise, it is assumed that the year page is just the number. Rusty 🐈 13:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- Is there a consensus for this task? If there is a lack of standardisation in the naming of pages, that should be taken care of first, followed by a consensus on which redirects to have (I note that 2/3 of each example given in the BOTREQ thread were redlinks). Primefac (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- On hold. pending answers to the above queries. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Sorry for the late reply. I think that the page name standardization doesn't matter as long as we have the redirects to each page consistent (MOS:VAR?)
- I believe that the examples given in the BOTREQ are redlinks because they are what the requesting user wants to be created by the bot. Rusty 🐈 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
- Redirects may be cheap, but we're talking 2000 of them, at least. I would like to see a consensus that this is desired, rather than just something Andy thinks is necessary. Primefac (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
{{Operator assistance needed|D}}
Any movement on this? Primefac (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)- @Primefac: no, I don't think so Rusty 🐈 04:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Redirects may be cheap, but we're talking 2000 of them, at least. I would like to see a consensus that this is desired, rather than just something Andy thinks is necessary. Primefac (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
- On hold. pending answers to the above queries. Primefac (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Bots in a trial period
Operator: Anomie (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:34, Friday, January 24, 2025 (UTC)
Function overview: Transclude open WP:Peer reviews onto corresponding article talk pages.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): Perl
Source code available: User:AnomieBOT/source/tasks/PeerReviewTranscluder.pm
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Wikipedia talk:Peer review#Transclusion confusion, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Transclusion of peer reviews to article talk pages,
Edit period(s): periodic, probably a few times daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Depends on how many peer reviews get opened.
Namespace(s): Talk
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: The bot will look through Category:Current peer reviews. For each peer review page in the category, if the corresponding article exists, the article's talk page does not already contain a transclusion of the peer review, and the bot has not previously transcluded that peer review onto that talk page, the bot will transclude it.
Discussion
The wikitext currently used for the transclusion will be like
== Peer review ==
{{Wikipedia:Peer review/ArticleName/archive1}}
<!-- Please comment in the transcluded page, thanks! [[User:AnomieBOT]] 23:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC) -->
Per the linked discussion, the bot will not attempt to combine "Peer review" level-2 sections in the rare case multiple such sections may exist on the page. Anomie⚔ 23:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Contribs for the trial should show up at this link (i.e. edit summaries containing a wikilink to this BRFA). Anomie⚔ 13:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Operator: DreamRimmer (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 12:44, Friday, January 17, 2025 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): Python
Source code available:
Function overview: Tag eligible drafts for G13 deletion and notify creators
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): User talk:DreamRimmer bot II/Reports/G13 eligible drafts
Edit period(s): Hourly
Estimated number of pages affected: 180-250 drafts/userspace drafts and 200-220 user talk pages per day
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: I have been generating a report of G13 eligible drafts every hour for the past two months. It also includes drafts that were last edited by bots. This report is accurate, and many admins are using it to delete G13 eligible drafts. Now, I want to expand this task by tagging drafts and notifying creators of drafts so admins don't need to notify users and can directly delete drafts after checking eligibility. This will also populate the G13 deletion category, allowing other admins to assist.
Discussion
Approved for trial (7 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Operator: Wbm1058 (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 21:16, Saturday, January 18, 2025 (UTC)
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): PHP
Source code available: User:Bot1058/bypasspipe.php
Function overview: Bypass bad (e.g., misspelled) piped links to link directly to the title displayed to readers
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: varies
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): No
Already has a bot flag (Yes/No): Yes
Function details: I've spent a lot of time working to clear Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, a workflow that usually has a significant backlog and is time-intensive to clear. This bot task is an effort to ease the human workload by automatically making edits to help clear this list, which are almost certainly safe to make. When there is a piped link to a misspelling, the bot will simply remove the link to the bad spelling, leaving a direct link to the correct spelling, which is what was already shown to the reader. For example,
[[Edingburgh|Edinburgh]]
is replaced with[[Edinburgh]]
I've taken the liberty to make some test (supervised) runs under my personal account, you may review the edits listed below. Automatic bot edits will be set up to run on the Toolforge, to avoid needing to tunnel to the replica database.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. – SD0001 (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Just a note about one reason for the frequency of need for these edits. See User talk:wbm1058#Cursor, which is an explanation for why I needed to make this 10 January 2023 edit, which would now be made by this bot task. TL;DR: it's a workaround for a shortcoming of edits made using Wikipedia:VisualEditor. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Operator: Usernamekiran (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 23:46, Thursday, December 26, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: Remove instances of {{FFDC}}
which reference files that are no longer being discussed at FfD, similar to FastilyBot 17, with new code.
