Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9
Archive 10	Archive 11	Archive 12
Archive 13	Archive 14	Archive 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Snaevar-bot BRFA

I am requesting to reopen the BRFA for Snaevar-bot. As an answer to Hellknow´s question, my bot is a manual one and uses the -async parameter, running in the main article space. Finally, the Request needs to be changed so it reflects that the bot currently runs from nn.wiki, but not is.wiki.--Snaevar (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing start dates and end dates in certain templates with {{Start date}}

Discussion of my request for review at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Snotbot 6 has stalled with nothing added after my post on 11 May. What now? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge carried out [1] by Anomie.

The "Requests to add a task to an already-approved bot" section heading, seems rather redundant and unnecessary. Is there any reason why we should just remove it and have all requests go under "Current requests for approval" ? --Chris 11:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging the two; it's not that hard telling apart new bots and new tasks for approved bots and we don't have that many requests. I am not sure what the original motivation for this was, I just went along with it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Historically it looks like Essjay added it, although I'm yet to find any discussion in the archives for the change or for why two separate sections were needed. --Chris 12:14, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging the two. The distinction doesn't add value and is sometimes confusing. Lightmouse (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also concur in the merger. With the bot, management by hand and sorting are not as important or difficult. MBisanz ^talk 16:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Merge please - simpler is better. SQL ^{Query me!} 15:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

BRFA discussion transclusions

An issue was brought up at TTObot BRFA, which I have myself wondered about. Basically, quoting: "The bot has been moved from "Current requests for approval" with the authorization of a trial, making it appear no longer up for discussion." So why are we not transcluding BRFAs post-trial? Without gathering empirical statistics, I would think this is when the most comments and feedback would occur. I understand the main concern here is page size and loading times. But I don't think this has stopped other noticeboards. After all, low participation is one of BRFAs major problems. Lately, there are not as many open BRFAs and the ones under prolonged marination need to be closed anyway. So I propose we transclude at least "trial complete" BRFA discussions and possibly "in trial" ones. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to transclude both "in trial" and "trial complete" discussions, all that need be done is change {{BRFA}}; if we want to treat the two differently, we would need to add a new value for parameter 3 (e.g. "Trial complete") and adjust all relevant documentation, bots, and scripts. I for one see no particular reason here to transclude one but not the other of the two trial states, as discussion "closes" neither during nor after a trial.

If anyone wants to preview what the page would look like, simply copy WP:BRFA and change "Trial" to "Open" in all instances of {{BRFA}}. Anomie ⚔ 20:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See a comment about the current instructions at BrFA here. --68.127.234.159 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to be bold and do it, since there are no objections for almost 2 weeks. We only have 11 BRFAS right now, so it won't bloat the page that much. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiTransBot

User Tino Didriksen made a bot account, which is apparently a read-only bot for fetching recent changes for the http://wikitrans.net/ service (as per Tino's admission). I've advised Tino to ask for Bot approval first. Leaving a note here for formally informing the BAG about this issue. Thanks.Wifione ^Message 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with DASHBot Fair-Use Resize Bot Task

I had previously discussed this with DASHBot's operator User:Tim1357 last month [2] but have not received an adequate reply. I also mentioned this issue at WikiProject Album where it was suggested I come here.

The bot's Approval states that it should be reducing the image width to 325 px. However, the bot's last run on 5th September 2011 [3] confirms that the bot is not functioning correctly. memphisto 14:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]