To run abot on the English Wikipedia, you must first get itapproved. Follow the instructions below to add a request. If you are not familiar with programming, considerasking someone else to run a bot for you.
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 includeWP: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. Clickhere 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 possiblesockpuppet 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
easy-brfa.js can be used for quickly filing BRFAs. It checks for a bunch of filing mistakes automatically! It's recommended for experienced bot operators, but the script can be used by anyone.
Enter yourbot'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 an additional task request: use{{BRFA|bot name|task number|Open}}
III
During the approvals process
During the process, anapprovals group member may approve a trial for your bot (typically after allowing time for community input), andAnomieBOT will move the request tothis 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 listedhere. 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 thebottom of the main BRFA page in the relevant section.
Function details: 1/ Get WTA profile from wikidata page. 2/ Get data (best ranks + career prize money) from WTA profile. 3/ Update best ranks if needed + update prize money if > $US10000 to not spam edit for "small" earns.
The bot has already edits pages on one loop. For inactive players, it is a one shot. For active players, there will be a weekly check. Next step will be to do it for men tennis players with atptour.com site to get ranks data. --Sisyph (talk)22:00, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
I've reviewed a lot of the edits and they seem fine to me. This saves hours of manual labour on updating rankings and prize money. Do you feel it would be within scope for a bot to be able to update the win and loss totals as well? The only downside is that we'll have to follow the bot and manually update the 'last updated' timestamp at the bottom of the infobox, unless the bot is smart enough to do that too.Spiderone(Talk to Spider)13:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I note whensomething similar came up recently, a suggestion was that this sort of thing should be done in Wikidata, or failing that a centralized data page (i.e. a template, a module, or a .json page that's read by a module), instead of making repeated bot edits to individual articles.Anomie⚔14:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
Edit period(s): Daily
Estimated number of pages affected: Will check one page approximately every 3-5 seconds. If that page does include dates needing to be changed, it will take approximately 7 seconds (in testing) to complete before checking the next page.
Function details: This bot will run through pages in mainspace. It will check the page for any{{use dmy dates}} or{{use mdy dates}} templates, and if exactly one of those is found, it will check for any dates (both in plaintext and in certain date templates) to ensure they are correctly formatted, otherwise it will correct them. I have conducted testing in the bot's userspace (see thebot's contribs) and have fixed any of the bugs discovered in testing. As a side note, I have added an exception for references to theJanuary 6 United States Capitol attack by blocking the change of January 6 on any article to 6 January (may lead to false negatives but I would rather false negatives over false positives).
Discussion
This seems very liable to run intoWP:CONTEXTBOT issues. How will your bot avoid editing direct quotes, things besides "January 6", and so on? Glancing at your linked code, it looks like it would even break links and filenames if they happen to contain something that resembles a month and year.Anomie⚔00:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If I were this editor, I would plan to make at least 1,000 supervised edits at a reasonable pace using the intended script, checking each of the script's proposed changes before and after publishing. I think I would find that the script has some shortcomings. If you can address them, this bot process may be worth pursuing. Note that editing in this manner does not violate the bot policy, although you may find it tedious. –Jonesey95 (talk)14:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific reason you are using RandomPageGenerator? Using a generator that directly fetches pages transcluding these two templates would be more efficient, as the current method skips around 60 to 70 percent of pages without changes. Also, the nobots check in your code is unnecessary since Pywikibot by default already avoids editing pages with that template. –DreamRimmer■03:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Function details: Regex find and replace. Multi-line strike misnest code hasn't been changed (except to modify some log messages to make them work with other changes).