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: Automatic
Programming language(s): pywikibot
Source code available: will publish at github repo
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): special:permalink/1265443290#Replacing FastilyBot
Edit period(s): weekly
Estimated number of pages affected: around 2-3 per week
Namespace(s): needs to be discussed
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): currently yes, but that can be updated.
Function details: created new code for simplicity/posterity. When listing files at FfD, editors will sometimes add {{FFDC}}
to the articles that link the listed files. When FfD discussions are closed, it's common for the closing editor to miss and/or forget to remove {{FFDC}}
. This proposed bot task will simply find instances of {{FFDC}}
that reference closed/non-existent FfD discussions and remove them. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- @Explicit: what namespace should I restrict the bot to? currently, the template has been transcluded on a few article talk pages, user talk, and drafts. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (25 edits or 30 days, whichever happens first). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. While waiting for an answer to the above, please limit the bot to the Article namespace. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
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:
- Removes talk pages of articles with images from Category:Wikipedia requested images of biota and its subcategories
- Removes {{image requested}} or the "needs-image" banner parameter if an extant image is present in the taxobox
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)
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)
| ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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)
- Added above. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Operator: Usernamekiran (talk · contribs · SUL · edit count · logs · page moves · block log · rights log · ANI search)
Time filed: 13:04, Saturday, September 7, 2024 (UTC)
Function overview: go through Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata, add the coordinates from wikidata to enwiki article, and remove the {{coord missing}} template
Automatic, Supervised, or Manual: automatic
Programming language(s): pywikibot
Source code available: not yet, soon on github, pywikibot script
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): requested at WP:BOTREQ, permalink
Edit period(s): once a month
Estimated number of pages affected: around 19,000 in the first run, then as they come in
Namespace(s): mainspace
Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): no
Function details: the bot goes through Category:Articles missing coordinates with coordinates on Wikidata, for each article: it reads the coordinates from the wikidata QID of that particular article. adds it to the infobox with | coordinates =
parameter. If infobox is not present, then it adds to the bottom on the appropriate location, using {{coord}} template. If the coordinates are added successfully, then the bot removes {{coords_missing}} template. —usernamekiran (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Discussion
- this seems to be borderline cosmetic bot, if that's the case would it be possible to run the bot with lower edit rates like one edit per minute, or 1edit/5minutes? —usernamekiran (talk) 16:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think this would not fall under cosmetic bot because of the third point in WP:COSMETICBOT: [.. Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as...]
the "administration of the encyclopedia", such as the maintenance of hidden categories used to track maintenance backlogs (e.g. changing
—usernamekiran (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC){{citation needed}}
to{{citation needed|date=September 2016}}
)
- I think this would not fall under cosmetic bot because of the third point in WP:COSMETICBOT: [.. Changes that are typically considered substantive affect something visible to readers and consumers of Wikipedia, such as...]
- {{BAG assistance needed}} —usernamekiran (talk) 08:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — The Earwig (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- @The Earwig: Hello. I made around 10 edits, but there were two technical, and another issue. I accidentally ran an older version of the script, which had problem of duplicate entries for coordinates, this has already been fixed. The second issue was of the format of coordinates. The third, non-technical issue is that this task currently does not have a consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. But I think this was discussed in the past, and not recently. First I will fix the formatting issue, and then initiate a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geographical coordinates. Till then, I think this BRFA should be put on On hold.. —usernamekiran (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (100 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. — The Earwig (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
- I asked this same question on a duplicate bot request: How are you ensuing that the information you will be publishing satisfies WP:V? — xaosflux Talk 00:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Hello. I apologise, I missed your comment somehow, I saw it a couple of minutes ago. I havent thought about it. Up until now, I was depending on wikidata information, with assumption wikidata information will be correct. If thats not enough, (either-way) I will try to think of something to verify the coordinates. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran it is possible that information on wikidata is referenced and accurate, but it is certainly possible that it is not. I don't think there is a presumption that a claim existing on wikidata equates to it being reliable and verifiable. — xaosflux Talk 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Xaosflux: Hello. I apologise, I missed your comment somehow, I saw it a couple of minutes ago. I havent thought about it. Up until now, I was depending on wikidata information, with assumption wikidata information will be correct. If thats not enough, (either-way) I will try to think of something to verify the coordinates. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
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
- I like this concept in general. I tried to make a user script that does this (User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/WatchlistAFD.js#L-89--L-105), but it doesn't work (I probably need to rewrite it to use MutationObserver). Would this bot be automatic for everyone, or opt in? Opt in may be better and easier to move forward in a BRFA. If not opt in, may want to start a poll somewhere to make sure there's some support for "on by default". –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to be on by default with the option for reviewers to disable. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah yes. "Opt out" might be a good way to describe this third option. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be better to be on by default with the option for reviewers to disable. (t · c) buidhe 14:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Support - seems like a good idea. I've reviewed several articles that I've tagged for notability or other concerns, only to just happen to notice them by chance a few days later get AfD'ed by someone else. A bot seems like a good idea, and I can't see a downside. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is the sort of thing that would be really good for some people (e.g., new/infrequent reviewers) and really frustrating for others (e.g., people who have reviewed tens of thousands of articles). If it does end up being opt-out, each message needs to have very clear instructions on how to opt out. It would also be worth thinking about a time limit: most people aren't going to get any value out of hearing about an article they reviewed a decade ago. Maybe a year or two would be a good threshold. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- The PREVIOUS_NOTIF regex should also account for notifications left via page curation tool ("Deletion discussion about xxx"). The notification also needs to be skipped if the previous reviewer themself is nominating. In addition, I would suggest adding a delay of at least several minutes instead of acting immediately on AfD creation – as it can lead to race conditions where Twinkle/PageTriage and this bot simultaneously deliver notifications to the same user. – SD0001 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- {{Operator assistance needed}} Thoughts on the above comments/suggestions? Also, do you have the notice ready to go or is that still in the works? If it's ready, please link to it (or copy it here if it's hard-coded elsewhere). Primefac (talk) 12:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac I've implemented a few of the suggestions, I've reworked the code to exclude pages containing
{{User:SodiumBot/NoNPPDelivery}}
, which should serve as a opt out mechanism :) I've also reworked the code to include SD0001's suggestion of adding a significant delay by making the bot wait at least a hour and also added modified the regex to account for the messages sent by PageTriage. - Wrt to Extraordinary Writ's suggestions, I have restricted the lookup to the last 3 years as well and created a draft User:SodiumBot/ReviewerAfdNotification which has instructions on how to opt out. Sohom (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll leave this open for a few days for comment before going to trial. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please make sure this BRFA is linked in the edit summary. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- {{Operator assistance needed}} Any progress on this? Primefac (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- I had left the bot running, it hasn't picked up a single article by the looks of the logs. I'mm gonna try to do some debugging on what the issue is/was. Sohom (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- I've pushed some fixes, gonna see how that does. Sohom (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
- I had left the bot running, it hasn't picked up a single article by the looks of the logs. I'mm gonna try to do some debugging on what the issue is/was. Sohom (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
- {{Operator assistance needed}} Any progress on this? Primefac (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Please make sure this BRFA is linked in the edit summary. Primefac (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll leave this open for a few days for comment before going to trial. Primefac (talk) 16:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Primefac I've implemented a few of the suggestions, I've reworked the code to exclude pages containing
- I ran across Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDZeroBot 6 today, which is a very similar task, and uses an "opt out" strategy. This suggests that the community may be OK with having AFD notifications be on by default for a bot task like this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
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
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
- Note: This bot appears to have edited since this BRFA was filed. Bots may not edit outside their own or their operator's userspace unless approved or approved for trial. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- ^. Also, may potentially be a CONTEXTBOT; see Wikipedia:Stub:
There is no set size at which an article stops being a stub.
EpicPupper (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)- The Bot run only affects unassessed articles rated as stubs by mw:ORES.
The ORES ratings for stubs are very reliable (some false negatives – which wouldn't be touched under this proposal – but no false positives)
. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- The Bot run only affects unassessed articles rated as stubs by mw:ORES.