Discussion
I'll be curious to see how the bot test goes. Misnested tags come in a wide variety. I can't parse the regexes too well, but is there a chance that the first regex would catch and move two ' (italics) instead of catching and moving three ' (bold), leaving one behind? I have had this happen with regexes that I have played with. –Jonesey95 (talk)21:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, that shouldn't happen with (?<!')''(?!') part of it, although I ran into an issue after filing this where it isn't playing nicely with <nowiki> tags which I'm trying to fix.Tenshi! (Talk page)21:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ChatGPT says thisIf your account can apply the tag:page.save(summary='Fixing lint issues',tags=['fixed lint errors']). However, I've never done so and don't know if this works.Gonnym (talk)14:36, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I haven't completed the trial but have done27 edits manually. I'm personally unsure on whether to continue with replacing italic and bold misnests, since '''Example 1'' and '''Example 2'' would become '''Example 1''' ''''' and '''Example 2'', although it could plausibly be '''Example 1''' and '''Example 2'''. PingingGonnym andJonesey95.Tenshi! (Talk page)17:10, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate): Think this is non-controversial, but I am free to get consensus if it is required
Edit period(s): one time run
Estimated number of pages affected:Let's assume 40 AfDs per day. We need to correct everything between mid 2024 and mid 2005, which is 19 years. That works out to 19*365*40=~277400 pages495000 per Cryptic
The bot will replace<span>'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> with<span>'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>, as well as replacebackground-color: #F3F9FF; withbackground-color: var(--background-color-progressive-subtle, #F3F9FF);, which will make looking at old AfD archives easier for dark mode users. There are a few variations of the former which I am aware of and will ensure to include.
It will also fix a lot of instances of the "Background color inline style rule exists without a corresponding text color" lint error.
I know for a fact that this will be controversial, because fixing linter errors on old AFDs had a few individuals bringing out their pitchforks. Please at the very least get asilent consensus to do this task.Primefac (talk)19:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure,@Primefac, could you please link an example of "individuals bringing out their pitchforks" (like a discussion somewhere) so I can assess the potential reasons for not doing this kind of task before I try to get consensus from somewhere? —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)20:31, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main onestarted here andended up here. The end result was (unsurprisingly) that a vocal minority didn't like the edits but they had consensus to continue. I'm not saying that you don't have consensus for it (the RFC at least gives an indication it's not outright a problem), and one of the primary movers in that dispute has retired, but part of BOTREQ is that we should havesome indication that there is a desire for these edits.
To put it another way, I personally see no issue with making useful edits which assist other editors even though the changes are minor/trivial, but with my BAG hat on I would be remiss if I didn't at least mention the pushback when "sub-sub-subpages of AfD talk pages from 2005 that literally no human will ever visit again" are edited.Primefac (talk)21:29, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think those apply to this task. The objections to MalnadachBot wasn't that it was fixing linter errors, or that it was editing old closed AFDs, or even the combination; it was that it was editing the same page many - sometimesvery many - times each, fixing one user's signature at a time. —Cryptic18:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose this task. It's not worth running a bot to make 200,000 edits so the small number of people viewing old AfDs in dark mode see some form-letter text they most likely already know slightly better.* Pppery *it has begun...02:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: do you know how many people use dark mode? Plus we're fixing lint errors along the way. Paving the way for a more accessible Wikipedia should be important. I don't see the cost, what is "not worth" about it? I'm doing it, I'll happily give up some of my time. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)19:11, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The question isn't the number of people who use dark mode, it's the intersection of the number of people who use dark mode and who visit old AfDs, and the latter set is pretty small in the first place. And you surely know already that large bot tasks inevitably cause people to complain as they are happening.* Pppery *it has begun...19:13, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I see the differences, but I don't understand the reason for them. The red text, and all other text, shows up just fine for me in both light and dark mode. Maybe I am missing something; if so, please point it out. I am skeptical of page-by-page changes to address the technical issue of bgcolor without a specified color when the page looks fine already. Is there any way to modify one of the existing classes to address this issue instead of going page by page? –Jonesey95 (talk)18:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: the red is slightly different on the latter example; it now has a higher contrast with the surrounding text, and fits in with the new link colours; you can try using theWGAC contrast extension to see. You can scroll a bit at[3] to see that there are indeed linter errors on AfDs (plus a bunch of other stuff).