- ^. Also, may potentially be a CONTEXTBOT; see Wikipedia:Stub:
- Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Sounds reasonable as ORES is usually good for assessing stub articles as such. – SD0001 (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Bot run with 50 edits. No problems reported. Diffs: [1]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: Some behavior I found interesting is that the bot is reverting start-class classifications already assigned by a human editor, and overriding those with stub-class. [2] and [3] EggRoll97 (talk) 03:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- This should not be happening. Frostly (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- The question is: what should be happening? The article were flagged because some of the projects were not assessed. Should the Bot (1) assess the unassessed ones as stubs and ignore the assessed ones or (2) align the unassessed ones with the ones that are assessed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per recent consensus assessments should be for an entire article, not per WikiProject. The bot should amend the template to use the article wide code. If several projects have different assessments for an article it should leave it alone. Frostly (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Courtesy ping, I've manually fixed up the edits where the bot replaced an assessment by a human editor. 6 edits total to be fixed out of 52 total edits. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Bot has been amended. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Hawkeye7: Courtesy ping, I've manually fixed up the edits where the bot replaced an assessment by a human editor. 6 edits total to be fixed out of 52 total edits. EggRoll97 (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- Per recent consensus assessments should be for an entire article, not per WikiProject. The bot should amend the template to use the article wide code. If several projects have different assessments for an article it should leave it alone. Frostly (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- The question is: what should be happening? The article were flagged because some of the projects were not assessed. Should the Bot (1) assess the unassessed ones as stubs and ignore the assessed ones or (2) align the unassessed ones with the ones that are assessed? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- This should not be happening. Frostly (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
- {{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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Thank you. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
{{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)
- 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)
- A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Primefac (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
- My technical problems have been resolved. A new trial run will be conducted this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- [4][5][6][7][8][9] etc Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- One important change: Liftwing is being used instead of ORES now. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
- A user has requested the attention of the operator. Once the operator has seen this message and replied, please deactivate this tag. (user notified) Courtesy ping to make sure this is still proceeding. Primefac (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- My technical problems have been resolved. A new trial run will be conducted this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Bots that have completed the trial period
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- If you are using Pywikibot, you can use the
page.BasePage
class methods, such as theexists()
method, to check whether a wikilinked page exists on the wiki. It returns a boolean valueTrue
if the page exists on the wiki. To check whether this page is a disambiguation page, you can use theisDisambig()
method, which returnsTrue
if the page is a disambiguation page, andFalse
otherwise. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:07, 16 December 2024 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- If you are using Pywikibot, you can use the
{{BAG assistance needed}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1MM (talk • contribs) 16:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- [10] 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)
- 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)
- I've done what was asked. C1MM (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- Trial complete. Noticed this went stale after completion. JarJarInks (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- I've done what was asked. C1MM (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- [10] 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)
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.
- BunnysBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 15:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 12:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DreamRimmer bot II (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 16:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 46) Approved 12:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- MolecularBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 12:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BunnysBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 17:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- GalaxyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 15:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DreamRimmer bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BunnysBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 16:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DatBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 12) Approved 20:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- DreamRimmer bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 20:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- TNTBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Approved 21:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 8) Approved 16:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 13) Approved 17:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 7) Approved 11:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Monkbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 20) Approved 11:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 11) Approved 17:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Qwerfjkl (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 31) Approved 17:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Leaderbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 22:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC) (bot to run unflagged)
- DreamRimmer bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 4) Approved 11:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 5) Approved 15:53, 9 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Protection Helper Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:59, 8 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- KiranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 9) Approved 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- Platybot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 17:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 12:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- HooptyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 00:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC) (bot to run unflagged)
- ChristieBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Approved 23:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- C1MM-bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Approved 23:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
- HBC AIV helperbot14 (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Approved 13:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC) (bot has flag)
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.
- CiteHelperBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
- MolecularBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 3) Bot denied 13:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
- Raph65BOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 00:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Silksam bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- MdWikiBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 12:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Arjunaraocbot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Bot denied 07:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
- Ow0castBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 06:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- JJPMaster (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 15:50, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- BunnysBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 12:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Platybot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Expired 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- PonoRoboT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Expired 16:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- MacaroniPizzaHotDog Bot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 16:15, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- DannyS712 bot III (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 74) Expired 12:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- JJPMachine (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) Withdrawn by operator 04:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
- FrostlySnowman (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 10) Withdrawn by operator 04:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
- BaranBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 6) Withdrawn by operator 16:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
- CapsuleBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Expired 22:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- StradBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 2) Withdrawn by operator 22:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
- PrimeBOT (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 39) Withdrawn by operator 12:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
- BattyBot (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: 81) Withdrawn by operator 15:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: VII) Expired 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Dušan Kreheľ (bot) (BRFA · contribs · actions log · block log · flag log · user rights) (Task: VIII) Expired 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)