There is no way to modify one of the existing classes, other than place an !important rule inMediaWiki:Common.css, which creates a new host of problems (one being that we are actively trying to stop using that page). TemplateStyles would also necessitate going page by page to insert the <templatestyles /> tag, which defeats the point. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)18:35, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know that there are Linter errors flagged; I have fixed literally millions of Linter errors since 2018. I am skeptical of some of them, however, including this background color error, since it sometimes produces false positives. I won't stand in your way if you want to fix them, though. –Jonesey95 (talk)18:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: This is not a false positive; we can look atWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toby Lee Marshall and see there is a background color without a foreground color. We have a workaround with the selector "html.skin-theme-clientpref-night .mw-parser-output [style*='background']", but the less we use this janky workaround and actually fix issues, the better. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)18:47, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason AfD does not use a template for the that style part? A template would have made fixing this much easier. Not a an admin, but support fixing lint errors. Also, the previous RfC was pretty clear. I don't see how we need a new lint RfC each time. The small number of people watching these old pages can safely put the ignore bot flag on their watchlist. --Gonnym (talk)15:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonnym: honestly, I don't know. Probably just people in 2004 decided it should be that way, and everyone went with it. On Commons, templates aren't substituted for i18n reasons, but on enwiki this doesn't apply. Also, if we were to change that, it would probably break Twinkle, Ultraviolet and a bunch of other tools, and no one wants to deal with that headache. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)18:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am limiting the scope of this task to AfDs, any other tasks will be discussed at a later date if this is successful. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)18:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{BotOnHold}} There is evidence of disagreement, and 495,000 pages is a huge number, so as others have mentioned, this is likely to be controversial. Please seek consensus at the Village pump or a similar venue first. –DreamRimmer■13:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For now it may be easier to add NOINDEX to{{Afd top}} or{{Afd bottom}} later while the technical dispute is ongoing, than for the bot to add it while replacing the template.@Matrix: Could you please update the function details if you are going ahead with these additional changes, or state that you aren't.Tenshi! (Talk page)13:14, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a technical dispute. These pages are already noindexed, so adding the magic word__NOINDEX__ is redundant. If it was just added, it should be removed. –Novem Linguae(talk)03:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Novem Linguae: where are they noindexed? robots.txt isn't the same as a noindex tag - if the AfDs are linked by a third party website they could still be indexed. That's my understanding at least. —Matrixping mewhen u reply (t? -c)10:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
After researching a bit, this is more complicated than I thought. My apologies for being pushy initially.
I did some more research just now and I foundhttps://aioseo.com/docs/when-to-use-noindex-or-the-robots-txt/, which says that robots.txt and NOINDEX work differently. But it also saysThe biggest difference to understand is that if you want search engines to not include content in search results, then you MUST use the NOINDEX tag and you MUST allow search engines to crawl the content. If search engines CANNOT crawl the content then they CANNOT see the NOINDEX meta tag and therefore CANNOT exclude the content from search results. So that's pretty confusing.
After this research, I no longer feel strongly about this and now think it's probably OK to try NOINDEX. Although it may not work due to the quote above. –Novem Linguae(talk)21:21, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Time filed: 22:16, Saturday, September 13, 2025 (UTC)
Function overview: ClerkBot will keep a running log of protection actions that are taken as arbitration enforcement (AE) actions on behalf of the Arbitration Committee (sample). ClerkBot will also notify admins if they take AE protection actions that forget to specify which arbitration case their AE action arose from (sample).
Estimated number of pages affected: Approximately 1-10 per day (the log page, plus one user talk page per admin who has neglected to specify theWP:CTOP under which the AE action was taken). For a rough upper bound, 73 admins have taken at least one AE protection action this year.
Function details: This bot maintains the table currently present atUser:ClerkBot/AE protection report (which may move toWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections if thecurrently pending ArbCom motion passes). Specifically, the bot examines every protection action taken since its last run (specifically, new protections and modified protections, not unprotections). If it appears based on the edit summary to be an Arbitration Enforcement (AE) action, it logs the action to the table.
It also attempts to determine thetopic code that applies to the action based on the edit summary. If the protection edit summary links to the appropriate contentious topic page as required by the pending motion, or one ofseveral other heuristics allows the bot to detect the appropriate topic code, then it automatically logs the topic code. If not, then the bot will notify the protecting admin of the protection action(s) that require manual labeling (sample). The notifications will only become active if the pending motion, which requires that the protection actionlink to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:CT/BLP), passes.
If the motion passes, the functionality of the bot will be mandated by ArbCom's procedures (it requires that protection actions will beautomatically logged atWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections).
The bot is not exclusion compliant, as the notifications should not be subject to opt-out because they relate to recent administrator actions that will not have complied with ArbCom's procedure relating to the appropriate way to log protection actions.
Ideally, the bot would be fully ready to go (approved) by the time the motion passes, because when the motion passes, administrators will no longer need to log any protections toWP:AELOG, so it would be ideal to avoid a gap in coverage. Approving a bot takes time, so I wanted to get the process started now.
Even if the motion doesn't pass, the bot could still operate theWikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections log part (not the notifications part) under our general remit asarbitration clerks. This could be valuable to, for example, note when AE protections aren't being logged as currently required, which based on a glance seems to happen quite frequently. Running the bot as an EXEMPTBOT in the bot's userspace is a bit awkward for this purpose.
The bot is functional and operational (though obviously its functionality might continue to get fleshed out by e.g. breaking out actions onto different pages by year or topic code), so I don't think a BRFA is hampered by a difficulty of testing the bot either. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)21:21, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, Protection Helper Bot is treated as any other admin taking any normal protection action. This means that, because it restates the original protection reason, if it is reinstating an AE action, it will be tagged in the log. (It shows up 17 times in thelog so far for 2025.)This works great so long as the original protection reason includes the topic page link or topic code in the block summary. However, if the summary is lacking, then the current implementation would notify Protection Helper Bot. This is non-ideal functionality. I think the options are:
Suppress all notifications for users that have the bot flag.
Do #1, and also notify the admins on behalf of whom the bot is acting.
The RUSUKR -> EE resolve seems to have arisen fromHouseBlaster's edithere, which added the override, so this seems to be behaving as designed. Though HouseBlaster, perhaps we should revert that configuration change? Given that unlike e.g.WP:GSCASTE, which ArbCom fully assumed as a subtopic ofWP:CT/SA,WP:RUSUKR still exists as an independent extant community GS authorization. Best,KevinL (akaL235·t·c)17:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If you say something like "arbitration enforcement" while also including "RUSUKR", you might intend that as an AE action under EE, but you might also mean it in the colloquial, "this is enforcing a specific decision even though it was made by the community rather than ArbCom" sense. I've reverted for now, and we can reevaluate if a host of admins respond to ClerkBot's invitations saying they want "RUSUKR" plus "arbitration enforcement" to autocorrect to EE. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)17:10, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Since this is your first bot task, I am treating this as a one-off task. For future years, a new BRFA will be needed, and then we can see if it can be approved to run annually. –DreamRimmer■13:58, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the trial, the bot was ran twice, both times being stopped due to eventually forming a false association between the database and the article. This lead to the conclusion that the match script needs to be improved significantly, which I will do but haven't yet had the time. I still believe a reasonable fix is possible. Likely, as part of this, a semi-supervised confidence approach will be adopted where, if confidence isn't overwhelmingly high, the association is sent for manual review.
Also as part of the trial, an additional issue was identified. If the infobox population is from <2010, is cited using a named reference, and elsewhere in the body that reference is referenced, a cite error is caused because those references are now dangling. This may be a simple fix, but needs to be implemented.
Determines whether there are any other redirects, in any namespace, that meet one or more of the following criteria:
Are marked as an avoided-double redirect of a nominated redirect
Are redirects to the nominated redirect
Redirect to the same target as the nominated redirect and differ only in the presence or absence of non-alphanumeric characters, and/or differ only in case
If the bot finds any redirects that match and which are not currently nominated at RfD, then it should post a message in the discussion (final details about the message are TBD, but the bot request outline the general point). The bot limits the length of it's message, ensuring that the RfD is not over-cluttered.
Discussion
Thanks for working on this GalStar, but it's not clear whether it is checking for redirects that differ only in the presence/absence of diacritics?Thryduulf (talk)23:41, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (30 days). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. –DreamRimmer■06:35, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GalStar: Is there a reason why you can't just use regex to find each nomination and use the information from that? For example,TenshiBot's unlisted copyright problems report looks for copyright problems in the subpages which use substed{{article-cv}} (regex:[4], although the script knows the names of the pages already, I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to get that from RfD subpages).Tenshi! (Talk page)20:57, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Function details: The VisualEditor can't parse the list-defined references that are based on the template{{reflist}}. This bot will replace{{reflist|refs= ... }} with<references> ... </references> when thereflist template has only one parameter namedrefs.
Discussion
Comment: In case it matters, I don't know how this zombie figure of 55,000 pages keeps coming back from the dead. I linked to the monthly parameter usage report for Template:Reflist suggests that there are 183,000 articles using|refs=. I think that figure may be closer to the bot's operating scope than 55,000. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:22, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: I believe the insource search provided by Qwerfjkl is more reliable. I have used the source you provided before and found that it produced fifty percent false positive results. –DreamRimmer■14:10, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.. You're free to use the bot flag for the trial edits.ProcrastinatingReader (talk)10:49, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Function overview: Remove the parentheses around the values oflocation parameters in citation templates, for example, changing|location = (New York, NY) to|location = New York, NY.
Function details: This bot removes the parentheses around the values oflocation parameters in citation templates, for example, changing|location = (New York, NY) to|location = New York, NY.
Discussion
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete. Mainly just to make sure things are working as intended (there were some concerns during the BOTREQ).Primefac (talk)21:42, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ihavemadeafew test edits for your review using the exact config that will be loaded into the bot. These pages were chosen pseudo-randomly (randomly scrolling the list in the AWB interface and clicking on some article, without concern for what I was clicking) and no modifications to my configuration were made prior to clicking save.
Post-Submission Edit:I am currentlyin discussions withZackmann08 about how exactly to handle the invalid parameters, and despite my initial desire to be on the conservative side of information preservation (the|unit cost= parameter frequently has references), I am leaning towards removing the parameters|unit cost= and|program cost= per his request. However, I am more than happy to continue the discussion here. Either works for me. After discussion withZackmann08, I have decided to implement a regex that removes|unit cost= and|program cost=, and have madea fewtestedits with that additional criteria for your review. These edits were performed using the updated configuration I will load into the bot, but performed manually in the same manner mentioned before.
50 edits as requested. I have manually checked them all, and they all appear to have come out as intended, no invalid parameters, and no broken infoboxes. I would like to ping@Zackmann08 to triple check the edits, but I do believe that this was a successful test.Phuzion (talk)04:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Phuzion: Just starting to look these over. Couple of notes
From apurelyWP:COSMETIC standpoint, I'm not wild about the number of comments that are present in these infoboxes as well as the indentation, or lack there of. I'm wondering if this might be a good opportunity to clear that up? With my{{infobox social media personality}} conversion, I'm using a substitution template (seeUser:Zackmann08/youtube) to convert a section of the infobox. (Here is an example of the result of using it correctly.) The nice thing about this method is that you can set the indentation you want as well as remove all old code commentsand insert new comments as needed. If you feel like going that route, I'd be happy to help you set it up.
Will follow up if I find anything else. Number 1 definitely needs to be fixed (I'm sure it's just a small typo somewhere in your code). Number 2 isnot an error in your method, but perhaps a missed opportunity to consider. Let me know your thoughts.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)08:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to work further with you on this. What's your preferred method to chat? Talk page? We should take this offline from here so we're not bothering the BAG until we're ready to re-submit.Phuzion (talk)12:41, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that while I'm notparticularly concerned with where the discussion takes place, we (BAG) will need to know when said discussion concludes so that we can do an extended trial.Primefac (talk)21:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked with @Zackmann08 and we have changed out my find/replace strategy with a new, custom-builtUser:Phuzion/aircraft substitution template, which should address many of the concerns brought up about comments, duplicate parameters, and spacing. I'd like to request one more trial run of 50 edits to test this out, please.Here's an edit in my sandbox, performed using the substitution template with AWB as a demo.Phuzion (talk)01:58, 20 October 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.Primefac (talk)08:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checked a dozen and they all look good to me. RegardingSolar T62 that is an issue with the page, not with your bot. Technically that page should use a different infobox, but that is beyond the scope of this project.Vitally, no information as lost in the conversion so I don't see any issue there.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)18:26, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the idea of this bot adding links to Dušan Krehel's personal website. There are some privacy concerns (he gets to see or infer the IP addresses of people who edit rarely edited pages and open up those links, for example), and whatever was done with the data there may be WP:OR. I can't tell, becausethe link didn't work last time I tried.Ponor (talk)09:08, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ponor: That was the older solution when datasets were forked (and it was hosted on my site back then). By blocking the bot, I no longer updated it on enwiki. This old solution is no longer used. Hey, man evolves.
We like to think everything people do here is seen and checked by others, though in most cases it's not. Anyway... the confusing part is your example ofFintice. Is there an example of what the bot will actually do (a few diffs from enwiki)? You will now be removing the links to krehel.sk, right?Ponor (talk)11:24, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting I have rolled that back because it leaves random half-dates kicking about, which does not leave me confident about a bot doing this sort of editing across thousands of pages.Primefac (talk)22:04, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I seem to have misread the-06-30/-07-01 in the text as being leftover from a partial replacement. Is there no better way to display the date than with that sort of clunky template-plus-text method?Primefac (talk)22:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I surprisingly find myself willing to extend some faith that this task might go as intended. I would like to get opinions from the other BAG though before making a final decision.Primefac (talk)19:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey everyone, I can indeed verify that the website Dušan Kreheľ sources is correct: it is linked by the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republichere and I can see and confirm the data for bothFintice (mentioned above) andLopúchov (last edit from the 50 linked above). In this sense, the edits are 100% correct.
However, a conversation about updating these values into Infoboxes has happenedhere at skwiki (in Slovak), where it was questioned whether a) it's a good idea to keep data in a local template and not on Wikidata, and b) that some other activities of Dušan Kreheľ (not necessarily this one) have been sloppy in the past. I am thus leaving it to you to check where the data is from (as it was from krehel.sk previously) and whether the implementation is correct (but I see it's done through a module and I can't read lua code all that well). If you would need any other info from the Slovak side, let me know.KormiSK (talk)14:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, KormiSK, for your time. I will leave the final decision to Primefac. Dušan Kreheľ, if approved, please make sure you do not edit anything outside what has been approved. –DreamRimmer■06:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the edits themselves are working as intended, that is good. The question of whether to implement local storage is not something that BAG necessarily needs to worry strongly about; if templating these data is controversial the template will be nominated for deletion and other processes can handle the cleanup (to which, I note, no issue has been raised as of this post).DreamRimmer, am I reading this last post of yours as indicating that you are sufficiently satisfied with the edits being proposed?Primefac (talk)21:51, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine. Considering how the discussion and trial went, and as long as the operator avoids repeating the mistakes that led to the bot's earlier block, there should be no problem. –DreamRimmer■09:49, 20 October 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 foundhere (edit), while old requests can be found in the archives.
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 theArchive.
These requests have either expired, as information required by the operator was not provided, or been withdrawn. These tasks arenot 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.
